toldailytopic: At what point does a person become a person?

[WizardofOz]

I see Silent Hunter is crying again.

 

[Lovejoy]

Twinning

I admit twinning seems to offer some challenges. However, I don't see how the potential for the production of a subsequent individual challenges the individuality of the original zygote? Monozygotic twinning appears to be a rare, spontaneous change in the zygote itself (we can replicate the event in an embryonic splitting form of cloning, and, in fact, the long culture of the cells in IVF has resulted in a greater number of artificial twins), meaning that one distinct individual becomes two distinct individual through the virtue of totipotency and the accident of blastocyst collapse. It is not an inevitable occurence in any zygote, but a freak occurence. It is a little like holding up a birth certificate on the fear of a statistically real possibility that the child was switched at birth.

I admit that the whole idea is challenging to my position of the soul beginning at conception. However, it only requires the change of the soul beginning at the beginning. As soon as the blastocyst became two distinct beings, at least one of them had just had a beginning, and thence a soul.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I see Silent Hunter is crying again.

. . . LOL . . . you're exactly 1/2 way to conceding defeat . . . your usual ad hominems . . . you're guaranteed to make the remaining concession . . . soon.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I admit twinning seems to offer some challenges. However, I don't see how the potential for the production of a subsequent individual challenges the individuality of the original zygote? Monozygotic twinning appears to be a rare, spontaneous change in the zygote itself (we can replicate the event in an embryonic splitting form of cloning, and, in fact, the long culture of the cells in IVF has resulted in a greater number of artificial twins), meaning that one distinct individual becomes two distinct individual through the virtue of totipotency and the accident of blastocyst collapse. It is not an inevitable occurence in any zygote, but a freak occurence. It is a little like holding up a birth certificate on the fear of a statistically real possibility that the child was switched at birth.

I admit that the whole idea is challenging to my position of the soul beginning at conception. However, it only requires the change of the soul beginning at the beginning. As soon as the blastocyst became two distinct beings, at least one of them had just had a beginning, and thence a soul.

. . . I can understand your position given your "Christian" perspective. It's like I told Wiz . . .

. . . Wouldn’t it be true that if the end of “personhood” is marked by a lack of breathing, heartbeat, and brain activity . . . that it is reasonable that we judge the beginning of “personhood” by these same criteria? I maintain all three are necessary criteria for "personhood" (as well as "human," "individual," and "living") . . . so . . . NOT a red herring (unlike your attempt to derail the discussion by bring in abortion and coma . . . which clearly ARE red herrings). I've "conceded" nothing in this regard . . . however . . . taking YOUR "argument" to it's "logical" conclusion (not that your "arguments" are ever "logical") . . . if a newly fertilized egg is a separate and unique "individual" then after "twinning" each "half" is not ONE separate, unique individual but is one-HALF of one individual . . . :crackup: A zygote is not and cannot be considered a "separate and unique" "person" until AFTER the possibility of twinning has passed :nono:.​

I don't expect you to agree . . .

Twins The twin birth rate in the United States is slightly above 32 twin live births per 1,000 live births.​

That's 3.2% of all births in the US are twins . . . not a huge number but not insignificant either.

 

[WizardofOz]

This doesn't make your "definition" wrong and mine right (or vise-versa) . . . they are both valid.

Yet you continue to rant.......it's your thing.

. . . LOL . . . you're exactly 1/2 way to conceding defeat . . . your usual ad hominems . . . you're guaranteed to make the remaining concession . . . soon.

Or about 1/2 way to accepting the stalemate, just as you are....see above.

 

[WizardofOz]

Silent Hunter please explain the difference between "personhood" and "human-being".

 

[Silent Hunter]

Yet you continue to rant.......it's your thing.

LOL . . . me? You don't read your posts with a very critical eye.

Silent Hunter please explain the difference between "personhood" and "human-being".

Have you been paying attention? . . . It can't be done in a way such that everyone would agree.

Person One of the central problems of metaphysics is what it is to be a person. The answer ought to account for central phenomena of personhood; rationality, command of language, self-consciousness, control or agency, and moral worth or title to respect, are amongst the salient characteristics that have been thought to distinguish persons from other forms of life. In Locke, ‘person’ is a forensic term, applying for moral reasons (‘to agents capable of a law, and happiness and misery’, Essay, ii. 27). A dualistic approach regards a person as an amalgam of an essentially separate mind and body, with the resulting problem of reinventing their unity in the living person (see mind-body problem, occasionalism). Monistic theories, such as that of Strawson's Individuals (1959), work with a primitive concept of a person, as some one thing logically capable of being described in bodily or mental terms. A popular modern analogy is with the compatible software and hardware descriptions of a computer (see functionalism).​ . . . the concept of a person is difficult to define in a way that is universally accepted, due to its historical and cultural variability and the controversies surrounding its use in some contexts.​

Person Unborn or unconscious What is a person

EDIT: Beginning of human personhood

Or about 1/2 way to accepting the stalemate, just as you are....see above.

. . . while I'm sure you are just now realizing this . . . it's something I've known for several threads now.

Agree to disagree?

:cheers:

I liked your responses in the Christian Evolutionists Please be consistent thread btw . . . good job (that Stripe . . . cracks me up).

 

[Lovejoy]

. . . I can understand your position given your "Christian" perspective.

Completely fair, and I extend the identical (though converse) courtesy.

That's 3.2% of all births in the US are twins . . . not a huge number but not insignificant either.

I believe that statistic contains all twins, including the more common fraternal (dizygotic, or two egg twins), which I don't believe is relevant to your point. That actual number of identical twins and triplets is assumed to be about .2 percent of the earths population.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Completely fair, and I extend the identical (though converse) courtesy.

:cheers:

I believe that statistic contains all twins, including the more common fraternal (dizygotic, or two egg twins), which I don't believe is relevant to your point. That actual number of identical twins and triplets is assumed to be about .2 percent of the earths population.

11,000,000 sets of twins isn't a small number . . . or is it :think: ?

 

[Lovejoy]

:cheers:

11,000,000 sets of twins isn't a small number . . . or is it :think: ?

Somewhere between Justin Bieber album sales and the audience for last years Super Bowl.