Questions for Certain Pro-Choicers

[Dennis Moore]

My answer is similar to Divine Minds' answer. It's about personal beliefs and choice, when it comes to legislation. Unless pro-lifers are willing to open their homes to all the unwanted babies out there? In fact, I think that every pro-lifer should put ther money where their mouth is; find someone who is thinking of aborting, and convince them to let you adopt their baby upon birth. Otherwise, it's all hot air, IMO.

Personally, I view viability as a defining factor in cases of voluntary termination. If the fetus is not viable outside of the womb--generally the first two trimesters--then voluntary termination is acceptable. Once the fetus gains viability (becomes, in essence, an infant), it can generally be safely induced or cesarianed, and thus adoption becomes the better choice. If there is a Yahweh, he agrees, since one in five fetuses are involuntarily terminated within the first fourteen weeks of pregnancy, anyway.

Also personally, I do view a viable fetus as a person--it has, in essense, "achieved" basic personhood. While a pre-viable fetus/embryo/blastycyst/whatever has the potential for personhood, it is not, yet, a person.

 

[Donut Hole]

Those who feel abortion should only be legal before a certain point in the pregnancy, but illegal afterwards (example: legal in 1st trimester, illegal in 2nd and 3rd trimester):
What are your reasons for this division?
Why should a 6 month old fetus have more value than a 2 month old fetus? (and don't just say because a 6 month old fetus has brainwaves or a human form, etc. Please explain why these features make the life of the fetus more valuable)

The development of consciousness is my cutoff point.

http://www.pediatrics.emory.edu/NEONATOLOGY/DPC/brain.htm
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Courier New, Courier, mono][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/font][/font][/font][/font]

Organization begins at 6 months of gestation and continues well after birth. This is the fifth stage of CNS development. Once formed and in place, neurons begin to sprout branches referred to as axons and dendrites. At this stage most neurons consist of three parts:[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Courier New, Courier, mono][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][/font][/font] [/font]

1. 1. 
      [*][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]a cell body
   2. [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]axons - nerve fibers that send signals away from the cell body to other neurons. Neurons usually only have one axon.[/font]
   3. [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]dendrites - a number of short tree-like branches that receive signals from other neurons. A neuron can have hundreds of dendrites.[/font] [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Once the axons and dendrites are formed they begin to communicate. The process is something like a relay race. The communication that transmits a message between the axon of a sending neuron and the dendrite of a receiving neuron is called a synapse. The synapse permits the conduction of electrochemical impulses among a large number of neurons almost simultaneously.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Initially, there are more synapses created than are needed; however, only those used will survive. Just as we prune a tree that is overgrown, the brain "prunes" away synapses that are not used. This process is a way of fine tuning the maturing CNS. Just like with neurons, the brain starts out creating more synapses than it will ever need. Over time (and into the teen years) those cells that are not needed will die off. It is important to note that the brain is not rigid and inflexible even after the teen years. Recent thought on this process is that there is still some neuronal flexibility in response to experience throughout the life course. Adults can still make new synaptic connections for novel learning experiences.[/font]

Why is a baby/foetus that is undergoing or has undergone the organization phase of central nervous system development more valuable than a baby/foetus which has not yet undergone this phase? Consciousness. At this stage, one can make a reasonable argument that it is conscious, whereas beforehand one cannot.

Consciousness is the one thing that is more or less universally valued in human life, and the brain is the whole ballgame. Some people, of course, value more than just consciousness, but consciousness is the thing that everyone seems to agree is valuable, whether they are atheists, christians, muslims, hindus, deists, pagans, or whatever else. If someone has an arm amputated, we still value their life. If someone has a kidney transplant, we still value their life. But if someone has no brain, there is no (conscious) life and there is no value in what is essentialy a body with nobody home.

The only argument one can make (other than perhaps a religious one involving ensoulment) in favor of a 1 month foetus being equally valuable to a 3 year old is the potentiality argument. And the potentiality argument is fallacious. An acorn is not a tree. I have the "potential" to rob a bank, but I have never robbed a bank, and there is not justification for locking me up just because I have that potential. The last line of argument left here is that if you leave a 1 month baby/foetus alone, it will "naturally" develop into a conscious person. This is irrelevant. If one does not leave it alone, and aborts, it won't develop into a conscious person. To say that the foetus/baby (we'll call it "sally" to give it personification) is losing an opportunity to live is silly - Sally isn't being denied anything, because there never was a Sally to be denied it.

As a thought experiment, imagine in the future that we can grow in a lab a human body without a brain, and we can also grow a brain seperately (say it is as developed as a 2 year old infant's). We decide to call the body Mark. If we don't give "Mark" a brain, are we depriving "him" of anything? No. Now, Let's call the brain Michael. If we don't give Michael a body, are we depriving Michael of something - Yes. Why? Because there is a Michael. In contrast, there is no "Mark." And there is no Sally until, at a minimum, about 6 months into a pregnancy. And you can't hurt a non-existent person.

So 2 months after "Sally" is conceived, aborting "her" is no more morally problematic than getting a haircut. But 7 or 8 months after Sally is conceived, aborting her is very morally problematic indeed.
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]

 

[Marek]

Thanks for this reply. It has definately been the most insightful yet.

Consciousness is the one thing that is more or less universally valued in human life, and the brain is the whole ballgame. Some people, of course, value more than just consciousness, but consciousness is the thing that everyone seems to agree is valuable, whether they are atheists, christians, muslims, hindus, deists, pagans, or whatever else. If someone has an arm amputated, we still value their life. If someone has a kidney transplant, we still value their life. But if someone has no brain, there is no (conscious) life and there is no value in what is essentialy a body with nobody home.

Here's where I'm confused. If current consciousness is what is valued, what is thought of a person that has a brain, but is not conscious. Does their life temporarily lose it's value?

 

[Dennis Moore]

Here's where I'm confused. If current consciousness is what is valued, what is thought of a person that has a brain, but is not conscious. Does their life temporarily lose it's value?

Don't confuse different usages of the word "consciousness." I believe Donut Hole is referring to it in the psychological, overall, "A sense of one's personal or collective identity" sense, not in the "when I sleep I lose consciousness and when I wake up I gain consciousness" sense. The I, the identity, the Self, is what he's talking about.

 

[Marek]

Don't confuse different usages of the word "consciousness." I believe Donut Hole is referring to it in the psychological, overall, "A sense of one's personal or collective identity" sense, not in the "when I sleep I lose consciousness and when I wake up I gain consciousness" sense. The I, the identity, the Self, is what he's talking about.

I was unaware of this distinction of consciousness. What exactly is the difference between the two? In both cases, whether the brain is not yet developed or is but is currently unconscious, the being is nonsentient. I understand the argument is that if the being is nonsentient, then it has no value. Am I missing something?

 

[an7222]

I agree with the consciousness criteria to know if a featus can or cannot be aborted. A potential human being is not yet a human being. The rights of the mother is greater than the rights of an unconscious potencial human being.

 

[ptgd1st]

Funny how we trivialize life. Life is life as soon as the cells begin to replicate. When you abort at any time you are killing life. Consciousness or not, the fetus is alive.

 

[seebs]

I understand those who feel that abortion should be morally acceptable in all cases and those who feel that it should be unacceptable in all cases, but it is the people that lie somewhere in between that confuse me. I have a few questions for them so that I can further understand their views.

For those that feel abortion should be legal, but would never get one in the case that they got pregnant even if they had to put the child up for adoption:
What are your reasons for not getting an abortion?
Why aren't these reasons ground for making abortion illegal?

Well, I will never get an abortion for biological reasons (I do not believe it likely I'll ever be pregnant), but...

I go to church. That doesn't mean it should be illegal for other people not to go to church. I refuse to swear oaths, because it is immoral. That is not grounds for banning the practice; not everyone is required to follow everything Jesus said.

I would not get or encourage an abortion for any reasons not involving serious risks, but... That's a personal moral decision. That's not necessarily sound social policy.

Those who feel abortion should only be legal before a certain point in the pregnancy, but illegal afterwards (example: legal in 1st trimester, illegal in 2nd and 3rd trimester):
What are your reasons for this division?
Why should a 6 month old fetus have more value than a 2 month old fetus? (and don't just say because a 6 month old fetus has brainwaves or a human form, etc. Please explain why these features make the life of the fetus more valuable)

I tend to favor a legal distinction based on brain activity, because I think brain activity is the distinction between a person and a lump of meat. If a line must be drawn, that's a good line to draw.

The question isn't exactly one of "value". As we see from the OT Law, until a baby is born, it's not exactly a "person" in God's eyes. Injuring a pregnant woman so that she miscarries is a property crime; killing an infant is murder. That's the best answer we have for what personhood is... But potential personhood also matters. Something which is, left undisturbed, 30% likely to turn into a person is perhaps more valuable than something which is 5% likely to turn into a person, but less valuable than something which is 80% likely to turn into a person.

That said... I do not think abortion should be used except in extreme cases. Nonetheless, I do not believe this would make a good legal policy.

I believe the right way to reduce the incidence of abortion is to actively seek the causes of abortion and deal with them. People sometimes have abortions because they feel they will starve and/or die if they lose their job, and they will lose their job if they take enough time off to have a healthy baby and take care of that baby. This strikes me as something we could do something about.

On a similar note, vehement condemnation of teenage pregnancy leads many younger women to believe (often truthfully) that they will be rejected by their community, and possibly by their family, if they show up pregnant. There are too many people who would be kicked out on the street by phariseeical parents if they admitted to pregnancy; they may feel driven to seek abortion.

If we do not do our best to address the reasons for which people find themselves considering abortion, we cannot really eliminate it. I think that time spent on dealing with the underlying social issues would be a lot more productive. No one wants an abortion; they feel it is their best option only when their other options are pretty bad. If we dealt with that, we might get better results.

 

[Danhalen]

What are your reasons for not getting an abortion?

As a male, I can not honestly answer the question. As a father, I would not want my potential child to remain unborn. I would want the opportunity to meet the person that is one half me.

Why aren't these reasons ground for making abortion illegal?

I would not want to force my feelings on another human being. If it's not my body, it's not my choice.

What are your reasons for this division?

The main reason for the demarcation is viability. I personally feel that the line should be drawn at the point of self sustaining life function.

Why should a 6 month old fetus have more value than a 2 month old fetus?

It doesn't. It is an arbitrary division.

 

[seebs]

Here's where I'm confused. If current consciousness is what is valued, what is thought of a person that has a brain, but is not conscious. Does their life temporarily lose it's value?

An interesting question, and one that points to the subtle distinction between consciousness and brain activity. Dreams aren't "conscious", but they're still clearly brain activity.

IMHO, brain activity is the only way we can reasonably suggest that a given chunk of cells has a soul affiliated with it. I personally suspect that true brain-death removes the soul from the body. Of course, this presupposes dualism, and I'm not sure that's a safe assumption.

 

[Dennis Moore]

I was unaware of this distinction of consciousness.

Any standard dictionary reflects the distinction between usages. Like many words in the English language, it has more than one.

What exactly is the difference between the two?

It's already been said, but: brain activity. To be "unconscious" in the sense of "sleeping" is not the same as to be "unconscious" in the sense of "a rock." Perhaps a better distinction would be "conscious" vs. "nonconscious"?

In both cases, whether the brain is not yet developed or is but is currently unconscious, the being is nonsentient.

Wrong. An unconscious "sleeping" or "knocked out" or even "comatose" person still has brainwave activity. It might be deep delta activity, but it's still activity; an EEG, for example, would register it. Hook the EEG up to a rock (or Terri Schiavo, for example), and there would be no reading at all.

I understand the argument is that if the being is nonsentient, then it has no value. Am I missing something?

"Less" value, maybe. I didn't see anyone saying "no value."

 

[Donut Hole]

Thanks for this reply. It has definately been the most insightful yet.

Here's where I'm confused. If current consciousness is what is valued, what is thought of a person that has a brain, but is not conscious. Does their life temporarily lose it's value?

That's an excellent question, and also one I've given some thought to over the last year or so. So here's my answer:

I divide losses of consciousness into two types - temporary and permanent. A temporary loss of consciousness could include being asleep (Just for the sake of argument, I'll assume it's uncontroversial that one is unconscious while sleeping), being in a recoverable coma, being temporarily knocked out by general anaesthetics, etc. Permanent losses of consciousness include legal death and loss of the cerebral cortex. An example of loss of the cerebral cortex would be the Schiavo case, in which her brain except for her brain stem was liquified. (Note - I am just using the Schiavo case as an example which is familiar to people and don't want to get into a debate about it - if anyone thinks that her CT scans were not reliable, just imagine a hypothetical case in which the higher brain was liquified). Permanent loss of consciousness, while it may not necessarily entail legal brain death, is in the important way of loss of consciousness, the equivalent to death. It is my opinion that the legal definition of brain death we currently have doesn't make sense in the light of our expanding knowledge of how the brain and consciousness works.

So, what if a criminal breaks into a hospital and kills someone who is under general anaesthetics (temporary unconsciousness) for an operation? And what if that criminal also kills someone who is in a Persistent Vegetative state with spinal fluid liquification of the cerebral cortex but a still functioning brain stem (permanent unconsciousness)?

In the case of killing someone who is temporarily unconscious, that is murder. This is because, along the lines of Dennis Moore's post, there was a person previously "at home," who is only gone temporarily. In all likelihood, someone under general anaesthetics would not want to be killed and certainly did not want to be killed. So we should "err on the side of life" in this case. Unless it can be established very firmly that a person in a temporarily unconscious state wants to die, it is murder to kill them. In other words, it would be murder in pretty much every case I can think of other than euthenizing someone who had been in a (theoretically recoverable) coma for a significant amount of time, and for whom it could be established that the person wanted to die in such a state.

In the case of killing someone who is permanently unconscious, that is not murder. However, it is still wrong, in a lesser way. It is wrong not because someone is being denied life (because there is "no one home" any more), but only because it is disrespectful of the wishes of the dead (or permanently unconscious). It is wrong in the same way that ****ing on somebody's grave is wrong; in the same way that violating someone's wishes about their funeral is wrong. So, for example, if someone used a bomb to blow up someone who was permanently unconscious, it would not ethically be the same as murder. However, it would be extraordinarily distressful to relatives of the person in question, and also a huge violation of the wishes of the person in question, so it is still wrong, even if not as much so as killing a conscious person. Also, if we are deciding whether or not to euthenize someone who is permanently unconscious (Terri Schiavo, for example), we should not err on the side of life. Because the only thing wrong with killing (the body formerly "inhabited by") a permanently unconscious person is that it is disrespectful of the wishes of the person who used to be, just as much harm is done by getting the wishes wrong either way - if a person would want to die and is kept alive, that is just as much harm as if a person would want to be kept alive and is euthenized. Essentially, the only thing seperating permanently unconscious people from pre-conscious babies/foetuses is that permanently unconscious people were previously conscious and had wishes about what would happen to them when dead/permanently unconscious.

 

[Donut Hole]

Funny how we trivialize life. Life is life as soon as the cells begin to replicate. When you abort at any time you are killing life. Consciousness or not, the fetus is alive.

Though I assume you mean this in the opposite way, I think it helps my point.

Life, in and of itself, is not valuable - consciousness/sentience is. A virus is alive, it is a self-replicating thing, yet there is nothing in any way wrong with killing a virus or any other really primitive life form. Nor is it just human life that is valuable - just think of aliens or artificial intelligences with consciousness on the human level.

 

[Scholar in training]

There are people that do not want the goverment making these types of personal choices for it's citizens. There are people that do not want the goverment to have this type of control over women and their bodies.

No, this brings up a whole other question. Whether the fetus has "personhood" or is the property of the woman involved.

 

[Marek]

Once again, I thank you for a very insightful post. You are actually the first person I'd talked to with a well thought out, logic reason for their stance on abortion.

I actually agree with all that you said in your post except for one small part, and I think this is where our views differ.

In the case of killing someone who is temporarily unconscious, that is murder. This is because, along the lines of Dennis Moore's post, there was a person previously "at home," who is only gone temporarily.

I feel that the reason that killing someone that is temporarily unconscious is wrong is because they are only 'gone temporarily'. I do not feel it is wrong because the person was previously 'at home'. It is clear that if they are only gone temporarily and they are killed, they are being deprived of their future. But why doesn't a fetus apply in this case? They are only temporarily unconscious. You state that it is because there was not a person 'at home', or, more clearly, the being was not conscious at any point previously. Does this really make a difference? You seem to rely on the notion that a person's existence begins when they gain consciousness and if you kill someone before this point, you are not actually killing anyone. You cannot hurt someone that does not exist and will never exist.

I guess with this reasoning I still don't see how you can defend a person that is temporarily unconscious. At that point their 'person' does not exist; they are absent of consciousness. If they are killed, they will not exist. So how can you hurt someone that does not exist and will not exist? It seems that you cannot. This problem has led me to believe that the existence of a person relies on a being's potential for consciousness. I don't think that a human that is brain dead can be qualified as a person, nor do I believe that someone that is temporarily unconscious does not qualify as a person. This is why I believe that a being's personhood relies on its capability for conscious thought. It is clear that a fetus has capability for conscious thought in the future. This is why I do not believe that person must be defined as a conscious being, and this is why I disagree with your reason for the wrongness of killing an unconscious person.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

No, this brings up a whole other question. Whether the fetus has "personhood" or is the property of the woman involved.

No it doesn't. My reply directly answered the OP's question.

For those that feel abortion should be legal, but would never get one in the case that they got pregnant even if they had to put the child up for adoption:
What are your reasons for not getting an abortion?
Why aren't these reasons ground for making abortion illegal?

Personhood is irrelevant. This is a position of not wanting to have govermental involvement in this area at all.
It is also the position held by those that do not want freedoms taken away from others for particular activities that they would not choose to commit themselves.

 

[photojournie]

I think that the only viable reason for getting an abortion is if the pregnancy will be fatal to the mother. So, only in the case of medical emergency. Even then, if the child can somehow be "salvaged" (old enough to be delivered early or--as technology advances--removed from the womb to an artificial 'womb'), then that would be the first option.

My boss considers the first trimester the only time when abortion is "okay" and somehow, the magical second between being 3 months old and 3 months-one second, it's not okay to abort--I fail to see that logic, as you do, and question her. I don't know how one can draw a line down to one moment in time as if there was a point of no return (which varies from person to person). My boss' conviction continuously reverts to matters of convenience rather than common sense, so I totally understand why you ask such questions. One cannot bend the rules to more adequately justify your situation. In that case, let's chuck the Bible and revert to the evolutionary theory of purely animalistic behavior. Why try to follow rules if we think we can change them based on our desires or "how society has changed."

I can't call myself "pro-choice" because I don't think I can support the choices of women that I can't support, though I definitely do not condemn nor damn them for their decisions...as that isn't my job, but ultimately the job of the Lord based on how everything works out between them and the Lord in the end. No, I will not impose my beliefs on other women, nor demand that that is the only right way to "do" things. I have my convictions and I will gladly share the above thoughts and more with anyone who asks, but it's totally their choice as to whether they agree with me or not. I can't shake my finger at a woman who will have/has had an abortion, but I can tell her what my convictions are and walk away knowing that at least I gave her a viewpoint to work with.

I can, however, call myself "pro-life" because I value life at any stage. I believe God called us to defend the those who cannot defend themselves, ("Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves..." Prov. 31:8) so I'll offer my thoughts on abortion but not demand that people agree. I think that all people with opinions on abortion should practice the same policy. Go ahead and have your convictions and share them, but don't think that you can force your opinions any more than you can make someone come to Christ.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

I can't call myself "pro-choice" because I don't think I can support the choices of women that I can't support, though I definitely do not condemn nor damn them for their decisions...as that isn't my job, but ultimately the job of the Lord based on how everything works out between them and the Lord in the end. No, I will not impose my beliefs on other women, nor demand that that is the only right way to "do" things. I have my convictions and I will gladly share the above thoughts and more with anyone who asks, but it's totally their choice as to whether they agree with me or not.

If this is your position then you are indeed 'pro-choice'. Pro-choice supports a woman's right to choose to have an abortion or choose not to have an abortion. Pro-choice is not the same thing as being Pro-Abortion! Furthermore, Pro-choice is not Anti-Life. No one in the Pro-choice camp is against life or encourages abortions. they are simply supporting a woman's right to choose, not the goverment, what is the right decision for her personally in regards to her own pregnancy.

 

[ptgd1st]

Life is not defined in the literal sense by consciousness. No would would say that Schiavo was not alive. If something is not dead, then obviously its alive. There is no in between. Consciousness only defines our state or role in life. Think about it. Someone said earlier that we do not base life on potentiality as in the case of early fetuses. I say this, as soon as that first cell division occurs, it is alive. I agree it may not be aware of itself but refer to above.

 

[Donut Hole]

Once again, I thank you for a very insightful post. You are actually the first person I'd talked to with a well thought out, logic reason for their stance on abortion.

Well thanks. I'm finding the discussion interesting too.

You seem to rely on the notion that a person's existence begins when they gain consciousness and if you kill someone before this point, you are not actually killing anyone. You cannot hurt someone that does not exist and will never exist.

Yes, I think this is a good short summary of my position.

I feel that the reason that killing someone that is temporarily unconscious is wrong is because they are only 'gone temporarily'. I do not feel it is wrong because the person was previously 'at home'.

Here I think you are making a mistake in differentiating between the two things, and applying one of them to abortion. I think that 'gone temporarily' and 'previously at home' are the same thing. To say that it is wrong because the person was previously 'at home' is the same as to say that it is wrong 'because they are only gone temporarily.' To illustrate why, I will use a thought experiment.

Case 1) Imagine that I own a Honda Civic. It is being borrowed by a friend, and so it is thus temporarily gone from my garage. This is analogous to temporary unconsciousness of something that was previously conscious. 'Honda Civic' = 'a person' and 'being in my garage' = 'is conscious.'

Case 2) Then imagine that I do not own a Honda Civic. However, I am considering purchasing one from my Honda dealer. But I do not yet own one, so there is no Honda Civic in my garage. This is analogous to the case of abortion before roughly 6 months, where there was no previously conscious person, just the potential for one. Again, 'Honda Civic' = 'a person' and 'being in my garage' = 'is conscious.'

In case 1, would we say that my Honda Civic is 'gone temporarily?' Yes.
In case 1, would we say that my Honda Civic was 'previously in my garage? Yes.

Now, in case 2, would we say that my Honda Civic is 'gone temporarily?' No, it makes no sense to say that my Honda Civic is gone temporarily. I've never had a Honda Civic. For something to be temporarily gone, it has to be previously there.
And in case 2, would we say that my Honda Civic was 'previously in my garage? No, I've never had a Honda Civic.

So I think you are making a mistake in saying that a baby/foetus is temporarily unconscious. For something to be temporarily unconscious requires that it has been previously conscious, which it has not been.

We can glean another important point from this thought experiment. If having the potential for there to be a honda civic in my garage is fully as valuable as there actually being a honda civic in my garage, then this will lead us to some odd conclusions. Suppose I have one Honda Civic in my garage. There being a Honda Civic in my garage is so valuable that it can't be put suitably into words, and the potential for there to be one Shouldn't I get another? I can fit another one into my garage, and I have the potential to to purchase one. Would I not morally obligated to use all of my resources on buying Honda Civics and expanding my garage to accomodate them? I should keep buying Honda Civics and hiring builders to expand my garage until I have hundreds of them. I should keep going on until I have thousands of them. If I spend a penny on something unnecessary, which is not a Honda Civic (perhaps a vacation in Aruba),I am doing something extraordinarily unethical.

But of course, we don't do this in real life, or with having babies. This is for good reason - because potentiality of human consciousness is not valuable like actual consciousness which has previously existed is. If it were, wouldn't any woman who is not currently pregnant and is not having sex be being immoral? And wouldn't any man who is doing something other than having sex while there was a single woman in the world be behaving dreadfully unethically? No - because it is not numbers of potential conscious human beings we are shooting for. If I choose to have 0 children or 1 child, I am not being any less ethical than someone who decides to have 2 children or 20 children. It is only once something becomes a person that it takes on this extraordinary value, such that if one deprives a person of his/her life, one is doing the worst thing that one could possibly do.

When you abort a baby/foetus which has not been previously conscious, one is not actually killing anyone. You cannot hurt someone that does not exist and will never exist.

But when you kill someone who is temporarily unconscious, you are actually killing someone, even though the someone is not currently there. There was a previously conscious person, who had desires, aspirations, dreams, etc. When a person is temporarily unconscious, we should respect the wishes that they previously had, and in all likelihood those wishes do not include being killed.

If you kill the temporarily unconscious person, you are robbing that person of something most valuable - his/her life. But if one kills/aborts a baby/foetus, one is not robbing anyone, because there was never a person being robbed.