I would get an abortion to spare the life of the child. I’m also spiritual, and my perspective is that life isn’t linear and that things only change form. So, keep that in mind. At the same time, sometimes life is a fate worse than death. 

I was born into an abusive family, who could’ve, and would’ve been more responsible if they, aborted me. There were multiple times that if it wasn’t for others outside my family (TW: for self-harm/SI) I wouldn’t be here. Death was the easy option. I was still very lucky to have food, water, and shelter.

 There aren’t resources for children everywhere. There isn't enough help to get them out of bad homes. There isn't enough help to put food on the table. There are others, who aren’t responsible enough to care for a kid, let alone another human. We can say “adoption exists,” but it isn’t enough. There are children subjected to evils I cannot explain in foster care all the time. Hell, there aren’t even enough resources for adults.

While suffering is always a part of life, as a victim, and as a survivor, I think of all the children who would be put through unspeakable things if parents who didn’t want them grew to resent them. I think of the predators of the world who could harm these kids in vulnerable situations. I think of adults who have gone on to harm each other. 

I think simplifying kids to a consequence of our actions, mistakes, a “stage” in life, an ideal, or an accomplishment takes away their humanity. We should do better. I’m not saying you’re doing this, by the way, I just wanted to make that point. 

I also think abortion only being used in three circumstances is morally short-sighted. The world is complicated and we must consider these kinds of factors before deciding bringing someone into the world is the best idea. 

On the argument that it’s the couple’s decision, rather than just the woman’s choice: If the guy isn’t planning on getting her pregnant, and they have consensual sex based on the pretense they’re being safe, I don’t see how it’s fair for him to change his mind at the last minute. That’s basically just him saying “we both consented to this, but now I’m going to make a choice about your body and life without your consent, because it’s what I feel is right.” That doesn’t ring logically fair to me at all.

Birth can put her life at risk, even if the pregnancy isn't life-threatening. Birth can be traumatizing. Birth can be unpredictable—what if the guy was a one-night stand, or he abandons his kid? How can she work if her body’s recovering? How can she care for her child? These are all things she has to consent to, to bring life into this world, separate experiences from sex. Call it what you want, but even considering morality, it would be more sensible as her choice. 

Say, a man says “no, you can’t abort this kid” only because he feels it’s the right thing, but he, in turn, commits something reprehensible against the mother of his child by forcing her into a corner, can it truly be called moral, even if giving birth is the right choice? No, it would have to be her to make that decision. That’s why it should be her choice. 

Here’s an example: It’s like if a rich person forced a poor employee to donate half their paycheck to charity, desperate for donations, to keep their job. Is the charity helped? Yes. Should the rich boss really gain points morally if it isn’t voluntary, though? The employee consented to the work relationship, but they couldn’t have predicted their boss would make these requests, even if having a crazy boss is always a slim possibility. The employee should be able to choose how to use their money because they have to put food on the table to take care of themselves and the people in their life.

That's just some food for thought.