A *separate * sperm and egg is not an “entity”.
Why not? Meiosis itself engenders the separation of cells. You are arbitrarily labelling two, four, 32 or 10[sup]32[/sup] cells an arbitrary distance from one another as “an entity”. I’ll arbitrarily choose a sperm and an egg as my cells and bring them arbitrarily close, too. Are we to debate the very strength of the interatomic forces or something?
This is not how we decide disputes, generally. If a company accidentally deposits $1,000 or $10,000 into my account it can have that same amount taken right back out even if I noticed the deposit and need that money.
This is even more the case when ones body is involved in the dispute. If I am a match for donating a kidney, or bone marrow, or even blood, whether or not I actually donate is not decided on who has a greater need. That decision is in my hand and at my whim, and it belongs there. It doesn’t matter if you approve of my decision, just as it should not matter if you do not approve of my decision to be pregnant or abort. It is not your body hosting the pregnancy, you get no say.
Actually, 1 is enough: When the sperm enters the egg and the egg changes to prevent other sperm from entering (whatever that process is called), then that 1 cell is an entity. Before that, they are just two cells that happen to be next to each other.
For example, there may be 10,000 sperm around an egg trying to get in. Which particular egg-sperm pair is the “entity” you describe? None.
When one of the sperms makes it in and locks the others out, that combined cell is now the entity.
So when it splits again, it is not an entity anymore?
Of course it is, but the 2, 4, … 2^n cells are now working in unison as an entity.
The egg and 10,000 sperm around it are not working in unison. There is no entity there.
Consider this example with “entity” being replaced by “family”: There is a woman and she has 10 suitors. Can you say that you see a “family” there? No.
At some point, the woman accepts one of the suitors, rejects all the others, and marries her chosen one. NOW we have a family.
If the two of them start having children, (2, 4, 8, it doesn’t matter) then the resulting group of X people (parents + children) still form a family.
Now, go back, replace “family” with “entity”, “suitors” with “sperm”, etc, and you see what I meant.
Ah, so in order to be an “entity”, the separate elements must “work in unison”. I think I underst…
Hold on, from what kind of arbitrary hat has that definition been pulled? Why should I find and replace all of these terms, exactly? Are you making this up as we go along?
“Working in unison” is a non sequitur. Are we to proceed in an Is not! Is too! Is not! manner?
Do you mean to imply that any collection of objects is an “entity”, with no bearing as to the relationship between these objects?
If you like to, go ahead.
In the meantime, if you don’t like the “working in unison” issue, you can still address my “family” analogy. Whenever you see a woman surrounded by several suitors, can you say you are looking at a “family”? If you see a woman and a man right after their wedding, can you say you are looking at a family?
Similarly, an egg surrounded by several sperm (or even one sperm) cannot be called an entity. After their “wedding”, they can.
The label “entity” is utterly arbitrary, yes. There is nothing invalid about labelling separate cells an “entity”, as indeed both you and I do.
We’re just riding on a semantic carousel here, and I’m staring to feel queasy. We could consider all kinds of analogies, from running a film of cloud formation backwards and asking where the “entity” of the cloud became the “separate elements” of droplets, or when separate microbes become a “patch of mould”. The man and woman are not an entity - they are two individuals in a legal contract, which has naff all to do with biology.
I contend that conception is just as arbitrary a point as birth, 18 weeks, womb-implantation, ejaculation or sitting down to dinner at a first date.
Why do we need this utterly arbirtary label? To me, if it is “utterly arbirtary” it is also “utterly useless”.
If, on the other hand we try to impose some conditions on which sets of objects can be called an “entity”, then the resulting term might be of use. Otherwise, why have the term at all?
I just don’t see where you have proved this assertion. It it just a belief?
We don’t.
I contend that it is arbitrary. Just as you contend that it is somehow not arbitrary. We are debating.
Well, actually, I think the concept “entity” is a useful one, if we define it properly. And I mean useful in any number of debates, not just the abortion debate.
For example: “The legal entity that represents Joe’s estate says …”
The reason we call it an entity is because of their common goal (“acting in unison”), or whatever other means we may use to define “entity”.
I think you defined “entity” out of existence (and rendered it meaningless and useless) because it suited your goals in this debate. But that doesn’t mean that “entity” is not a useful concept, once defined properly.
So do I. That’s why I objected to the red herring you tried to comandeer it with.
SM, you must have had one traumatic first date!
Indeed. Pro-lifers picketed the restaurant.
Since my testes and her ovaries held within them a potential human, they wouldn’t let us out until we’d stopped ‘playing God’ and denying it existence.
Wow! I thought this sort of thing only went on in Bangkok.
Do you seriously think that a man and a woman sitting next to each other are equivalent to a 10-week old fetus?
Are you simply being sarcastic, or just trying to win an argument, logic be damned?
Let’s recap what you said
SentientMeat:
The label “entity” is utterly arbitrary, yes.
Polerius:
Why do we need this utterly arbirtary label? To me, if it is “utterly arbirtary” it is also “utterly useless”.
SentientMeat:
We don’t [need it]
Polerius:
Well, actually, I think the concept “entity” is a useful one, if we define it properly
SentientMeat:
So do I.
So, at one point you say that it is totally arbitrary and we don’t need it. And then, you say that is is a useful one, if defined properly. But, how can it be useful, if you consider it totally arbitrary?
Very well, to clarify: Everything is ultimately arbitrary, and we must agree what is useful.
I do not agree that the dichotomy you present regarding a certain two cells as opposed to a certain other two cells is useful in this case.
YES. I have been trying to tell you this for a very long time.
I am simply trying to set forth my position as clearly as possible, I care not whether I “win” - indeed, that is more for each member of the audience to decide for themselves (and vote accordingly).