Okay, my question wasn't very clear - what is the moral significance of an entity being a separate embodied individual compared with its being non-separate (from its mother, I presume)?
These questions are of practical significance because they relate to 'life or death' decisions about embryos...
How important a consideration do you think autonomy is or ought to be in decisions about how we should treat an entity with the potential to become a human being/a human being?
So one reason to ponder infanticide is in its relation to abortion and late termination of pregnancy. Ultimately, the key question is: at what point does an entity (with the potential to become a person) become a person, and why? And following on from that, what are the implications for our...
Hmm, so you don't have a citation you can point to. I can just as easily give you counter-examples of Protestants I have known who are quite happy with evolution, and it then becomes your experience and word against mine.
So, yes, wrt both 1 and 2, this relates to the bigger question of whether it is better to exist or not. One could argue that if one doesn't exist, there is no suffering, and since existence involves (sometimes great) suffering, it is better not to exist. This is the question you pose, right...
If you look past the headlines, you'll see that the greatest support is only for certain aspects of Sharia - typically relating to family law - rather than the whole shebang - there is markedly less support for the criminal punishments mandated by Sharia, for example. And a typical view is that...
You said: I give you one thing, one problem in this type of relation can separate families by ongoing feud and enmity
The same can be said of non-incestuous sexual relations/marriage.
At what point does an entity become a citizen/person within a jurisdiction? As an embryo? A foetus? At the point it becomes viable outside the womb? Upon birth?