I Guess No One Cares.

So you're going to enter them into a lottery of hazard and risk, because the non-existent consciousness was being tortured by deprivation, just like all other unconscious matter in the universe? The low suicide rate is explained by the fact that suicide is very strongly and forcefully proscribed (to the point of being de facto illegal), only around 1 attempt in 20 is successful; and not committing suicide is not a positive endorsement that they were benefitted by being brought into existence. I haven't committed suicide, or even attempted, in my 34 years, and I do not endorse my parents' actions in forcing me to live this life, and burdening me with all of these costs and risks, without my consent. Many people live their lives in abject misery and live broken lives of misfortune and pain, but do not commit suicide, because life forms as advanced as humans didn't manage to evolve to be this way without a hardwired aversion to death, even at the cost of severe suffering. 

Shakespeare and cures for cancer don't have any intrinsic value to the universe, nor do they have any value to species other than humans. The life of a cockroach has more value to other cockroaches than any human's life does.

I never suggested smothering infants with a pillow, or endorsed the idea of doing so. I stated that I wouldn't be opposed to peacefully euthanising infants shortly after birth, which would not involve anything so crude and unpleasant as holding a pillow over their face. You're lying about what I stated to try and defend nonsensical Catholic dogma.

And whose 'ethics' prevail here? The ones whom you agree with? One man's ethics is another man's immorality, and nothing is set in stone in matters such as these.

Go back and re-read my post. All human beings don't 'write Shakespeare or find a cure for cancer'--in fact, almost none do. Are those human beings' lives worth less in your opinion because of that fact, than the infinitesimal few who do? If I wanted to stretch a point to its reductio ad absurdum, I could take your statement to mean just that, just as you were taking my observation upon the roach to an equally ridiculous extreme. My point was that, in terms of behavioral ethics toward their offspring, the cockroach might very well be found to operate on a higher plane than many a human parent would appear to.

In other words, the fertilized egg and sperm/egg will not grow to be an independently viable life form on their own. You have to artificially manipulate them. Putting an egg in an incubator is an artificial manipulation.
So no, I do not see a significant ethical difference.

He didn't.
But I'm not surprised that people opposed to abortion have to lie in order to make a point.

Tell that to the Indian subcontinent.  Humans are today 'omnivores' by choice, not need. Consumption of animal flesh isn't required to sustain life. So there goes Overriding Reason Number One.

Shooting your dog in the head because you can't afford to feed him may indeed be 'selfish' and unethical if other alternatives exist. In most cases, an individual who can't afford to pay to maintain a pet's life has the option of surrendering the pet to a facility which may be able to adopt it out to another, more able owner, or who may just as probably euthanize it once it's been in the facility beyond a certain span, as it's economically impossible for most shelters to keep all animals brought to it alive indefinitely. Presumably it's okay if someone else metaphorically 'shoots him in the head', as long as it isn't you (and as long as you don't have to think about it). And if you lived far away from any such facility and knew your dog was doomed to a slow and horrible death from starvation, then it might indeed appear to be the more 'ethical choice' for you to end his suffering quickly and as painlessly as possible, i.e. the bullet to the head. So much for Overriding Reason Number Two. Ethics can indeed be situational, as much as your more adamantine sorts might be opposed to that reality.

That pretty much takes care of Overriding Reason Number Three, also known as the "Killing a fetus because you can't afford it is unethical. There are other options" argument. Theoretically, and in a perfect world, this might be so, though, because this is not a perfect world, and we dwell in actuality, not theory, you cannot really prove this. Many couples (including, I might add, some Catholics) choose to abort fetal life because they simply and in actuality cannot afford to extend an already over-extended familial economic burden. In many of these instances, they already subscribe to religious/philosophical systems that strongly disfavor or adamantly disallow the use of contraceptives as well, deeming any device or method intended to prevent the conjunction of sperm and egg as an abortofacient. What would you have them do? Abstain from sex altogether? Would you agree to that? And are you aware of the rates of adoption of nonwhite infants and/or infants with chronic disabilities and health problems? They're abysmal. So what 'other option' remains? Keeping children in state-run institutions until they reach the age of majority, just so abortion can be completely prevented? Are you willing to take on the tax burden this would ensue? Didn't think so. And are you really so deluded as to honestly believe that the private sector could or would care for each child brought into the world as a result of a prevented abortion, in such a manner as to give that child a proper and nurturing upbringing? 

Or don't you really care, as long as that part of the equation doesn't rest directly in your lap and you can go to bed each night peaceful in the knowledge that no fetus will ever be removed from a uterus before maturation ever, ever again? Which kind of leads us back to ORR #2 (Shooting The Dog In The Head): basically, it's okay as long as the 'problem' is handled in a manner that doesn't really require you to grimy your intellect by actually having to think about it.