New post to keep my thoughts from overrunning the comments page.
To this point, I am focusing on the question "What is a human?" The article talks about when humans get rights, and I'll get to that issue, but before I can say when humans get rights, I need to know what a human is. Is the little zygote a human? If it isn't even human, the second question is moot and we can all have some pie. So I have been kicking around ideas and hypotheses about how to define "human." I'll get to the question of when humans get those fundamental rights like the right to life, just not yet.
So far, my definition of "human" has been attached to genes. A human is a thing that shares the genetic code of homo sapien. But what kind of thing? Anything, or a specific subset of things? Would it be any organism that shares the genetic code? Any group of cells? Any single cell? Does it have to be capable of life?
More on these questions as I get to them. They probably seem like silly questions, but I want to make sure I have a clear workable definition about what IS and what IS NOT human.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
in this case "thing" means "organism." An organism is a living thing that can undertake the following processes at some point during its lifetime: respond to stimuli, develop, grow, and reproduce.
so, a human is a a living thing with the genome of Homo sapiens that is capable of responding to stimuli, development, growth, and reproduction.
(Food for thought and future comments: regarding your question about a zygote, consider that we don't differentiate between a child, adult, or senior in terms of "human." Why would be differentiate because the human is a zygote - it is just another developmental stage like child, adult, or senior [which would biologically classified as pre-reproductive, reproductive, and post-reproductive Homo sapiens] ?)
I have wondered about the latter part of Paul's comment before. I have frequently worried that people might march down that very easy to follow path. Human is human.
However we do differentiate in the eyes of the law. You can't marry a minor (pre-reproductive), crimes against seniors can hold tougher penalties (post-reproductive), being tried as an adult (reproductive, sort of).
So again, is this argument biological or lawful/ethical.
The biologist could do a great many things that an ethicist could not. A scientific decision is not always an ethical one, an ethical decision is not always scientific.
Certainly. But we haven't gotten to the questions under the purview of the law. Exceptions (clarifications) will be made under legal arguments to the foundation of objective criteria we lay down here.
new post coming to move to the next question. tonight/tomorrow.
Post a Comment