Can unborn baby be killed with pregnancy?

[Virtual ghost]

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 .

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

I think they'll counter your argument with one simple objection: "conception"... the second, third, fourth... millionth babies... all remained purely potential... there was no penetration of ovum by sperm, so the two genetic halves required to begin a new life as we understand it in human terms were not brought together...

 

[cafe]

I think there is a difference between preventing a theoretical life and therefore committing an imaginary "crime" and ending an actual life. You don't prosecute a drunk driver for murder (or manslaughter, etc) if s/he didn't actually kill someone. You prosecute them for drunk driving.

 

[Virtual ghost]

This idea exists in my head for years so I had to share it.

I think there is a difference between preventing a theoretical life and therefore committing an imaginary "crime" and ending an actual life. You don't prosecute a drunk driver for murder (or manslaughter, etc) if s/he didn't actually kill someone. You prosecute them for drunk driving.

That is exactly what I would say to counter the argumet.
Which is on very unstable foundation.

But here is what made me more unsure abut this. It has nothing to do with this except principle.
The data on the site are very old (10 years) so right now techniques are far more sophisticated.
Few years back there was a big fuss about it.


link

The link used to work but now it does not. (And I have an idea why)

The point is that DNA tests can determine what diseases person could develop with time. But the catch is that he/she has a problem finding a job because some firms are doing the tests and that means that he/she is out of the game and he/she did not do anything wrong.


While I was typing this I have realized that this can be linked with abortion into a one quite ugly scenario.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm never having children again.

I mean, if I have a baby, he might one day grow up to kill someone.

I've got enough mistakes on my record already, I don't want that on my conscience.

 

[lowtech redneck]

This idea exists in my head for years so I had to share it.

Didn't your head ever provide you with the obvious rebuttal to such a silly question?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Didn't your head ever provide you with the obvious rebuttal to such a silly question?

Of course it is a silly question but why would I keep it just for myself ?

Maybe it turns out to be something.

But from what I see this is waste of time.

 

[Totenkindly]

Of course it is a silly question but why would I keep it just for myself ?
Maybe it turns out to be something.
But from what I see this is waste of time.

You can't win 'em all.
Then again, every time Edison took a wrong turn, he could cross another item off his list.

 

[entropie]

I havent got the english text very well, not because your english is bad, but I have drunken some beer now .

From what I have understood, is that abortion can be the way to give life to a second child that otherwise would not have been born, when the first one had been carried out.

That absolutly makes sense.

I guess the decision on abortion should be based on, how able you are to actually raise a child in your environment. If you are totally lacking the money and have noone to support you, abortion should be an option.

My teacher in religion always talked about birth being a wonder. I did understand him and I found his interpretation really humanistic... but gosh I hate religion so I wont get into this deeper

So long post, nothing said. That was great, wasn't it ? xD

 

[Virtual ghost]

You can't win 'em all.

There is some competition going around here ?


In that case I will choose my battles more wisely.

 

[Tamske]

To me, abortion is about life of an embryo (foetus) versus... what? The thing that's on the other side of the scales is very important.

Speculation about future children doesn't fit in the equation, in my opinion. Genetically, "now a child" is always better than "later a child", other things being equal. The difference comes only when the "now" child (the one whose abortion we're discussing) and the "later" child (the one who wouldn't exist if the "now" is not aborted) are somehow of a different quality.
Suppose a women is pregnant after a rape. Would you want to pair your genes with the ones of a rapist? More importantly: how will the mother feel about the child? Will she be able to love and raise him/her in the way a child needs? The way a human being with half your genes deserves from you?
It may sound really harsh and unloving to judge the "quality" of the children before they are born... but it's reality. I don't want to be a child who is hated by her mother.

Another situation. What if, due to circumstances, the mother is "now" not able to care for a child, but later on maybe she is? Then wouldn't it be better to choose for the child who would get the better care and thus the better chance to survive and reproduce? Genetically, of course, the answer is yes. But we (especially we, the humans) are not slaves of our genes. We can thwart them - a good example of this is anticonception. I think there the things become more gray, discussion is possible, and the mother's choice should be taken into account.