Originally posted by lucifershammer
No it doesn't. Your question is analogous to my asking why I should be denied a share in Bill Gates' $42bn personal net worth.
For your question to make sense, you must show first that an unborn child (or any human being, in general) is entitled to make it to Heaven. Without doing that, talk of Heaven being "denied" is misleading.
Don't even try arguing economics with me, lu. I will smoke you faster than a priest at Boy Scouts.
The reason my question makes more sense is that, unlike with your naive Bill Gates analogy, these zygotes' souls can be admitted to heaven, increasing the happiness of these unfortunates, without diminishing the happiness of anyone else, including God. If you need it couched in economic terms, then your arrangement is not Pareto Efficient, and allowing zygotes into heaven is Pareto improving. If you cannot recognize the fundamental differences between stealing income from Bill Gates and permitting billions of souls who never had a shot at life to live in heaven then my esteem for your intellect was poorly allocated. Go read up on the first and second welfare theorems of economics.
Let me be extra clear. I'm not saying that these souls are entitled to heaven. I'm saying that given that their happiness can be increased to the highest possible level (heaven) without diminishing the happiness of anyone else, it makes the sense to allow them into heaven.
Of course, you are free to make up limbo states between heaven and hell if you just can't suffer the little children to come unto you.