Abortion

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 133
#91
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
First of all, most animals are included in my moral framework, I am an ethical vegan; second off suffering is not only the physical experience but the mental experience of it happening;it is the epigenome of a person changing in response to external stimuli and activating certain genes and deactivating others - in other words, the mental component - so you are incorrect in regards to the nature of suffering and pain - but yes it is to avoid, generally, "death" more accurately it is to avoid suffering. If there was no harm associated with death then death would not be bad. Suffering is what makes death bad. Whether that suffering be external, internal, to the individual, or to others. Furthermore, fetus are incapable of feeling pain physically or mentally.
Topic's author
#92
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Suffering" is just some chemical reactions. "Death" is a much larger and impactful set of chemical reactions. I can't see why you put "suffering" as being worse than death.
Topic's author
#93
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
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


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


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.

Remember, YOU were the one that said:
I already provided my view: that there is no way to know the moment at which a fundamental change occurs.

I replied by saying that we know of at least one fundamental change, conception.

Then you said:
 I think the pro-choice view is that other fundamental changes are what is necessary to form a person.

So we both agree that a fundamental change is necessarily the moment of granting moral value.

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

To argue that we should ignore the defining feature of "category", "fundamental changes",  in favour of arbitrary thresholds of traits is absurd.
We know that a fundamental change is necessary.
But we can discuss WHICH fundamental change initiates moral value.
#94
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,820
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@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?


#95
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
Because death is just a form of suffering,  but with death there is no more suffering, therefore something which perpetuates life and suffering is worse than something which only kills, being tortured for example. An appeal to ignorance is not a proper argument.
#96
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
Also... DNA is replicated everytime in interphase during S phase of the cell cycle...
#97
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,820
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@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. 
#98
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
Like crossing over in meiosis 1? That's an interesting choice.
#99
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,820
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@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.
Topic's author
#100
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because death is just a form of suffering
No, it's not - it's way more.

Death: The action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism. [https://www.lexico.com/definition/death]



Because death is just a form of suffering,  but with death there is no more suffering, therefore something which perpetuates life and suffering is worse than something which only kills, being tortured for example.
What do you even mean. Would you rather be tortured for one hour and live or die right away instead of 50 years in the future? Your statement ignores reality.
#101
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
Your framing is a strawman, correctly asked: Would you rather be tortured for 50 years or die right now; the answer, to me anyways - is clearly the former; but "would you rathers" do not matter in ethics. What matters is what is logically obligated; dying prevents individuals from having more pleasure, yes, but it also ends all suffering, that is why it is sometimes referred to as a mercy, whereas in lots of circumstances - pleasure is muted and you continue suffering.
#102
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,820
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@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"?

Topic's author
#103
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame

Why is DNA/genetic exchange a fundamental change
Fundamental: Forming a necessary base or core; of central importance. [https://www.lexico.com/definition/fundamental]
DNA is undoubtedly the only thing that can be called "the core/base" of a human. The cells themselves are generic animal cells.



Why is DNA/genetic exchange the fundamental change that yields personhood, distinct from all others?
Because:
  • The DNA is the first part of a person that is created
  • The DNA is never changed on purpose after that moment
  • DNA is how we identify a human - having only a few cells to judge from
  • Without DNA the zygote will never become an adult, not even a fetus
  • DNA is how we divide animals into species and families


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.



How do we know when one achieves a change in category? What distinguishes that from "a small change within the current category"?
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.
Topic's author
#104
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
So killing is never bad unless you inflict pain. Could I kill an unconscious person if the death would be painless?



Would you rather be tortured for 50 years or die right now
So I could kill you if doing it painlessly. I would prevent your future joy but also the pain.
#105
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,820
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@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?




#106
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
Pain and suffering do not equate. And I said, somebody who is capable of suffering. You can still suffer while sleeping or in a coma. And that is only cogent if there is a situation which stops pleasure but continues suffering, my base life does not meet that criteria - it is also my preference but my preference does not matter in regards to an ethical question.
Topic's author
#107
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
"would you rathers" do not matter in ethics.
I suspect that ethics is precisely where such a theorem would be useful and justified.



Pain and suffering do not equate. 
You can still suffer while sleeping or in a coma
my base life does not meet that criteria
I am afraid your definition of "suffering" is unorthodox. Take a look at the official definition from oxford.

Suffering: The state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship. [https://www.lexico.com/definition/suffering]


You are setting up a quite relative standard for morality. In it, murder is only "sometimes" immoral. you are removing the foundation of ethics: objectivity, by making morality based on a calculation of pain and suffering vs pleasure and well-being. Your theory would never work in the real world. I cannot murder you and tell the judge that the act was justified because your life was miserable. We need precise and coherent ethics, one that can create objective standards and laws.


#108
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
Wrong, you completely forgot long term suffering versus pleasure, you also completely ignored my rebuttal.

And I said, somebody who is capable of suffering. You can still suffer while sleeping or in a coma. And that is only cogent if there is a situation which stops pleasure but continues suffering, my base life does not meet that criteria
You even quoted it, but you never actually addressed it.

Suffering is the ability to feel pain.... at the very least, pain and feeling pain are distinct - just as the taste of something and tasting something are different, subtly but still different. Fetuses cannot feel pain before 27 weeks, they cannot even comprehend pain, and that is why they cannot suffer. But not just phyiscal pain, emotional pain, which birthed babies can. 
Topic's author
#109
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
Why is DNA "undoubtedly the only thing that can be called "the core/base" of a human"?
Have another suggestion?


DNA isn't created
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. 



How do you know this? Aren't you arbitrarily selecting a trait and saying that it's first?
No it's not. 

Arbitrary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. 


This is the reasoning behind my choice.

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)


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
It is not random to chose DNA as the first trait of a person, all traits are based on the DNA - making it the core.





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.


Scientifically, in part, I suppose this is true. 
So you have conceded that anything with unique human DNA is a human.


why this trait over any of the others?
Because scientifically DNA is what defines a creature, period. 

Each of these things — along with every other organism on Earth — contains the molecular instructions for life, called deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA.[https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-is-a-structure-that-encodes-biological-6493050/]



For your argument to be true, there must be a singular moment when a zygote becomes a person.
If by "singular moment" you meant: a point in time with 0 length, then no - by definition. If you meant: "incredible short period with an OBVIOUS START AND END",  then yes.

Would you consider a working nervous system to be a small change?
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.


Your arguments about "uncertainty" will hit your own position much much more than mine. 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.



I will end with a syllogism:
  1. All persons equally human DNA - this is not shared with any other trait
  2. All persons have equal moral value
  3. DNA is the immutable trait on which to grant immutable moral value



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 =/= person.
I have succesfully shown why one becomes human at conception.

Now you can start your own argument. Tell me why a human and a person is not the same.
#110
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
Tell me why a human and a person is not the same.
That depends on whether you are talking legally or biologically. Legally, it is confusing because of the conflicting statutes of 1 USC §8 and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004.
Biologically, human and person are both defined, even prior to conception, due to the living status of both male and female gametes in their respective hosts' bodies, the which characteristics, even though just half the full DNA helix. As RNA gametes, they still only define a human creature, and half personhood. They achieve full personhood upon conception, because nothing changes the characteristics of humanity before or after birth. And since 1 USC 8 defines a person as "born alive, regardless of stage of development," we cannot define when that really occurs, yet, because medical advances are allowing earlier stages of development that are still born alive. It's a moving target.
#111
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,820
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@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:
  1. All persons equally human DNA - this is not shared with any other trait
  2. All persons have equal moral value
  3. 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.

#112
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,820
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
I feel like the best way to understand this is for me to break down your argument to its various pieces.

What you're arguing is that DNA is what imparts humanity. To be more specific, your argument is that the formation of novel DNA is what makes a person. That step somehow imparts personhood, ergo one becomes a person when one's DNA finishes the process of homologous recombination and forms a zygote with this novel genome.

You provide 4 reasons for why this is true.

First, you argue that DNA is immutable. In a sense, you are correct: our DNA is largely maintained from the moment it finishes recombining in the zygote to the ends of our lives. However, it's that "largely" part that I take issue with. Our genomes are built with telomeres on the ends that get eaten away over the course of our lives, meaning that our genomes are getting shorter. DNA viruses will, in many cases, incorporate into the genomes of many cells in our bodies. If you stayed out in the sun too long, you could mutate a variety of genomes on your epidermis. So, your argument would have to morph: it's not that DNA as a whole has to remain the same, but some unknown number of core sequences must be maintained. And this is where we get into arbitrary selection. Why that specific number of sequences, why those sequences in particular, why ignore others, and if a human is born without even one of them, are they human?

Second, you argue that DNA underpins everything we are. This is an outdated view of how DNA works that assumes that DNA alone is responsible for everything we are. Setting aside issues of nature vs. nurture, there's a variety of molecular biological issues that affect how DNA is expressed and, thus, affect what we are. Epigenetics are probably the best known of the bunch, but if you want to get into it, I can tell you all about the various proteins, ligands, carbohydrates and all manner of other molecular signals that play a role in what we are. Why are they not worthy of this designation?

Third, you argue that DNA is the first step for a human. I've already pointed out that DNA doesn't exist in a vacuum, and therefore that arguing that it is the "first step" is a bit like arguing that flint is the first step in starting a fire. Flint is a part of the equation, it's required to get to the end point of making a fire, but it's far from the only thing required to make that fire happen, and if it's all you had, you'd be out of luck. For that matter, if we're concerned about what the first step in a human is, then this is an arbitrary choice. Looking back to my analogy, if we're really concerned about encompassing all that was responsible for the start of that fire, then we should consider how the flint was made. The flint didn't just pop into existence - this rock formed over time. If we truly wish to know the origins of the fire that we are trying to generate, then we should consider further back to the generation of that flint, the origins of the metal you strike it against, the generation of the tinder it lights, all of it. Why should we ever leave it to chance that we're excluding the essential element if our goal is to ensure that we leave no stone unturned, that we don't allow any persons to be denied their human rights? Benefit of the doubt should apply as far back as possible, should it not?

Fourth, you argue that it's uniqueness sets it apart. I'll ignore that there are other elements of us that also set us apart from others and just focus on DNA. Also, let's set aside the existence of twins and clones, both of which demonstrate instances where DNA is absolutely not unique. What, exactly, makes DNA unique? You would argue (quite rightly) that it's not the sperm or the ovum individually. What makes it unique is the process of homologous recombination, where the DNA of the two gametes is split up and shared. So, then, it's not the DNA that actually makes us unique, but rather the process of homologous recombination, right? We are persons because this process occurred. I suppose you could argue that, so long as there is unique DNA in a cell, it doesn't so much matter how it's achieved. In doing so, though, you leave the door open to any number of means by which DNA could be modified in any number of cells. I could irradiate cells and produce a unique DNA sequence. Have I created new life? You might argue that that life needs to have a potential to become an adult, so fine: if I irradiate sperm cells, I should be creating new life as well, since those sequences would now be unique and could go on to fertilize an ovum. Also, if I somehow modify the genomes of any stage post-zygote (this is not science fiction - it has been done), then by that same logic, I must be making new life at a later stage than the zygote. In other words, if I use your logic that it's the uniqueness of the DNA that decides when a life begins, then that is non-unique to the zygote.

I'm really trying to set each of these points apart and examine them individually. Maybe I'm missing something, and if so we can most certainly go back and address it. I do, however, have one last thing to add.

You are almost certainly going to have a problem with my argument that your perspective is a personal whim, so I'll address that. The fact that you have support for your position doesn't make it any less of a personal whim. You're assuming the consequent by defining a specific set of criteria for what you believe makes a person, and then saying that DNA meets that criteria via a, b, and c. Just because you explained how it meets those criteria doesn't mean that the criteria themselves are any less the result of your personal whims. I am certain that you will argue that the criteria you set are objective, but as I've pointed out several times already, those criteria are based in your slanted view of what you want to be a person. You've designed those criteria to exclude all other factors (though I don't think they actually do), and then proclaimed that, by fulfilling them, you've proven your point. I don't see you having justified your criteria in a way that's objective. Each of your justifications is arbitrary. Coming first doesn't make it the appropriate place to insert personhood. Something having the quality of being immutable doesn't mean that it imparts the immutability of personhood. Having a role to play in how we develop doesn't make it the factor that imparts personhood. And its being unique only provides a distinguishing factor from one individual from another, not the obvious label of personhood. All these points do is beg the question: why do they (and nothing else) impart personhood? Why can't they just be a part of what makes a person, and other factors complete said person? Or, if just one of these factors is absent from a human, why should or shouldn't we consider them a person? You can argue that this is all objective, but there are clearly some strong assumptions baked into your argument. Those are the personal whims that I've referred to, and the main reasons why I'm finding it so hard to agree with you.

Topic's author
#113
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
I disagree. However, I will accept the criticism. 

I declare: Conception is not the point at which one is granted moral value.


Now, your turn:
  • Present a better point
  • Accept that there is no point in time where moral value is not present

#114
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,820
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
I declare: Conception is not the point at which one is granted moral value.


Now, your turn:
  • Present a better point
  • Accept that there is no point in time where moral value is not present
I feel as though I keep repeating myself on my perspective, and yet I am not being understood. So, allow me to rephrase myself:

My argument is that we cannot know when personhood is acquired, that there is no single point that can be objectively claimed to be "correct" or "better," and that any such selection involves arbitrary bias. So, in answer to your first option, no, I don't believe there is a better point. I also don't believe that conception is the best point. I feel that there are many other points that are equally justified.

As for answering your second point, which is what you're apparently trying to slate me into should I make the argument that uncertainty predominates, that's not an option. If we assume that there is no point in time when moral value is not present, then where does it stop? I've made this argument several times, but you seem to be missing it, so I'll reiterate and restate it here: there is as much risk in extending the moral value of persons too far as there is in not extending it far enough. You can argue that there's no risk in applying it to the zygote stage, and while I do take issue with that, I'd rather not make this a discussion of the realities of implementation. Instead, I'll just note that if I accept that there is no point in time where moral value is not present, then I must extend that as far back as possible, which means that (and I'll say this again), it must apply to gametes as well. In fact, it shouldn't bar us from accepting cancer cells as worthy of moral value, or any other form of life that contains human DNA. If the goal is to cover all our bases, then why aren't you advocating for this? Why, in the face of uncertainty, do you not afford these forms of human life personhood status and the moral value that comes with it?
Topic's author
#115
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
I understand your position. But let us take this slowly and calmly.

My argument is that we cannot know when personhood is acquired
Earlier you insisted on "personhood" being what grant's us moral value, but now you do not know what the word means.

Please define "personhood". If you cannot, I suggest we take a step back and start using the term "human" instead.
#116
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,820
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
Earlier you insisted on "personhood" being what grant's us moral value, but now you do not know what the word means.

Please define "personhood". If you cannot, I suggest we take a step back and start using the term "human" instead.
Again, I think you're not understanding me. My point is that we can't use an arbitrary designation of personhood based on our perception of the stage of development and whether it crosses a given line drawn from the stance of "what makes a person." My point is that we should designate personhood from a legal perspective by selecting the stage of development where enforcement of legal policies surrounding the unborn do the least possible harm. So, while I could give you a definition of personhood, I don't think it would be meaningful to my perspective, aside from demonstrating that what makes a person is both biological and perceptual, i.e. society grants that designation and, whether by legal or social norms, enforces that perception. I do not agree that we should step back to using the term "human" because it entirely removes societal perception from the equation, and I think that is a necessary component to our understanding of what makes a person and why.

Topic's author
#117
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
I could give you a definition of personhood
You must. Else wise not even adults have moral rights. Remember that you insisted on granting moral value based on personhood.



we can't use an arbitrary designation of personhood based on our perception of the stage of development
So we, representing "the experts", cannot just decide where moral value is granted based on philosophy or science.



selecting the stage of development where enforcement of legal policies surrounding the unborn do the least possible harm. 
In other words: SOCIETY can choose to grant moral value to anyone and take it from anyone - as they see fit or "least harmful".




Why should society, (aka public opinion), get to decide which humans are a "person" - based on their own self-interests? The name "personhood" is not reflective of any non-arbitrary definition, as this debate has clearly shown. The public opinion is not less arbitrary than our personal beliefs if nothing else it is even more arbitrary as the general population is easier swayed by emotion rather than logic. Last but not least: a society can remove the moral value of any group they want.

What did the Nazi's do?
  1. They blamed a lot of problems on the Jews - making it seem like killing the Jews would not be "harmful"
  2. The claimed that the Jews were "just" animals - which is precisely what today is happening to the fetuses.
  3. They stripped them of moral value and then brutally killed them, legally and morally justified
This argument "that a specific group of humans are not persons - they are animals" was used in every war known to man. It is the slogan of injustice and immoral deeds throughout history, and anyone can justify anything by simply tweaking the definition of "person". How can one not justify war to gain power if one measures morality by what benefits society, and not what is objectively true? After reading this, do you still believe that society can freely choose which humans are persons, regardless of scientific and philosophical evidence?
Topic's author
#118
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
Not saying this against you personally, but the rise of human rights happened exactly because people started to oppose your view. Judaism and Christianity, Philosophy and later Human Rights claimed that all humans are persons - not only those close to you or that society deems as "not harmful" to kill.  Abortion as a concept is a violation of basic human rights by definition, and if incorporated into the rule, why stop there? We justify the killing of animals much smarter than a born baby, so why not kill 1-year-olds? If humans are to be treated good because of the harm it would cause to not do that, why cannot we treat poor people badly? It would not harm society to kill poor people and take their money if the result is a better health service for the middle class, right? This and a myriad of different scenarios can be thought of which will objectively destroy universal human rights if implemented. 

I am not attacking you personally, but your idea is not a worthy basis for who is included in morality. Therefore, abortion is still immoral - until you provide a better "point".
#119
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,820
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
You must. Else wise not even adults have moral rights. Remember that you insisted on granting moral value based on personhood.
...I'm sorry, at what point did my personal opinion on the definition of personhood determine whether adults have moral rights? I'm saying that the definition should have its foundations in the ramifications of how we determine who has moral rights, not personhood. As I recall, it's your argument that hinges on personhood to define who is deserving of moral rights, not mine.

So we, representing "the experts", cannot just decide where moral value is granted based on philosophy or science.
I think that doing so without the context of the ramifications of legal choices is problematic, though I'd say "should not" instead of "cannot".

In other words: SOCIETY can choose to grant moral value to anyone and take it from anyone - as they see fit or "least harmful".
...Kind of. Saying "as they see fit" renders this decision entirely arbitrary. Putting "least harmful" in quotes also implies that there's a lack of clarity there. If you want to get into the legal ramifications of specific positions on abortion, we can do that, but that means stepping away from the argument about personhood.

Why should society, (aka public opinion), get to decide which humans are a "person" - based on their own self-interests? The name "personhood" is not reflective of any non-arbitrary definition, as this debate has clearly shown. The public opinion is not less arbitrary than our personal beliefs if nothing else it is even more arbitrary as the general population is easier swayed by emotion rather than logic. Last but not least: a society can remove the moral value of any group they want.

What did the Nazi's do?
  1. They blamed a lot of problems on the Jews - making it seem like killing the Jews would not be "harmful"
  2. The claimed that the Jews were "just" animals - which is precisely what today is happening to the fetuses.
  3. They stripped them of moral value and then brutally killed them, legally and morally justified
This argument "that a specific group of humans are not persons - they are animals" was used in every war known to man. It is the slogan of injustice and immoral deeds throughout history, and anyone can justify anything by simply tweaking the definition of "person". How can one not justify war to gain power if one measures morality by what benefits society, and not what is objectively true? After reading this, do you still believe that society can freely choose which humans are persons, regardless of scientific and philosophical evidence?
This is a lot for someone who does not yet really understand my position. Again, this is not based in self-interest (unless you say the entirety of a society is the "self" which is... kind of weird, and would also technically apply to any choice, because they're all perceived as in the best interest of the society at large), but based in how the legal system affects people within a given society. This has nothing to do with personhood. This is not based in some general opinion derived from a majority-rules perspective.

Saying that this is related to what the Nazis did is... well, pretty damn offensive when you're speaking to a Jew, but is also inaccurate because that assumes that we can arbitrarily designate any group we want as persons or non-persons, which a) doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about, and b) is exceedingly arbitrary (saying that one group of adults deserves rights while another does not based on a perception of harm effectively does away with any conception of when someone achieves moral rights and focuses on when rights should be removed instead. If you want to engage with my actual argument instead of arguing against a straw man and somehow make this link work, be my guest, but this is just ridiculous. I haven't argued that there are groups - and yes, I'm including the unborn in this - that should be reduced to the status of animals. I haven't argued that moral value should be based on who is dispensable. Those statements are very obviously twisting my points.

As for the rest of this argument, I have no idea what this has to do with justifying wars or allowing societies to "freely choose which humans are persons, regardless of scientific and philosophical evidence". Those aren't my points. They aren't related to my points. I don't know how you're getting this far off track from a few sentences, but you've managed it quite spectacularly.

Not saying this against personally, but the rise of human rights happened exactly because people started to oppose your view. Christianity, Philosophy and later Human Rights claimed that all humans are persons - not only those close to you or that society deems as such. Abortion as a concept is a violation of basic human rights by definition, and if incorporated into the rule, why stop there? We justify the killing of animals much smarter than a born baby, so why not kill 1-year-olds? In short, I am not attacking you personally, but your idea is not a worthy basis for morality. Thus, it cannot defend abortion.
...You're not even arguing against my view as of yet. You seem dead set on hitting a point somewhere over my right shoulder and saying you got me. My position doesn't allow for the killing of a 1-year-old. I don't know what violation of human rights you feel I'm engaging in, but now you're just asserting what abortion does on the basis that your perception of personhood is right. Great, so now you're assuming you're correct instead of supporting your position.

The fact that many religions and philosophical minds have designated what they believe is a person doesn't make it right any more than your designating what is a person makes you right. Appealing to a majority or even large like-minded groups doesn't make your argument more logical or accurate, it just means that I disagree with a very large amount of people. I could be wrong. So could you. I don't understand how this supports your position.
Topic's author
#120
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
Are you a Jew? I apologize.