What's messed up about this argument - saying, essentially, "I wish my mom had sacrificed MY life so that her life could have been better." - wouldn't the opposite be true? What if mom sacrifices HER life so that her child's life might be better?
Mom could choose to sacrifice her own life (not to the point of dying, so not exactly the same, but by putting her selfish desires and 'needs' aside and realizing there is now another person to be considered - as a direct result of MOM's actions) so that her CHILD'S life might be better - or, in this case, so that her child might actually get to HAVE a life. And if she really does not want to 'give up' her selfish little life, it only takes 9 months - and then she never has to see that child again, but at least that child has a chance at a life.
Better to KILL your child than potentially become an abusive parent? I don't believe abuse is OK, but that doesn't mean it would be better for the child never to be born, does it? Abortion as an act of courage and selflessness? Giving the child up for adoption could be classified that way - a few months' 'inconvenience' and then give the child to someone who actually wants a child - but killing your child because you 'can't handle it' or never wanted to be a mom or don't know how to love is just plain selfish and wrong. If you don't want kids or aren't ready to have kids, you already know that - before you ever get pregnant.
Anti-choice? NO, I believe you should be ABLE to make a choice. Just make it BEFORE there's another person involved. Maybe now that birth control is supposed to be free, those women who don't want to become mothers will actually make the choice to use it and avoid the need to try to convince themselves and everyone else that 'it's nothing more than a conglomeration of cells' and therefore not actually a person. No baby is created, and they can go on about their selfish little lives just as before.
OK, moving on... I know better than to click those things.