>>68490215>we also assume that the presence of brainwaves is an indicator that something is alive and conscious No we don't. I didn't read the rest of your post, because this is wrong. The presence of brain waves is an indicator that a person might be able to recover or be resuscitated, but any attempt to twist that into "therefore if a fetus has brain waves it should be considered a living person under the law, and abortion be murder, etc." that I think the rest of your post goes into isn't logical.
It's the same nonsense as the 'fetal heartbeat', where people twist the "a heartbeat means a person is still alive" concept into "the rhythmic pulsing of neurons (and maybe even some muscle fibers) in a fetus, even though there's not an actual heart structure yet and it's not pumping any blood, means that the fetus should be considered a living person under the law, and abortion be murder, etc." silliness. Hell, to be clear, even if there WAS a fully-formed heart pumping the fetus's own blood, abortion STILL wouldn't be murder.
Equating abortion with murder is equating getting denied for a job with getting fired. They're not the same, you can't just apply one to the other, and you logically know this, despite how many emotional appeals you make otherwise.
