When is a human a person?

[eudaimonia]

1. From a biological standpoint the human individual, and all individual lifeforms, are basically a survival machine that exists for the preservation of the gene (genetic code DNA)

I strongly question the usefulness of this premise in an ethical context. Why should I care about killing an entity that is basically "a survival machine that exists for the preservation of the gene"? I have no moral issues against using medicines to kill bacteria in my body, or using bacteria-killing disinfectants on my body. By making us indistinguishable from bacteria (and even viruses!), it's unclear how medicine can be told not to conduct stem cell research, but also to fight illnesses.

2. The genetic code is the single best identification unit for distinguishing between individuals. (think court cases based on DNA evidence....)

Irrelevant. What does "best identification" have to do with anything? Identification isn't at issue.

3. After conception there exists a single celled life form with a unique human genetic structure.

While this is certainly true, its ethical relevance is at issue.

5. It is unethical to intentionally destroy a unique human individuals.

Why? Not that I disagree, but why is "unique human individual" the ethical criterion? Why not "human individual with higher brain functions"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Draka]

I think the idea of consciousness is being looked at from the wrong angle here. What should be looked at the is the concept of consciousness of self. The stage of development where we first realize that we are ourselves. That we are a seperate, functioning being with thoughts and form. That we have wants and needs. The third trimester baby in the womb can be shown to be sort of investigating his own hand. A newborn baby knows that she is hungry. To know pain and sensation and that it affects us. To know that the form we are in is us. To know our hand and our foot and know that we control them. To process thought willingly.

If we are to look at it this way then we can say that when a being reaches the point of consciousness of self then they are a "person". Now, just because we may lose consciousness at points in our life does not mean that we no longer are a person anymore. Our personhood was defined when we first reached that point to think and recognize ourselves. That personhood does not end until death.

Of course, for the argument of stem cell research, this definition of consciousness does not help the stance against it. For an embryo at the stage of development required for stem cell research is not capable of this consciousness. It has no consciousness at all as it is impossible for it to have.

 

[Runlikethewind]

I strongly question the usefulness of this premise in an ethical context. Why should I care about killing an entity that is basically "a survival machine that exists for the preservation of the gene"? I have no moral issues against using medicines to kill bacteria in my body, or using bacteria-killing disinfectants on my body. By making us indistinguishable from bacteria (and even viruses!), it's unclear how medicine can be told not to conduct stem cell research, but also to fight illnesses.

Irrelevant. What does "best identification" have to do with anything? Identification isn't at issue.

While this is certainly true, its ethical relevance is at issue.

My use of these first three premises is to build an objective definition of human because a major part of ethics deals with the way in which humans treat other human. So in an ethical context as one needs to define what a human person is in order to make ethical statements about how we interact.

Why? Not that I disagree, but why is "unique human individual" the ethical criterion? Why not "human individual with higher brain functions"?

I wish to argue for an objective definition of human, one that applies equally to all. Higher brain function is subjective. It applies to all kinds of animals, dogs, cats, etc. Unless we are talking about more of a self awareness but when does that occur? at different times in different individuals I would think. One would have to judge person-hood on a case by case basis. Genetics on the other hand are objective and that is what I am trying to establish an objective definition of person-hood that is not subject to a case by case analysis form the beginning like awareness, higher brain function, viability, or other more common definition. And I think that having an objective definition of person-hood helps in our ethical treatment of other humans because we don't have to ask "well is it a person yet? get out the ekg machine or the brain-scanner to see if its a person yet. Can't make an ethical decision till we sort that out..."

 

[Runlikethewind]

If we are to look at it this way then we can say that when a being reaches the point of consciousness of self then they are a "person". Now, just because we may lose consciousness at points in our life does not mean that we no longer are a person anymore. Our personhood was defined when we first reached that point to think and recognize ourselves. That personhood does not end until death.

I agree of course that this is a valid way to define person and that many people see it this way. But my problem is that it is just too subjective. Everyone reaches that point at different times in there development. And since we can't actually get in there head how do we judge that they are aware? If a baby grabs its foot in the womb is it investigating its surroundings or is that just an instinct, a reaction? If a baby cries is that an awareness or is it just making noise? Other animals make noise too are they aware do they deserve to have equal human right? (which of course is not to say that other animals should be treated badly or abused or whatever, its just to say that they are not people)

 

[Draka]

I agree of course that this is a valid way to define person and that many people see it this way. But my problem is that it is just too subjective. Everyone reaches that point at different times in there development. And since we can't actually get in there head how do we judge that they are aware? If a baby grabs its foot in the womb is it investigating its surroundings or is that just an instinct, a reaction? If a baby cries is that an awareness or is it just making noise? Other animals make noise too are they aware do they deserve to have equal human right? (which of course is not to say that other animals should be treated badly or abused or whatever, its just to say that they are not people)

While you may have a point here, it is sort of irrelevant to the question at hand. I think it is safe to assume that the ability to find consciousness of self is dependent upon a higher brain function. That does not exist in the few day old embryonic stage. Therefore making self-awareness impossible for an embryo when it comes to stem cell research. And you are back to the individual genetic code thing again.

 

[NZAmish]

From the moment they are concieved.

 

[UnityNow101]

A human would have to be considered human once the heart begins beating at 5 weeks. How could anyone see it any differently? The heartbeat symbolizes life and the beginning of it. Without it you have no life. And with it you are said to be alive.

 

[McBell]

A human would have to be considered human once the heart begins beating at 5 weeks. How could anyone see it any differently? The heartbeat symbolizes life and the beginning of it. Without it you have no life. And with it you are said to be alive.

Now all you needs do is explain what it is BEFORE the heart starts beating.

 

[jimbob]

Mestemia has a point. the tissue and whatnot that is forming can either be looked at as just that. nothign but tissue. or it can be looked at as life that is in formation. the way i figure, life begins at conception, because the process of being born commands the same dignity of life as actually being born into the world. i think the heart beating just is one of the first signs of developement, but life begins before it.

 

[Runlikethewind]

The last couple of posts got me thinking that I might have asked the wrong question. The question should not be when does a human become a person, this implies that not all humans are persons. The question should be when is a human not a person.

Human life clearly begins at conception, I think this is biologically sound and I don't think there is a person alive today who did not begin life in this way. That is part of the point I was trying to make in defining human by giving recourse to the genetics. Clearly an embryo from the union of human sperm and egg results in an embryo with human DNA which is a human. The question then is there any point in the life of a human in which the human is not a person. Or the question might be do all humans really deserve equal treatments. One might then be able to argue that not all humans are persons, which I disagree with, or even if we can agree that all humans are persons it can be argued that not all people deserve equal rights. There may even be some merit in this argument given that children are not treated equal to adults (they can't enter into a contract as one of many examples). Then again the only right that I am arguing that they be given is that all humans have an equal right to live.

Perhaps in this manner the question of human vs person is irrelevant and the question is really about which humans deserve which rights? Or questions of equality or equal treatment or something along those lines....

 

[Aqualung]

Perhaps in this manner the question of human vs person is irrelevant and the question is really about which humans deserve which rights? Or
questions of equality or equal treatment or something along those lines....

Yeah, that's why I was curious when people thought it was okay to kill a human. So far, nobody has responded with, "It's okay to kill a human if they haven't been born"...

 

[McBell]

The last couple of posts got me thinking that I might have asked the wrong question. The question should not be when does a human become a person, this implies that not all humans are persons. The question should be when is a human not a person.

Human life clearly begins at conception, I think this is biologically sound and I don't think there is a person alive today who did not begin life in this way. That is part of the point I was trying to make in defining human by giving recourse to the genetics. Clearly an embryo from the union of human sperm and egg results in an embryo with human DNA which is a human. The question then is there any point in the life of a human in which the human is not a person. Or the question might be do all humans really deserve equal treatments. One might then be able to argue that not all humans are persons, which I disagree with, or even if we can agree that all humans are persons it can be argued that not all people deserve equal rights. There may even be some merit in this argument given that children are not treated equal to adults (they can't enter into a contract as one of many examples). Then again the only right that I am arguing that they be given is that all humans have an equal right to live.

Perhaps in this manner the question of human vs person is irrelevant and the question is really about which humans deserve which rights? Or questions of equality or equal treatment or something along those lines....

Why say that life begins with the fertilized egg?
Why not with the sperm and ovum?

Is not a human sperm human?
If not, why not?

One of the big problems you seem to be having is the definitions of the words 'human' and 'person.'

In all the definitions I have seen for human, having a heartbeat is not in any of them.
If a heart beat is needed to be a human then once a person dies they are no longer human?
I do not agree with this type of thinking.
Seems to me that throwing around the term human is much the same as calling a fetus or embryo a baby.
It is an appeal to emotion argument.

at what point in time is one not a human?
As a sperm and egg are you not still a human?
It isn't like you are a cat until fertilization takes place.

 

[Runlikethewind]

One of the big problems you seem to be having is the definitions of the words 'human' and 'person.'

I totally agree, I keep using them interchangeably and vaguely.

Seems to me that throwing around the term human is much the same as calling a fetus or embryo a baby.
It is an appeal to emotion argument.

Indeed, which is why it would be nice to have some kind of objective property that one can readily identify for the purpose of defining.

Why say that life begins with the fertilized egg?
Why not with the sperm and ovum?
Is not a human sperm human?
If not, why not?

Here is where I think the genetic definition again makes the most sense. The sperm and the egg have the genetic information of the woman and man respectively. My sperm has my DNA, or at least a certain amount of it. The folks down at CSI can identify my sperm as mine by testing the DNA. It is not until conception, when the egg and sperm unite, that the respective genetic codes of the mother and father are recombined to form a new unique genetic code which is different from both the individual sperm and egg yet a product of them. So it is at this point that a unique human exists and not as a sperm and egg. It is DNA that best identifies a human.

 

[McBell]

So from the time of ejaculation to fertilization what is it?
A cat?

 

[Runlikethewind]

So from the time of ejaculation to fertilization what is it?
A cat?

What is what? The sperm? The egg? They are sperm and egg. Every time a male ejaculates he sends out millions of sperm (maybe not millions but its allot none the less). All that sperm carries part of that mans genetic material so I guess I would say that it is a part of that man, just as if a hair fell out of his head or he gave blood, the sperm is his, the hair is his, the blood is his.

When a sperm of that man's joins with an egg from a woman a new genetic code is made and at that point it can no longer be identified with just the man or the woman but as a distinctly different entity with a unique genetic code that is a combination of the two. Then it is not a part of the woman or the man, genetically speaking, because it has its own genetic code. Although it is intimately connected to the woman in the womb when it becomes implanted it is a genetically distinct entity.

 

[Ðanisty]

Perhaps in this manner the question of human vs person is irrelevant and the question is really about which humans deserve which rights?

The ones that have been born have a right to live.

Yeah, that's why I was curious when people thought it was okay to kill a human. So far, nobody has responded with, "It's okay to kill a human if they haven't been born"...

I do feel that it's okay to kill a human if they haven't been born.

Look, I'm not oblivious to the fact that a human fetus is human or that it's living. It's simply not a human person. It's human tissue that functions like a parasite. I would feel no more emotion over getting an abortion than getting a tapeworm removed. Sorry to be so blunt, but sometimes it seems like the only way you guys get it.

 

[McBell]

What is what? The sperm? The egg? They are sperm and egg. Every time a male ejaculates he sends out millions of sperm (maybe not millions but its allot none the less). All that sperm carries part of that mans genetic material so I guess I would say that it is a part of that man, just as if a hair fell out of his head or he gave blood, the sperm is his, the hair is his, the blood is his.

When a sperm of that man's joins with an egg from a woman a new genetic code is made and at that point it can no longer be identified with just the man or the woman but as a distinctly different entity with a unique genetic code that is a combination of the two. Then it is not a part of the woman or the man, genetically speaking, because it has its own genetic code. Although it is intimately connected to the woman in the womb when it becomes implanted it is a genetically distinct entity.

Yes and the sperm contains 23 and the egg contains 23 so when they join as a fertilized egg they have a total of 46, etc. etc.

I understand all that.
The thing you do not seem to grasp is that it is a HUMAN sperm and a HUMAN egg.
So it is always HUMAN.
There is never anything other than HUMAN in the process.
Why?
Because anything other than HUMAN sperm joining with anything other than HUMAN egg is not human.

So I am at a loss as to what you mean by not being human.
If not human then what is it?

 

[Aqualung]

Look, I'm not oblivious to the fact that a human fetus is human or that it's living. It's simply not a human person.

I don't take issue with that. (Well, I do morally, but not in the debate.) I was just curious if people thought it was ever okay to kill a human (since people get so caught up in human vs person), and it just so happened that nobody with your view has posted in my thread.

 

[Ðanisty]

I don't take issue with that. (Well, I do morally, but not in the debate.) I was just curious if people thought it was ever okay to kill a human (since people get so caught up in human vs person), and it just so happened that nobody with your view has posted in my thread.

I'm not sure they understood the wording. I think they believed (because I did) that you meant under what circumstances (as in self-defence, etc.) is it okay to kill a human. I don't think they had the idea about human vs. person in their minds with that question. That's fine. I just think more people would have responded similarly to me if they knew it was coming out of the context of this thread. Obviously there would still be a lot of people who would feel it's wrong too.

 

[Aqualung]

I'm not sure they understood the wording. I think they believed (because I did) that you meant under what circumstances (as in self-defence, etc.) is it okay to kill a human. I don't think they had the idea about human vs. person in their minds with that question.

I brought it up a number of times (ie, "Is it okay to kill a human to defend yourself from nine months of discomfort"), but I did want to address the issue as a whole, so the responses, while incomplete (as I infer from your comment) were not uncalled for.