For the logic impaired...

[Joel]

That’s interesting, only a potential life? Which of the functions of life does a fetus not meet? I am not aware of any defensible way to argue that a fetus is not alive or not human.

A fetus is alive and human: but not a person.

So as long as the slave owners don’t view their slaves as people then they are justified in owning them?
How do you know a fetus doesn’t possess feelings, a mind, or a sensory system? That doesn’t seem to be something that is provable or knowable. Additionally, why are those things required in order to be a person? That seems to be a rather arbitrary standard of person-hood.

No, because they are people. The owner's view doesn't matter when it conflicts with reality. So far I have seen nothing to show that a fetus has a mind/feelings or a working sensory system. If a flower a person? If not, why? It has life, so why not?

So my view that it is not morally wrong is equally valid as yours?

Yes, in a sense. The sense that it should be taken into account and compared with other views on morality. As it's subjective, I don't believe any one person's view on morality holds a greater meaning; but one can be better than the other.

Since you have already established that you believe morality is individually subjective, then if a mother believes it is morally acceptable to kill her 5 year old child simply because she doesn’t want it anymore is this act therefore morally acceptable? I think there is some inconsistency between the way you are acting and your claimed view of morality; you seem to act like there are moral laws that apply to all of us regardless of what we think but you claim that morality is individually subjective at the same time, how do you reconcile the two?

I don't think that's morally acceptable. At five years old, it does not need her to survive and it is its own individual person. At that stage it has a mind/feelings and a sensory system.
My moral views don't apply to everybody and I don't force them on anybody. Because there is an ongoing conflict between pro life/abortion, I feel that my views should be heard; just as other people's should. If there was no dispute, I would probably not get involved - though if brought up, I would state my position.

Possibly (even though I know several people who are disabled that live better lives than many people who are not), but how do you move from your above statement to the position that the first child therefore should not be allowed to live that life? Where does the right to make that decision for the child come from?

I don't think that the child should not be allowed to live. I think that the mother should have a choice on whether or not she allows it to live. She will have to care for it for many years of its life, as its mother.