So an Abortion limiting bill passed in my state, Texas

[dsgrue3]

Kasz216 said:

dsgrue3 said:

Kasz216 said:

... it's illogical to compare a fetus with a persistant vegetative state.

The point of the comparison is they both lack conscious brain activity. 

Until conscious brain activity occurs, both parties - the fetus and vegetable - are dead.

No life has been suspended if there is no conscious brain activity. The only difference between states is that the vegetable once had life.

 

Well that depends on your definition of consious.

If you mean self consiousness.  That doesn't happen until  like 2 years old.  So logically and scientifically speaking people should be for "postnatal abortions".  As is brought up by the Jounral of Medical Ethics.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

 

I mean, if your for that fine.  If not, your being pretty illogical.

Outside that.  I feel like you didn't read what i wrote.  Afterall there are plenty of people that go into vegtative states that aren't what we consider "Vegatitive".  People who go into comas and are expected to wake up.  Should it be perfectly legal to take these people off life support, even when the doctors KNOW they will wake up?

Once again, if this is your primary line of reasoning.  You should instead be comapring the fetus to someone in a vegative state that doctors know they will recover from.  (Because... the fetus will "recover" from it.)

If you inject someone with medicine that puts them in a coma, then kill them... are you not guilty of murder then?

 

I'm Pro Choice myself.  Just that line of reasoning is lazy, awful and illogical.

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.