Total posts: 6,549
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Have another suggestion?
I suggested alternatives already, though I think all of them are arbitrary in different ways. As I've been saying from the start, I don't claim to know the answer.
That's exactly why it is the core. It is constant, which makes it a perfect measure of constant moral value. Attaching moral value to anything relative would render moral value relative. But we both agreed that "Moral value is granted at the point when one becomes a person". - meaning that every person has equal value throughout their lives.
...But that's exactly why it can't be the core. If DNA was the core of every person, then every single cell would be a person. You're right, that's not being relative, but in taking this stance, you're not clarifying what separates a human being from an organ, a dead human, or a cell. The problem is that DNA is continuously present. Why does it suddenly make a person at fertilization?
DNA is the only thing that:
- Can single-handedly identify a specific human s consistent throughout a human's entire life
- Dictates all characteristics of said human, including the mental abilities
- Is what starts a human's life at conception (a lone egg cell will NEVER become an adult)
- Keeps it alive by dictating its functions and processes
- When a cell gets a different DNA, we no longer consider it human (cancer for example)
Just because you have reasoning for why you hold your view doesn't make it non-arbitrary. I didn't say your choice was random, but if you look at the definition, it also says "personal whim." I would call this a personal whim. You view these aspects of DNA as sufficient to impart personhood. That's fine for you, but you're not giving objective reasons for why anyone else should see these things as indicative of personhood. When I see this list, I see you explaining its functionality. I could add to your list. I could give you a list just as long for why neurological activity is important. I could do the same for consciousness. The fact that you have a list of reasons isn't unique to your viewpoint. Why is everyone else wrong?
Certainly, DNA is the core of a person as explained above. Think about this:
- DNA is formed before the cell splits
- Before the cell splits, the cell is not a person (according to you)
- Therefore, DNA is the first part of a person
...Your conception of how this works is a bit inaccurate. DNA isn't formed before a cell splits. DNA replicates before a cell splits. "Formed" makes it sound like it's something new, but it's not.
I never said that the cell is not a person before it splits. Not in my argument, anywhere. Not sure why you'd make my argument out to be that arbitrary.
That last line is particularly striking. Why can't I argue that the nucleus, the place in which the DNA resides, is the first part of a person? Do you know whether each part of a cell was there before the DNA? It's a continuum, by the way: DNA doesn't exist and have the cell magically form around it. The cell replicates its DNA, replicates its structures, and partitions everything into two compartments or more. This statement doesn't even follow on from the previous two, so I don't know how you're concluding it.
why is its immutability a trait of personhood?Seriously? Are you suggesting that personhood is not immutable? Then moral value is not immutable, destroying the idea of condemning "immoral" actions.
You're not understanding my point. Your argument now is that personhood is immutable. Fine, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is the notion that, because DNA is immutable (and I disagree that it is - DNA is subject to mutation and modification), that the immutability of DNA is a trait of personhood. If I assume it's immutable, why does that make DNA a trait of personhood? Because they're both immutable? And, if so, is a person who clearly has suffered from mutations to their DNA no longer human?
Scientifically, in part, I suppose this is true.So you have conceded that anything with unique human DNA is a human.
Again, you're misreading me. I said that anything with human DNA is scientifically classified as human. Nothing about "unique" in there.
why this trait over any of the others?Because scientifically DNA is what defines a creature, period.
...I honestly have no idea where to begin with this. Do you... do you really think that there was no way to define separations between creatures before we discovered and could sequence DNA? There is no other way to define a creature than their DNA? I honestly can't tell if you're kidding because literally the entire field of cladistics would like a word. The fact that every organism has DNA doesn't mean it's the only way to define a creature. For that matter, if we did, most strains of E. coli would be distinct species, as there are some strains with over 50% differences in their genomes. There are other ways.
The nervous system is developed throughout your entire life, so even if it is a fundamental change it is not sufficient to give a nine-year-old child moral value as it has not yet been fully developed. DNA is fully functional after some seconds at most and will stay constant throughout your life. Also, DNA is the basis for neural systems, which makes it more fundamental.
Now, this is one of those moments when it seems like you're imposing an arbitrary distinction. A nervous system begins to function at a defined point in the womb. DNA also undergoes recombination at a specific point in development. Yes, a nervous system develops. So does DNA, if you account for mutations, incorporations of viral sequences, transposons, and other movable elements. As for returning to this argument about DNA bringing about neural systems, I've already responded to similar points elsewhere, though if we're going to play that game, the zygotic genome arises from the gametes. Doesn't that make them more fundamental than the DNA in the zygote? If being the basis for something else assigns a more fundamental nature to a given entity, that is infinitely regressive. There is always an earlier cause.
Your arguments about "uncertainty" will hit your own position much much more than mine.
...What are you talking about? Did you forget that my whole argument is based on uncertainty being reality? What position are you talking about that my uncertainty arguments hurt?
I will address them by simply saying: since DNA = your future traits, then a fully-fledged DNA, regardless of any alternative universes, is necessarily the start of being a human.
That's a dramatic oversimplification of the function of DNA, and absolutely ignores other factors that affect your future traits. And I'm not just talking about nature vs. nurture. If you want, I can get into epigenetics as well.
I will end with a syllogism:
- All persons equally human DNA - this is not shared with any other trait
- All persons have equal moral value
- DNA is the immutable trait on which to grant immutable moral value
The first line is outright false. Are you saying that there is literally nothing else all persons share? No singular protein? Not cell membranes or nuclei? Human cells do require things besides DNA to survive.
We already agreed on the second.
I've already discussed the third.
Tell me, do you deny that human DNA is what makes an individual cell, or a larger organism, human instead of lets say, chimpancee? If not, accept this biological fact.
Human DNA is not the sole factor that separates a human from a "chimpancee", so again, I'd say this is a vast oversimplification. Why is it the sole factor you're considering?
Now you can start your own argument. Tell me why a human and a person is not the same.
I've made my argument for why knowing what makes a human is not sufficient to explain what is the start of a new person. Several times. The argument is in this very post. I don't have anything to add.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Alright, I'll unvote for now.
Also... yeah, unfortunately strengthening my role wouldn't do you any good.
Created:
Posted in:
VTL Elm
For all that Speed has been behaving oddly, I still have a hard time seeing him as sus. However, with Oro turning up innocent, this is an easy choice. Don't think there's any chance we have a Sensor at this stage.
Created:
Posted in:
Anyway, back to work. I'll likely not hop back on for another couple of hours.
Created:
Posted in:
I didn't need to read much of this to get a sense that my initial feelings on the matter are shared.
I have a hard time understanding your argument for the next DP, Speed. The only way that it's true that we won't be able to get a lynch off on whomever we want is if attitudes stay exactly the same and no one's willing to change what they're doing right now. If that's a problem, then it's a problem whether we lynch Oro or Mikal. I don't see how lynching either one necessarily puts us in a better position. In general, this seems like an odd argument to me, and one I normally wouldn't expect to see from Speed. Not sure whether to read him as scum as a result, since he has a solid claim, but I'm a least a little uncertain now. Doesn't change my vote for this DP.
Created:
Posted in:
Guys, seriously, I'm at work and I can't focus on this. I'll come back to it when I get a break.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Again, not as certain as you are about Supa, though I agree he's less sus to me than is Mikal. That being said, if we both recognize that this is a choice between Oro and Mikal, then lynching Oro should at least be entirely reasonable for you to do at this stage. I'd absolutely consider the lynch on Mikal during the next DP. I suspect I will get some information from Supa, but even if I don't, all we'll have done is flipped the order. One mislynch won't kill us, and if it leads to a very clear target during the next DP, then I think it's worth the cost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Well, I'm not so convinced about Supa being town, though I largely agree with you that it's between Oro and Mikal. I'll almost certainly be on the lynch Mikal train if Oro flips town, but I'm also seeing this as an opportunity to verify Supa's role.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
...Wasn't a large part of why we're sus of Mikal in the first place the result of there being so many investigatory roles? Having a Sensor plus a Cop, Doc and Watcher seems like a lot to me. We may not have a Cop, but this lynch on Oro would tell us that. Meanwhile, if we can verify the Watcher, I'd have a much harder time believing that we have a Sensor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Thanks for clarifying. I already said it wouldn't verify your affiliation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I didn't say your role verified which affiliation you are. I said that we can verify that you are the Watcher. You could be a scum Watcher, even then. That's something I'm still considering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Firstly, I think we can both agree Supa is town, I'm advocating for Mikal's lynch, not Supa's. But secondly, my point is that Mikal has been scummier than Oro and also hasn't proven anything, thus him being scummier should make him the lynch
But that's the thing: I see Supa as verifiable. If we can verify his role, then we can also verify that Mikal is scum. I've got my misgivings about Mikal, but I at least see a way to narrow the field and be more certain of that lynch in the next DP. I can't see any way we gain by waiting with Oro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Maybe this is just me doing the whole WIFOM thing, but I'm more concerned about someone who has remained relatively quiet than I am about a potential scum slip. For that matter, while Oro hasn't made any slips, he also hasn't really had to (or been able to) prove anything. As I see it, Supa has the opportunity to vindicate himself in the next DP. That sets us up for a very clear and obvious lynch on Mikal because that sets him apart as the odd man out. Unless we assume that Supa is the Watcher and discovers something about Oro during the NP, we won't get additional information on Oro during this DP. We will get more information from Supa, and I can't see a way that that doesn't make our lynch target an easy choice in DP4.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I keep seeing assumptions baked into your answers, so I'll keep asking questions.
Why is DNA "undoubtedly the only thing that can be called "the core/base" of a human"? You assert that it is, but never explain why.
What about consciousness? A dead human has DNA, but not consciousness. A single skin cell has human DNA but not consciousness. Neither a dead human nor a skin cell have the capacity to gain consciousness.
The DNA is the first part of a person that is created
How do you know this? Aren't you arbitrarily selecting a trait and saying that it's first? Also, I dislike the word "created." DNA isn't created. It recombines between genetic information provided by the two gamete cells. It doesn't come from nothing.
The DNA is never changed on purpose after that moment
I don't understand this. If you mean that DNA is consistent for the individual after the point that recombination is finished, then I suppose you're right, but why is its immutability a trait of personhood?
DNA is how we identify a human - having only a few cells to judge from
Scientifically, in part, I suppose this is true. That doesn't answer my question, either, because a person and human are not necessarily the same.
Without DNA the zygote will never become an adult, not even a fetus
I could say the same thing about a wide variety of traits, both pre-zygotic and post-zygotic. If necessity of a trait is what ascribes personhood, then why this trait over any of the others?
DNA is how we divide animals into species and families
Again, human =/= person.
How much genetic information must be exchanged before one achieves personhood?All of it. A 1% difference in DNA decides whether something is a human rather than a chimpanzee. The only part of conception that is necessary is DNA exchange, and then pregnancy starts, and changes happen with rapid speed. Your argument is the classical "a point has 0 lengths, therefore we should ignore it" argument. It is like saying: why is pushing a rock the DE FACTO start of it's trip rolling down the mountain. It is a valid point until you apply common sense. You could put a different DNA into a zygote and you would get a completely different result - potentially even an animal. Your DNA is what defines your traits - like personality, mental abilities, and basically everything else.
For your argument to be true, there must be a singular moment when a zygote becomes a person. That moment can't be arbitrarily selected. So, if that moment is the moment when immediately after all genetic information is exchanged to fully form the new pair of chromosomes, then that at least narrows the window. Crossover happens when the two nuclei (that of the sperm and that of the ovum) fuse. By your argument, they aren't person when that fusion occurs. They also aren't human during any number of crossover events that is below the total number (so, if there would be 50 crossover events, at 49, they are not a person). I could still argue that even at that point, there are a series of moments when it comes to separating and segregating, but I'll assume that that is the moment.
But that's not the only problem here. What if there are no crossover events, then your scenario isn't possible, meaning the result isn't a person. A clone, for example, would not be a person under what you've defined here. When does a clone become a person?
What is the difference between 1 cell and 2, if they share the exact same properties and the exact same intentions: becoming an adult? Nothing but quantity. It is a small change, not a change in category. The same goes for the rest of growth, it's either a change in quantity or a minor change in quality.Think about height, is a person 2 times higher than me in another category, requiring a different value? What about intelligence, neural system, strength, age, and so forth. People are so different in regards to those "relative traits" that if we applied moral values based on them we could not justify giving everyone the same value.HOWEVER, all humans have equally human DNA. Therefore, if we grant moral value based on DNA we can be both ethical to everyone and still not intellectually inconsistent.
These examples give me some idea of what you see as a difference, but they're incomplete. Would you consider a working nervous system to be a small change? You're insinuating that it is, but you're not explaining why. If it goes from not working to working, why is that inconsequential? Why should the initiation of consciousness be considered a small change? I would say that, at least in some form, all humans have a functioning neural system. I would similarly say that, in some form, all humans have (or could gain/regain) consciousness. I wouldn't call those "relative traits". Why can't we place value on them, rather than on DNA? And, for that matter, why doesn't DNA extend that value far beyond humans? DNA applies to individual cells and organs. It applies to cells grown in animals for the purpose of xenotransplantation or research. It applies to sequences introduced into bacteria and other organisms for research purposes. You talk about the risk of not granting the same value to all persons, but isn't it just as risky to apply that value too broadly to obvious non-persons?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Like I said earlier, it's almost certainly either Mikal or Oro. If Oro flips town, I'd be more inclined to immediately sus Mikal than to sus Supa, simply because having a Cop, Doc and Sensor seems a lot less likely than Cop, Doc, Watcher just by virtue of how much it slants things in favor of town. Supa would have a chance to prove himself. If he does, then Mikal would be the lynch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I'll simplify my questions where I can:
Why is DNA/genetic exchange a fundamental change?
Why is DNA/genetic exchange the fundamental change that yields personhood, distinct from all others?
During what moment of genetic exchange does one become a person? How much genetic information must be exchanged before one achieves personhood?
How do we know when one achieves a change in category? What distinguishes that from "a small change within the current category"?
Created:
Posted in:
Alright, having had some time to think about it, I still think a lynch on Oro is the best path forward.
If Oro flips town Miller, we'll have confirmed that there must be a Cop, which would basically confirm that either Supa or Elm are scum. At that stage, we should have enough information to be able to make a call on Supa based on who he watches during this NP. Depending on how he chooses to reveal his results in the next DP, we either lynch him or Elm.
Created:
Posted in:
Alright, I've tried reading through everything to come to an opinion, and my brain is full of bees from both this and a long day. I'll revisit it in the morning, assuming that someone else doesn't decide to hammer.
Far as I'm concerned, since we've been through two DPs in the span of a couple of hours today, I think we can take a moment.
Created:
Posted in:
Far as I'm concerned, either Elm is scum, or Oro is scum. It's one or the other because having a Sensor, Doc, Watcher and Cop is far too much.
So, I'm willing to test that with a lynch on either one. My preference is Oro at the moment.
I'm still having trouble deciding whether Supa slipped up or not. I'd like to read back through what happened to get a clearer picture, but I'm exhausted and will likely do it in the morning. For now, I'll keep my focus on whether to lynch Elm or Oro this DP, since that's a cleaner choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
How did mafia not show up on supas report? Convienently ninjas? Waived? I ahve a harder time chewing that down than a sensor, especially consindering no cop. I say we get oro tomorrow, get supa today.
Be willing to consider it, but I'm waiting to hear back from MC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Yep. Don't expect you to provide anything more. Impossible to support.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Supa literally just changed his results after speed revealed, even though commonly people aren't seen visiting themselves. Supa is harder to believe because we have to buy that mafia waived or convienently ninja'd last night.No, we can literally get Chris to confirm if there was a mistake or not because this is colossal lol@Chris was there a mistake made with NP results?
I'll wait to see what Chris says before I go forward with any changes. Still think Oro is sus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I now see that he's Poland. I'm still wary of Elm's claim, though I have a harder time dismissing Speed's. At least theoretically (assuming protective roles didn't play a part), that means he was targeted by scum during the NP, though now he's run out of shots with his doc role. Still, if he stopped even 1 NK by doctoring himself, than it was worth it.
But yeah, in general, I'm wary of Oro's claim. His character seems overly safe, and his role hasn't got a shred of support to it. Maybe Pie was the cop, but odds aren't in favor of that. If scum is among the people who claimed after he was killed, they would have used his claim, and neither Poland nor Canada really fit a cop role. It's possible that scum had already claimed by then, but if they did, they would have claimed something safe. Oro fits that well enough.
VTL Oro
Created:
Posted in:
Well, I'm not the cop or the doc, so I can't help with that, Luna.
I have a hard time seeing GP as scum. He's normally all too willing to hop on a lynch of his fellow scum if they slip up. Doubt he would change up his tactics now, so if he was scum buddies with Mikal, this scenario wouldn't happen.
That doesn't man that Mikal isn't scum. It's possible that he has an even sensor role, but I have a somewhat difficult time believing that. I'm still pretty null on him behaviorally, though, so I can't say much there. Still, in general, I have a hard time seeing him as sus because of his claim. USSR would be a ballsy choice when there were still players who could CC him.
Based purely on claims, I also have a hard time sussing Supa and Speed. Both the US and France are similarly ballsy claims unless you know who's going to claim what, and since SirAnonymous didn't know to expect that I was Greece, they were either given a limited number of fake claims, or they were given none. Makes it hard to believe anyone would false claim these countries.
That leaves Reece, Luna and Oro. Mexico and Yugoslavia are both possible claims, and the fact that Greece is definitely in this gives them more than enough room to be true. However, they are both relatively safe claims to make. Canada would be slightly less sus of a claim, but it came as the last one, and could easily have been taken from Pie. So these 3 are in my POE pile, and I'd be willing to push any of them, but I'm leaning towards Oro right now.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh wait, I just saw the "even" night sensor. Let me give this some thought...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elminster
you can ask chris yourself. He takes actions through discord and dart. He clarified to me in a pmgranted its even night sensor anyway
That... doesn't really address anything I've said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
He wasn't online for the entirety of DP1
Yeah, I think that the claim is pretty clearly a scum slip then. Unless he contacted MC in private, I can't fathom why his night action wouldn't even have been considered in NP1.
Created:
Posted in:
As for lynching him now, I'd love to hop on that lynch, but I'd like to actually take some time this DP. We've rushed like hell through the last two, and getting some time to develop some suspicions seems warranted.
Created:
Posted in:
Alright, I've caught up.
First off, love the lack of an NK. Whoever is in a protective role, well done.
Second... yeah, I think Elm's claim of sensor is pretty bogus. If the person he replaced was the sensor, the NP wouldn't have ended that early. MC would have at least waited a bit on the night action, so I have a hard time believing he would have ended the NP that early if there was a sensor in play. Only way that would have happened is if Intelligence actively opted out beforehand. Can anyone verify if that happened in DP1?
Created:
/in. I'm good with any of them, but as it's getting too little love for such a great show, vote for FMA:B.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I agree, it's an interesting one. I'm trying to keep to the term "chromosome exchange" or "crossing over," though I know the scientific term is "homologous recombination." Don't want to make this too complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm familiar (I have my PhD in microbiology - took a lot of cell biology classes), though I think his point is that new DNA is being formed for the zygote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I will never say something bad about the Greeks ever again
Now, now, let's not get ahead of ourselves...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Greece wasn't a bad choice. Wouldn't have expected someone to have that character, either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
A. Why is fusion a fundamental change?
- Your DNA and subsequently your traits are decided at that moment - dependent on which combination is made
- It's the de facto start of pregnancy
To be clear, what you're saying is that DNA, a trait of human beings, is sufficient to award personhood by itself? Am I correct about this? Because you're saying that this fundamental change and no other is the start of personhood. So, that leads to a follow-up question: why DNA and no other trait? Are you arguing that every other trait not a fundamental change, or are you arguing that DNA is somehow the most important fundamental change?
As for being "the de facto start of pregnancy", I'll point you back to my previous argument. It's where we define the start of pregnancy, but that doesn't mean it's the start of a person. Simply because it's a starting point (the beginning of pregnancy) doesn't make it the starting point for a person.
B. Why is every step before fusion not a fundamental change?The creation of sperm and eggs is obviously fundamental steps - that's why they are not "part of a human" but rather carriers of DNA
If DNA is the start of a life, why are its purveyors not the starting point? Because the DNA hasn't yet formed the finished chromosomes found in a zygote? By that logic, it's not even the trait (DNA) that is the "fundamental change," but rather the process by which chromosomes exchange DNA. It's interesting that you talk about how absurd it is to use an arbitrary threshold of traits to establish what makes a person, yet this seems entirely arbitrary. What's so magical about chromosomes exchanging genetic information? Why is that more fundamental than the sequences themselves? And I disagree - the sperm and ovum are clearly part of a human. A fusion event absolutely requires them and them alone, therefore they are, by definition, part of a zygote and, therefore, part of a human.
C. Why does the first fundamental change have to be considered the start? Why can't subsequent steps be considered the initiating step to a new person?Your second argument is explained by the first statement: conception is a FUNDAMENTAL change, minor steps afterwards are not as important.
Why are you assuming that subsequent steps aren't important? I would say that the beginnings of neurological activity are pretty important fundamental change. I would say that independent viability is an important fundamental change. I wouldn't call either of them minor. Moreover, as I've argued before, conception isn't a single moment. It's a series of many moments. Which of those moments is the moment at which you become a person?
Remember, YOU were the one that said no fundamental changes happen after conception:I already provided my view: that there is no way to know the moment at which a fundamental change occurs.
...Did you read that sentence? Because I'm not arguing here or elsewhere that there are no fundamental changes after conception. I'm not even admitting that conception itself is a fundamental change. I'm arguing that we can't know the moment a fundamental change occurs that initiates a person. My argument doesn't concede your point.
So we both agree that ONE fundamental change is necessarily the moment of granting moral value.
Yes, on this much we agree. We just disagree as to whether that fundamental change is known.
My claim is simple:
- That point is a change in category, not simply a small change within the current category.
- A fundamental change is a change in category
- Therefore, moral value is granted in a fundamental change
I agree that it's simple. I also don't see it as conclusive. The whole "change in category" argument is subjective because it's unclear what definitively separates two categories in this case or any other, though even if I accepted that conception is a change in category, I wouldn't concede your argument. All it tells me is that there is a categorical difference between individual gametes and a zygote. However, you're missing a step in here, because I never agreed that simply having a fundamental change immediately grants an individual personhood. All that means is that they are distinct from the step that came before. Being distinct doesn't make one a person. I could argue that developing neurological activity is another fundamental change, and that that grants personhood, whereas the fundamental change to a zygote grants you nothing. Why am I wrong to say that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Now I'm happy I got lunatic to make me claim instead of WF lol
Really glad I had to work for the last hour. Would've claimed when prompted if I was on at the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
*shrug* guess we can, though we can always demand them at the start of the next DP.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, this is gonna be real easy guys because I can actually CC someone.
I'm Greece.
VTL SirAnonymous
Created:
Posted in:
Goddamn, that blew up fast. I was away for an hour! Let me catch up.
Created:
Posted in:
Hey all, just checking in. Work will keep me busy for a bit, so won't have much chance to say anything for a while.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Because fusion IS a fundamental change - so regardless of whether or not another fundamental change happens afterwards we can know that sperm is not even a mammal.
A. Why is fusion a fundamental change?
B. Why is every step before fusion not a fundamental change?
C. Why does the first fundamental change have to be considered the start? Why can't subsequent steps be considered the initiating step to a new person?
D. A sperm is a mammalian cell, therefore it is (technically) a mammal. It's not an independent mammal, but neither is a zygote.
You must admit that the only reason to dismiss this "fundamental change is a necessary" idea is that pro-choice has no sufficient alternative fundamental change.
I don't admit that. I think the pro-choice view is that other fundamental changes are what is necessary to form a person. That's part of the problem I have with your argument: you're saying that this fundamental change is the fundamental change that initiates a person. Why? Because it comes before other fundamental changes that could occupy that niche?
If we accept the obvious fundamental change that is fusion -- then there is no uncertainty, and we can coherently and non-arbitrarily apply equal moral value to everyone.
Very strongly disagree. Even if I go with you on fusion being an obvious fundamental change, that doesn't make it the obvious fundamental change that initiates a person. There is uncertainty there. You are being arbitrary by designating it as the obvious fundamental change that initiates a person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
If benefit of the doubt should direct our choices, then why should we assume the sperm cell, even just prior to fusion, is not worthy of personhood status? I agree that a sperm cell entirely in isolation is not a person, but the only way you can absolutely exclude it at every stage is to claim that it never achieves personhood up until the moment of fusion. I find that to be an unwarranted assertion.
Also, I generally don't like this type of argument because it basically says "if uncertain, backtrack to the point where uncertainty begins." Many would argue that uncertainty doesn't begin at fusion. I could change the first of those two scenarios to "No blastocyst is a person" and define the beginning of that uncertain period as being an embryo. Why is your range more valid than mine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I already provided my view: that there is no way to know the moment at which a fundamental change occurs. A fundamental change may happen, and I grant that it must occur, but I'm arguing that, at least currently, it is objectively unknown.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Answering with a dictionary definition doesn’t resolve this. Put it into context. If there is a core to what makes a person, then what composes that core, and how do you know that that is the core?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
How do we define a "fundamental change"? Any selection we make runs into the same problem: it's an arbitrary assignment of what is and is not "fundamental."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Sure, I'll start. I don't think it's possible to define a moment for two reasons.
One, biological examination of when a new person begins to exist is always going to yield an arbitrary selection. We select traits we believe make an individual human, and then say that said stage of development has met them. Like the definition of life, which at least theoretically excludes certain bacteria and all viruses, I believe bias plays a role in our understanding of what separates one group from another.
Two, societal decisions regarding what is and is not a person will also remain arbitrary and entirely subjective.
Created: