The natural/artificial distinction doesn't mean a whole lot.
Yes it does? It means a whole lot. Not the least of which is because one is dying of ailments and unlikely to survive, while the other is a developing life being denied very good odds of reaching self sufficiency in a virtually guaranteed time frame.
adjl posted...
Heck, if you want to be really pedantic, human reproduction is already technically artificial, since the only criterion necessary for calling an object or process artificial is that humans make/perform it.
What the actual fuck. This is patently false. Biological processes are considered natural. Human involvement doesn't suddenly make human reproduction artificial. Artificiality requires that a thing be unnatural. We even have terms to address artificial forms of reproduction, such as artificial insemination. And artificial reproduction.
Natural human reproduction isn't artificial.
adjl posted...
The only salient difference is that you can't take prior wishes into account when determining what sort of life the person in question would rather miss out on than survive to see.
With this much edge in your attitude, I'm rather surprised you bother to go on living. I imagine every orphan and child abuse victim that went on to live happy lives would want to have words with you. The child you seem to think would prefer to die probably would too, if it lived long enough to have any input.
"You can't speak for yourself yet, so we're just going to assume you'd rather dodge this shitty world that we're choosing to deliberately survive in ourselves. Bye."
Not every fetus makes it to birth. You're also using wrong terms like child. A fetus can't be a child by definition. ---