Since when did classification of species depend on appearances? Doesn't it depend solely on genetics? It wasn't ever going to happen that the "Tree Man" was going to be reclassified from Homo Sapien to Quercus robur.
Of course the species classification depends on genetics. So what? My point, which you have entrely ignored, is that you are claiming the status of "child" for something you wouldn't even recognise as a child yourself.
And as for asking me whether I believe there should be a funeral for all the fertilised eggs that abort during pregnancy. My sister had a miscarriage very very early on in pregnancy. There were no visible signs of her being pregnant, nor of the embryo. But she didn't treat it like she just had constipation, she treated it as if her child had just been killed. She was struck with grief for weeks afterwards. So if you think that in the early stages of pregnancy nobody has feelings attached to this "collection of cells" as you like to call it, then think again. And I do not believe that a funeral is a moral requirement. It is a tradition, not an issue of morality.
Ok, so you have quoted
one example. Now, what about all the examples where the woman in question does not feel this way?
The law allows a child to be aborted up to 24 weeks into the pregnancy. I showed you a picture of a foetus that had been aborted at 24 weeks and you said it was not relevant. Can you explain yourself?
Sure. I was talking about early term abortion at the time, not late term abortion. Therefore you posting that picture was irrelevant.
And I take issue with this. See the picture of the aborted foetus at 24 weeks, although you said it was not relevant in which case you have contradicted yourself in one of 2 places, you choose which.
No, I have not contradicted myself at all. I was saying that the 24 week old foetus is irrelevant to the question of early term abortion. I would have though that was blindingly bloody obvious.