Again, you're still missing the point. It isn't a like-for-like comparison. It's solely about brain activity. Are they capable of responding to stimuli? If so, they are alive. If not, they are dead. Cannot kill someone who is dead. That includes vegetables.

It's incredibly simple; shouldn't take this long to understand.

So in otherwords your stance is, if someone is in a vegetative state and likely is going to wake up in 7 days, but can not currently respond to stimuli, in your mind it's fine to cause their death, since they are not alive.

Correct?

Which again... My point.

Vegetative states are often not permanent.

Usually people will wake up from them within a month.

Hell people in a persistant vegetative states actually do react to stimuli.

They cough, sneeze, move their arms and legs.  React to touch, sounds, heat.

Haven't had time to read all the posts but just a couple of thoughts. People sometimes like to try to make abortion simple when it simply isn't. It's not simply murder and it's not simply a women's rights to do what she likes with her body regardless of cost.

Until 21-22 weeks a baby is not considered a viable human being, they are reliant on the mother's body for support so they are, if you will, a 'potential' being. This viability has been a moving target over the past decades due to advances in neonatal care. We have late term abortions still legal in some countries up to about 28 weeks as that was where viability started not much more than about 2 decades ago and in some cases the law simply hasn't kept pace with medical advances.

That aside when considering abortion, let's say for a potentially fatal congenital anomaly, with risk of materno/foetal mortality, a mother may be faced with a decision to abort her unborn child. Imagine several possible outcomes; the mother carries the baby to term and dies in child birth, the mother carries the baby to term and suffers a life of hardship as she struggles to deal with her child's high risk of mortality, the mother carries the baby to term and gives the baby up for adoption, or the mother aborts the baby early in pregnancy.

The first scenario if imposed on the women, you have afforded the unborn child a greater right to life than the mother. In the second scenario, again if imposed, you have given greater weight to the right of the unborn child to life than you have to the right of the mother to live the remainder of her life in psychological good health. The third scenario is potentially the same for slightly different reasons and in the fourth you have placed the mother's right to life above that of the unborn child. The fact is you can not afford an unborn child full right to life without also limiting the mother's own rights to some extent, and this is the crux of the issue. I'm not talking here about abortion for contraception's sake rather a scenario where we might imagine an abortion being 'justifiable'.

In most places in the world this has resulted in the idea that while a foetus has a right to life, it's rights are somewhat less than the rights of the mother as it is still considered a 'potential' being. That is to say, until viability is reached, the mother's rights hold more weight than the rights of the child. Once the child reaches a viable age and therefore is no longer just a potential being, the risk to the mother's life would generally have to be very significant in order to be able to justify abortion. This is why in many countries where abortion is legal it is generally legal up to certain gestational age but procurement of abortion after a defined cutoff, is generally much more difficult.

While the equation is relatively simple  in a high-risk pregnancy i.e. the right to life of the foetus versus the right to life of the mother, it paved the way for the concept of a 'justifiable' abortion. Once that happened, as is often the case in law, the concept of right to life began to expand to include right to quality of life, right to physical health, right to psychological health. That is to say if the continuation of a pregnancy places the woman's life, quality of life or physical or psychological health at risk then are we giving undue weight to the rights of the 'potential' being versus the actual being?

That's where things get very murky.

I thought I made it perfectly clear, but I guess some people struggle with understanding the difference between a confined analysis and an extrapolation to real world scenarios.

This is not meant to be a comprehensive position on how to address vegetative states. It's simply addressing the similarity of the electrocortical activity between someone in a vegetative state and a fetus around 20 weeks. 

You're making it into something it isn't.

I've made no comments about specific scenarios because I wasn't addressing it initially, nor do I care to.

Either case, as a confined analysis or an extrapolation... it's simply wrong.

The fact that you aren't willing to make a comment on the specific scenario pretty much accurately shows that.  (Not to mention the fact that Khan specifically was using sentience as his barometer, so the coma question is a completely accurate question... he was directly saying it was the same... because of the lack of sentience.   Reread what Khan said.)

I mean, maybe it just stems from an ignorance of what a vegatative state is... but while a vegetative state is worse then a coma.  It's actually a state where someone has partially recovered from a coma.  Someone in a vegatative state is more "alive" then someone in a coma.

The reason doctors generally think it's "ethical" to take someone off life support in a vegatative state isn't because they don't have brain functions.  It's because the chances of them regaining brain functions are so so slim (Past a month) that it's deemed a lost cost. 

The main problem with hypercharged issues like this is most people don't actually think about them beyond a currsory initial thought and what they're told.

Saying something is wrong doesn't make it so and you've failed to provide a modicum of evidence for your position. If you can't see that, I feel very sorry for you.

Am I Khan? No, check the name again. If you want to address him, do so, but you are addressing me so confine your replies to MY statements and mine alone.

What I have said is that a fetus at 20 weeks and someone in a vegetative state have nearly identical brain function and lack of response to external stimuli. You've attempted (quite falsely) on numerous occasions to strawman my position into an ethical analysis when it isn't. 

But since you can't seem to differentiate (even after I informed you that you are failing hard to understand my position) I will make a statement about it. Someone in a vegetative state is dead. There really isn't any argument you can make to me that will hold firm due to lack of cognitive abilities under such circumstances. It's an empty shell; a wad of electrochemical nonsense. Certainly you have to consider that this person was alive and has the potential to regain life, so suspending their chance can be premature. As you admitted, if it becomes PVS there is little hesitation about pulling their life support. 

This is different from a fetus in regard to life because it never had life in the first place. 

Do you understand yet or do I need to keep repeating myself?

Well to start with.  I responded to Khan.  Which you then responded

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5574853

So... from the very basic procedural flow of converation.   You are wrong.

Outside that.  You have a faulty belief about what a Persistant Vegatative State is.   Like I mentioned earlier in this thread.  People in a Persistant Vegetative State do react to stimuli.  Hold their hand and they will grip it.  Put heat on them, and they will turn away.  They're sensory brainwaves are still working.

Fetus actually don't get these systems until week 24... and they don't actually fire up until later.... and they don't fire up all the way. 

So in that case, fetus are behind PSV... far long then would think.

They don't fire up all the way until birth.   Which doesn't actually mean a specific gestation period but actually means birth since the womb supresses full consiousness basically keeping the fetus in a permanent state of sleep.

The next level of "stimulatori consiousness" is the "slow brain wave" phase.  Which doesn't occur until months after birth... and again... a child is no more advanced then an animal cognitivly until over a year after birth.

Well.  That is of course... in relation to your "average" person in a vegetative state anyway.   Aproximitly 20% of people diagnosed  in "Vegetative States" actually maintain full "brain activity".  They just don't use the advanced tests to check really... and it's mostly a quality of life issue. 

So again... based on your specific position you outlined.  You should be for "abortion" at least up to the 4 month old stage.

Now if you want to talk preemption... that comes with it's own issues... since it gives the moral greenlight to "Designer babies". even when it comes to the most abhorent practices like performing procedures that your child doesn't become gay.  (Though portrayed as genetic mostly, chances are it'd be a hormone pill the mother takes.)

"Most PVS patients are unresponsive to external stimuli and their conditions are associated with different levels of consciousness."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state

Again, saying I'm wrong has no bearing upon reality. And, hey, guess what? You were wrong. Definitively and absolutely, objectively, and quantifiably.

Not sure what you were rambling about with fetuses. Not that you know anything about that either. 

I know what I responded to. You said it was ILLOGICAL to compare the states. It isn't and I've proven my case. 

End of.

Btw, what are your credentials? Oh right, none. I've yet to see any sources backing anything that you say. Can't find any? Lulz

You do reaize what you posted specifically says that people in a PVS do react to stimuli.  The sentece you quoted specifically states that. 

and yes... it is still illogical to compare the states.

As for sources.

Do you have scientific journal access?

The fetus stuff is pretty easy to come across.  The vegtative stuff generally requires scientific journal access.

Though hell.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/09September/Pages/Learning-in-a-vegetative-state.aspx

I definitely give Texas props for this. Way to go against the grain, against the endless march of 'progress'. (see Myth of Progress)