Penn Jillette made an interesting point on his video blog, searching for consistency within the abortion debate. His argument is that at the end of one's life, no brain activity means you can legally pull the plug on them, so shouldn't no brain activity of the unborn child mean they don't have human rights either? I think this argument of consistency could do well in the legislation world. But, here's my ethical problem with it. In the case of the dying patient on the gurney, if you KNEW that in a certain number of weeks their brain would start kicking again, there's no way you'd pull the plug, right?