So here is where you and I fundamentally disagree.
How is it cruel to take life from something that has no consciousness to realise what life is? I'd personally say it's far crueler for both the person, and their friends/family, to kill them at the age of 20. If you have, say, 100 people who love your personality, it hurts them far more if you die at that point than if you died before you were born. And if you hadn't been born, they wouldn't have been "less happy" because you weren't there; they would have filled the gap with other friends. Plus, the person themselves can feel the pain of knowing everything is about to end, whereas without consciousness in the first place, they don't realise they're missing a thing.
And in using birth control/contraception at all, you're doing just the same thing, just a tiny step earlier (so it's theoretically even worse hahaha): stopping countless new people from being born, thus robbing them of life.
I prefer the approach of improving the quality of life of those currently alive, rather than focusing on creating more people. Living in misery is worse than never getting the chance to live.
I understand you may think killing someone at an older age is worse than killing them in the womb - but do you believe that killing them in the womb is wrong, or do you think it's perfectly okay?
I also think there is some cognitive dissonance happening here.
To believe that abortion is as reprehensible as acts such as terrorism, murder, and torture and then walk around in a society where you probably encounter women everyday who have had abortions requires either some form of cognitive dissonance or a genuine belief that many of the people you meet are despicable people on par with terrorists and sociopathic serial killers.
All murder is bad, if I think abortion is wrong and then meet people who have had abortions, what am I supposed to do? If I express my opinion, it's bullying according to elysepopplewell. If I don't say anything, it's cognitive dissonance according to you. I don't have a meltdown and need to go to my 'safe space' every time I meet someone who has had an abortion.
I just don't think abortion is murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human with intent. A fertilised egg is not a human, It has the potential to be a human - but it is not a human.
When do you define someone being a human then?
I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that the intentional killing of innocent strangers in a terrorist attack is comparable to the removal of cells from a womb? I can't see those two on the same level at all. I'm reading your comments, it's not like I'm not open to the idea, I'm trying to find parts of your points to empathise with but I can't. Abortion is not murder in my opinion. And abortion is not comparable to the malice of terrorism.
People are misunderstanding my comments - a life is a life. A murder is a murder.
In 2015, 2 people in Australia died as a result of a terrorist attack.
In 2015, 80-90,000 abortions were performed.
The scale of the babies killed was far greater than the people killed in the terrorist attacks. I am looking at facts, not feelings. The number of babies aborted was 42,500 times the number of those killed in terrorist attacks.
What I am saying, is, that yes, terrorist attacks are obviously horrible and should be condemned - but the murder of innocent babies, by the tens of thousands and on a much greater scale than those killed in terrorist attacks - should be condemned too.
If murder is murder, why do people eat animals or kill animals to protect crops? (if they are anti abortion too). Those same people call for rapists to die or terrorists to die.
That is clearly a ethical inconsistency as "murder is bad " right?
I think eating animals is wrong, if you couldn't tell by my signature (

). Killing animals to protect crops is ok because it is an act of self-defence - if you don't do it, you could starve.
Life isn't that black and white. There are SO many cases where it's not this straightforward.
Classic ethical dilemma - and though it's unrealistic the equivalents happen IRL:
You have a chance to change the out-of-control train to a different line, so it kills only one person rather than five. Is that murder? You have the chance to push a huge heavyset man in the way of the train which will slow it down so it won't run over five other people. Is that murder?
How about murder within wars, the death sentence, or killing someone to stop them killing others?
If you see someone stabbing someone else, and don't intervene, is that murder? How about if you know that a planned murder is to happen and you decide not to go and intervene?
Like, seriously, so many ways that prove that this is a very shades-of-grey moral topic, innately.
Yes, all of that is murder, obviously. In a moral dilemma like the train scenario, you have to make a judgement call. Where the lives of five are compared to one, you would have to go for the one person dying, because in that scenario you know nothing about any of the people and it's quite logical to say that five lives are worth more than one, although that one life is still worth a lot.
Saying "murder is murder" is putting women who get raped and impregnated, then choose to get an abortion, in the same category as a terrorist. Whether you want to do that or not, that is what it is.
I agree.
I'm absolutely abortion-is-ok in the sense that I am in favour of law changes that make abortions safer and prevent women from being abused/victimised
Sorry, got you mixed up with someone else

is it as simple as "Abortion is legal at any point under any circumstance?" No, I personally don't think so, but yeah - Definitely I'm in the abortion-is-ok camp 
Why do you think it is ok, though?