> There’s something fundamentally unanswerable about the question “What are the minimum requirements for personhood?”, or more colloquially, “When does an ‘it’

> There’s something fundamentally unanswerable about the question “What are the minimum requirements for personhood?”, or more colloquially, “When does an ‘it’ become a ‘who’?” This is the crux of the question, and I'd argue the abstraction and generalization of person and personhood itself is not only flawed, but the base error that diverts the course and trajectory of our ability to reason about ethics. It's perhaps easier to meander around with analogies, contrasts, and comparisons than to delve down into that harder question, and as long as we're circumspect about it, philosophically we're just treading water.