Yes, I think I understand it now, after reading your latest article and some other posts. Thanks.
I never intended to state exactly that. Oh well, at least now I don't. I suppose TheOtherDave covered the argument "less human => wrong" extensively in the other comment.
I like your reasoning. I think it clarified my outlook on the issue a lot. Thanks for taking time to over and over explain your view to a less rigorous thinker.
Those are certainly valid points you've just made. I think there's not much to defend from my original statement when you consider Matt Simpson's reply.
I might seem short-sighted but I see a huge difference between the generic "human lives" and "human dies". Of course I might reconsider when faced with the consequences of extending life of this exact human being, but generally, as a first approximation, I'm choosing his life over death. This is probably the point were we disagree. You refuse to provide any answer to this question without any further knowledge and I have a predefined answer which can be modified only in extreme cases.
Consider keeping a violent dictator of some small country in Africa alive. It's consequences are not only "one man stays alive" but most certainly also "many thousands of other men die". This might make me choose his death over life.
The worse part is I can't really say what happens after he dies (because maybe just some of his fellows take his place).
As of an example with an egg I have an easy answer. The probability of an egg becoming a human is much much lower without fertilization. Few hundreds eggs are being released throughout a woman's life but she has only few children, so following the logic of moral consequences being correlated to killing a certain percentage of a human being, killing an egg would be 100 times less bad than killing a fetus.
The latter argument seems to be from different topic. Every cell of my body is being replaced throughout a period of approximately 6 years. Does it mean I'm not myself anymore?
I reluctantly agree. It seems that I need a little bit more time to process it, but I suppose you're right.
How do I exactly kill someone's past experiences? He already had them! What I can deprive someone of is only the future, isn't it?
Ok. It finally seems that we were arguing over words only.
What I originally tried to do was exactly to create a utility function but I wrongly connected it to "being a human in x%". Since there's one big feature that distinguishes humans from other living things, namely thinking, I tried to connect the case of not-thinking but someday-will-be-thinking-if-we-let-him-grow fetus with not-thinking but someday-maybe-will-be-thinking-if-awakens coma patient and compare the probabilities of both somedays actually happening.
I suppose I simplified the situation too much.
I took it and threw in on the ground!