Yes, it was her choice to have sex with the boy. A baby was killed as a result.
Most people define a baby as existing outside the body of the mother.
That a "fetus" is a baby is scientific fact. Most pro-choicers would agree with you. Science does not.
Did she not consent to the abortion? Who took away her free will?
She consented under duress because she thought that it was the only way to keep the relationship with the boy. His parents forbade him from seeing her unless she went through with the abortion. It's called COERSION.
Which is more desirable, a broken-hearted teenager or a teenager unprepared for the responsibility of motherhood and doomed to the likelihood of poverty and unhappiness for all or most of her life, inflicting the same on her offspring?
Those are the incoherent ramblings of an insane person. I suppose killing a baby just makes it all better?
Your position as stated above is lunacy.
See my last posts regarding quality of life.
"Quality of life" is another mindless euphamism which is void of meaning.
One example of the "quality of life" view would be "give me liberty or give me death"; do you view that as a mindless euphemism which is void of meaning?