Huh? Your comment is too incoherent to understand your point.

Are you denying that you’d be a substantially different person if raised in a substantially different environment? That’s woo. Science says otherwise. Conclusively.

You also don’t seem to have a good grasp of history. There were no professions of poet and software engineer when poetry and computers were invented. Wong’s point extrapolates to invention: you can only invent poetry (which may then make possible a career choice for future people) if you are raised in a world in which other people had already invented the tools required to do that (e.g. language, music, storytelling, education). Computers were invented c. 200 BC and did not even have software. So one could not choose to be a software engineer. But even in respect to programming their hardware, the profession that did this was mechanic, not computer specialist. That didn’t exist then. But mechanics did. A field of endeavor invented beforehand by others. And one could not choose to be a mechanic and invent computers with that knowledge unless you grew up in a society that had already invented mechanics.

That’s how it works. Even all the way back to hominid days. Every invention (fire, burial, spear-making) was only possible because someone was raised in an environment that provided them with the tools to discover that. Then others could choose to do that professionally (if the thing became specialized and in demand). The pioneer could be the first, but after him everyone is relying on what was accomplished by others before them, and even the pioneer was relying on what was accomplished by others before them.

When Wong says you are not a person, he is not making an ontological statement about personhood. He is saying you are not an isolated self-generating entity, but part of a social system to which you owe at least half of everything you are (the other half to genetics and happenstance contingencies).

Dearie me, where does such incoherent claptrap come from?
If I were a freckled face teenager, I’d be different’; If I were not I, I should be different.
If blue were not blue it’d be a different colour.

This is very islamic ash’are/maturede way of talking about Allah’s decree: Allah has ‘determind’ destinies: qada’ wa qadar.

Wong also says:

“you can choose between becoming a poet or a software engineer, but only because you were raised in a world in which other people had already invented both poetry and computers.”

Can one spot the flawd logic? I suppose the people who invented poetry and computers only did so because….I can also choose between having a biscuit or having a gluten free crumpet. Marvellous, isn’t it. I can also choose what programme I’d like when doing the washing.

PS not only is a foetus not a person…I’m not a person either. In fact I’m the urban spaceman…and here comes the twist….I don’t exist.

Wong’s profundity knows no bounds…