THBT: Personhood begins at conception [for @Intelligence_06]
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,740
RESOLUTION:
THBT: Personhood begins at conception.
BURDEN OF PROOF:
BoP is shared equally. Pro argues that in human development, personhood begins at conception in the majority of cases. Con argues that personhood begins at some other point in the majority of cases.
DEFINITIONS:
Conception is “the fusion of gametes to give rise to a human zygote”
Moral consideration is “consideration with regards to actions that may affect an individual.”
Personhood is “the point at which a human being should be given moral consideration.”
RULES:
1. All specifications presented in the description are binding to both participants.
2. Only Intelligence_06 may accept.
- An infant born in a coma with no past conscious experiences is a person, and killing them is wrong.
- Pigs are smarter than newborns, but killing a newborn is more evil than killing a pig. Eating the flesh of babies is significantly more problematic than eating bacon.
- Newborns are dependent on their parents and on society, but killing them is wrong.
- Killing a child is as bad as killing an adult, if not worse. Thus, it is clear that the potential to live a long life is morally significant, while a human’s level of biological development is not.
- Missed opportunities: The comatose individual could have lived a long life
- Lack of choice: No choice was given to the comatose individual
- Total harm/gain from said action
- How said action is performed
- Context surrounding said action
Personhood begins the moment after conception is complete, but not within the timeframe in which conception is still considered persisting.
Personhood begins at conception.
- She left the house at some point in the night, but the speaker cannot narrow it down any further during the conception of this sentence.
- She was leaving the house the entire night, for some reason.
Personhood begins at some unspecified interval within the process of conception.
- Conception is the fusion of a sperm cell and an egg cell. Because speed caps out at c(lightspeed), the process whatsoever cannot be done infinitely fast and thus conception is not a momentary process but occupies a period of time.
- Until the conception process is to its completion, that is, the sperm DNA completely fusing with the egg, no human is created or have its creation set off, as it is just a sperm attached to an egg like my head is attached to the pillow in the night. I never fuse with my pillow, obviously.
- In this case, since no change in quality have been induced, then to consider a starting-to-concept-but-did-not-complete set of gametes as a "person" would be no different than to consider an egg laying in a random woman's body and a random sperm in a random man's egg to be a "person", for the entire difference between the two would be location.
- According to Pro's perspective, sperm + egg = person
- Since two gametes that started but not finished conception would be literally no different from "sperm + egg". They have not yet created anything new until conception is finished.
- Is the war taking place when the enemy has surrenderred?
- Are you still enjoying the meal when the plate is precisely empty?
- Are you still drinking beer when the glass is drunk empty and dried?
- What about the statement "The habitability of a building starts at construction"?
- A zygote is formed only when conception is complete, in which, it is outside the boundary for "at conception".
- Before that, cells are alive at cellular level, but nothing new is created. The system is not alive in any other level unlike a person, and thus should not be considered as one.
- At conception, there is not an unborn child, there is hardly any organism so to speak. Regardless of whether it deserves moral consideration, it is not a human individual.
- Because of the potential possibility of the eventual outcome to be a non-human, we cannot say, that for any case of conception, that the end result "will" be a human, and to say that it "will be" or "is" a human individual would be oversimplifying and dishonest, which is not what we want here.
- Therefore, "at conception", there is no personhood, and possibly not even after conception is completed. I have disproven the topic statement and welcome Savant to make any remarks on it.
- The vast scientific consensus is that life begins at conception.
- “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.” (Carlson, Bruce M.)
- “At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.” (Considine, Douglas)
- “The day begins at sunrise.”
- “We began writing at the stroke of noon.”
- “The teacher began toward the door at the sound of the principal’s footsteps.”
- “I began vomiting at the sight of the severed head.”
- During the conception process, nothing that could be labeled as a human is created; one arguably is only created once it is no longer within the conception process, that is the end of it.
- “The day begins at sunrise.”
- “We began writing at the stroke of noon.”
- “The teacher began toward the door at the sound of the principal’s footsteps.”
- “I began vomiting at the sight of the severed head.”
- The habitability of a building begins at construction
- The 2nd movement of the opera begins at the 1st movement
- Momentary peace begins at the war
- College begins at high school (note: this is supposed to mock a general statement rather than to appeal to dual-enrollment)
- Vacation begins at a school day (Even if the vacation only officially starts in 0:00 next day)
- The morning routine begins at sleeping
- In respect to conception, this is a special case
- OR the topic statement hinges on a common phrase that is not actually technically correct
- The conflation of "conception" with the end of said process which is not even a part of the process is not a sign that the two are equivalent ideas even though they are used as so with popularity.
- If "begins at" can be used in respect to timespans rather than just moments in time generally, then the results would be hilarious.
- Unless in respect to conception is a special case with proof that it is one, it will be treated as nothing other than a conflation with a related yet distinct idea aforementioned.
- I reiterate,
- A zygote is formed only when conception is complete, in which, it is outside the boundary for "at conception".
- Before that, cells are alive at cellular level, but nothing new is created. The system is not alive in any other level unlike a person, and thus should not be considered as one.
- At conception, there is not an unborn child, there is hardly any organism so to speak. Regardless of whether it deserves moral consideration, it is not a human individual.
- Therefore, "at conception", there is no personhood.
- The vast scientific consensus is that life begins at conception.
- “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.” (Carlson, Bruce M.)
- At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun. (Considine, Douglas)
A better analogy would be that “the 2nd movement begins at the signal from the conductor"A better analogy would be that “peace begins at the surrender agreement”A better analogy would be that “college eligibility begins at graduation”A better analogy would be that “vacation begins at the ringing of the dismissal bell”A better analogy would be “my habit of doing morning routines started with a video I saw from X youtuber”
- at a signal
- at an agreement
- at the first moment one is deemed to have graduated(which happens sometime WITHIN the graduation ceremony)
- at the first moment a bell rung
- at some time in a youtube video(IN the video)
Again, a moment is a time period, but plenty of people perceive conception as a single moment as well. For example, these five sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Just because something is a process doesn’t mean it can’t happen in a moment. Con only seems concerned with whether things are “perceived” as moments (which is a hard to define time length anyway), and conception fits the bill.
Recall what I said in R2: We say that X “begins at” Y all the time when Y is the event that precedes and causes X. Conception is specifically defined by its resulting in a human zygote, and some other biological process that doesn’t result in a human zygote isn’t conception. Each of Con’s examples is a false equivalence, as I will argue below.
If I say that a developer gave rise to a new website on Monday (which is a period of time), then we would say that this website began on Monday.
If house-creation is defined as “the process that results in a house,” then we could say that a house begins at house-creation. It’s just a truism.
- Essentially, all cases of "begins at" making sense involves the first frame of the time set before the "begins at" being representative of the time set after the "begins at" actually being in the time set after the "begins at". Pro has not proven a counterexample in the case on conception, and Pro's attempt to vindicate the whole class has so far been unsuccessful. Hint: Trying to prove general cases would lead to absurdity like "peace begins at war" and all Pro has done is just give examples that seems to not touch this problem when in reality it doesn't, when in reality that is the problem at burden. All cases that meets such problems can be pointed out with ease, as shown above.
- Pro admits conception is a process that takes time.
- Since the representative time coordinate, as regarded by mass use, of "conception" is not within the timeframe where conception actually is active as a process, the expression stays in a sort that makes no sense. Personhood is absent within the entire duration of conception, which is what we are concerned with. The end.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
I'll work on it this weekend.
--- RFD---
To start, I find that definition of personhood makes this debate a truism...
I completely disagree with pro about the concession, as much as he is right that it's a semantic kritik. Said kritik feels like it's beating a dead horse by the end. Other voters may feel different, but for me it's just too nitpicky over the smallest thing without justification for why that's necessary. Plus it seemed to be missing things, like pointing out that there are infinite moments in every second. The other tactic was fun, but ultimately distracted.
---
Harm Principle:
We consider if it violates the HP.
Humans as Persons:
Biologists mostly agree that conception is the earliest point we can call it a person.
Future Like Ours:
See HP.
Comparison to Infanticide:
HP with an expansion of pathos.
---
"At":
Conception is a period of time, to which we should wait until it's finished to consider it a person.
Pro counters that this is essentially a concession, then leans on his earlier appeal to authority.
Con reexplains and elaborates (I found his lists to be too far apart in timing to be easily applicable, but of course pro shot them down).
What is Conception?:
An extension to At, with his own words in block quote right after a source was named...
Pro misses the opportunity.
Genetic Change:
"in the wild west of DArt, you gotta toot all of your guns" lol
Oh gosh, morally a mutated offspring of humans shouldn't be considered human (my mind goes to gingers).
Pro argues they're still human regardless of how ugly they are (I know, regardless of ANY reason they might be unable to mate with humans), and calls that non-humans are off topic.
Conclusions:
I love the presence of this. I would just deepen the indenting on connected points.
I’ll vote in the next few days. Curious what tactic con will use to handle those definitions.
Plz vote if you get the chance!
No.
So this entire debate is about what "at" means?
Its interesting how I can have view that unborn has personhood while at the same time I can be pro-abortion.
As I expected, you have 0 idea what I am cooking this time.
Let me know if this works for you. I kept the resolution the same but specified some things in the description. Just want to make sure we are on the same page with regard to semantics.