Before you answer, think about three main areas, the scientific definition, the philosophical definition and lastly, the legal definition. Each on it's own is not enough to truly define what a human being is without considering the other two areas of thought. The scientific definition is arguably the following: A member of the modern species Homo Sapiens defined by a certain genetic code that is common to all members of that group which produces and defines what we call Homo Sapiens. The legal definition is arguably the following: A human being is a person. The philosophical definition is much more complex and there is no single consensus on what it truly means to be a human being. Consensus though does revolve around a set of attributes unique to human beings (persons) which are not limited to reason, ability to speak, understand time, compassion, empathy, enjoyment of beauty, self-awareness and so on. Now let us explore the problems with such loosely defined definitions. First, science. The arbitrary sorting of living organisms by man made structures such as species is not perfect nor is it intrinsic to the thing being categorized. It is simply a method we use to attempt to put living things into groups which make sense to us as observers. Using this definition which is really just a statement of belonging to an artificial set defined as a species, we cannot use this to determine if an amputated arm is a human being. We cannot use it to tell us if an amputated head kept alive by artificial means is a human being either. Science will one day take the DNA of any human cell and create another organism, it will happen folks. We need more information don't we? Second, the legal definition. It is a tautology is it not? I looked it up in Blacks Law and that is what it said. Nothing more or less, it is as if the question is silly, the subject defines itself much like a strawberry is a strawberry, we know one when we see one. So this cannot help us much either especially since the legal definition of a human being has changed over time as we recognize others different from us as truly part of the legal definition of a human being. Lastly, the philosophical definition which is even more difficult to parse. If the definition of being a human being is tied to our mental and physical abilities, would a comatose patient incapable of thought, speech or reason living in a vegetative state be considered a human being? It was a human being philosophically but is no longer capable of higher reasoning abilities. All of us would likely claim that our comatose parent is indeed still a human being would we not? Similarly, would a severely retarded person incapable of speech or complex thought no longer qualify because they have the attributes of a lower primate? Well, I think all of us would say that yes, they are a human being but then our philosophical definition would be worthless, we have to add something else. What is that something else that puts all of these together in some definitive and cohesive manner? Religion refuses to even address the question, they answer it immediately by stating a fertilized egg is a human being even if those cells are far from being anything but a genetic engine destined to one day become a fully formed human being. This is the easy way out and a relatively recent development within religion. Religions in the past thought nothing of abortion or infanticide even, it was more a cultural concept than a universal concept. Witness the millions of human beings wiped out by conquerors over the ages all with the blessings of one religion or the other. Apparently they thought nothing of killing heathens or primitives yet still believed "thou shalt not kill" was a moral absolute. So, while we debate the merits of abortion, the real debate is about defining humanity through every possible state of being a human being whether it is within the womb, on a gurney, in an insane asylum or on the battlefield. This is why Roe made an arbitrary decision about the third trimester. Absent any other comprehensive definition, I accept this myself.
I've answered something similar in one of the threads a while back... so essentially you're trying to determine when abortion would become murder by establishing when a human is officially a human. Well for me it's with the formation of the brain, if you have conjoined twins they can have the same body but as soon as they have separate brains they have separate identities and are two separate humans. The difficult part is determining when exactly during neural development is a foetus a human.
Good post but all that talk , especially all the totally meaningless philosophical navel gazing prattle, is so unnecessary....if people just minded their own damn business, sought counseling for their sick need to control and punish women, and just let women go about their lives as free as anyone else all that talk, all those laws would be totally unnecessary. NO one is/was affected by the billions of abortions that have occurred since the first woman discovered what plant to eat to get rid of what would be her 14th kid thousands of years ago.... What didn't exist affected no one......anti-Abortion laws harm women... and Pro-Choicers have to pound those two things home....and point out the misogyny and harm of the right and their Anti-Choice/ Anti-Woman agenda..
The OP missed the definition that is applies to religion and perhaps that is the one that needs to be examined. The scientific definition meets the needs of science. The legal definition meets the needs of the Law of the Land. The philosophical definition will forever be amorphous so there is nothing to be gained wandering off into that maze IMO. The definition that matters as far as abortion is concerned is the legal one and that is already established and needs no further clarification for those that understand the Law of the Land and the definition of a person as someone who is naturally born. It is the only the religious definition that is problematic for those opposed to women's rights. The religious definition is based upon the fallacy that "all life is sacred"...except when it isn't! As the OP pointed out killing human beings in the name of whatever deity is appropriate is condoned by religions and even done by acts of those deities on a wholesale level. Therefore the religious definition regarding the sanctity of life is null and void so there needs to be some other basis. This is the mythical "soul" that somehow manifests itself when egg and sperm have carnal relations. Just as there is no evidence for the existence of any deity there is no evidence for the existence of this imaginary soul either. Opposition to abortion based upon imaginary religious concepts that don't exist in reality. The legal definition is based upon the reality of birth, the scientific definition is based upon the reality of DNA and the philosophical definition is based upon the reality of our being able to reason. But the religious definition has no basis except for whatever someone happens to be "believe" and even that is not consistent because that belief is based upon an imaginary deity that does not uphold the sanctity of life either. In essence the need for this discussion on "what is a human being" is premised upon the illusion that there is a valid position to ask that question in the context of abortion. But when we examine the context the answer is readily apparent from all perspectives that matter. It is only religion that has a problem and to be fair it is only a very small subset of religion that has this problem with abortion. There is absolutely no sound reason why the rights of millions of women should be denied to satisfy the baseless beliefs of a very small group of disgruntled theists IMO.
I lumped the religious into the philosophical mainly because so many truly deep thinkers over the ages that wrestled with this question did so within the world of religion. Our modern day popular discussions about this never get to the depths needed or at least, the religious people in the public eye never seem to go there. I know they exist in seminaries and in philosophy circles but they never seem to get exposure.
Not really since this topic was raised in the abortion forum. Had it been raised under Religion & Philosophy it could have gone in any direction.
Then that would be a bad argument. 1 USC ยง 8: (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
Just a point of clarification. A "Homo Sapiens" is not only defined by a certain genetic code. Based on DNA one could claim that something was "from" a homo Sapiens" such as a skin cell or hair but, this does not make that entity a homo Sapiens. Membership in that club requires the entity to have membership in all of these other clubs prior to getting in: Kingdom, Domain, Phylum Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Membership in these other clubs requires a bunch of characteristics other than DNA.
Thank you for defining it more carefully, you are quite right. So again, what is a human being and how do you define it? I do not think it can be answered myself but am interested in what others think it means.
it is a whole range of things . .though TBH whether the unborn are "human beings" or not, doesn't answer the question of whether they are persons, and even if that could be answered it still doesn't change the reality that abortion would still be legal and IMO far easier to get.
True but my point is even deeper than abortion. Science will soon allow us to keep bodies alive indefinitely making the definition of death an interesting debate. Whatever you define a person as in relation to the abortion debate can be used at the other end of life when the body is alive but there is nothing left of the human being. So, what is a human being? You cannot say it is human consciousness because that is almost impossible to define without including similar intelligence in other animals such as primates, pigs, whales, even certain birds.
I think if we ask the question "What is important/valued by people about their life/humanity" we get much closer to the correct answer. This would be a more Philosophical than scientific approach. We hear the constant "whine" - "its a human life". As if somehow this argument makes sense in of itself. (a single cell is a "human life" and no one sheds a tear for all the human cells that dye while typing). but, we can go further and extend this to the life of a human a living human. (note the descriptive adjective usage in one case and the noun in the other). Any person can be made to beg for death under extreme torture. It is then not life itself that we value but "quality of life". Love, happiness, fond memories, Family, freedom from suffering, and so on. Without these things "life" becomes a whole lot less valuable does it not ? We do not place a high value on the life of other living entities - Cows, Fruit, Vegetables. We do not attribute the "right to life" to a banana (which shares about 50% of its DNA in common with a human). We can see that even the term "Right to Life" is inaccurate. This is because the anti aborts depend on disingenuous language to make their case. They depend on the fact that most people will not think things trough. We are supposed to believe/infer that a single human cell (at conception) has "a life" or "potential life" such that we can attach some import or value to this life. A value that might rival or outweigh the rights of a living breathing human on the scales of justice. The zygote has no "life" as we know it. I has no brain, no cognitive function, no memories, no dreams, and knows naught of pain or pleasure. It has not experienced any of the quality of life that humans value. In this respect "quality of life" it is less human that a cow. The "potential" argument fails for so many reasons that smart anti choicer's avoid going down this path. What argument are the anti aborts then left with ? The zygote is not a homo Sapiens - having almost none of the characteristics required for this classification (membership in this club). One can not correctly claim (on a Scientific basis) that this entity is a human/living human. Having human DNA puts it on par with every other living human cell and we do not care about the "lives" of these entities so that doesn't work. A zygote has "no life" as we know it having no cognitive function/brain - none of the qualities of life that we value as human. Humans do not value "life" in general (beans, cows) that highly and even human life ( heart cells, bone cells) are not highly valued. The only thing left then is Potential - that this entity has the potential to have "a life" that that that life might be valuable. The problem here is how on earth do we value this "potential" relative to the rights of a woman for legal purposes. Or Religious argument - Ensoulment or some such religious concept. This turns out to be the main reason for anti-aborts devotion but, even they realize that they can not use this as a reason in the public domain without being laughed out of the room - hence all the other made up disingenuous arguments and intentional deception. The "pro life" movement is a movement of disingenuousness and deceit. Even the term "pro life" is an obfuscation of the truth.
Excellent. I tried to give you a reputation nod but apparently I can't until I do it to someone else...thanks for a very well thought out response.
Anything that can reproduce with another human being, though something that can think and is capable of developing into a human being is, of course, afforded protections under the law.
What is human being? Definitely, a human being is an offspring of human beings. What else would humans produce?
human being - "A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/human-being Classification of Homo Sapien View attachment 45239
In my opinion a "human being" is the same thing as a "person" (but I have to be careful to say "person" in abortion discussions because pro-life advocates think of the human being as any organism with human DNA). In trying to understand what makes us "human beings" I find myself drawn to the concept of experience. As human beings, our minds incorporate experience, and that influences our growth as persons. What else do we have except our experiences? That explains (for me) why we protect a fellow human who has lapsed into a coma. The accumulated experience of that person might still be retrieved if the body (the biological life support system) recovers from illness or injury. We only discard a living human body when we are convinced that the brain can no longer recover prior experience or incorporate new experience (e.g. Terri Schaivo). That also explains (for me) why the fetus should not be considered an actual person. In the last days of the pregnancy, it might finally have all of the mechanisms necessary to process and incorporate experience, but natural sedatives and low oxygen block its brain from awareness of any experience. After birth, even a premature brain (activated and awakened) may have some awareness of stimulation and that may be incorporated into its mind. Then you have a functional (although very limited) human being. As technology improves we will probably clone new parts or create mechanical replacements. I think most people would agree that you could replace every part of a human body (except the brain) and you would still have the same person. If we ever developed the technology take a "snapshot" of your mind and recreate it in a replacement brain (or some bio-mechanical substitute), would that new entity really be the same person? My instinctive answer is that you still be aware of yourself in the old mind, but a second instance of you would be aware of yourself in the new mind (and the two would diverge). It is an odd thought at first, but in a sense this is what happens when we have a child. We generally try to teach that child to be just like us (or hopefully better) and at some point we diverge with the "new" us moving on into the future.
