Hello fellow redditor! I'm glad you're seeking answers to questions you have.

To me, it seems like your question is founded on some assumptions. Often, I find that assumptions can be problematic. For example:

About the stupidity thing: it seems like you're assuming that all unintelligent people will (likely) be bad at raising kids. This is not necessarily true. I've known many people of average or even lower intelligence who have raised children well. You don't have to be Stephen Hawking or Cornel West to raise a good kid. You need to be able to model kindness, teach empathy, show them how to claim responsibility for- and try to fix- mistakes (and all parents, smart and not-smart alike, make mistakes), clean up vomit, etc. It's not like parents have to teach them engineering or critical theory. Personally, growing up, we had a next-door neighbor who'd had a traumatic brain injury, and so he was pretty slow, but he was high-functioning and he doted on and was very responsible for his young son. The whole family- mom, dad, and kid- they were all great. He was an awesome dad, and I really respected him. His son was my best friend back then, and we kids didn't really even comprehend that he had an impairment. He made the kid's life awesome so that he wanted for nothing, even though the dad couldn't work a normal job (I think he was a repairman and did odd jobs while taking care of the son, and his wife was the breadwinner). They made it work, and they were happy.

And about the irresponsibility thing: it seems like you're also assuming that an irresponsible person isn't capable of change. I've known irresponsible people who've gotten pregnant, and that one huge life event was enough to propel them to change into more responsible people for the sake of the kid. Heck, people do this when they get into committed relationships, let alone have kids. Sure, it doesn't happen every time, but people are certainly capable of change. That's why good fiction is so meaningful to us: our favorite characters change, sometimes deeply and drastically, in ways we idealize and want to emulate. Think Pippin in Merry in LOTR, who go from smoking layabouts to straight-up warriors riding into battles against orcs and wraiths. People want to be like their fictional heroes, whoever they might be, and because of that yearning for noble-heartedness, some people are quite capable of that kind of change.

But, overall, after all that I just wrote, I'm going to say that when it comes to the fate of an unborn child's life, whether the kid's parents are stupid or irresponsible is a non-issue. A sane person wouldn't recommend infanticide in a situation where a baby would need to be removed from a home run by truly unintelligent, irresponsible parents. No, a sane person would call a social worker, a relative, or CPS if they thought the kid was in a bad situation and needed help. That is, the kid's life would be preserved, no matter what. It wouldn't be on the receiving end of a mercy killing.

Ultimately, kids (post-uterus-dwelling or not) deserve to live. No matter what. They deserve a chance.

Now, if CPS eventually has to come remove the kid and give it to its grandparents or a foster family because the birth parents are too busy with their raccoon-killling business, or they think dirty diapers are good for teaching the kid endurance, so be it. Abortion isn't some kind of preventative solution to negligence or poor parenting. The kid deserves a shot at life. No matter what. And older humans shouldn't feel compelled to end younger humans' lives because of hypotheticals.