[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by dr2005

I love the fact my responses are now being pre-empted.

Much as I admire the ingenuity of the argument, it is stretching the application of "potential life" to breaking point in my opinion. The sperm and egg cells, on their own, will not become anything more than sperm and egg cells until they eventually pass out of the body. Their "potential" is therefore conditional on external factors - in this case, the conscious choice by both persons to have sex - to even come close to being realised, and even then it's not guaranteed. To illustrate, a lump of aluminium oxide has the "potential" to become, amongst other things, part of a car engine, the components of a computer or a humble Coke can. (Other brands are available...) Without the intervention of several external processes, however - not least extracting the aluminium itself - it's going to remain a lump of aluminium oxide. It won't suddenly go "Tada! I'm a Coke can!". In contrast, the embryo is like a lump of aluminium which has gone through the early processes and is now being formed into the end product - barring further external intervention or latent defects, it will become that part of an engine, components of a computer or the Coke can. That end result is predetermined, and therein lies the difference.

It just dawned on me that I've compared a developing unborn child to a Coke can in production - that can't be a good thing.

It was an experimental argument anyway.

OK Danii, at this point you have made statements that contradict previous ones many times over. Are you or are you not in favor of criminalizing abortion?