> For what is the moral difference (from a consequentialist, utilitarian standpoint) between taking previously conscious humans with minimal brain function off of life support and an abortion of a non-sentient and non-conscious fetus? There is non, except for the fact that in the latter, a human being is forced to act as life support.
There is one obvious difference: in one case, the person's consciousness has been irreversibly destroyed. In the other case, the person's consciousness is imminent.
From a utilitarian standpoint, the fetus has a considerable upside while the brain dead patient does not.
Utilitarianism is largely unconvincing anyway, IMO. A much more convincing pro-abortion argument is how the unwanted fetus infringes on the rights of the mother.
There is one obvious difference: in one case, the person's consciousness has been irreversibly destroyed. In the other case, the person's consciousness is imminent.
From a utilitarian standpoint, the fetus has a considerable upside while the brain dead patient does not.
Utilitarianism is largely unconvincing anyway, IMO. A much more convincing pro-abortion argument is how the unwanted fetus infringes on the rights of the mother.