Are fetus' humans?

[OldTrees]

So, before I do some more research, you are saying moral personhood should be the defining factor for what is human?

Definition: Human: a thing that possesses moral personhood<---like that?

No. I am saying 3 things.
Moral Personhood is not a sufficient nor a necessary condition of being Human.
Being Human is not morally significant.
Moral Personhood is morally significant.

U sure? You think moral person hood is not a sufficient nor a necessary condition[/u] of being Human? So, in Max brook's book, what would you define the term 'human factor' in world war z? What makes a zombie different from a human?

Do they need to be different? Aren't zombies humans that were infected with the zombie plague?

Am I sure that it is not a sufficient condition? Yes, see chimps.
Am I sure that it is not a necessary condition? Yes, see comatose humans.

[northcity4]

So, before I do some more research, you are saying moral personhood should be the defining factor for what is human?

Definition: Human: a thing that possesses moral personhood<---like that?

No. I am saying 3 things.
Moral Personhood is not a sufficient nor a necessary condition of being Human.
Being Human is not morally significant.
Moral Personhood is morally significant.

U sure? You think moral person hood is not a sufficient nor a necessary condition[/u] of being Human? So, in Max brook's book, what would you define the term 'human factor' in world war z? What makes a zombie different from a human?

Do they need to be different? Aren't zombies humans that were infected with the zombie plague?

Am I sure that it is not a sufficient condition? Yes, see chimps.
Am I sure that it is not a necessary condition? Yes, see comatose humans.

Let me first ask if you have read the book. Secondly, look how the people react when they see their human beings, sometimes their loved ones, infected. They are not the same person. Their character has changed. Their 'humanness' is not the same. Kind of one of the moral reasons to get a divorce: your wife is a completely different person than the one you married. Yes, they are human, but their 'humanness was lost.'

Comatose human: still the same guy. Will act the same and think the same. (Mass Effect 2 where they put that guy back together-->still the same person).
Chimps: what are chimps missing that makes them non-human? Also, let's assume the chimp had the same genetics as you and me. It can do a lot of parenting things, but scientists to this day still cannot say if animals actually mourn the loss of their kids and vice versa. Sure, they call out to them when needed, but when they die...it's surprising the reaction. I am conflicted though because of when that military guy died back in 200(6-10)...was all over the news, his dog knew he was dead and mourned.

Now, this brings up an interesting topic: there are people I have seen on video after car crashes that the collision on their head so severe they lost all memory. Was like a 1yr old kid in a 50yr old body. Although they are no longer the same person, they still retain their 'human factor.'

[OldTrees]

No I have not read War Z. I was basing my answer based on real world biology and the common origin story for zombies. Honestly I do not trust the reactions of characters in fiction nor do I trust those characters to be qualified to judge what is and is not human.

Comatose human. Will, does not but will act and think the same. This is my point. They are still human while in the coma. They don't temporarily become non human. Yet their capability to reason and suffer can disappear under these circumstances.

Let's assume a Chimp has the same genetics as a human? Those are called humans. You cannot have a scalene triangle with the same properties as a square.

So since there are Chimps (Chimp genome) that can suffer/reason and Humans (Human genome) that cannot suffer/reason, the ability to suffer/reason is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition of being human.

[northcity4]

No I have not read War Z. I was basing my answer based on real world biology and the common origin story for zombies. Honestly I do not trust the reactions of characters in fiction nor do I trust those characters to be qualified to judge what is and is not human.

Comatose human. Will, does not but will act and think the same. This is my point. They are still human while in the coma. They don't temporarily become non human. Yet their capability to reason and suffer can disappear under these circumstances.

Let's assume a Chimp has the same genetics as a human? Those are called humans. You cannot have a scalene triangle with the same properties as a square.

So since there are Chimps (Chimp genome) that can suffer/reason and Humans (Human genome) that cannot suffer/reason, the ability to suffer/reason is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition of being human.

Sorry, but I am going to ask you to confer for the moment. The experiences are based off of real ones so I do ask you at least give the book a shot.

I am not going to argue genetics of a chimp, but has there been an experiment done where scientists have tried to change the genetics of a chimp to meet human genetics?

Lastly, until we talk about the book, I am not in full agreement about your conclusion regarding suffering/reason. Regardless, assuming you conclusion true, what is worth talking about that you feel makes someone/something 'human?'

[OldTrees]

No I have not read War Z. I was basing my answer based on real world biology and the common origin story for zombies. Honestly I do not trust the reactions of characters in fiction nor do I trust those characters to be qualified to judge what is and is not human.

Comatose human. Will, does not but will act and think the same. This is my point. They are still human while in the coma. They don't temporarily become non human. Yet their capability to reason and suffer can disappear under these circumstances.

Let's assume a Chimp has the same genetics as a human? Those are called humans. You cannot have a scalene triangle with the same properties as a square.

So since there are Chimps (Chimp genome) that can suffer/reason and Humans (Human genome) that cannot suffer/reason, the ability to suffer/reason is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition of being human.

Sorry, but I am going to ask you to confer for the moment. The experiences are based off of real ones so I do ask you at least give the book a shot.

I am not going to argue genetics of a chimp, but has there been an experiment done where scientists have tried to change the genetics of a chimp to meet human genetics?

Lastly, until we talk about the book, I am not in full agreement about your conclusion regarding suffering/reason. Regardless, assuming you conclusion true, what is worth talking about that you feel makes someone/something 'human?'

I am not going to read World War Z for this topic because it is not in a form that would support its own argument and I do not treat the author as an authority in this field.

There are laws against such Human genetic engineering. However we have verified that genes not the cell determine the species. (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/608075/Scientists-achieve-cross-species-cloning.html?pg=all)

Assuming my conclusion is true the rest of the discussion about the definition of human would go into discussing the definition of species. This does not have much utility for non biologists but discussing if a fetus is human has no utility to people discussing abortion.

[northcity4]

No I have not read War Z. I was basing my answer based on real world biology and the common origin story for zombies. Honestly I do not trust the reactions of characters in fiction nor do I trust those characters to be qualified to judge what is and is not human.

Comatose human. Will, does not but will act and think the same. This is my point. They are still human while in the coma. They don't temporarily become non human. Yet their capability to reason and suffer can disappear under these circumstances.

Let's assume a Chimp has the same genetics as a human? Those are called humans. You cannot have a scalene triangle with the same properties as a square.

So since there are Chimps (Chimp genome) that can suffer/reason and Humans (Human genome) that cannot suffer/reason, the ability to suffer/reason is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition of being human.

Sorry, but I am going to ask you to confer for the moment. The experiences are based off of real ones so I do ask you at least give the book a shot.

I am not going to argue genetics of a chimp, but has there been an experiment done where scientists have tried to change the genetics of a chimp to meet human genetics?

Lastly, until we talk about the book, I am not in full agreement about your conclusion regarding suffering/reason. Regardless, assuming you conclusion true, what is worth talking about that you feel makes someone/something 'human?'

I am not going to read World War Z for this topic because it is not in a form that would support its own argument and I do not treat the author as an authority in this field.

There are laws against such Human genetic engineering. However we have verified that genes not the cell determine the species. (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/608075/Scientists-achieve-cross-species-cloning.html?pg=all)

Assuming my conclusion is true the rest of the discussion about the definition of human would go into discussing the definition of species. This does not have much utility for non biologists but discussing if a fetus is human has no utility to people discussing abortion.

I don't expect you to read the book, but it brings up valid points you cannot simply put away. Humans losing their humanness is a topic worth talking about. As far as human factors:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors_and_ergonomics.

[discussing if a fetus is human has no utility to people discussing abortion.]= I tend to disagree here. If the fetus is confirmed human, there would be a lot of changes regarding abortion.

To talk about species, can humans sleep with any non-humans and produce an offspring that way? I have people telling it's impossible. I also heard this is only not possible due to the fact the offspring would be missing genes in it's genetics necessary for it to live and thus would die upon the sperm and egg trying to connect.

[OldTrees]

No I have not read War Z. I was basing my answer based on real world biology and the common origin story for zombies. Honestly I do not trust the reactions of characters in fiction nor do I trust those characters to be qualified to judge what is and is not human.

Comatose human. Will, does not but will act and think the same. This is my point. They are still human while in the coma. They don't temporarily become non human. Yet their capability to reason and suffer can disappear under these circumstances.

Let's assume a Chimp has the same genetics as a human? Those are called humans. You cannot have a scalene triangle with the same properties as a square.

So since there are Chimps (Chimp genome) that can suffer/reason and Humans (Human genome) that cannot suffer/reason, the ability to suffer/reason is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition of being human.

Sorry, but I am going to ask you to confer for the moment. The experiences are based off of real ones so I do ask you at least give the book a shot.

I am not going to argue genetics of a chimp, but has there been an experiment done where scientists have tried to change the genetics of a chimp to meet human genetics?

Lastly, until we talk about the book, I am not in full agreement about your conclusion regarding suffering/reason. Regardless, assuming you conclusion true, what is worth talking about that you feel makes someone/something 'human?'

I am not going to read World War Z for this topic because it is not in a form that would support its own argument and I do not treat the author as an authority in this field.

There are laws against such Human genetic engineering. However we have verified that genes not the cell determine the species. (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/608075/Scientists-achieve-cross-species-cloning.html?pg=all)

Assuming my conclusion is true the rest of the discussion about the definition of human would go into discussing the definition of species. This does not have much utility for non biologists but discussing if a fetus is human has no utility to people discussing abortion.

I don't expect you to read the book, but it brings up valid points you cannot simply put away. Humans losing their humanness is a topic worth talking about. As far as human factors:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors_and_ergonomics.

[discussing if a fetus is human has no utility to people discussing abortion.]= I tend to disagree here. If the fetus is confirmed human, there would be a lot of changes regarding abortion.

To talk about species, can humans sleep with any non-humans and produce an offspring that way? I have people telling it's impossible. I also heard this is only not possible due to the fact the offspring would be missing genes in it's genetics necessary for it to live and thus would die upon the sperm and egg trying to connect.

The book begs the question. A terrible fallacy to use as evidence. If it did not beg the question but rather discussed what human qua human is then I would consider it.

Human factors and ergonomics seems to be designing things to fit existent humans rather than getting anywhere near the topic of humanity.

If humanity is not morally significant then the question "Is fetus human?" is not morally significant. (You did ask what if I were right that humanity is not morally significant.)

The genetic definition of species is that members of the two species do not mate to create fertile offspring. Horse mating with a Donkey creates a Mule (infertile). Sometimes the mating is impossible or the offspring is non viable.
Note1: There is also the phylogenetic definition of species
Note2: Do notice the word "do" above.

[kimham8a]

Instead of speaking of zombies, maybe they could be spoken of as 'mentally sick and violent people'.
The zombie thing is just unrealistic, and my replacement I think can serve the same purpose.

[northcity4]

Well, let me put it this way. If your wife became a zombie or acted like one, almost anybody would agree it would be okay to divorce your wife.

In the book, there are people who cannot cope with the ability of zombies being real, so they become 'zombies' (I forget the term in book) mentally. These people are not infected, but the only way to cope with the zombie attack is to basically go mad. They literally are a zombie without the infection.

Does this make the person any less human? I think so. They no longer are the person you knew. They no longer think anything like they used to. They mentally have become a completely new thing. Genetics is one thing, mentally is another.

Film psycho which I believe a lot of you are familiar with, the guy at the very end mentally becomes his mom. This has happened in today's society.

I think talking about the mental aspects of humans is worth discussing. This is why I posted that site regarding human factors. These are very important to understanding.

As far as species, that will probably get us nowhere as far as if abortion is immoral.

[OldTrees]

Instead of speaking of zombies, maybe they could be spoken of as 'mentally sick and violent people'.
The zombie thing is just unrealistic, and my replacement I think can serve the same purpose.

This is why I used a comatose person (neither reasoning nor feeling) as an example of a human that is neither reasoning nor thinking.
Since there exists the potential for a human that is neither reasoning nor thinking, neither reasoning nor thinking is a necessary condition of humanity.

[northcity4]

Instead of speaking of zombies, maybe they could be spoken of as 'mentally sick and violent people'.
The zombie thing is just unrealistic, and my replacement I think can serve the same purpose.

This is why I used a comatose person (neither reasoning nor feeling) as an example of a human that is neither reasoning nor thinking.
Since there exists the potential for a human that is neither reasoning nor thinking, neither reasoning nor thinking is a necessary condition of humanity.

When I read that statement, all it says to me is it doesn't matter. I think a better way to put it is reason/thinking is part of the definition.

[OldTrees]

Instead of speaking of zombies, maybe they could be spoken of as 'mentally sick and violent people'.
The zombie thing is just unrealistic, and my replacement I think can serve the same purpose.

This is why I used a comatose person (neither reasoning nor feeling) as an example of a human that is neither reasoning nor thinking.
Since there exists the potential for a human that is neither reasoning nor thinking, neither reasoning nor thinking is a necessary condition of humanity.

When I read that statement, all it says to me is it doesn't matter. I think a better way to put it is reason/thinking is part of the definition.

1) A comatose person neither reasons nor feels.
2) A comatose homo sapien is a human.
3) If reasoning or feeling is a necessary condition of humanity then all humans can reason or feel.
4:3+1) If reasoning or feeling is a necessary condition of humanity then no comatose person is a human.
5:4+2) Neither reasoning nor feeling is a necessary condition of humanity.

If you disagree with my conclusion then identify the step (4 or 5) that is invalid or premise (1, 2 or 3) that is false and then defend your claim.