Actually Coma does not mean the individual is "brian dead". a Coma is usually onset by some type of damage to the brain. Those that enter into a coma may wake up and they may not. Who's to say he would not have woken up in the future and returned to a normal human being?

Given that fact Did I end a human life or not?

I'm about as far left as they come; but seeing the argument "A fetus is essentially a parasite" is biologically incorrect; and the only reason that this argument exists is as a method to attempt to dehumanized a developing fetus), so it seems like it is not immoral to kill it. In reality, a human fetus is genetically a human being, and the womb exists to hold the developing fetus until it is ready for birth. So, if aborting a fetus, you are in fact executing a human being.

This is the question that should be asked; what circumstances makes it ok to grant the execution of developing human being?

Arguments about how abortion prevents crime are philosophically and scientifically unfounded. How is this logically the case? Do you have statistics to support that the aborted children would have been criminals? It could also be argued using the same logic that infanticide would lower crime.

I think you've misunderstood me. I was saying exactly that, a comatose person is not necessarily brain dead (!= means not equals in lots of programming languages). If the person is not brain dead then I would clearly still consider them a person.

@Jumpin. A brain dead person is also biologically a human being. If all you requires is living cells with a unique set of human DNA then the bar for personhood is set rather low.

My point is that when a fetus is conceived it is considered human life.  It imediately begins to develop as a human. anyone saying that the clump of cells in the beginning or fetus is not a human life then they are denying the truth. A conceived fetus is not going to develop into a dog, a kangaroo, or algea. It becomes a human and as such develops as a human through the process in the womb where it is protected.

If then by this how is it different if I end an adult human life in a coma but alive and noone knows them from ending a human life in the womb before it is birthed?

I'd suggest reading freakanomics...

Outside that, all of them would have been criminals?

No.

That a higher percentage of them would be criminals then the average populace?

Yes.

Alive but in a coma is still a person. They have a consciousness, it just happens to not be running in standby mode at that point in time.

A fetus does not have a consciousness. It has not developed and in the early stages of pregnancy has not even started to develop yet.

I understand what you are trying to say and have me see your position on it. It may not have a concious in the beginning, but it is still human life with human DNA.

If I told you that I got a woman pregnant and said I was going to be the father of a mushroom plant once its born you would say, "you are mentally strange". Thats because you know that the moment I got a woman pregnant it means me and a woman have created a human life through my sperm and her egg. It may not have a concious in the beginning, but it quickly will within weeks and Inevitably will be birthed into the world as human.

All that to say....If its ok to end that human life before it develops a concious then it Must be ok to end that human life once it is more developed in the womb, or after its birthed, or heck when its a young child. Either way human life is being ended. Whether its before it develops a concious or after.

That's what the sceintific basis of personhood has been though, ever since Descartes helped in the sceintific revolution.

I'm not trying to claim that it is not human life. I'm claiming being human life does not automatically make it a person. When it becomes a person is highly debatable.

@Kasz. It's not scientific. Show me how you can deduce personhood through the scientific method.

defining personhood today is in debate as i see. Even if having a conscious defines a human as a person the human life that is developing in the womb will inevitably develop a conscious. It will inevitably be within the bounds of "personhood". a human life is human life whether its in its first stages in the womb or a 30 year old man. both have human DNA.

So if a fetus in the womb is a human being and will inevitably develop a conscious and be accepted into society as a "person" then what difference does it make if you end that life in the womb or as a 30 year old man?