[peter12]

So I take that as a no you wouldn't support limiting everyone's rights to contraception based on the moral values of a group of the population?

What if the vast majority of the population happened to hold that moral value? Should contraception be outlawed then?

Absolutely not. I view contraception as simple self-protection. In fact, I would advocate even further availability and education of contraceptives to a population.

If the majority of a society held that value, then I guess I would be ineffective. Contraception is more of a health issue but can be viewed as a moral issue by some. The society would reap the consequences, I suppose. Like Africa is doing now with HIV/AIDS. Of course there are other factors, but a social rejection of contraception is certainly part of it.

Or in the case of a single celled fertilized egg, even the capability to feel. There's no brain. No nervous system. Nothing but a complicated chemical reaction. At some point along the way those things develop.



So my other questions remain then, define potential. How much potential? With how much outside intervention?

Well, this is an interesting question. I agree that we need to decide when potential is important. I would certainly advocate benchmarks being established when a brain and nervous system have developed. That, to me, would certainly be 'just' at this point.