If you can't care for a baby, then carry it to term and then put it up for adoption.
If that is the course that a woman chooses to take, free of any sort of coercion, more power to her. I am just not as comfortable as you seem to be dictating that choice. You're also comically ignorant about the true costs of bringing a baby to term, but hey, it's not like you care about that.
You seem to believe that abortion is ever the only logical choice, and this just doesn't make any sense to me. Adoption agencies are far more commonly found than abortion clinics, and nobody is going to fire you for putting your baby up for adoption.
Yeah, that's a fair reading of my argument if you are incapable of, you know, reading. My contention, since you're having trouble following along, is that women, regardless of what the law says, are going to exert control over their own bodies. Consequently, we should structure the law to minimize both the need for and risk of abortion. If we decide to deny women access to abortion, it is incredibly disingenuous to a) be shocked, shocked! at the fact that they may make decisions we disagree with and b) pretend that all women are capable of carrying a baby to term and then giving it up for adoption.
The comical ignorance I mentioned earlier is out in full force here. Sure, a woman won't be fired for giving her baby up for adoption. She may be fired for the weeks she has to spend recovering from the pregnancy (unless we're expecting a The Good Earth style delivery and immediate return to the fields), and if she doesn't have insurance she's on the hook for thousands of dollars of medical fees, but anything to prevent you from having that icky feeling I guess.
Edit: Oh, look.
Go fuck yourself.