[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont wanna start a huge debate here but your implying that future growth/ future ability plays some factor in this decision. why is the future of an entity often dismissed in abortion debate? (not saying you specificaly b/c i dont know your stances, but in general)

[/ QUOTE ]

The distinction is that in abortion you are simply disposing of clumps of cells or even a young baby not yet capable of thinking or feeling.

When you have a gay cure, or make the woman have the child, or whatever, you are not deciding whether a few cells have rights, you are deciding the lifetime happiness and suffering of a future sentient being which will (with a much higher probability) exist. It WILL exist, and you are infringing on HOW. With abortion, you are preventing the existence in the first place---the potential being will never happen and won't have the chance to suffer or even know anything has happened. When we know a being will very likely exist in the future, we have moral obligations towards its happiness and suffering. But as to preventing its existence in the first place--that's a different question.

While you know my feelings about it, even if you disagree, its important to recognize that the two questions ARE SEPARATE. "To exist or not to exist?" is a different question from "given existence, how should one be allowed to live??" They are different questions; they just are. There's no good argument to merge them.