The premise that something doesn't have rights does not necessitate the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with killing it. Just because you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD.
it follows perfectly logically. If something has no right to life, then there is nothing wrong with taking its life. If something has no right to speech, then there is nothing wrong with keeping it from speaking. If something has no right to eat, then there is nothing wrong with depriving it of food.
"nothing wrong with" is not equal to "should." It is also not equal with "can." You CAN kill anything, technically. You SHOULD NOT kill anything with a right to life. I can't think of many situations where you SHOULD kill anything.
Both. In the case of one of them, it's called birth.
letting it get out on its own time is not the same thing as removing it.
after all, tapeworms eventually pass through on their own time too. Are you suggesting it should be left alone until it does?
So the past is more important than the future?
things that have happened and things that are happening are much more important than things which have not yet happened and might never happen. Things that have existed and things which do exist are much more important than things which do not yet or might not ever exist.
relationships which already exist are more important than relationships which do not and might not ever exist. Lives which already exist are more important than lives which do not and might not ever exist.
the list goes on.
I already did:
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
"something changed" could be anything.
in any case, just because something does happen doesn't mean it should.
I see. Why would you want to remove them?
well, you wouldn't, necessarily.
the point was, however, that those cells no longer share your DNA. Are they no longer officially part of your body? Would it be wrong to remove or kill them, even if they were causing you no harm?
Will the cancer become sentient if left alone? That's kind of an important difference.
again, though, this is only dealing with potentialities.
it might become sentient. Then agian, it might become deadly.
So, five weeks?
a functioning or active brain, which is what, 25 weeks?
Would you argue to kill an already born baby?
of course not.
since I can already see where this is going I'm going to answer your next question too.
I never said that the brain had to be fully developed before sentient thought could take place. I don't know when sentient thought takes place, which is why I wouldn't try to make the argument.
Indeed, and as I said, I don't want to trivialise the pain of pregnancy. But neither do I find it to be a justification for trivialising a fetus' existence.
well there's a reason the Bible describes childbirth as a curse from God.
There's plenty of nutrients for both mother and baby if the mother simply takes care of herself. But in circumstances where you CAN'T escape the room, it becomes okay to kill the puppy?
I can't think of too many situations when it would be okay to kill the puppy. Once again, the puppy is a sentient living being. The fetus is not. The allergic reaction to the puppy is not causing me anything close to what can be called suffering, it can't disable me, and it can't kill me.
now if it could cause me the same suffering as a pregnancy and potentially kill me, and I was completely trapped in the room for nine months, then sure, I might kill it. End the suffering, save myself.
In the past. A fetus possesses these properties in the future, even if neither possess them in the present.
you can't "possess these properties in the future" as the future hasn't happened yet. There are infinite number of things which could prevent a fetus from ever possessing those properties.
Not while they're a vegetable, they don't.
but they have.
The argument for abortion seems to include the premise that what the fetus WILL be in future, doesn't matter; at present it's just a lump of tissue that is relatively meaningless.
In this hypothetical scenario, the coma patient also is essentially an empty shell at present, incapable of sentience.
not currently possessing sentience, but it has possessed it in the past, and apparently will again in the future.
if someone leaves their house permanently, say if they die, it is okay to give that house to someone else. If they leave their house temporarily, say they're on vacation, it is not okay to give that hosue to someone else. If they have never had that house to begin with but might in the future, it is not their house and it is okay to give it to someone else.
All of the value attributed to him is in the past. I could argue that the future is worth more than the past, but whatever.
the past is set in stone, the future is not. We don't know what the future holds, not exactly.
You seem to be arguing that the coma patient's emotional investment in life and the emotional investment of others in him makes it immoral to kill him, when earlier I could've sworn you said:
putting people in emotional distress is not a good thing.