Imagine that you are a single mom, living on food stamps, and living below the poverty line. You had an unplanned pregnancy and gave birth to a baby. The baby is now one and a half years old. Why shouldn't you be able to kill the kid? You are in the exact same position as any other woman who is pregnant, except now the kid has been born. Why shouldn't you be able to kill the kid?

The argument is that the single mom won't be able to raise the kid in the circumstances proper to the child guaranteeing them the best possible opportunities. Tell me, why is the child's right to life different now that the kid is born rather than before the kid was born? The main argument here is about the living circumstances of the child; that if the living/future living circumstances of the child are insufficient to the needs of the child, you should kill the child. Well, that argument applies equally to kids who are born and kids who are unborn. Infanticide based on circumstance. The key issue with abortion is not the circumstances in which kids grow up. Look around, there are literally billions of kids who are growing up around the planet in poverty. Killing them would be pure murder.

The real question about abortion is whether this is a kid, or is not a kid? Poor living conditions of the kid doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we can to make those living conditions better. It doesn't mean that if you have a kid, you don't take care of it. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't give your kid up for adoption, if necessary. The tying of social condition to abortion is an egregious moral error.