@ Seece - Being as this is all morality stuff, as opposed to legal stuff, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I believe that abortion is morally correct (up to a certain time period of course) because it does not do harm to anything that is human, or conscious or anything. However, babies from incestuous relationships, or from mothers who drink/smoke/shoot up whilst pregnant are being harmed by these actions, even if they are not human at the time the action is being done, they are human when the harm takes place.
Of course, a child born to a woman and her father will not be all that badly off - a single generation of inbreeding isn't too bad, but if they have multiple kids, and then they end up having kids etc, it will end poorly.
There are a few options lawmakers have
1) Incestuous conception is fine
2) Incestuous conception is never allowed
3) Incestuous conception is allowed if
- There is significant variety in the two's genes, as proved by having their genome analysed
- The interlinks between members of your family tree are below some arbitrary amount
Either version of 3 would be amongst the most complicated laws in existance, so IMO they are bad ideas, 1 will lead to some pretty fucked up kids in a hundred years time. 2 seems the best option.
@ DelioPT
If we are going to call things human merely because they have the capability to develop into humans, then sperm and eggs must be considered human. Males produce trillions of sperm over their lifetime. Lets be optimisitic and say a male has 15 children over his lifetime, he has still murdered trillions - 15 people. You personally have murdered billions, if not trillions of people, depending on your age. Females are slightly better, murdering about (700-number of babies they have) people in their lifetime. So clearly, if we are murdering trillions, what's one more?
So obviously the line in the sand cannot be drawn there. Where then? How about the moment the sperm and the egg join? Sounds nice, but nothing has actually happened. Before, it was a bunch of microscopic cells, now it is a bunch of microscopic cells. So not there either. The only place to decide that the bundle of cells now counts as a person is when it develops sentience - when it is capable of thought. This is why it is wrong to kill humans (and animals imo), because they have sentience.
Aborting a featus, or catching sperm in a rubber, does not at any stage cause any harm to anythign that is capable of feeling sad that it is experiencing harm. Bringing a child into a world where it will suffer due to its inbreeding, causes harm to that child. In my mind, that is a much more serious offense than aborting a bundle of cells.
