Holy full rahtard

It's not about the future it's about the present.  There's no guarantee of what will happen.  If that was the case everyone wouldn't be alive because we will all die eventually.  Life is mainly judged on if it can survive.  If you pulled a baby out of the womb it would die.   It's not alive.   If you unplug the vegetable it would also die.  So not alive either. 

Human life also requires sentience which a fetus and brain dead person lacks.

someone just went full retard
this is what happens when someone visits the "satanic temple"
just sick definitely not a family person

I'm starting to think his new "steady girlfriend" takes PayPal $$ and may not even live in Hawaii.

God help us if he procreates.

It's not about the future it's about the present.  There's no guarantee of what will happen.  If that was the case everyone wouldn't be alive because we will all die eventually.  Life is mainly judged on if it can survive.  If you pulled a baby out of the womb it would die.   It's not alive.   If you unplug the vegetable it would also die.  So not alive either. 

Human life also requires sentience which a fetus and brain dead person lacks.

I see you've read ...

someone just went full retard
this is what happens when someone visits the "satanic temple"
just sick definitely not a family person

So let’s say that you had an accident at the range and bullet goes through your brain. Your on life support (brain dead) but doctor says you can fully recover in 40 weeks. Since it’s all about the present your family could pull the plug on you right? Got it.

If only the government could step in on your behalf.

I see you've read Dr. Peter Singer.  It was required reading at my university Philosophy class.
I assume it was required at your secular school?  His teaching are popular with Democrats.
 

Slightly contradictory.  If you are brain dead then you can't recover.   I wouldn't want the government to step in.  Its between my family and my will.  If I lose my consciousness and sentience I am dead.  Living as a human has 2 main requirements.  Sentience and being able to survive (within reason).  Lack both and you are not alive.  A fetus lacks both.  A brain dead coma patient lacks both.  If you are somehow able to recover you don't lack both.  Hopefully this explains my thought process better.  An artificial heart etc, would be considered being able to survive, as other things like medicine etc. What makes humans unique and different than every other flesh blob on this planet is our ability to think and have a sense of self.

Your the one contradicting yourself here.

Slightly contradictory.  If you are brain dead then you can't recover.   

Twenty-one-year-old Zack Dunlap from Oklahoma appeared on NBC's Today Show
in 2008 to tell an incredible story of hearing a physician telling his parents that a PET
scan confirmed that he was brain dead after a catastrophic brain injury. While he was
being prepared for organ donation, however, he moved his arm purposely in response
to stimuli. Dunlap recovered, went to a rehabilitation hospital, and ultimately went home
48 days later, very much alive.[1]

.....

Not sick and I plan to procreate.  Will teach them to be open minded and freedom based and all about religious lies.

One more time, I have to ask:  Where did you get your medical degree?

Another 'Brain Dead' Patient Wakes Up Just in Timehttps://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/902143

So, your first point is moot, because it is 100% FAKE NEWS and a lie.

Second point is that the coma patient achieved sentience before the event that cased "brain death."  The unborn child is developing into a sentient being.  They both happen to be something else at the present time.

If it is ethical to pull the plug on a coma patient who has little to no chance of regaining consciousness, how is it also ethical to abort a child that will, in all estimates, become conscious/sentient?  You're arguing for the killing of a human being based on FUTURE PROGNOSIS -- one is positive, the other negative.  Can't use future sentience to argue for or against one case and not use the same criteria to argue for or against another case.

You're consistent in your inconsistency.

Your the one contradicting yourself here.

Your the one that keeps comparing brain dead coma patients to a fetus. Yet a fetus will develop sentience (your word not mine) so by your own definition a fetus is not the same as a brain dead person.

I think its ethical,  99+% chance they are dead.  I would ask that my plug be pulled.  You can't get everything correct always.  We do capital punishment on criminals and we are never 100% sure.  Are you against that too?  We bomb terrorists and do many life and death decisions based on a very good chance.

I think its ethical,  99+% chance they are dead.  I would ask that my plug be pulled.  You can't get everything correct always.  We do capital punishment on criminals and we are never 100% sure.  Are you against that too?  We bomb terrorists and do many life and death decisions based on a very good chance.