Jerris said:
Maybe I'll have more to add later, but I want to hear your views on who/what gets all the rights of a human being. Would you consider the intentional ending of the life of any of the following beings murder?
1. A brain dead human
2. Apes that learn sign language
3. The terminally ill
I was going to respond in the comments, but it got to be too long, so here it is as it's own post.
@ Jerris:
Murder is, of course, defined as "the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought."
So for any of those to be murder, the elements have to be met.
1. unlawful killing
2. of another human
3. with malice aforethought (a higher level of intent or negligence than accidental)
In each case, I can imagine a scenario where there is unlawful killing. I can also imagine the necessary malice aforethought. The crux of the issue is whether they are human or not.
Which really goes back to my quandry. What does it mean to be human? What qualities or characteristics must a human have?
In case 1 and 3, I suspect we can all agree they are human. If we worked with my 2 aspect hypothesis, 1 and 3 have the capability of detectable brain activity, even if 1 doesn't actually have any. And they physically are human. As for 2, going off of the physical aspect - which I don't have well-defined - the ape probably doesn't share enough of the physical traits to be considered human. Even though it may reach the threshold of mental activity I suggested be used.
Of course, I am still in the thinking stages, so this could all be incorrect.
@ everyone:
As I re-read my post today, I looked for the holes. One big spot surrounds the mental aspect I suggested was necessary. Thinking about it, is there some mental component necessary? Or is just meeting the physical aspect good enough? Maybe, since the mental aspect is a product of the physical, maybe it's redundant.
But still I am stuck on defining what is physically necessary to be human. Probably because I don't know enough biology, I suspect.
So there I will leave it for now. More to come as I think on it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
genes.
an entire genome that is more like that of an average sub-sample population of entire human genomes than they are like an average sub-sample population of any other genome.
1. & 2. are murder in jurisdictions, which have no additional laws defining such death's as lawful (i.e. not Oregon or Washington State). As to whether or not such death harbors malice aforethought is something that can be debated depending on how "malice" is defined/interpreted.
Why, may I ask, are you focused on physical traits? Not that this is a bad thing, just curious why you went there instead of something else.
I'm only focusing on physical traits because they're very easily definable and clear cut.
It's easier to draw a line using concrete things. If we use subjective terms, the definition fails. If we use purely mental terms - like an intelligence level - then things that we would probably NOT call human could slip in.
What would you use?
the scientific definition of what is a Homo sapiens is genes.
this is not necessarily the same question as what defines when life starts.
*not "genes" but "genetic"
Ah, but I'm focusing first on what the defining characteristics of a "human" are. Once I have that, then I can better assess when human life begins.
Without knowing what a human is, how can I know when a thing becomes one.
Least, that's my thought.
I think the "genes" thing is a physical definition like what Andy is trying to form. He and I were talking about this the other night after he posted part 1. I said for physical I would go with DNA or genes or whatever base component determines homo sapien. I think the mental aspect is redundant b/c if you have the physical then you necessarily will have the potential for the mental. However, we both agreed that defining human is a different question than defining when life begins/ends, but it is a question that needs to be answered first.
Okay I am going to answer the first question, or perhaps what I thought was the first question. When does a person become human?
I think genes are moot here, the genes exists (but some are not yet expressed) at conception but the fetus is not human.
I think "it" changes from being a fetus (or even "dead") to a Human when "it" can exist outside the body on its own and is no longer merely leaching off of a host, be that a human or a machine.
Basically in the traditional sense, its a fetus until comes out of the woman.
In a non traditional sense, its a human once its unhooked from the artificial machines that are the only thing keeping it alive (in the odd cases of test tube babies should they ever full be conceived).
Andy then broached the subject that its a fetus until its 18 then.
But what I mean by no longer a leach and fully dependent is that when a fetus is in the womb it can't cry out, it can't actively try to get people to help it or do much for it.
Its dependent on the mother, it can strip the calcium from her bones but until it comes outside and does things on its own its just a leach. And I don't really see kicking around in a belly as acting in a manner in which will get people to help it. From what I understand, its not like the fetus starts kicking when its hungry. It just wants to be more comfortable.
Once outside the womb it can cry, reach out for others, look around and act like a baby in order to get people to help it. It is in charge of its own destiny in a way now, it can try to influence its situation.
I am not saying the now human is going to up and put itself through college with out help, but it is no longer just a parasite unable to interact with its environment other than to roll around.
This does mean that the age in which a fetus becomes a human can vary a bit. Even a very premature baby can interact with the outside world once its out of mom. It its unable to do so, unable to do anything to "help" itself, then I don't think its human. Basically we would be talking ball of cells, fetus unable to move or talk etc.
My personal definition also allows abortion until the minutes before that thing pops out. For some, this is a bit extreme. I think if we were to find a happy medium it would be that its acceptable to abort the fetus early on, but as time goes on, induce labor and if the fetus survives then more power to it.
Okay, I think that's it for now. It was a bit disjointed I am sure, I wrote it while watching the office. But thats my two cents right now.
there are two discussions going on simultaneously and they are each clouding the other.
let me put it out there unequivocally that the biological definition of Homo sapiens can take a number of forms (Biological Species Definition, Phylogenetic Species Definition, Evolutionary Species Definition, and so on). All of them articulate manifestations of the genome, and these manifestations are conveniences to effectively practice taxonomy (and some are reflected in a number of our comments). Nonetheless, they all point to genes - the unifying, underlying, indivisible element that unites us outside of any other group of living things.
This definition (i.e. our genetic code) is for the species Homo sapiens. When we ask "what does it mean to be human" we are placing an implicit value judgement or status qualification on top of Homo sapiens. That's fine if it is the conversation we want to have - but it is an entirely different question than "what qualities or characteristics must a human have."
i haven't even tried to address the former. it's subjective, and i'm honestly uninterested in subjective questions (though i think i do have an objective answer to it). Smacky is right that we should start with a definition of "human." "Human" is synonymous with Homo sapiens. Thus, the answer to the later question, no matter at what stage of development we start, always comes down to genes. The problem is, if a zygote is not Homo sapiens because it is not yet enough developed, then what is it?
There is no biologically meaningful answer to that question. In fact, it's the wrong question entirely. I call for nuance in our definition of living things - this allows for developmental processes to be included and outliers (e.g. Homo sapiens with chromosome duplicating errors) to remain within in the defined group. It is not useful in this age of knowledge to ignore the information we have about how vertebrates develop.
You may be required to completely and utterly ignore abortion to get to an objective definition here - and you should. It's a different question entirely. Mixing questions leads to ambiguity.
Not on my watch.
Well, I don't see any debate at all about what makes us Homo sapiens . It's really is all about genes. Its something easily defined. Its sort of a boring question.
I had thought the original question had been "What is Human" but then Andy asked more questions, I had thought leading us more towards what is human life and when does it begin.
Because the easy question of what is Human, Homo Sapien has been answered.
The article mentioned was pertaining to abortion and the age old debate about when does "life" happen and when are we "ending it" or "killing it". So I assumed and answered as such about my views.
I assumed we were not discussing what is "human" but at what stages we consider that "it", shall we say, is "alive" in the sense that "it" will have the rights given to those who are human.
Because while the definition of what is a Homo sapien may be cut and dry in the biological sense, what is "Human" in the its alive and deserves rights is not. Its something that does need to be defined.
We have granted animals rights, but not plants of viruses and not even all "animals". It is an important question even if not grounded firmly in a purely scientific answer.
So is the question being asked when do Homo sapiens gain and loose rights? Or is Andy really asking what makes us human and deserving of the privileges as such?
The article discusses pending legislation that seeks to legally define a human in genetic terms. To my understanding, that is all.
Andy what is it we are talking about so Crystal and I can banter to each other and not at each other?
Here was my thought process when I read the article.
1. What is a human?
2. When do we grant humans rights?
I have to this point been occupying most of my time with an analysis on the first question. I really didn't get to the second part, because I think I have a different idea of "human" depending on the situation - i.e. the ball of cells, the brain-dead person on life support, the average human walking the street.
As Skewbie points out, a human is a thing with human genes.
I'm working on another post to try and capture my thoughts about the definition - I'm not quite satisfied with the definition, and have some bits to pick at about it.
Hope that helps.
Post a Comment