Another interesting thought... What are your views on abortion then?

Obvious ponderables: At what point do you draw the line? Where the sperm and egg meet, or somewhere further along? If what's *there* is less sophisticated than a slime mold, does it get consideration based on it's potential? How does a separate egg and sperm have less potential?

But an embryos only a *chance* of life. It won't necessarily even implant, even if it does may have genetic abnormalities and naturally miscarry.

(I think egg freezing is actually quite tricky and has only recently become practical, I'm not even sure how available it is, which I believe is why she's in this unfortunate situation)

Well, I guess that's a consistent view, which puts you ahead of most people, including me. Though I currently aren't convinced that something of the complexity of a cell deserves consideration because it would become alive.

Hmmm. What about cloning? My discarded finger cell contains the genetic information for a complete, different[1] person. Do I have a moral obligation to clone it?

Is it the probability of that happening if I don't interfere? What about someone almost certainly going to die I might be able to save, shouldn't I?

[1] Same genes as me, but it would be a different person.

Hmm, ok. I think we disagree about a basic point. I would extend consideration to something that *is* alive, feeling, sapient, but not something that's going to be. Whereas you would.

I felt there must have been a good example which shows the problems with your ideas, but nothing I suggested was.