When do you become human?

when do you become human? after you take your first breath? or before?
what defines your humanity?

This is right up there with the abortion debate.
What defines you as a person and when does it become illegal for your mother to kill you.
There is no easy answer. Personally, if you have human genes and are alive, you are human, regardless of age (fetal age included) and regardless of mental capacity.

sperm and eggs have human genes.. Personally, if you have human genes and are alive

I think its more of a question of existence. When does the soul start? I believe souls are eternal. Your soul always existed and always will. But when you exist in the physical world your soul does also. What im saying is even if your a molecule you have a soul (you may not have an arm, leg, or even a brain, but you do have a soul). So abortions no matter how you want to look at it is a form of killing. Death is depriving life.

I hope i made sence to you. Hopefully someone else can elaborate for me.

i prefer the "when you become capable of dying" argument.

you live only when you are capable of dying. if you happen to have human characteristics by this point, then you would be classified as human. Its a very circular argument, i know. But i just got done reading heidegger, and thats what sticks out in my mind.

as for how this fits into the abortion debate (god this going to be a can of worms i dont want to deal with)...Its really a whole other issue. when a child is capable of living unassited outside the womb, an abortion is murder. until that point, having an abortion is no different that removing a tapeworm.

until that point, having an abortion is no different that removing a tapeworm.

Wow! I know u meant no harm but i still cant believe you said that.

well, believe it, i did. and yes, i meant no harm, and its a gross exaggeration of where i stand but...

think about it for a second.

if you had something unwanted inside your body using your organs and eating your ingested food to live, what would you call it?

a parasite.

however, when it is capable of living without your organs and ingested food, it is no longer a parasite.

when idiocy starts being secreted from your pores

sperm and eggs have human genes..

Don't even think of being a picky SOB and take my argument apart.

I said 'and are alive". Look up your jr. high school biology definitions of alive....capable of birth growth, response to stimuli and death.......individual cells of the human body are not capable of these things independently, and are not technically alive.

Compare them to a bacterium, a one-celled organism that IS alive........

well, believe it, i did. and yes, i meant no harm, and its a gross exaggeration of where i stand but...

think about it for a second.

if you had something unwanted inside your body using your organs and eating your ingested food to live, what would you call it?

a parasite.

however, when it is capable of living without your organs and ingested food, it is no longer a parasite.
As I recall, I linked the original posting to the abortion debate, since, philosophically, the two debates are quite siimlar.

Your position on abortion in not idiocy; it is a reasonable balance on the relative rights of two individuals.
IMHO Lamehonda is being far too inflexible in his argument on this issue.

Dispite my strong dislike of abortion, you are correct on the "something unwanted" inclusion in your argument. The unborn child is largely subject to the treatment or mistreatment of the mother.
I would sincerely hope that the mother will want to carry the child to term, but the state should not interfere in her right to do so.

a heartbeat classifies as human life in my opinion

Being human is not only biological. This is what creates a lot of problems in our society. Humans are very social beings, so personhood needs to be defined both biologically and socially. Therefore, a fetus is not a human, since it is not a societal member.

An interesting note on this subject, is that there are certain South American tribes who only define a being as human once they have gone through a ceremony of social consecration. Beings that have not been consecrated can be up to a few weeks out of the womb, but are not considered human until they have gone through the ceremony.

well, believe it, i did. and yes, i meant no harm, and its a gross exaggeration of where i stand but...

think about it for a second.

if you had something unwanted inside your body using your organs and eating your ingested food to live, what would you call it?

a parasite.

however, when it is capable of living without your organs and ingested food, it is no longer a parasite.

Kind of like an unwanted teenager huh? Someone living inside your house and eating all your food to live. Using your money and generally dirtying up the place. Untill they are capable (and willing) of living on their own maybe it should be acceptable to abort them. Take a big vacuum to them and suck them apart and flush them.

Just a random thought.

Kind of like an unwanted teenager huh? Someone living inside your house and eating all your food to live. Using your money and generally dirtying up the place. Untill they are capable (and willing) of living on their own maybe it should be acceptable to abort them. Take a big vacuum to them and suck them apart and flush them.

Just a random thought.

post natal abortions...lets do it. (please for the love of god....note the sarcasm)

while i understand the analogy, its severely lacking on several issues. a choice to bear the child entails a choice to care for that child. that and teens can be taught, get a job, do chores and generally help out. a fetus, however, cannot.

I would sincerely hope that the mother will want to carry the child to term, but the state should not interfere in her right to do so.
finally, a pro-lifer who gets it.

Being human is not only biological. This is what creates a lot of problems in our society. Humans are very social beings, so personhood needs to be defined both biologically and socially. Therefore, a fetus is not a human, since it is not a societal member.
while a decent arguement, be careful with it. If someone choose to live outside our society, are they no longer human? biologically, we're human regardless. homosapien classification requires no participation in society.

post natal abortions...lets do it. (please for the love of god....note the sarcasm)

while i understand the analogy, its severely lacking on several issues. a choice to bear the child entails a choice to care for that child.
That would explain abused children. Ohh...wait....no it won't.

that and teens can be taught, get a job, do chores and generally help out.
If you change that to "some teens" then I'll agree.


a fetus, however, cannot..

Would that be a human fetus you are refering to?

post natal abortions...lets do it. (please for the love of god....note the sarcasm)

while i understand the analogy, its severely lacking on several issues. a choice to bear the child entails a choice to care for that child. that and teens can be taught, get a job, do chores and generally help out. a fetus, however, cannot.

finally, a pro-lifer who gets it.

while a decent arguement, be careful with it. If someone choose to live outside our society, are they no longer human? biologically, we're human regardless. homosapien classification requires no participation in society.

First of all, the abortion question will never have an answer as long as there is more than one person (at which point the argument becomes moot). It's not a simple issue, as any discussion has so many other things attached to it including science, choise, morality, opinion, and on and on, that resolution can't be absolute.

The above quote seems to indicate that the teen has the POTENTIAL - "teens can be taught". Doesn't a small pile of human cells have a whole lot of potential, to grow and learn and be taught? I agree that socialization is part of what makes us human. But the foundation of what makes us human is our genetic makeup. A dog can be very social, but does that make it human? Nope, because genetically it's a canine, will always be a canine and has the limitations of those genetics. At least the teen (or the 4 year old) can learn social skills and join the society.

Human life begins when there's one human cell growing, at conception. I agree that it's not at full potential, and is not viable outside of its environment. But that organism has human genes, the potential to become a full member of society.

It's a matter of scale. If we are taken out of our environment and put, say, on Mars, we'd die. Does that make us trivial? Nope, we just have to grow/adapt/change/learn to the point where we can survive in the new and more hostile environment. And that's where the small pile of human cells starts out; in the environment in which it can grow/adapt/change/learn until it's ready to head out into a more hostile realm.

First of all, the abortion question will never have an answer as long as there is more than one person (at which point the argument becomes moot). It's not a simple issue, as any discussion has so many other things attached to it including science, choise, morality, opinion, and on and on, that resolution can't be absolute.
whether its right or wrong may never be settled but whether or not it remains legal can, and should, be settled

Human life begins when there's one human cell growing, at conception. I agree that it's not at full potential, and is not viable outside of its environment. But that organism has human genes, the potential to become a full member of society.

potentiality is a good argument, in fact, i used to follow it as well, but then something occured to me. While this pile of cells has the potential to be human, it is, in fact, not.

there is nothing wrong with the supposition that something may lack "claims" (think rights) at one point, and gradually come to aquire them later on, just as there is no problem with seeing that a pile of cells will gradually come to aquire human charateristics.

where do you draw the line? i hear you ask. when the fetus is capable of living outside the mother. at least this is the best i can do.

as for the original question....what about the ability to reason and use logic? would that be a criterion to define a human?

as for the original question....what about the ability to reason and use logic? would that be a criterion to define a human?

Monkeys can do that.

whether its right or wrong may never be settled but whether or not it remains legal can, and should, be settled


potentiality is a good argument, in fact, i used to follow it as well, but then something occured to me. While this pile of cells has the potential to be human, it is, in fact, not.

there is nothing wrong with the supposition that something may lack "claims" (think rights) at one point, and gradually come to aquire them later on, just as there is no problem with seeing that a pile of cells will gradually come to aquire human charateristics.

where do you draw the line? i hear you ask. when the fetus is capable of living outside the mother. at least this is the best i can do.

as for the original question....what about the ability to reason and use logic? would that be a criterion to define a human?


So the pile of cells is not human? How is that.....it may not be A human, yet, but there's no denying that it is a bunch of human cells. I think that qualifies as life. A duck embryo isn't an adult duck yet, but it's duck cells. By your argument it seems that a person that is mentally deficient in some way, whether a coma or head injury or something else, is no longer human because they can't function as a human or in society as they used to. How about Christopher Reeve? He could'nt function in society without a whole bunch of help, did that make him non-human because he was totally dependent on others? I don't think so.

Hay Lazysmurff Do You Have Children ?????
Did Your Parents Ever Compare You To A Tapeworm ?????
I Know God, I Know Life And I Know Death ..
At The Moment Of Conseption It Is Life Human Or Not And Has A Right To Have Rights !!!!!
That Is Fact, Just Like The Fact That People With The Same Views As You Are Screwing Up Childrens Views Of The Future.
I Feel Sorry For You

So the pile of cells is not human? How is that.....it may not be A human, yet, but there's no denying that it is a bunch of human cells.
you nailed it. its not a human yet, its just a pile of cells. if we are okay with following its progress from "bunch o cells" to human, then there exists no problem with following it from "no rights" to "gradually aquiring those rights"

I think that qualifies as life. A duck embryo isn't an adult duck yet, but it's duck cells.
perhaps, but if you want to take that route, ducks should have rights. as should every form of life. yet i dont see you standing on a street corner with a sign advocating that we save the ants/roaches/beetles etc.

By your argument it seems that a person that is mentally deficient in some way, whether a coma or head injury or something else, is no longer human because they can't function as a human or in society as they used to.
it may seem that way, but there is a very subtle difference between what i mean, and what you take me to mean. by functioning in society i dont mean being able to eat and drink and shit without assistance. i mean being able to participate in our "moral code" so to speak. to be able to recognize relationships or a lack there of with other humans. its a very very in depth idea, and im trying to summarize it in a few sentences, and im not doing it justice...im sorry.

How about Christopher Reeve? He could'nt function in society without a whole bunch of help, did that make him non-human because he was totally dependent on others? I don't think so.
and you think correctly. once you have rights, such as a right to life and such, noone can take those away from you. thats the beauty of it. those born like christopher reeeves are still capable of participating in society, and thus are treated like humans.

i do enjoy the ability of us to have a non-heated discussion on the topic by the way. its reassures my stance that people can sit down and talk calmly about this. unlike this guy\/

Hay Lazysmurff Do You Have Children ?????
Did Your Parents Ever Compare You To A Tapeworm ?????
I Know God, I Know Life And I Know Death ..
At The Moment Of Conseption It Is Life Human Or Not And Has A Right To Have Rights !!!!!
That Is Fact, Just Like The Fact That People With The Same Views As You Are Screwing Up Childrens Views Of The Future.
I Feel Sorry For You

first: please dont capatalize ever word, it makes things hard to read.
second: no i dont have kids, and i dont plan it. what does that have to do with anything?
third: you know god eh? like on a firt name basis? or in the figurative sense? to claim you know what life and death is a very big claim. seems as though your the only one on earth whose figured it out.
fourth:cenception makes it life? so what if its a miscarriage....never developed lungs or a heart. did they fetus experience life? hmmm...
fifth: its fact eh? scientist, philosophers, and pychologists would disagree with you.
sixth: i, and people with the same views are screwing up childrens view of the future? how? i make no claims to know the future, nor do i speak to or interact with children at all, aside from telling them where the toys are at my job in target. and that hardly entails a philosophical discussion.

you're free to think i am wrong. in fact, some very smart people disagree with me, and use some very compelling arguments. however, you are not free to personally attack me and others like me. to claim we are screwing up the youth of america is a big grievance, one you have no place to take, nor can you even begin to back it up.

feel free to bring your thoughts into the conversation in a civilized manner, they matter as much as anyone elses. but i urge you to actually sit, read, and think on these problems before you just buy into the religious rights views.

I HAVE FIGURES OUT A LOT OF THINGS FIRST HAND IN LIFE !!
like people will be people> you have the right to think anything you want as do I. do I know god on a first name basis Yes anyone who belives should
I am not religious ? i was a in a large church leadership for several years. for me to judge you was wrong I am sorry. but maybe you should look at your own worDs as well

but maybe you should look at your own worDs as well

im a philosophy major, thats what i do. I've been over this topic enough times with myself, with others (both those who agree with me and those who dont), and in books to have developed my stance on this topic very well.

i appreciate, and accept, your apology, so please consider mine. alot of what i say, while i may agree with the sentiment, is said to get a rise out of people. some analogies i draw i know to be absurd (the tapeworm for example) but i draw them to get a point across. I am sorry if a offended or upset you.

Thanks, life goes on and there is no shortage of things to debait about. there is always something new happening. the biggest and hardest thing to do is relax and enjoy life because it is to short but even that is debaited some think enjoying life is a sin ! some even think music is a sin ! I do admit some of this new head banging music it unsettling. but I must stop and remember what I listened to in my younger years. it all comes down to what we do with what we learn in life !

How about when you become Baptized??? :icesangel

Well, that’s probably what the Church would want me to say…


But I think once you’ve developed all your organs and taken human shape (fetus) then you’re pretty much part of the species – and this occurs at what point, in the second trimester?? (definitely by the third trimester right?). I don't think being concious (or born) is necessarily required to be considered a person - there's been study's that show a fetus can be responsive to certain stimuli while still in the womb...

Sub-consciousness is a form of conciousness - who knows what unborn babies can think, or feel (warmth, pain, I'd be willing to bet they're probably very much aware of their own homeostasis).

-edit- I bunged up the response, so put some dashes in my comments.


you nailed it. its not a human yet, its just a pile of cells. if we are okay with following its progress from "bunch o cells" to human, then there exists no problem with following it from "no rights" to "gradually aquiring those rights"


---But that "pile of cells" IS human. Barring some accident (radiation and accompanying mutation) once that cell begins to grow and replicate, it cannot become anything OTHER than a human.


perhaps, but if you want to take that route, ducks should have rights. as should every form of life. yet i dont see you standing on a street corner with a sign advocating that we save the ants/roaches/beetles etc.


---I almost got mad at the "yet i dont see you standing on a street corner with a sign advocating that we save the ants/roaches/beetles etc." comment, but then I laughed, as I had read your comments about sometimes just getting a rise out of people. But that's straying off of the subject, animal rights is a different thread and I think you'll agree. I don't believe in being cruel to animals, but I've eaten my share of them.

it may seem that way, but there is a very subtle difference between what i mean, and what you take me to mean. by functioning in society i dont mean being able to eat and drink and shit without assistance. i mean being able to participate in our "moral code" so to speak. to be able to recognize relationships or a lack there of with other humans. its a very very in depth idea, and im trying to summarize it in a few sentences, and im not doing it justice...im sorry.

---A 2 year old can be destructive and not participate in our moral code. A physically mature adult with mental problems might not be able to participate in our morale code either. But that doesn't make either of them less of a human or reduce their rights. Nope, it's not easy to discuss at all.

and you think correctly. once you have rights, such as a right to life and such, noone can take those away from you. thats the beauty of it. those born like christopher reeeves are still capable of participating in society, and thus are treated like humans.

---I disagree; if you're a mass murderer and make a conscious decision to go out and kill (and possibly eat, mutilate, rape, etc) your victims then I think you should be relieved of your rights. I give the example of a convicted rapist in Florida (true story). He served 3 years and was let out on parole. Within 2 or 3 weeks, he had raped and killed some college girls. He was convicted and sent to prison again. Guess what? 3 years later he was up for parole. His sanity was never in question, yet he chose to to this over and over when his rights to be free were not taken away. (ok, enter capital punishment, 3 strikes and incarceration discussions here :) )

i do enjoy the ability of us to have a non-heated discussion on the topic by the way. its reassures my stance that people can sit down and talk calmly about this. unlike this guy\/

---Yeah, some folks don't get it that you can have strong and opposite viewpoints and not yell at each other about it, but rather respect the other person's opinion. Jerryred was a bit excited, but was passionate about his position.

fourth:conception makes it life? so what if its a miscarriage....never developed lungs or a heart. did they fetus experience life? hmmm...

---I think he's (Jerryred) right here, though. Even if the human fetus dies, it was human and deserved the chance to live. Of course my argument breaks down for a child that is seen to be definitely messed up, will suffer for all of its short life, etc. Yes it's still human but......
.

...

In regrards to the eggs/sperm comment...

Human life begins at conception
Eggs and Sperm both have what is know as a diploid number of "n" (haploid), which means it is half of the "information" required to produce a human being. The moment an egg and sperm are unionized the dipliod number becomes "2n". This is the corrent number of genes, half from your mom and half from your dad, that are required for a "new human cell" to exist. At this moment, that gene makup is 100% unique and different from every single other makup in the entire world. Each human life itself is totall different, wouldnt you say, that is why we have rights and such, to protect our differences. Since we define human life as being unique, it would be safe to say that that one cell will "develop" into a totally uniqe individual who would have their own rights, freedoms and opinions in this world.

Instead of askin when are we human you should ask what makes us human

when do you become human? after you take your first breath? or before?
what defines your humanity?

Human is a word, a noun, it describes a person, place or thing.

What we are, who we are, and why we're here are questions we'll never answer. Unless you want to be a smartarse.

or maybe it can just be someones opinion?? Possibly there is some educational backing behind it?

Maybe they arent just trying to be a smartarse...

I agree with lazysmurff.
lets leave the abortion Sh*t at-pro-life/pro-choice with exceptions. some times it may be better to have an abortion- pregnancy problems(mother/child could die),incest,rape,etc. Its your choice and lets leave it that way. even if its illegal it will still happen