kenrockthefirst:

Even when we're talking about a just fertilized egg, we're talking about a whole, separate, unique set of chromosomes that barring natural or "artificial" intervention will become a whole, separate, unique human being.

I agree. The embryo will become a 'whole, separate, unique human being', but it isn't yet.

kenrockthefirst:

That set of chromosomes doesn't have to wait nine months to become a whole, separate, unique human being. 26 weeks should do it, and medical technology is obviously improving all the time the chances a fetus has outside the womb. So what we're talking about from a time perspective - 40 weeks versus 26 weeks or whatever - is simply a difference in degree, not principle.

I never said that it had to be a nine month gestation, although I can see how it could be interpreted that way. And in fact, this enters a moral gray area for me as well. My personal feelings, and I believe there is wide agreement on this, is that an abortion should only be performed this late if there are health problems for the fetus and/or the mother.

kenrockthefirst:

You can say that abortion is a horrendous, terrible decision that's a tragedy in every case but sometimes understandable, and possibly get some traction that way. But utilitarian arguments such as those you've tried to make here are both morally bankrupt as well as logically flawed.

Morally bankrupt is your opinion. As for logically flawed, I fail to see the flaws. Your arguments apply only to late term abortions - what about the first two trimesters? And as for your argument that your children are as dependent on you as they were during gestation, I have to disagree. My son is 14 months old, and he is perfectly capable of surviving on his own. Not totally on his own, mind you, but any number of people other than me can (and do) easily provide for him. This wasn't the case 1 1/2 - 2 years ago.

Also, you've addressed only the first half of my post. Are you conceding that the second half makes sense?