I should also mention that these are good examples of how a detail of the argument is singled out and treated out of context – thus missing the point.
When I say "Genetically distinct individual" it's not uncommon for someone to see the word "genetic" and then bring up the cases for twins – or in this case, clones. They then reduction-ad-absurdum it until it bears no resemblance to the original statement. A genetically distinct individual could also be stated as "Scientifically recognized separate organism in the initial stages of its development"; but then another word from that sentence gets isolated, and r.a.a'd (again missing the actual meaning of the sentence).
This is a case of making something far more complicated than it should be for purposes of rationalization.
An ingredient of something cannot EVER be considered as the WHOLE thing.
A brick can never be considered a building – it can be considered a POSSIBLE future ingredient of a building but nothing more.
However once an initial process has been COMPLETED and another process has been set in motion (as is the case of sex, or the manipulation of DNA to produce a fertilized sex cell with the same genetic package as someone else) you have a situation where another organism has begun the initial phase of it's growth. There is no more "potentially Johnny, Potentially Mary, Potentially Opus or Fred or Mary" – there is "Organism X".
For some reason the logic behind this is very easy to see when considering the check analogy or the rock to jewel analogy SEPARATE from the abortion issue. But when you bring it in to the abortion issue the rationalization engines go in hyper-drive – and the isolation of words out of context begins anew.
Let's revisit the rock to jewel analogy. You've got five rocks in front of you – they all possess the same properties as each other except for one, the one that will become a diamond within a few days.
For people who are pro-abortion to be consistent, they would need to say that ALL five of those stones are morally equivalent.
But if you were to ask any of them which they would value more they would almost certainly say the one that would change into a diamond.
Why is that? It's NOT that that other rock has better POTENTIAL – it is that that special rock IS in fact a diamond in the beginning phases of it's development, and that it's ability to express it's value (in the case of a diamond, being able to cut glass, it's rarity or beauty etc... in the case of a human being – sentience, the ability to communicate etc) will be there if it's allowed to continue it's growth.
Again – what has happened so many times on the OG or even here, is that someone would isolate a word (let's say "value" here) and go off on a tangent completely ignoring the actual statement itself – the message being that determining the value of something SOLELY by the properties it possesses at any exact moment is false and short sighted.
If you have a problem with the analogy, or the thrust of the argument – then tell me why those five rocks should be morally equivalent, or why that post-dated check should be considered the qualitative equivalent of random ink on paper. Or at least try to tell me which qualities conceptually or logically differ between the analogy and the unborn child that will become something that everyone values barring accidents or conscious intervention.