Are fetus' humans?

[memimemi]

Do you mean any specific stage of growth?  Are we talking about zygotes, embryos, or fetuses here?  They are very different organisms.

Hallmarks of individual organisms:

Locomotion.  Humans, yes.  Fetuses, no.  Embryos, no.  Zygotes, limited.

Reproduction.  Humans, yes.  Fetuses, no.  Embryos, no.  Zygotes, by fission (twins/triplets/etc).

Metabolism. Humans, yes.  Fetuses, embryos, zygotes, parasitic.

Sure, a zygote *may* become human, eventually.  Then again, they usually end up spots of blood on feminine hygeine products.

There are reasons that most cultures set a reasonable limit on abortion, to the first couple trimesters.  It takes months of development for an embryo to grow gills.  Yes, gills, like a piscine breathing apparatus. 

Considering the malleability of the term 'human' (echoing OT and Jenk), I would consider the actions of fully-formed, adult members of the genus Homo, and how societies can label them 'inhuman' without the slightest qualms.  cf. Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ted Bundy.

What gives an organism that is even less demonstrably 'human' (having done nothing that we consider the hallmarks of humanity - speech, thought, abstraction) any extra rights?  Especially when, developmentally, it has more in common with fish (embryonic phase), or even e.coli bacterial colonies (in the case of zygotes)?

If potential 'human-ness' is our main criterion, then the great philosopher Bill Hicks nailed it: "I've tossed universes in my underpants... while napping."

Sorry about the disjointed nature of this post; it's a complex situation.  However, I'm gonna go with 'no.'

[OldTrees]

P0) 'Human' is a word defined by humans.

Therefore:

P1) Every entity that declares itself human and possesses the ability to define the word 'human' without explicit instruction must be human

P0 implies human is a word created by Homo Sapiens.
P1 implies klingons are human.
I do not trust P1 as klingons are a non human intelligent lifeform.

[cometbah]

P0) 'Human' is a word defined by humans.

Therefore:

P1) Every entity that declares itself human and possesses the ability to define the word 'human' without explicit instruction must be human

P0 implies human is a word created by Homo Sapiens.
P1 implies klingons are human.
I do not trust P1 as klingons are a non human intelligent lifeform.

P0 is an incorrect interpretation.

I mean exactly what I have written: 'human' is a word defined by humans, not Homo Sapiens. Humans are not defined by biology alone, Homo Sapiens, on the other hand, are.

Suppose someone gives birth to an offspring with wings and reproductive incompatibility with other Homo Sapiens (but still sentient in the same way as most contemporary Homo Sapiens). The offspring is, by all definition, not a Homo Sapien, but should, I think, still be accepted as a human being. Unless, of course, that it refuses to declare itself human.

Suppose another species has evolved at the same pace as Homo Sapiens, with near-identical morphology, but remained reproductively incompatible. The two species share an integrated society. It would be absurd, I think, to suggest that the other species is to be considered non-human for legal, ethical, sociological, psychological, and other not-strictly-genetic purposes.

If P1 cannot be accepted, I see a dark future for humanity when we begin to free ourselves from the tyranny of genes.

I'd personally like to treat the Replicants as humans =) (Blade Runner reference, for those unfamiliar with it). P1 protects all similar hypothetical beings - replicants, advanced A.I.s, gene splicers that began as genetic humans, cyborgs, and so on.

So... yes, if Klingons possess and exercise the ability to declare humanity, then they must be considered human. Note, however, that if 'being Klingon' and 'being Humans' are, by definition, contradictory, then P3 is violated, and all associated assertions ('I am a Klingon', 'I am a human', 'A Klingon is never a human; a human is never a Klingon') are rendered moot.

A similar example was given in my previous post:

If an AI were to achieve human-level consciousness, and declares itself human, then it is human (by P1).

[OldTrees]

P0) 'Human' is a word defined by humans.

Therefore:

P1) Every entity that declares itself human and possesses the ability to define the word 'human' without explicit instruction must be human

P0 implies human is a word created by Homo Sapiens.
P1 implies klingons are human.
I do not trust P1 as klingons are a non human intelligent lifeform.

P0 is an incorrect interpretation.

I mean exactly what I have written: 'human' is a word defined by humans, not Homo Sapiens. Humans are not defined by biology alone, Homo Sapiens, on the other hand, are.

Suppose someone gives birth to an offspring with wings and reproductive incompatibility with other Homo Sapiens (but still sentient in the same way as most contemporary Homo Sapiens). The offspring is, by all definition, not a Homo Sapien, but should, I think, still be accepted as a human being. Unless, of course, that it refuses to declare itself human.

Suppose another species has evolved at the same pace as Homo Sapiens, with near-identical morphology, but remained reproductively incompatible. The two species share an integrated society. It would be absurd, I think, to suggest that the other species is to be considered non-human for legal, ethical, sociological, psychological, and other not-strictly-genetic purposes.

If P1 cannot be accepted, I see a dark future for humanity when we begin to free ourselves from the tyranny of genes.

I'd personally like to treat the Replicants as humans =) (Blade Runner reference, for those unfamiliar with it). P1 protects all similar hypothetical beings - replicants, advanced A.I.s, gene splicers that began as genetic humans, cyborgs, and so on.

So... yes, if Klingons possess and exercise the ability to declare humanity, then they must be considered human. Note, however, that if 'being Klingon' and 'being Humans' are, by definition, contradictory, then P3 is violated, and all associated assertions ('I am a Klingon', 'I am a human', 'A Klingon is never a human; a human is never a Klingon') are rendered moot.

It appears as if we agree in the end but disagree about whether the word human should or should not be used to describe personhood. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood)

I think it absurd to refer to Homo Sapiens for legal, ethical, sociological, psychological, and other not-strictly-genetic purposes.
I think the ability to reason is a sufficient condition for personhood.

Since Human is usually used to refer to only Homo Sapiens out of all People, I think we should be specific and use personhood when we are talking about personhood.

[bobby.dan.andrews]

First of all I must tell you that you actually get the abortion out of context, since different countries agrees or not with it. Abortion is a problem of the organisational entities from a country, it applies to certain laws that represent the citizens. This means the decision about beeing allowed or not are a sum of terms, starting from medical development, religious majority, incomes per person, etc. If the law allows it, to make a similarity that might look hilarious, would be like forcing someone to drive a bike instead of a car cause driving a car involves a higher rate of accidents, when technologically and by law you can choose freely.

1) In the U.S. it's legal to get abortions, not considered murder in the government's eyes, but if  kill a pregnant woman, it considered double homicide.

It is perfectly normal. The abortion choice is exclusively for the parents. What happens if someone stabs a pregnant woman, and the woman escapes with minor injuries herself but the baby dies ? The guy escapes with minor injuries acusation ?

2) Late term abortion: you can kill a baby legally if it is 7 or more inches from being born...does 7 inches really determine the humanity of a baby?

7 inches determines the state of growth of the fetus. 7 inches means a pregnancy that evolved till 4th month or so. 5th month of pregnancy means 10 inches already. There are cases when fetus stops growing and by urgency must be "extracted" if not for safety of the baby, at least for safety of the mother. Depending of the state of the fetus it can be incubated or...."killed". This kill however is an option specially made for cases where the stoped growth involves serious internal organs degenerations. As hard is for a parent to let go at his baby, forcing him to live just to die in pain in 1 month is not an option. Hope this explains the 7 inches law.

3) Stuff a 1yr old baby (assuming its mental capacity is the same as a fetus) back into a woman, does that make it non-human now? (extreme, but again just an idea to help you think).

Abortion means "removed" while in fetus form phisically, and especially means before birth. Once you are born you get registrated and recognized as a human will full rights, therefor the idea has no relevance with the abortion subject.


So to come as an answer. These days a human is defined by the society he lives (or should live) in. Like in religion, you are born in something, you can't choose anything. If you are born in U.S.A. you apply to U.S.A. laws, you are part of a certain religion from birth (like it or not).

Do not try to define human, it might be the hardest thing on earth.
Humans were those that in name of religion burned people for "witchery practices", or those who commit suicide bombing.
Humans were/are those who send other humans to die in wars mainly for political and economical meanings.

If you like a harsh compare, try and find out what killed more people, abortion, which is not agreed by religion, or suicide bombing in the name of Jihad (not trying to offend anyone), and the famous crusades led by also famous catolic church in the name of religion also.

[Arum]

I.... I..... Well....... AFETUSISAHUMANOKAYSOTHATMEANSYOU'RECARINGFORASORTOFPETBEFOREITISBORNANDIFYOUDONOTHAVETHEMONEYYOUGIVETHEPETUPFORADOPTIONORKEELITWHYNOTTHESAMEWITHAFETUS?THEYHAVENOLOGICALTHOUGHTSYET.

Phew.
1) Logic. They need to be able to solve problems, mental retardness aside. They need to be able to know if they are hungry, thirsty, etc. Otherwise, they will not function as human beings, no matter how deformed.
2) Instinct. They need to shift if they sense danger coming, fight/flight is a big part. Instinct alone would make animals, but logic along would make our specific breed of animals. Apes, chimpanzees, and humans.
3)Physical Appearance also plays a big role. If they look enough like a human (hair on top, eyes, nose, mouth, head, shoulders, etc.) along with instinct and logic, a human has been made.

That means if they were furry, walked on their hands, and had a tail, they would not be human.
That also means that as soon as you get mood swings and hunger pangs, and of course the ultrasound image, the fetus has become HUMAN, and no longer an organism growing. If you want an abortion, get it in the first trimester, or else you'll have killed a human.

[TheManuz]

I think a fetus is human.
However, an abortion can be acceptable for me in certain cases and conditions, exactly is i find acceptable euthanasia in certain cases and conditions.

For me the discussion is not on humanity, but on cognitive abilities. It should be judged from case to case.

[northcity4]

First of all I must tell you that you actually get the abortion out of context, since different countries agrees or not with it. Abortion is a problem of the organisational entities from a country, it applies to certain laws that represent the citizens. This means the decision about beeing allowed or not are a sum of terms, starting from medical development, religious majority, incomes per person, etc. If the law allows it, to make a similarity that might look hilarious, would be like forcing someone to drive a bike instead of a car cause driving a car involves a higher rate of accidents, when technologically and by law you can choose freely.

1) In the U.S. it's legal to get abortions, not considered murder in the government's eyes, but if  kill a pregnant woman, it considered double homicide.

It is perfectly normal. The abortion choice is exclusively for the parents. What happens if someone stabs a pregnant woman, and the woman escapes with minor injuries herself but the baby dies ? The guy escapes with minor injuries acusation ?

2) Late term abortion: you can kill a baby legally if it is 7 or more inches from being born...does 7 inches really determine the humanity of a baby?

7 inches determines the state of growth of the fetus. 7 inches means a pregnancy that evolved till 4th month or so. 5th month of pregnancy means 10 inches already. There are cases when fetus stops growing and by urgency must be "extracted" if not for safety of the baby, at least for safety of the mother. Depending of the state of the fetus it can be incubated or...."killed". This kill however is an option specially made for cases where the stoped growth involves serious internal organs degenerations. As hard is for a parent to let go at his baby, forcing him to live just to die in pain in 1 month is not an option. Hope this explains the 7 inches law.

3) Stuff a 1yr old baby (assuming its mental capacity is the same as a fetus) back into a woman, does that make it non-human now? (extreme, but again just an idea to help you think).

Abortion means "removed" while in fetus form phisically, and especially means before birth. Once you are born you get registrated and recognized as a human will full rights, therefor the idea has no relevance with the abortion subject.


So to come as an answer. These days a human is defined by the society he lives (or should live) in. Like in religion, you are born in something, you can't choose anything. If you are born in U.S.A. you apply to U.S.A. laws, you are part of a certain religion from birth (like it or not).

Do not try to define human, it might be the hardest thing on earth.
Humans were those that in name of religion burned people for "witchery practices", or those who commit suicide bombing.
Humans were/are those who send other humans to die in wars mainly for political and economical meanings.

If you like a harsh compare, try and find out what killed more people, abortion, which is not agreed by religion, or suicide bombing in the name of Jihad (not trying to offend anyone), and the famous crusades led by also famous catolic church in the name of religion also.

That is not what I meant. When I talked about the government saying 7 inches (before hand) is legal for an abortion. And like you said once a baby is born it is recognized as a human. Therefore, 7 inches is deciding whether that baby is human or not. For you to say the rule was put there in case the parent my suddenly have problems means nothing. Who cares what happens at the stages before being born, all that matters is if it is human.

--->the baby cannot think, cannot make moral questions, can't call itself human.
True facts, but do not define if it is human or not.
To answer that, let's also talk about the building blocks example: We can create a human body...like literally piece one together, in the same way, a sperm/egg (zygote I think, correct me if I am wrong) is really a human...just super super small. It grows bigger (brain gets bigger, cells multiply and get bigger, itty bitty lung gets bigger...etc).

The difference here is that the human forms we can create have no life. So how how in the world does the zygote have life? Maybe that zygote can make complex decisions, but doesn't have a fully mouth to say so.

What am I trying to say is it is not building blocks that define a human. It doesn't go zygote, embryo, human. That's like saying fish, plant, ape, human. NO evidence of this occurring, the only way proven to get a human is by being human in the first place. To say fish sap human is to say fish are human and apes are human.

In the same way, zygotes must be human, and embryos as well. Also to say a human must define themselves as human to be human is incorrect. What if I am mute and have a brain problem...am I not human...in fact let's say the world calls me non human, am I non-human? No, your still human...this is why there is something more...something different we are not seeing that makes humans so unique.

[northcity4]

I think a fetus is human.
However, an abortion can be acceptable for me in certain cases and conditions, exactly is i find acceptable euthanasia in certain cases and conditions.

For me the discussion is not on humanity, but on cognitive abilities. It should be judged from case to case.

Sorry, please refrain from talking about abortion (discuss that in the abortion topic)

[TheManuz]

I think a fetus is human.
However, an abortion can be acceptable for me in certain cases and conditions, exactly is i find acceptable euthanasia in certain cases and conditions.

For me the discussion is not on humanity, but on cognitive abilities. It should be judged from case to case.

Sorry, please refrain from talking about abortion (discuss that in the abortion topic)

Ok, that was just an extension of my thought.
But, to be short, for my definition of what a human is, a fetus is a human.

[cometbah]

It appears as if we agree in the end but disagree about whether the word human should or should not be used to describe personhood. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood)

I think it absurd to refer to Homo Sapiens for legal, ethical, sociological, psychological, and other not-strictly-genetic purposes.
I think the ability to reason is a sufficient condition for personhood.

Since Human is usually used to refer to only Homo Sapiens out of all People, I think we should be specific and use personhood when we are talking about personhood.

I apologize for the confusion; there were indeed some unclear phrases in my writing (such as 'must be considered', and the lack of clarification between personhood, humanity, and Homo Sapien-ness).

The original question of whether fetuses should be considered humans refer more to the concept of Personhood (but not exactly; there is still a difference between Personhood and Humanity) than to that of Homo Sapiens. If it refered to Homo Sapiens, there would be nothing to discuss. A fetus has the same DNA as its future, full-grown self (barring extraordinary circumstances and artificial interference); as 'Homo Sapien' is a genetic definition, there is no way to suggest that it is not Homo Sapien.

In order for the discussion to have any meaning, then, the word 'human' in the question must not refer to 'only Homo Sapiens out of all People', as you have suggested, but 'People' in general.

Also to say a human must define themselves as human to be human is incorrect. What if I am mute and have a brain problem...am I not human...in fact let's say the world calls me non human, am I non-human? No, your still human...this is why there is something more...something different we are not seeing that makes humans so unique.

Being mute does not prevent you from defining yourself as a human, or even from communicating your declaring of humanity.

If your brain problem is sufficiently severe, then you may not be a human. For example, there is a medical condition in which additional sets of fully formed organs can develop inside a person's body, but have no capacity to grow into a reasoning being; that collection of organs is not human. There is another medical condition where two twins are merged into one, with only one of them retaining the ability to reason, and the other existing only as a parasitic twin. The parasitic twin is not considered human, and removal of the twin from its host ('killing') is almost universally recommended if medically reasonable.

If the world calls you a non-human, but you declare yourself a human, then you are a human. This was already explicitly illustrated in my previous post:

For example:

If an AI were to achieve human-level consciousness, and declares itself human, then it is human (by P1).

If a slave declares itself human, then it is human, even if his master disagrees (again, by P1).

If you declare yourself human, but every other human disagrees, you are still human (P1).

P1 is:

P1) Every entity that declares itself human and possesses the ability to define the word 'human' without explicit instruction must be human

[OldTrees]

1) Logic. They need to be able to solve problems, mental retardness aside. They need to be able to know if they are hungry, thirsty, etc. Otherwise, they will not function as human beings, no matter how deformed.
2) Instinct. They need to shift if they sense danger coming, fight/flight is a big part. Instinct alone would make animals, but logic along would make our specific breed of animals. Apes, chimpanzees, and humans.
3)Physical Appearance also plays a big role. If they look enough like a human (hair on top, eyes, nose, mouth, head, shoulders, etc.) along with instinct and logic, a human has been made.

1a) Why can logic be a necessary trait of being human and yet leave an exception for mental retardation. It sounds like logic is not a necessary trait of being a human despite being a common trait.
1b) Non humans (like aliens) could be capable of logic correct? So logic is not a sufficient condition for being human.

2) I think these instincts are coincidental traits and not necessary or sufficient traits.

3) I agree that sufficient physiological differences would result in the classification of non human under the phylogenetic definition of species.

It appears as if we agree in the end but disagree about whether the word human should or should not be used to describe personhood. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood)

I think it absurd to refer to Homo Sapiens for legal, ethical, sociological, psychological, and other not-strictly-genetic purposes.
I think the ability to reason is a sufficient condition for personhood.

Since Human is usually used to refer to only Homo Sapiens out of all People, I think we should be specific and use personhood when we are talking about personhood.

I apologize for the confusion; there were indeed some unclear phrases in my writing (such as 'must be considered', and the lack of clarification between personhood, humanity, and Homo Sapien-ness).

The original question of whether fetuses should be considered humans refer more to the concept of Personhood (but not exactly; there is still a difference between Personhood and Humanity) than to that of Homo Sapiens. If it refered to Homo Sapiens, there would be nothing to discuss. A fetus has the same DNA as its future, full-grown self (barring extraordinary circumstances and artificial interference); as 'Homo Sapien' is a genetic definition, there is no way to suggest that it is not Homo Sapien.

In order for the discussion to have any meaning, then, the word 'human' in the question must not refer to 'only Homo Sapiens out of all People', as you have suggested, but 'People' in general.

What difference between personhood and humanity do you see? (I see one too but I want to understand what you see.)

I think this discussion can have meaning when human in the question refers to 'only Homo Sapiens out of all People'. What it does it gets people to identify what other traits humans happen to have that are relevant to the abortion thread. This identification allows people to form actual well communicated arguments without the confusion the word human causes in that topic.