This is 100% not true.

You are creating a straw man.

You are being just a ridiculous as someone that claims that the only reason poor people might want government subsidized housing is so they can go out and spend that money on crack cocaine instead.

We, as a society, believe that killing human beings is wrong.

We, as a society, agree that caving a child's skull in because you can't afford to care for it or because you don't want it is wrong.

We, as a society, agree that smothering a child to death who has been out of the womb for mere moments is wrong.

We, as a society, agree that killing a baby one week away from birth is wrong, barring exigent medical circumstances where birth or cesarean section pose a risk of death for the mother.

We, as a society, agree that killing a baby a few months away from birth is wrong, barring exigent medical circumstances where continuing in the pregnancy poses a significant risk of death for the mother or where a significant birth defect has been detected.

These are not Christian ideas. These are not conservative ideas. These are basic concepts pertaining to human morality.

I am an atheist. I am an engineer. I have citizenship in three countries so I am not some sort of nut in a bible town (currently in Chicago for university). I was raised by atheist parents. I have always lived in secular nations.

I believe that ceasing a pregnancy, for any reason, is killing a child.

After an egg is fertilized it is no longer the mother or the father. It has its own genetic code. It is its own unique organism. Left undisturbed it will continue on to become its own human being.

(Inb4 "but it requires active participation of the mother to give it nutrients to keep it alive, so it isn't going to do that undisturbed" A baby also needs you to bring it food and make sure its intestines don't get blocked an and it doesn't crawl into the mouth of a wolf. Doesn't mean the baby isn't alive and won't grow into a human with its own consciousness)

That being said, is doing something immoral always the wrong decision?

If somebody is pointing a gun at somebody you love, is the immoral act of killing that human being a wrong decision?

If you have the opportunity to kill a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds, at the cost of killing innocent human beings in the crossfire, is it the wrong decision?

If you believe the answer to these questions is an easy yes, then I posit that you are not as moral an actor as you perceive yourself to be.

If a known cartel member was in your apartment complex, or in your neighborhood, and the government killed your wife or one of your parents or one of your children while that person was being apprehended, would you feel the same way as you did when you imagined the collateral damage scenario a few moments ago?

The point is, just because you are ending a child's life, and the decision is immoral, does not mean it is necessarily the wrong decision.

If the child were to grow up in poverty, thus holding back the parent from achieving financial stability and independence, and that parent is not able to support more children when they would have originally had multiple children growing up in a nicer environment, is it wrong to end that first pregnancy?

If the stress of having to raise a child in our current society is going to cause both parents to kill themselves, thus leaving the child homeless and parentless, is it the wrong decision to end the pregnancy?

The implications of creating consciousness are extremely morally complex.

The fact of the matter is that doing an immoral thing is not always the wrong decision, and not a single one of us is a perfectly moral actor. Because of this, it is not possible for us to have clear and defined laws regulating abortion. This, I believe, is the only reason one should be pro choice.

If we lived in a Utopian society where birth control, education, and wealth were not barriers in our lives, and the only reason unwanted pregnancies occurred was due to negligence or deception on the part of the mother or the father during sexual intercourse, then we could live in a society where all non medically necessary abortion is illegal. We do not live in such a society.

All of this being said, even though I am pro choice, I still believe that abortion is ending the life of a human being. I believe ending the life of a human being is immoral.

You cannot straw man my beliefs into attempting to shame women for having sex.

A productive discussion about reproductive rights and abortion CAN NOT OCCUR IF YOU REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE OTHER SIDE'S PERSPECTIVE.

Refusing any moral implications of ending a human life and acting like it is nothing only further entrenches religious fundamentalists into their beliefs that you are an immoral actor.

You must acknowledge the reality of the situation at hand and then explain why that reality is still the correct one.

I am sick and tired of hearing these echo chamber opinions and broad generalizations bounce around on Reddit.