# Abortion is interrupting an imminent life, right? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2003, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757 "2003-11-12T03:20:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/81 "2003-11-14T15:09:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cheesesteak \* > \*\*I’m trying to understand what sort of cite you could possibly be looking for. Of course a zygote is living tissue with a unique, human, DNA pattern, we’re not all incredibly stupid here. > > We get it. It has human DNA. It is alive. It will become a person. Restating these facts is not going to change our views because _we already know them._ \*\* “Our views” are you speaking for all pro choice folks? :dubious: FWIW…there is a pretty fair divergence of opinions from pro choice folks out there concerning the biological status of the z/e/f …there are **plenty** of folks who claim that a zygote/embryo/fetus is NOT a life, is NOT a human organism (I’m not talking about the philosophical concept of “personhood” or “rights”…just the embryology). > [@](#): > > \*\* > The question is: When do you assign personal rights to it? When do you give it personhood? When do you restrict the rights of the mother in response to it’s rights? \*\* I believe that my earlier post (and especially the linked piece I included) did address just that. “Personhood” is a philosophical concept…not a medical one. It can be granted, for example, only to white folks…or only after “sentience” or “viability” or “exit through birth canal”". It’s an entirely arbitrary notion based on cultural beliefs. If you’re a black dude in the 1700s’…too bad for you. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![tomsalinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@tomsalinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomsalinsky)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/82 "2003-11-14T16:03:59Z")
Defining a concept as ‘philosophical’ doesn’t entitle you to render it irrelevant to the discussion Here’s some simple analysis. - Is a conceptus human? Evidently yes. You only need to look at the DNA to see that. - Is a conceptus alive? Evidently yes, at least in the same sense that trees, flowers, and a donated kidney are all ‘alive’. - Should we treat a conceptus with exactly the same degree of respect which we accord to a living human? If so - why? If not - why not? The last question is the one that counts and if it has a philosophical bent - so be it. It’s possible that this question can’t be addressed by examining the biological facts alone. I am interested in your responses, **beagledave** and **hauss**. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/83 "2003-11-14T16:27:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomsalinsky \* > \*\*Defining a concept as ‘philosophical’ doesn’t entitle you to render it irrelevant to the discussion \*\* Need some more straw? I never claimed that philosophcal concepts were “irrelevant”, I was (much like the article I linked to) attempting to differentiate between concepts that are essentially embryological and concepts that are essentially philosophical. I was doing so in response to earlier posts in this thread (and countless other threads) where folks have been claiming that 1. The z/e/f is not “alive” until some time after conception 2. The z/e/f is not “a life” until some time after conception 3. The z/e/f is not “human” until some time after conception. 4. The z/e/f is indistinguishable from kidney cells or tumor cells. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Here’s some simple analysis. > > - Is a conceptus human? Evidently yes. You only need to look at the DNA to see that. \*\* There are plenty of pro choice folks who have disagreed with that statement > [@](#): > > pb] > > - Is a conceptus alive? Evidently yes, at least in the same sense that trees, flowers, and a donated kidney are all ‘alive’. \*\* ditto above. I’ve had several posters tell me that since cessation of brain function is often used as a definition of “death”, that therefore the definition of “life” must be the **start** of brain function (as if there is some magic “start”…but thats a nother argument) I’ve senn posters claim that the z/e/f is not “alive” until it is birthed. Really. The embryological facts that you seem to claim as “givens”…are certainly not universal truths among pro choice folks by any stretch of the imagination. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > - Should we treat a conceptus with exactly the same degree of respect which we accord to a living human? If so - why? If not - why not? \*\* This may sound weasly, but I, Bob Cos, JThunder and others have spent plenty of posts outlining our answers to that exact question in previous threads. IMHO, Bob has done a much better job in articulating an answer than I have…so if I could humbly suggest a search or two > [@](#): > > \*\* > I am interested in your responses, **beagledave** and **hauss**. \*\* FWIW, I’m not interested in supporting hauss’s line off thinking that he/she has articulated here, not exactly strong points made IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![tomsalinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@tomsalinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomsalinsky)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/84 "2003-11-14T16:48:26Z")
I do understand that you are making a distinction betweens matters biological and matters philosophical. You have not, however addressed my point that the biological facts alone may be insufficient to make the ethical decision about whether or not to permit abortions. Most of the rest of your post seemed like smoke and mirrors to me, and ignored the clear distinction between “life” and “valuable human life” which I have been trying to maintain. Your assertion that brain function might be a necessary condition for being alive “in the same sense that trees, flowers, and a donated kidney are all ‘alive’” made me smile. And yes, your evasion of my key point does indeed sound weasily. If you have simple yes or no answer, and some kind of justification, then please provide it. There’s far too much fog and hand-waving to try and hunt for answers earlier in the thread. Here’s the question again for ease of reference: - Should we treat a conceptus with exactly the same degree of respect which we accord to a living human? If so - why? If not - why not? Cheers Tom ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/85 "2003-11-14T17:13:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomsalinsky \* > \*\*I do understand that you are making a distinction betweens matters biological and matters philosophical. \*\* Thanks 😉 > [@](#): > > \*\* > You have not, however addressed my point that the biological facts alone may be insufficient to make the ethical decision about whether or not to permit abortions. > > Most of the rest of your post seemed like smoke and mirrors to me, and ignored the clear distinction between “life” and “valuable human life” which I have been trying to maintain. \*\* Well your **first** post in this thread went to great lengths to distinguish between the terms “alive” and “a life” suggesting (by my reading) that there is no clear definition of when human life begins. (You went on to create hypothetical examples involving cloning and other manipulations to challenge the embryological assertion that human life begins at conception). **Now** you’re apparently saying that “when human life begins” is not the issue, but only when it becomes “valuable human life”. Right… > [@](#): > > \*\* > Your assertion that brain function might be a necessary condition for being alive “in the same sense that trees, flowers, and a donated kidney are all ‘alive’” made me smile. \*\* Uh hello? That was not **my** assertion, but the assertion of some other pro choice folks…but thanks for paying attention :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > \*\* > And yes, your evasion of my key point does indeed sound weasily. If you have simple yes or no answer, and some kind of justification, then please provide it. There’s far too much fog and hand-waving to try and hunt for answers earlier in the thread. \*\* Your initial post (and subsequent) posts seem quite different from your stated “key point” now focusing on “valuable human life” I don’t think i avoided your initial post at all. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Here’s the question again for ease of reference: > > - Should we treat a conceptus with exactly the same degree of respect which we accord to a living human? If so - why? If not - why not? \*\* I’ve already said that I (and other posters who did a much better job than me) **have** answered this post in previous threads (not this thread). It’s not a one sentence answer. it’s a topic that has a lot of give and take involving a whole host of related ideas…like “is there really such a thing as a “right to life” at any point in development…before or after birth” etc… I’m not especially interested in doing that in this thread now when I (and others, pro life and pro choice) have done it in other threads. Think I’m weasling?..sowwy. ---
**Author:** ![tomsalinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@tomsalinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomsalinsky)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/86 "2003-11-14T17:20:18Z")
Okay, when you want to answer the question, let me know. I’ve done some searching, but I haven’t been able to find that exact question, and therefore unsuprisingly I haven’t found an answer. If there’s a particularly useful thread, then as a new doper, I’d welcome a point in the right direction. A lot of the rest of your post just looked like deliberate misunderstanding to me but if other dopers have had equal trouble following my argument, I’ll try and put it in simple terms. Jeez. All that typing and quoting and you won’t even give me a yes or no. Here’s the question one more time. \*\*Should we treat a conceptus with exactly the same degree of respect which we accord to a living human? \*\* We can leave the whys till another day if you want. Cheers Tom ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/87 "2003-11-14T17:48:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomsalinsky \* > \*\* > A lot of the rest of your post just looked like deliberate misunderstanding to me but if other dopers have had equal trouble following my argument, I’ll try and put it in simple terms. \*\* Huh. Well I explained why I answered the way I did. I explained why your **initial** post seemed to be about the differnce between “being alive” and “a life” (Hell have you gone back and READ your damn post? Are you really trying to tell me that the whole long list of things like venus fly trap and chicken was **REALLY** asking about valuable human life? :dubious: One wonders who is being obtuse here… > [@](#): > > \*\* > Jeez. All that typing and quoting and you won’t even give me a yes or no. Here’s the question one more time. > > \*\*Should we treat a conceptus with exactly the same degree of respect which we accord to a living human? \*\* > > We can leave the whys till another day if you want. \*\* A zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, teenager and a Bear’s fan are all “living humans”. So the question, as framed, doesn’t seem to work. And the phrase “same degree of respect” is kind of vague. However…If your question is : Does a human z/e/f, newborn, teenager, adult have a general “right to life”, than my answer is yes. If your question is : Do a human z/e/f. newborn, teenager, adult all have “the same rights”. Then my answer is no. Newborns can’t vote, drink, drive cars etc… Tom \*\* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![tomsalinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@tomsalinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomsalinsky)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/88 "2003-11-14T18:01:13Z")
I’ve read my initial post. Have you? > [@](#): > > When we look at the world around us, we make a distinction between “composed of living organic tissue” and “independently living a unique and valuable life”. Meat-eaters make an emotive distinction between the life that the chicken roasting in the oven once had and the life that their pet dog currently enjoys. > > Clearly a zygote is life in the sense of “composed of living organic tissue” but it is equally clearly not life in the second sense. It is no more capable of living an independent life than the mother’s liver. Exactly when it becomes life in the second sense is effectively impossible to say, there being no obvious dividing line. Moving on… > [@](#): > > If your question is : Does a human z/e/f, newborn, teenager, adult have a general “right to life”, than my answer is yes. Excellent, thank you. I would like to test this position, if you don’t mind, and see if it can be supported logically. This will involved some “thought-experiments” which you are of course free to dismiss as “merely hypothetical”. But I am interested to see whether this position is logically coherent. If it is, it will stand up to a couple of thought experiments (and remember only six years ago, cloning was only a thought experiment). As you may have guessed, I believe that this position is not coherent, and I will explain how and why I believe that and also how and why I believe this position arises as we go. Ready? Can we establish a couple of “axioms”. I’m only interested in whether we both share these beliefs, I don’t want separate debates on each one (you can start new threads if you want). 1. Murder of another human is morally wrong 2. If a conceptus has the same “right to life” as a newborn / teenager / adult, then abortion is murder. Happy so far? More tomorrow. Cheers Tom ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/89 "2003-11-14T18:06:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomsalinsky \* > \*\* > I would like to test this position, if you don’t mind, and see if it can be supported logically. > Tom \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > We can leave the whys till another day if you want. \*\* :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: ---
**Author:** ![tomsalinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@tomsalinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomsalinsky)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/90 "2003-11-14T18:10:20Z")
> [@](#): > > We can leave the whys till another day if you want. > [@](#): > > More tomorrow. By the way. I note that I had to post my previous question three times before I had an answer. Will it be the same this time round? Shall I post it three times in a row to save time? Cheers Tom ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/91 "2003-11-14T18:32:36Z")
> [@](#): > > If you are pro-choice, why do you think it is ok to interrupt a natural life-producing process? When I pour disinfectant on a surface thought to be harboring coliform bacteria, I’m not only interrupting life-producing processes but killing life itself. I bet that’s not what you mean. You mean _human_ life, yes? > [@](#): > > Yeah, it may or may not be a life at a certain point in time, but why does that matter? You may or may not be killing a life, but you are killing an “imminent life”… a life which would be there in the future, except you had to disrupt it. Isn’t the only relevant information here: Kid should be here, kid is not, because of you? Seems like a silly way of looking at it. Lots of things would have happened but didn’t as a consequence of things I do or don’t do, but that doesn’t mean that there’s some kind of “ghost world” of unrealized possibilities looking sadly out of their limbo prison at the world in which they would have been made real if things had gone differently. Anyway, I’m not squeamish. We can call the embryo a “life”, we can even call it a “human life”, and we can stipulate that what we’re doing is killing that human life. It is not, however, a conscious and cognizant human life with history as well as potential. It exists at a point on the continuum between spermatozoa and ova, which are alive and human, and fully conscious individual with intentions and memories and beliefs and passions, which are persons as well. Quite aside from even that, we do kill actual adults who are persons and citizens and as human as you can get, for a handful of reasons we deem legitimate. Mostly I think that, in comparison, “because it’s growing inside of me and parasiting off my body and I don’t want it there” is an equally legitimate reason, and the only reason a pregnant person should need in order to obtain an abortion. Your task is not to convince folks like me that an embryo or fetus could be or already is alive, but rather to explain why the above-listed reason is not sufficient, or why someone other than the pregnant person should make that assessment. > [@](#): > > Additionally, aren’t you killing someone’s dad when you kill a fetus? That would be one incredibly precocious fetus, even if it were definitely male. No, it isn’t someone’s dad, nor is it the 58th President or the discoverer of the cure for cancer or the second coming of Jesus Christ. It isn’t predestined to do a damn thing. It, and all others of its ilk, have potential and possibilities. That’s all. Mother Nature erupts with an excessive cornucopia of potential and possibility and it would not be a tolerable world for any living thing if every possibility were realized. > [@](#): > > Aren’t you depriving a person of a chance at life Well, no. I’m depriving a chance to be a person from being a realized chance. There’s no person yet. > [@](#): > > just because you think it is warranted in your specific case? Good reason, ain’t it? Each specific case should be decided on its own merits by the appropriate person, that person being the person in whose body the embryo is growing. > [@](#): > > Do you think you are in a position to rule which is a better scenario, especially when a life is at stake and especially since you can’t see into the future to ascertain the better action? See above. The pregnant person is in the position to rule on this. > [@](#): > > These are some honest questions that I can’t seem to understand the answer to. Don’t know if I’ve helped much. ---
**Author:** ![hauss](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5fc32e/32.png) [@hauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hauss)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/92 "2003-11-14T19:08:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomsalinsky \* > \*\*Defining a concept as ‘philosophical’ doesn’t entitle you to render it irrelevant to the discussion > > Here’s some simple analysis. > > - Is a conceptus human? Evidently yes. You only need to look at the DNA to see that. > - Is a conceptus alive? Evidently yes, at least in the same sense that trees, flowers, and a donated kidney are all ‘alive’. > - Should we treat a conceptus with exactly the same degree of respect which we accord to a living human? If so - why? If not - why not? > > The last question is the one that counts and if it has a philosophical bent - so be it. It’s possible that this question can’t be addressed by examining the biological facts alone. > > I am interested in your responses, **beagledave** and **hauss**. \*\* To the last question: I think that we should treat it equally because it is “essentially” a human. For all intensive purposes, IMHO, it might as well be considered “personhood”, “unique life”, ect. because if all goes as planned, it will probably be one soon. (probably meaning “very good chance” and also “a chance which cannot be predicted” and thus defaulting to the safe, reasonable precaution of non-abortion.) That’s why there is no correct answer, because there can only be opinions here. At least that’s what I have been trying to establish in my last couple posts. Do you all at least agree with this? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/93 "2003-11-14T19:46:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hauss \* > \*\*That’s why there is no correct answer, because there can only be opinions here. At least that’s what I have been trying to establish in my last couple posts. Do you all at least agree with this? \*\* I think this is the truth. Even in beagledave’s link regarding when life begins, the author states “The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question.” One should have a decent knowledge of the biology first, then apply your own morals to that knowledge to decide where you stand. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/94 "2003-11-15T00:03:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hauss \* > \*\*So, you couldn’t think of any reason why I might say that? Given time, I could probably imagine a long list of possible reasons why you might say this, that or the other, but it would be better to know for sure. > [@](#): > > \*\*This is a perfect example of why I don’t need to address any other part of your post… because you obviously are not _thinking_ enough here, just the normal knee-jerk posting I see here much too often. > > See, when you see this forum from my POV (from the minority POV, but not counting this thread), the shortcomings of peoples reading-to-empathizing skills are overwhelmingly apparent. They’re all smart, but they just double-click a little too soon. > > But what do I know, I only have 100 posts… (get it?) \*\* You think you’re being picked on because you are relatively new here and/or because you hold a minority view? Not by me, I promise; if I’m picking on you at all (and I really wouldn’t like to hear it called that), it would be because, as I already said, your use of emotional language and phrase obscures the facts and pushes the wrong buttons in your opponents’ hearts and minds. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/95 "2003-11-15T01:09:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by margin \* > \*\*Uh, **Bob Cos** your post was also preceded by Haus’, where he talked about the ‘little guy’ as well. Abortion debating would be lifted up a notch if in fact every time some anti-abortion person started waxing poetic about the ‘little guy’ he also had to make reference to the mother so as to not leave her out of the conversation. If you read enough anti-choice discussion about the ‘baby’ you lose sight of the mother entirely, because she’s simply never mentioned. \*\* Uh, margin, your post was still a bullshit straw man. Restating the exact same position here (“Hey, really, you never mentioned the mother!”) is not a counter, it’s an affirmation of what I pointed out. If you state yet again that I did not mention the mother in the post in question, I’ll assume it is beyond your ability to understand a simple point of debate. ---
**Author:** ![Dinaroozie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Dinaroozie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinaroozie)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/96 "2003-11-15T01:57:06Z")
I’m wondering: What is it that everyone has against the taking of life? I should say with total clarity here that I’m **not** saying that taking away life is always acceptable behaviour. I just think that clarifying this point for people might make it easier to understand why people hold their opinions on this matter. Personally, I don’t believe in an afterlife of any particular type, so I figure that if someone wants to sneak up behind me as I type this post and plant a tomahawk in my brain, I’m pretty much okay with that. I mean, I’d like to think that a lot of people wouldn’t be (family, friends, etc), thus causing suffering and making it a fairly unacceptable act, but for me, it wouldn’t make much difference. I wouldn’t even know\*. This idea has a couple of consequences that people tend to find unpleasant, but that’s not really what we’re talking about anyway. I’m just saying that it’s kind of difficult to talk about what is right and wrong when we are dealing with things like abortion, and we don’t even know why people are against the taking of life under various circumstances. ~ Isaac - This is actually kind of a cool problem, last I heard known as ‘semi-decidable’. Like the computer halting problem. Obviously, as I finish this post, I know that I didn’t get my brain cut in half. But if I had, I wouldn’t know it. So in other words, I only know the answer to the question if it’s positive - otherwise, I have no idea. Kind of weird, but there you go. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/97 "2003-11-15T02:09:41Z")
> [@](#): > > This is the technical answer, but essentially the answer is that it is relevant, to some arbitrary degree. We humans have brains, not computer chips, so why not use your brain? That isn’t an answer, it’s a bold, unexplained assertion. You need to explain why it’s relevant. Why is killing a zygote any worse than simply not concieving a zygote, if we can agree that zygotes are not actually the things with interests, just one sufficient element on the PATH to such a being? In either case, you are preventing the being from coming into being, but in neither case are you actually doing anything TO an existing being. I don’t understand your computer chip/brain thing, unless it’s just some sort offhand, pointless insult. ---
**Author:** ![hauss](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5fc32e/32.png) [@hauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hauss)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/98 "2003-11-15T03:24:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*Why is killing a zygote any worse than simply not concieving a zygote, \*\* Answer to how killing a zypote is _different_ than not conceiving: Action vs. non-action Now, you decide whether the difference is better or worse. Boy, that computer chip comment really stumped some people… I feel special! (I don’t spoon feed… it keeps the posts to a manageable length and keeps the people who can’t understand concepts out of the conversation loop = a good thing.) ---
**Author:** ![hauss](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5fc32e/32.png) [@hauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hauss)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/99 "2003-11-15T04:05:51Z")
Just reflecting to myself: Man, I just don’t understand. Conception is everything that the concept of life entails. It’s life. Maybe a fetus not “living”, but it’s “life” in it’s purest form. It’s how every human begins it’s life, by being conceived. This is not an erroneous way to think about it. Who cares if it’s living or not. It’s life, it’s special, leave it alone (IMO of course). ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757/100 "2003-11-15T04:13:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dinaroozie \* > \*\*I’m wondering: What is it that everyone has against the taking of life? I should say with total clarity here that I’m **not** saying that taking away life is always acceptable behaviour. I just think that clarifying this point for people might make it easier to understand why people hold their opinions on this matter. > > Personally, I don’t believe in an afterlife of any particular type, so I figure that if someone wants to sneak up behind me as I type this post and plant a tomahawk in my brain, I’m pretty much okay with that. I mean, I’d like to think that a lot of people wouldn’t be (family, friends, etc), thus causing suffering and making it a fairly unacceptable act, but for me, it wouldn’t make much difference. I wouldn’t even know\*. This idea has a couple of consequences that people tend to find unpleasant, but that’s not really what we’re talking about anyway. I’m just saying that it’s kind of difficult to talk about what is right and wrong when we are dealing with things like abortion, and we don’t even know why people are against the taking of life under various circumstances. > > ~ Isaac > > - This is actually kind of a cool problem, last I heard known as ‘semi-decidable’. Like the computer halting problem. Obviously, as I finish this post, I know that I didn’t get my brain cut in half. But if I had, I wouldn’t know it. So in other words, I only know the answer to the question if it’s positive - otherwise, I have no idea. Kind of weird, but there you go. \*\* [You should have participated in this thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=205418&highlight=murder) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-is-interrupting-an-imminent-life-right/212757.md?page=6)