I don't know your background or experiences so I have to assume you really believe what you are writing and that is sad. I have never met a woman who was pregnant who didn't talk about her baby in the present tense. Then there are such terms as 'baby showers', 'being with child', baby on board t-shirts etc. Notice none of those use the term fetus but rather baby. That is because every thinking person knows that an expectant mother is carrying a baby not some non-descript fetus. The term fetus may be medically correct, but is socially uncommon and awkward and used only by those trying to dehumanize the unborn child. I feel very sorry for people like you who feel only those children that can be born into a "high quality of life" with great innate potential for happiness should be allowed to live. Who annointed you G*d and gave you the right to determine who over a long lifetime will enjoy a productive and useful life.
Click on my name at the bottom of the post - everyone has the option to offer a bio.
I have never met a woman who was pregnant who didn't talk about her baby in the present tense.
These are clearly women who want to have a baby and therefore are not concerned with choosing an abortion.
every thinking person knows that an expectant mother is carrying a baby not some non-descript fetus.
I disagree. There are many - maybe a majority - of people who make the distinction between a developing, potential human being and a baby which by most definitions has been through the process of birth. There are many stages in the process of developing and experiencing human life: conception, gestation, birth, infancy, childhood, etc. A sperm is alive but not a baby; a zygote is alive but not a baby; a fetus is alive but not a baby, after the process of human birth you have a human baby.
I feel very sorry for people like you who feel only those children that can be born into a "high quality of life" with great innate potential for happiness should be allowed to live.
You are feeling sorry for your own misconception regarding what I said. I do not feel that way. If a woman chooses to bring a child into a disadvantaged environment, that is fine with me - it is not my place to make decisions regarding who is and who is not brought into this human environment; I can not get pregnant and I certainly do not feel the need to force my current religious understanding upon others.
Who annointed you G*d and gave you the right to determine who over a long lifetime will enjoy a productive and useful life.
Again, I do not presume to know who will live what kind of life; but statistics indicate that a poor environment (especially one lacking love) results in negative consequences in the majority of cases. The critical point (which you seem to be avoiding) is the matter of freedom - freedom to choose; and that choice must be by the person most appropriate. I am not the one to choose, you are not the one to choose (for others); those in government are not the ones to choose, and the developing human does not have the capacity to choose - the person to choose is the potential mother.