User blog comment:Glflegolas/United States Election Songs/@comment-26322120-20161109060708/@comment-26347028-20161113155015

But what is it that makes us truly value the human race? To me, it's sentience. The foetus has a large probability of being properly born and fully sentient, but it's no less a possibility that we're looking at here. In the same way, another possibility is that any old animal could become sentient. Longer time period, yes, but it's a similar, if to a far lesser extent, possibility.

The second paragraph I'll rephrase for you. I apologise for the typography error in the last sentence.

What we have to look at here is if we're valuing sentience, does the sentience of the child, the affect on the life of the mother, and the monetary affect on the effectiveness on the use of the child'a sentience not all play a key role? If the mother's life is at risk, what is happening is we're going to have the high probability of major harm, for the high probability of new life. Now, considering the mother can usually bring new life into the world without major harm, and probable further prevention from children, it isn't necessary to force the mother to be harmed. On another note, if the child would only live for a few weeks or months, it would be reasonable to have the whole ordeal over and done with, no? The monetary one is that a child is very expensive. If you don't have the money to properly pay for food, clothing, and housing, for that child, but since the child is yours you refuse to let them go, that is a retrimental affect on both lives, no? What I meant by the last sentence is that if financial secuirity was found just a couple of years later and the child had then, the same costs wouldn't be so bad. Food, clothing, and housing, could be fairly easily available, and the real issues could be focused on. Without money, it's easy to think that the child may get desperate enough to be forced into crime, and so on, perhaps even causing a net loss of life in the extreme.