Abortion arguments and a response

My brother was brain dead after a bad motorcycle accident.
The hospital turned off his life support because they said and I quote...

1. He is not aware of his own existence
2. He cannot sustain his own life
3. He is no longer capable of thought or reason

Why have you not visited the point I've made about requesting fathers to give vital organs to their children to keep them alive once out of the womb.

If the life of the fetus is more important than the life of the mother while in the womb...

and we are assuming this is so because we are requiring her to nourish it from her own body and risk her health for it

Why then wouldn't we require either parent to give up their life for their sick child after it is already born when no one is disputing rather or not it is a person?

If we say it’s because we do not require someone to give their life for another, or give parts of their body to help keep others alive then I would say by that same definition we should not force a women to carry to term an unwanted fetus.

Especially in the early stages when that fetus is not even aware of its own existence.

And, a person on a respirator again passes some of the tests!

A fetus passes none.
You can't speak of science and not first understand the logic behind it!

The evidence is!

A fetus cannot be proven to do any of the following!

1. Sustain its own life
2. aware of its existence

A person on a respirator is
Aware of their own existence

Some people in comas are
Able to sustain their own life even though they are not
Aware of their own existence

But if they become

1. unable to sustain their own life
2. unaware of their own existence

Then they cut off their life support essentially killing them as they did my brother!

So my next statement will simply be this. If the hospital could kill my brother whom I loved and wanted to keep alive, who had been previously defined a person, was definitely living and outside of his mothers womb since he was 26 years old

Why can't a woman abort her UNWANTED fetus that essentially cannot pass any of the tests they applied to my brother before removing him from his life support machines?

That is the foundation of my argument. Sorry if the concept is too complex for you to get!

Here are some links you should visit, before trying to assert an opinion about what the majority of the scientific community believes.

These articles represent the views of the majority of the scientific community.

I could post more, but I wont.

It is really a simple matter.
Abortion is already legal, so anyone wishing to change that status must prove to everyone else that abortion is wrong. Or, more directly that a fetus is a person. Not simply that it is made up of human genetic material.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/Abortion_Philosophy_Sc.html

http://www.scientists4pr.org/abortion1.htm

http://www.csis.org/tech/Biotech/nbpp/Seminar3Brief.htm

And, by the way.
Though a infant child cannot feed itself, it can sustain its own life.

By sustaining its own life, I mean that it can
breath, pump blood, digest, etc... on its own without assistance from outside sources or someone else’s body.

It is easy to find fault in my logic when you leave out the majority of the post and take what I’ve said out of context.
If you lack the capacity to understand the fundamental truths I figured you could discern without my explanation then I am truly unable to reason with you....

[URL= HTTP://UNITELATER.COM/S9Y/INDEX.PHP?/ARCHIVES/43-SNF-CONDENSED.HTML]EDITED FOR BREVITY[/URL]
At this point, he continues to try to reason with me. He asserts we ought apply the same standard to a brain dead person as an unborn child. He then argues that the unborn child is legally dead, and that’s why abortion is legal. A human being is defined as “a rational individual,” a fetus is a parasite, and is not a human being. I should read biology and genetic textbooks, and pray that in my next life I have a better brain.

I am sorry that this is so difficult for you to grasp.
If you were capable of analyzing anything then perhaps you would be qualified to make such a statement as
"As simple as it is, it is still logically flawed"

The only thing that is logically flawed around here is your use of the scientific method, and your definition of objectivity.

- the first rule of properly applying the scientific method is objectivity
- the 2nd is to make sure that your source has been independently confirmed...

I doubt this passes either of the above criteria...
Wikepedia:

[URL= HTTP://UNITELATER.COM/S9Y/INDEX.PHP?/ARCHIVES/43-SNF-CONDENSED.HTML]EDITED FOR BREVITY[/URL]
News Flash! [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page] Wikipedia [/url] is a Christian Creationist religious text! How DARE I quote a religious encyclopedia such as Wikipedia for a definition of human being. Threatening women with hell fire will not stop them from going overseas for abortions, a history book would show that morality cannot be imposed by force. Europe and Asia will cure cancer and AIDS through (embryonic) stem cell research, while America is in the dark ages of religious ignorance and filth.

We will never agree on this issue, but YOUR logic will always be flawed if you continue to refuse to view this in an objective manner. Quoting religious text and entries from a religious encyclopedia hardly qualifies as evidence in support of your argument.

This has been fun but since you've degenerated into lunacy and have begun to utilized questionable debate ethics I feel that you have now become “a waste” of my time.
Happy trails Christian soldier enlightenment awaits you in the REAL world.