• At what point are we considered human beings?
    46 replies, posted
For the UK, there is some very clear case law. AG Ref No.3 of 1994 sets out that The Law considers a human being to be that of a person who is fully expelled from the mother and is breathing (essentially living) with autonomy. This was set out for legal reasons (to clarify that a foetus cannot be killed in utero and ipso facto a double transfer of malice cannot exist) but for many the case offers a reasoned view of what constitutes a human life form. NB- [I]A defendant can however be charged with child destruction under the The Infant (Preservation) Life Act 1929 illustrated in Rance v Mid Downs HA. I felt that I should explain that, I understand it is of no relation to the debate in hand.[/I]
"When it comes to the unborn child, the question is not when life begins, but when [i]love[/i] begins"
To me, human status is archieved on Birth. Sure we must recognize the importance of fetuses. I am however PRO-abortion, but under case-by-case regulation...
its biological and psychological
To me the only thing "Human" about a human is its mind. Everything else is just a biological machine made to power the mind. I believe that for simplicity, we should be considered a "Human" at birth.
I'd have to say after the first trimester. After that, they're too developed, they look too... human.
Human when the central and peripheral nervous system complete their development in the womb.
[QUOTE=TamTamJam;33226547]This is a stage of cell growth during early embryonic development, ie., after conception. [img]http://www.drnickcampos.com/health-newsletter/morula.gif[/img] You're saying that's human?[/QUOTE] Yes. I would say that is human (assuming its a pic of a human embryo). It is made of human cells from a mother and father who are human. Just because it looks different means absolutely nothing if it is made from the same things you and I are made of. If I cut off my arm, gave it to you and asked is it human, what would your answer be? It was made from 100% human 'material' and was a part of a human. According to you my arm would NOT be human because it doesn't look like a fully developed person. Its just an arm. People are made 1 cell at a time. They take time to [I]develop[/I] but are still genetically human. They just can't think or do anything to themselves yet. Would a man who is in a coma and has 'lost his mind' no longer be a human because he can't think anymore? I think the biggest 'issue' with this issue is whether we are referring to [U]human[/U] as "a human body", or "a humans ability to think (humanity)". If we are referring to a body then it starts at conception. If you are referring to thought it starts at 'birth' but only because the baby can't physically think for itself until that point. But that then becomes the question "When can it think?" not "What is it?"
[QUOTE=Antdawg;33197442]Technically you could say that a human is created at the point of conception, or you could also argue that the baby would only be considered as human once birth happens. At what point should we consider that the [whatever word I should use] would be human? I want to push this topic a bit more though, so don't start typing yet until you've finished reading this. From a legal standpoint, what point of time should be considered in regard to the creation of a human being? I'd say it would be at birth, because before then the fetus wouldn't be considered human and this could be beneficial as it means that abortions wouldn't be treated as murder. However, if something does happen to the fetus (such as the pregnant mother getting involved in some kind of incident that causes the fetus to die) this would mean that any person responsible for the death of the fetus might not be punished for it, because the fetus wouldn't be considered human at that point. I don't know what kind of legislation some countries have in regards to such a situation though. So anyways, what do you think?[/QUOTE] Huh! See imagine this scenario. Imagine there was [I]no[/I] abortion debate, and abortion was unheard of. I think that our definition of "what constitutes a human" would be pushed way, way back. But! Abortion does exist, and as a result, we modify our definition of human to make it less objectionable to abort. Personally I see the "human at birth" definition to be quite strict. How many hours before birth is it [I]not[/I] murder to kill the fetus? Yes, it'd never happen realistically, but... There is a need for a defined legal definition, but I don't know that an actual definition can be created for this.
A human is a human from birth. Before then they are in the mother's body and the mother has control over her body over the 'tenant'.
[QUOTE=Balistics_Dummy;33338711]Yes. I would say that is human (assuming its a pic of a human embryo). It is made of human cells from a mother and father who are human. Just because it looks different means absolutely nothing if it is made from the same things you and I are made of. If I cut off my arm, gave it to you and asked is it human, what would your answer be? It was made from 100% human 'material' and was a part of a human. According to you my arm would NOT be human because it doesn't look like a fully developed person. Its just an arm. People are made 1 cell at a time. They take time to [I]develop[/I] but are still genetically human. They just can't think or do anything to themselves yet. Would a man who is in a coma and has 'lost his mind' no longer be a human because he can't think anymore? I think the biggest 'issue' with this issue is whether we are referring to [U]human[/U] as "a human body", or "a humans ability to think (humanity)". If we are referring to a body then it starts at conception. If you are referring to thought it starts at 'birth' but only because the baby can't physically think for itself until that point. But that then becomes the question "When can it think?" not "What is it?"[/QUOTE] According to your argument, if men in comas have moral status in virtue of just being human, and if detached limbs are human, then men in comas, detached limbs and you and I have the same moral status. But anyway, what we consider 'human' isn't really of any philosophical interest. What we consider a 'person' is a little more interesting, but still not meaningful in any moral sense. The only thing of any real moral value (and even this requires a certain level of assumption) is desire, pleasure, pain, etc. A nervous system or something with the same function is required for this, hence the bundle of cells that constitutes an embyro isn't morally important. [editline]19th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=cis.joshb;33339899]A human is a human from birth. Before then they are in the mother's body and the mother has control over her body over the 'tenant'.[/QUOTE] But a mother isn't really in any more control over the foetus than she is over her heartbeat.
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;33339899]A human is a human from birth. Before then they are in the mother's body and the mother has control over her body over the 'tenant'.[/QUOTE] Again I find that it's grandly evident that you're defining human by the abortion debate. Specifically, your description would seem to indicate that you define human by whether or not the mother has control on it.
I think this question can be expanded much further. Imagine if we can clone humans in a few hundred years by rebuilding them molecule for molecule. Would they be human? Or what if we can simulate human brains inside computers in a few decades, would they be human? What if have extremely advanced neural-network AIs? How would we know when they become conscious? Would it be illegal/immoral to torture virtual beings if they used good AIs? Would they get rights? Would robots with human-like intelligence be considered humans?
[QUOTE=Robber;33345776]I think this question can be expanded much further. Imagine if we can clone humans in a few hundred years by rebuilding them molecule for molecule. Would they be human? Or what if we can simulate human brains inside computers in a few decades, would they be human? What if have extremely advanced neural-network AIs? How would we know when they become conscious? Would it be illegal/immoral to torture virtual beings if they used good AIs? Would they get rights? Would robots with human-like intelligence be considered humans?[/QUOTE] Can't really answer these without defining what a human is. A person =/= a human in all aspects. An AI that acts like an intellectual being could as well be a person, but not a human. A robot that acts like a dog is not a dog because it's totally different in the physical body. Unless it was a dog brain in a robot, then it would be dog. If we could clone humans, why wouldn't the result be a human? Assuming cloning means 100% replication. You don't need to be a human to be an individual. If animals were capable of the same thought as us, they would be individuals and get their rights too.
Humans are homo sapiens. The fetus is a subclass of a homo sapiens. The home sapiens class can be broken into many different and distinct subclasses. The most known distinctions are made towards the time in the womb. To make this clear, think of caterpillars. More specifically, the danaus menippe or the monarch. The use of the word monarch comes into being because the scientific name is clumsy, this is similar to the word human being used as opposed to homo sapiens. The monarch has very different development stages, yet it does not change the classification. It does help to call to classify the development stage though, such as monarch caterpillar, or monarch butterfly. The same applies to humans, such as human fetus, human baby, human adult. The word human is almost always implied and for obvious reasons. [IMG]http://i43.tinypic.com/nutqf.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i43.tinypic.com/5d2ema.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i41.tinypic.com/2u619nd.jpg[/IMG] This seems to be more muddy than it seems because of the implied "human" and because of the abortion debate. The pro-choice side has quite a popular argument that a fetus is not a human and therefore abortion is acceptable. This argument is likely to be accompanied by further tactics of semantics. The argument isn't at all rational and thus should be attacked by even pro-choice supporters.
Yeah, as soon as you're putting abortion into the mix all you're doing is arguing past each other, by using the 'A FOETUS ISN'T A HUMAN' debate. It doesn't matter what it is, put best by Peter Singer: [url]http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----03.htm[/url]
We're never human. We're just puppets for the government, man.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.