>>102
You haven't even proven abortion to be a "utility." Just as Pol Pot would never be able to prove that torturing and executing 7 million Cambodians was useful for his cause. There's a very specific relation between him and mothers who have abortions: They don't want to deal with something, so they eliminate and pay no mind to the possibility that it might be counter-productive or even wrong (I'm sure that word scares you) in the process.
What you frequently disregard in your crusade against morals is ethics. The very thing that allows our society to survive. There's a reason we don't allow other people to murder; it would cause society to break down. The tolerance and legalization of abortion is the first step en route to a reality where society would sanction the execution of people who "aren't useful" as opposed to just people who pose a danger to its well being (see also: Charles Manson, see also: Jeffery Dalhmer).
You have not proven that a fetus doesn't live and yet you would choose to abort one anyway. Your faith alone that the fetus isn't alive doesn't abstain you from being a murderer. Even if you did turn out to be right, that doesn't excuse the fact that you'd tolerate the risk.
"You can't change my mind with the "it's murder" angle, because a potentiality is not an actuality"
The hell it isn't.
When the situation is referring to an unconfirmed possibility, you have to treat it as if it IS actuality because, in the end, you don't know for sure that it isn't. Better safe than sorry.