An initial idea: yet again realism raises it's head. The idea of applying a property like happiness to non-existent, hypothetical people sounds sketchy.
> (2) A woman suffers from an illness which means that, if she gets pregnant now, her child will suffer from a permanent handicap. If she postpones her pregnancy a few months until she has recovered, her child will be perfectly normal.
[...]
[It's problematic to recommend postponing to the mother because] if the woman postpones her pregnancy, then the child that is brought into existence will not be identical to the child she would have had, had she decided to become pregnant while she was ill (it will not be the same ovum and sperm that meet). Hence, the alternative for the child brought into existence during the mother’s illness is non-existence, and to claim that it would have been better for this child if the mother had postponed pregnancy is tantamount to claiming that non-existence would have been better for her.
... which makes me not take it very serious.
As with everything in the world, there are unintended consequences. It's moral to want people to be safe, have an opportunity for education, food, a decent lifestyle. I want that for everyone. What makes me happy wouldn't make other people happy.
My friends had a situation where they had a couple of kids and the wife was pregnant in the first 3 months and the docs discovered she had breast cancer. They decided to get an abortion and get treatment. She seems to be fine now. Imagine making that choice? It would kill me to face that.