The title of this thread is not the cosequence of my bad English I am really asking that question.
The question about the abortion is complex one and I am offering further complication or maybe it will turn out to be solution to this dilemma.
Here is the classical case.
Woman gets pregnant and the desision is to make abortion because .......
In this example let say that it was done in 3th month of pregnancy.
Case closed. Or is it?
Abortion is almost always done at the begining of pregnancy.
So body can recover much faster. Also there is no recovery after pregnancy because body never carryed the whole baby plus 6 months of pregnancy is missing.
All of this means that person can be pregnant once again much faster than in the case that the first baby was normaly born.
That can lead to conclusion that by having first baby you are destroying any possibility that the secound baby will be born ever.
Antiabortion activists say that they are always on the side od life.
But if we take this into consideration then their position is much weaker.
Someone could say that every time the egg cell is not fertilized one baby is killed. Well, that can be true but there is always a possibility that the cell can accomplish its purpose but in the case of pregnancy there is really no way that the other one can be born, since sperm in fathers testicles doesn't last too long.
So if that happens can we say that the first pregnancy killed the second baby? I mean who has the right to say wich one can live and which one can't even be conceived. People always choose the first baby because that makes sense. But what is wrong with the other one if we don't take money in consideration ?
Just because there is no blood, no screaming, law says nothing about it and none has the feeling that someone is stinted, that does not mean that this is not the case.
All of this can be complicated further with details but I think this is enough for the begining.
Also I would like that this thread stays clean of total determinism .