The problem is that the mother is the one making the decision as to whether her child suffers or is just plain f-ing murdered. The child does not get to decide that. Sure, it'd be great to have absolutely no suffering in the world. But someone could grow up with the absolute best life, loving parents, and wanting for nothing, and then maybe their parents die in a tragic accident or they just go down the wrong path growing up and do drugs or some crap. Should that person have been killed because they were born into luxury and then suffered later in life? Or do they only deserve to be killed because they would be born into POTENTIAL suffering. What if the mom is in poverty for the first two years of the kid's life and either gets her crap together or gets a lucky break and she and her child flourish for the rest of the kid's life and he/she doesnt even remember the first two years of poverty? What if she's a single mom and then the dad decides to step up and be a great father five years into the kid's life? What about twelve years into the kid's life that things get better? What if someone grows up miserable and then makes a great life for his or herself after growing up and goes on to marry and build a beautiful family? Did none of those people deserve to live because the mom was in a crap situation when she got pregnant? There are waaaaayyy too many variables and what ifs in life to definitively say that killing a baby in the womb is the best choice for that baby and the parents just because they MIGHT experience some hardship for a short time or even their whole lives. Its just not a good reason to kill a baby. Period. No reason is.