[J.R.R. Tolkien]

While I disagree with your general premise, it still boils down to an argument against legally precluding the abortion of those prenates who would be destined to live the life of misery that you describe.

However, healthy American-born babies of all colors can be adopted into good families. How can you reasonably apply the "lifetime of poverty" argument to your opposition to laws against aborting them?

[GovernmentShrinker]

Easy. There are thousands of American children "aging out" of the foster care system every year, never having been adopted, most having been bounced around frequently between foster homes, often experiencing serious abuse in one or more of those foster homes. Why aren't they adopted? Some because they have serious mental or physical handicaps, but most simply because they are "too old" and/or the wrong color. While their misery is rarely on the level of what exploited 3rd world kids suffer, they are still a lot more important than any blastocyst. And every time someone adopts an infant or toddler, they are going to pour resources into its upbringing. Those resources ought to be directed to already living, suffering children. When you cause a blastocyst to be turned into a child by persuading its mother not to have an abortion, you are consigning an already living, suffering child to never be adopted. And it is certainly easier to guilt-trip a pregnant woman into having a baby she doesn't want, than to adopt and raise a 10 or 12 or 14 year old child with a background of abuse and neglect (perhaps one who arrives not knowing a word of your language). But is it more ethical to do so? No, at least not according to my belief system.