I believe abortion should only be allowed if the child is 100% going to die upon birth/before birth. Or if the mother is at a raised risk of death. ONLY.
I don't understand that. If you hold that abortion is murder and murder is wrong, how can you justify it in those two circumstances? Because it will still be murder and the child will still be dead.
All you are saying is that murder is OK in certain circumstances that you subjectively happen to define, but not in others.
(Not to mention that it is statistically unlikely that you can be 100% certain that a children is going to die upon birth/before birth. So you could have murdered a child unnecessarily. And how far should as mother's risk be raised before you decide murder is OK in those circumstances - 1%, 10%, 50%....?). Where do you set the risk/benefit ratio? You are in fact still saying the same as those pro-choicers you oppose i.e. the mother's life trumps the child's. The only difference is that you are using your own criteria instead of that of the pregnant woman.
You say it's barbaric. But apparently it's OK to be barbaric if the two circumstances in which you would subjectively agree abortion should be allowed are met?
If you are pro-life and believe abortion is murder you should be pro-life, full stop, because murder is murder. Or are some murders less wrong than others, but only if they meet your own specific criteria?
I am pro-choice because I do not believe my criteria or views should be imposed on another who may have different criteria.