NationStates Jolt Archive

Modern biology makes it quite easy to determine what is and is not alive, as well as what is and is not human. However, many things are both human and alive yet are not human persons (human liver cells, organs inside a person who has just died, human sperm, etc). Therefore, the question now becomes: what are is/are the standard(s) for determining if a give entity is a human person?

To get the ball rolling, I have presented some of the major suggestions for answers to this question, as well as why I personally find them insufficient for modern purposes, in the post below this one. Feel free to add more or discuss the ones I present.

1. Ability to feel pain, use language, experience emotion, or other specific cognitive functions. There are many beings we currently recognize as human persons which are unable to do one or more of these things (persons who have suffered brain damage, for instance), and there are many animals that have been observed to demonstrate one or more of these functions.

2. Possession of a soul. Since it is not possible to empirically prove the existence of the soul, let alone to give any verifiable measurement of its nature or presence, it is not useful as a gauge of human personhood because it cannot be confirmed.

3. Consciousness or self-awareness. These terms are ill defined at best, creating more problems than are solved by using them as a determining quality of personhood. Adult chimpanzees show greater self awareness than human children under the age of 4, and pigs have shown greater consciousness than human infants in numerous studies. Until the definition of “consciousness” is refined, it is an essentially useless term to try to apply in this context.

4. Physiological similarity to beings that are unequivocally human. This is the proposition usually put forward by people who show pictures of late-term abortion aftermath, as they seem to think that the structural similarities between the body of a late-term fetus and a born human child are verification that the two are equivalent beings. However, it is possible to remove or transplant virtually any part of the human body (other than the central nervous system) without in any way altering the person who inhabits that body; as a result, the physical similarities between human shapes do not appear to correlate with their personhood. An infant with no legs, for example, shows less objective similarity to a normal human infant than a healthy newborn gorilla would, but we do not say the chimp is a human person while the legless infant is not a human person.

5. Possession of unique and human DNA. Unfortunately, modern genetics renders this theory obsolete. Within a single human person there are numerous mutations in the genetic code, which would lead to the conclusion that a cell with mutated DNA is actually a separate human person from the rest of that being’s body. Additionally, the mitochondria in most human cells possess their own DNA, distinct from the nuclear DNA, replicating on a different time course than the mitotic cycle of the cell; if individual DNA were the criterion for personhood then all of us would be host to trillions of tiny persons, in the form of the mitochondria that exist in our cells. We can also expand in the other direction and find the equally absurd conclusion that identical twins must be one human person, since they have identical DNA.

6. Probability that the being in question will one day become unequivocally human. This is the argument often applied to justify granting human personhood to human fetuses. However, since potential status is not used to describe the actual being of anything else in our practical lives, it seems foolish to try to use such criterion for personhood; we do not refer to a pile of nails and lumber as a house no matter how likely it is that the house will be built, and we do not refer to all living humans as “corpses” even though it is 100% certain that they will one day exist in that form.

I have always considered a person to be someone who demonstrates personality; hence, my cats would qualify as persons.

I have always considered a person to be someone who demonstrates personality; hence, my cats would qualify as persons.
as the title of the thread specifies, this is about human personhood. do you believe your cats are human persons?

1. Ability to feel pain, use language, experience emotion, or other specific cognitive functions. There are many beings we currently recognize as human persons which are unable to do one or more of these things (persons who have suffered brain damage, for instance), and there are many animals that have been observed to demonstrate one or more of these functions.

Why is language and pain in same group? Everyone can tell fetuses can't speak, but pain is more possible. Can you study pain in unborn things?

2. Possession of a soul. Since it is not possible to empirically prove the existence of the soul, let alone to give any verifiable measurement of its nature or presence, it is not useful as a gauge of human personhood because it cannot be confirmed.

Animals have souls, however, many faiths believe in this aspect. (Native Americans, etc) So confirming it would do less good than harm in identifying personhood. Shinto (I think that is the one) says spirits in everything thus souls every object.

3. Consciousness or self-awareness. These terms are ill defined at best, creating more problems than are solved by using them as a determining quality of personhood. Adult chimpanzees show greater self awareness than human children under the age of 4, and pigs have shown greater consciousness than human infants in numerous studies. Until the definition of “consciousness” is refined, it is an essentially useless term to try to apply in this context.

How do you prove something unborn is self-aware till after birth?

4. Physiological similarity to beings that are unequivocally human. This is the proposition usually put forward by people who show pictures of late-term abortion aftermath, as they seem to think that the structural similarities between the body of a late-term fetus and a born human child are verification that the two are equivalent beings. However, it is possible to remove or transplant virtually any part of the human body (other than the central nervous system) without in any way altering the person who inhabits that body; as a result, the physical similarities between human shapes do not appear to correlate with their personhood. An infant with no legs, for example, shows less objective similarity to a normal human infant than a healthy newborn gorilla would, but we do not say the chimp is a human person while the legless infant is not a human person.

This basically tells itself. Nothing much for me to say.

5. Possession of unique and human DNA. Unfortunately, modern genetics renders this theory obsolete. Within a single human person there are numerous mutations in the genetic code, which would lead to the conclusion that a cell with mutated DNA is actually a separate human person from the rest of that being’s body. Additionally, the mitochondria in most human cells possess their own DNA, distinct from the nuclear DNA, replicating on a different time course than the mitotic cycle of the cell; if individual DNA were the criterion for personhood then all of us would be host to trillions of tiny persons, in the form of the mitochondria that exist in our cells. We can also expand in the other direction and find the equally absurd conclusion that identical twins must be one human person, since they have identical DNA.

Mitroichondria are a completely different organism I've always thought. But good points.

6. Probability that the being in question will one day become unequivocally human. This is the argument often applied to justify granting human personhood to human fetuses. However, since potential status is not used to describe the actual being of anything else in our practical lives, it seems foolish to try to use such criterion for personhood; we do not refer to a pile of nails and lumber as a house no matter how likely it is that the house will be built, and we do not refer to all living humans as “corpses” even though it is 100% certain that they will one day exist in that form.

Yes, I've always wondered how the chance means its going to be. If that was true Vegas would have a lot more winners.

I would say that a person would be able to verify that they are a person, and a non-person would not. There may be exceptions, but I believe that understanding the question "are you a person?" would be a good indicator.

Modern biology makes it quite easy to determine what is and is not alive, as well as what is and is not human. However, many things are both human and alive yet are not human persons (human liver cells, organs inside a person who has just died, human sperm, etc). Therefore, the question now becomes: what are is/are the standard(s) for determining if a give entity is a human person?

To get the ball rolling, I have presented some of the major suggestions for answers to this question, as well as why I personally find them insufficient for modern purposes, in the post below this one. Feel free to add more or discuss the ones I present.
A complete genome and capable of independent movement. Please do NOT accuse me of being "against abortion" because of this statement. I have covered my stance on abortion more times on this board than I care to remember! :headbang:

as the title of the thread specifies, this is about human personhood. do you believe your cats are human persons?
Of course not. Forget it.

Why is language and pain in same group? Everyone can tell fetuses can't speak, but pain is more possible. Can you study pain in unborn things?

as the heading specified, these are particular cognitive functions that have been proposed as criterion for human personhood. because there are humans that cannot experience pain, and there are animals that can, studying pain in unborn this is irrelavent. i don't see what point you are trying to make.


Animals have souls, however, many faiths believe in this aspect. (Native Americans, etc) So confirming it would do less good than harm in identifying personhood. Shinto (I think that is the one) says spirits in everything thus souls every object.

as i said, it is not possible to objectively verify the existence, let alone the nature, of souls. therefore, they are useless criterion for human personhood.


How do you prove something unborn is self-aware till after birth?

why do you think this applies merely to things that have yet to be born? contrary to the way General has been going of late, not everything is an abortion debate. :)


This basically tells itself. Nothing much for me to say.

that's what i said. :)


Mitroichondria are a completely different organism I've always thought. But good points.

no, mitochodria are essential organelles inside of human cells. without them, you die. they have been a part of eukaryotic cells virtually since the time eukaryotic cells developed, and have long since lost the ability to function outside the cell.


Yes, I've always wondered how the chance means its going to be. If that was true Vegas would have a lot more winners.
indeed :).

A complete genome and capable of independent movement. Please do NOT accuse me of being "against abortion" because of this statement. I have covered my stance on abortion more times on this board than I care to remember! :headbang:
i don't see how anybody can accuse you of being "against abortion" because of that statement, since the majority of human fetuses that will come into existence will never naturally become capable of independent movement. a significant percentage of them will also lack complete genetic codes.

many beings we currently recognize as human have incomplete genomes, and even more are incapable of independent movement. do you believe that individuals with genetic abnormalities are not human persons? do you believe that individuals in a coma, those unable to perform any movement independently, are no longer human persons?

also, my parents' cats have complete genomes and are capable of independent movement; are they, therefore, human persons?

many beings we currently recognize as human have incomplete genomes, and even more are incapable of independent movement. do you believe that individuals with genetic abnormalities are not human persons? do you believe that individuals in a coma, those unable to perform any movement independently, are no longer human persons?
Oops! I was thinking "this is another thread about abortion" when I composed my post. I suspect I've been partially lobotomized by all those abortion threads! Heh! My apologies. :(

For those who don't believe so, simply draw a continuum from conception to delivery (w/ cord cut) and tell me precisely when that "it" became a human being.

For some "pro-choice" people, the unequivocal answer is: "when the cord is cut" or when "thing" is 100% out of the mother and the placenta is no longer attached to the mother."

For some of my more reticent "pro-choice" friends who are a teensy bit queasy about killing "it" when it is out of the mother but still connnected by the cord, "it" becomes a person when it is capable of breathing on its own if born prematurely.

Bottom line: every point on the continuum after conception but short of killing it after delivery but before the cord is cut/placenta out is simply based on a queasy fiction.

"Conception" is the only intellectually rational answer.


Now, pragmatics and social mores are a totally different issue. Do we want women to be able to kill their unborn babies in the first tri-mester of gestation? the second tri-mester? the third tri-mester? For those who think "yes", then simply give an intellectually honest reason for it:

EX:
1. The baby wasn't conceived in a loving relationship;
2. The relationship is not longer loving;
3. I con't afford to raise a baby;
4. I'm too embarassed for people to know I did the nasty;
5. I don't look good in maternity clothes;
6. It's like stressful, you know?

I want to do it because the baby will be inconvenient for me to carry.

Oops! I was thinking "this is another thread about abortion" when I composed my post. I suspect I've been partially lobotomized by all those abortion threads! Heh! My apologies. :(
ahh, i see. well, as i have posted in virtually all the abortion thread (i might have missed a few :P) i believe that the right to choose an abortion has nothing to do with the personhood of the fetus...therefore, you can rest assured, this topic is NOT ABOUT ABORTION.

let me say that once more, slightly louder, in case anybody in the back missed it: THIS TOPIC IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION!

I would say that a person would be able to verify that they are a person, and a non-person would not. There may be exceptions, but I believe that understanding the question "are you a person?" would be a good indicator.

Does anyone have an opinion on my assertion?

*all irrelevant material has been clipped*
please either edit or remove your post, Pirates; i would really like to avoid having my thread hijacked on the first page. this is NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT ABORTION. there are many of those already, so feel free to cut-and-paste your post into one of them.

Does anyone have an opinion on my assertion?
self-awareness, but many animals are also self-aware

Clearly, the thread is yet another stab at abortion (oops, no pun intended).

Does anyone have an opinion on my assertion?
useless, from an objective standpoint. a parrot can very confirm that it is a human person, more easily than a human child can acquire the ability to do the same thing. whether or not something believes itself to be human should not be the criterion for personhood, any more than my belief in my ability to fly by flapping my arms should be the criterion by which my ability to fly is gauged.

Clearly, the thread is yet another stab at abortion (oops, no pun intended).
it is not. i have already stated, many times, that my support of the right to choose abortion has nothing to do with the personhood of the fetus. i have explained why in many other thread. kindly remove yourself from this one, if that is the only topic you are interested in dicussing, as there are ample other threads for you to vent your spleen upon.

Hey! You can't talk about my spleen like that...

"Vent my spleen"? is that something like removing a fetus?

Are you comparing a spleen to an unborn baby now? geez!

useless, from an objective standpoint. a parrot can very confirm that it is a human person, more easily than a human child can acquire the ability to do the same thing. whether or not something believes itself to be human should not be the criterion for personhood, any more than my belief in my ability to fly by flapping my arms should be the criterion by which my ability to fly is gauged.

But would the parrot truly be understanding the question, or merely repeating a response it has learnt?

I should have said that what I described was how something can be a person. To be a person, it would have to match that criterion and also have human biology.

Okay here is my take on what a human person is

A human person knows by inner experience, in this life , her or his relation as a self (self-aware) with a cosmic whole which she or he may or may not call God, Buddha, Atman, the universe or Fred. And the human person enacts this relation in her apprehensions, percepts and actions. She acknowledges that Being is. and her existence has a part or phase of it.

That said, Angelina Jolie would not be condsidered a human person by my definition.

But would the parrot truly be understanding the question, or merely repeating a response it has learnt?

the same question could be asked of the child. unless you find some other means of verifying their self-awareness or their comprehension of what they are saying, your suggestion doesn't work.


I should have said that what I described was how something can be a person. To be a person, it would have to match that criterion and also have human biology.
what human biology? be more specific. human genome? human feet? human heart? all of the above? none? how much human biology is necessary? and how should we confirm that the person is, in fact, experiencing self-awareness, rather than just repeating something they heard from another?

Why start this thread if you aren't willing to get to your bottom line of what you think constitutes "personhood".

All you are doing is fomenting pointless bantering while simultaneously claiming that "abortion" is not the issue.

Take a stand..what do you thinkl?

the same question could be asked of the child. unless you find some other means of verifying their self-awareness or their comprehension of what they are saying, your suggestion doesn't work.


what human biology? be more specific. human genome? human feet? human heart? all of the above? none? how much human biology is necessary? and how should we confirm that the person is, in fact, experiencing self-awareness, rather than just repeating something they heard from another?

Because in order to just be repeating something, they would have to have been taught it somehow. By comparison, a person would have an understanding of the language they were using. Obviously, a very young child might not, but they have the capability to understand it. Hmmm... difficult.

As for the biology bit, if I ever have a conversation with an unattached pair of feet, I would find it hard to say that they were not a person.

Why start this thread if you aren't willing to get to your bottom line of what you think constitutes "personhood".

All you are doing is fomenting pointless bantering while simultaneously claiming that "abortion" is not the issue.

Take a stand..what do you thinkl?
get a grip, kid. not everybody is so arrogant as to assume they have all the answers just because you are.

i don't know the answer. i pose the question because i wish to learn, and because all my efforts to find a suitable definition have failed. that is why i posted the theories i have encountered, and what i think of them: so people could see where i am coming from, and what i think on the topic.

while you are, aparently, fixated on abortion to the point where you are incapable of actually reading my responses (i have now clarified, twice, on this thread that my stance on abortion has nothing to do with personhood and is therefore not related to this topic), i am not. i am interested in a slightly larger and more important question at this time, and if you aren't prepared to participate then please leave. i don't really have the time or desire to deal with your random accusations and abortion-fixated mindset.

Bottle you are a genius!
I always enjoy reading your threads and posts. You have presented a good brain teaser for me to think about.

Maybe human personhood can be determined by who gave birth to the being in the first place. errr um yeah sure why not?

Any thing that fits the current bill of being genetically human, that has a heart beat, and has brainwaves or anyone/thing that has ever been considered a human being by the afore mentioned criteria.

Why start this thread if you aren't willing to get to your bottom line of what you think constitutes "personhood".

All you are doing is fomenting pointless bantering while simultaneously claiming that "abortion" is not the issue.

Take a stand..what do you thinkl?
Look personhood and self are part of human development, you aren't just automatically a person. Certain criteria need to be established first. A fetus may be or may not be human life but it is not by any legal, biological or metaphysical definition...a person, a life maybe but not a person.

Because in order to just be repeating something, they would have to have been taught it somehow. By comparison, a person would have an understanding of the language they were using.

not at all. i can teach somebody to announce "i am a human person, and i am self-aware" in a language that they don't understand, and they can reproduce the sounds perfectly. conversely, there are many persons who lack the ability to use language to make that statement (aphasic patients, for instance, or coma patients) yet are still regarded as human persons. do you believe any being that is not capable of using language is automatically disqualified from being a human person?


Obviously, a very young child might not, but they have the capability to understand it. Hmmm... difficult.

As for the biology bit, if I ever have a conversation with an unattached pair of feet, I would find it hard to say that they were not a person.
you misunderstand: what is necessary and what is suffient for "having human biology"? is a person who is missing the lower half of their body still human, even though they have less than half the biological mass and components of a normal human being? (yes, there are people who are missing the lower half of their body, and yes many of them are quite able to talk, reason, and express themselves like normal human beings.) is a person who has an incomplete genome less human than a person with a complete genome? is a person who has received a baboon heart actually part baboon, or are they still 100% a human person?

A human person is a living being of the human species. Got it? Was that too hard?

Now, if your inane question is: What are the minimum characteristics required in order for one to be considered a "living being of the human species", then you truly are simply wasting everyone's time by asking an unaswerable question.

Uhh..2 legs (oops, one got cut off), uhh independent breathing (oops, Joe's on a ventilator), uhh brain waves (oops, Granny's flatlined on life support), uhh human DNA (oops he's been dead for a thousand years and we still can identify his unique DNA).

Like I said..a little intellectual honesty is in order. Other than learning what clearly doesn't make sense, you really think you're going to learn "THE" answer to your question?

Get a grip, kid...

not at all. i can teach somebody to announce "i am a human person, and i am self-aware" in a language that they don't understand, and they can reproduce the sounds perfectly. conversely, there are many persons who lack the ability to use language to make that statement (aphasic patients, for instance, or coma patients) yet are still regarded as human persons. do you believe any being that is not capable of using language is automatically disqualified from being a human person?


you misunderstand: what is necessary and what is suffient for "having human biology"? is a person who is missing the lower half of their body still human, even though they have less than half the biological mass and components of a normal human being? (yes, there are people who are missing the lower half of their body, and yes many of them are quite able to talk, reason, and express themselves like normal human beings.) is a person who has an incomplete genome less human than a person with a complete genome? is a person who has received a baboon heart actually part baboon, or are they still 100% a human person?

OK, forget language. How about demonstrating the kind of intelligence we expect from a human?

As for biology, I'd go for someone being genetically human, regardless of whether they possess the typical set of body parts. If they have a baboon heart, then yes, I suppose they are partly baboon.

A human person is a living being of the human species. Got it? Was that too hard?

Now, if your inane question is: What are the minimum characteristics required in order for one to be considered a "living being of the human species", then you truly are simply wasting everyone's time by asking an unaswerable question.

Uhh..2 legs (oops, one got cut off), uhh independent breathing (oops, Joe's on a ventilator), uhh brain waves (oops, Granny's flatlined on life support), uhh human DNA (oops he's been dead for a thousand years and we still can identify his unique DNA).

Like I said..a little intellectual honesty is in order. Other than learning what clearly doesn't make sense, you really think you're going to learn "THE" answer to your question?

Get a grip, kid...

Obviously you never fully read her first two posts or her following posts. Try a little critical thinking. WHy don't you go read her posts in any of the abortion threads to see that she is not using this as her criteria in her beleifs about abortion. It seems you just can't let go of yoru misguided perceptions.

I've read all the blather in this thread.

Bottle set the thread up in order to point out how each response was invalid. Clearly, the question is unaswerable beyond "a living being of the human species".

Bottle..take that chance! Tell us what you think constitutes a human person so we can tell you how you're wrong!

We were actually just discussing this topic in my tutorial today at university. Actually, the topic was about the new developments in genetic engineering with cross-species hybrids, etc. Mice with human brain cells, mice created partially with human stem-cells, pigs with human blood and organs, the list goes on. When do we classify an animal that has human cells as worthy of the rights we give to human persons? Does a mouse with 30% human brain cells qualify for rights that a mouse with 100% human liver cells does not?

As we asked these quaestions, we naturally had to define what it is to be a person in the first place. The best we came up with was that any entity that is born of two Humans, automatically qualifies, while cross-species hybrids must be subject to a standard cognitive test (which must be somwhat arbitrarily setby government) to determine their "personhood", and thus determine if they should be subject to medical/medicinal testing.

On the other hand, we regularly kill animanls with the cognitive level of young children, so why should there be any standards implemented?

I'd be interested to know other people's opinions of the hybrid-species personhood angle. We as a society are going to be facing these questions very soon

I've read all the blather in this thread.

Bottle set the thread up in order to point out how each response was invalid. Clearly, the question is unaswerable beyond "a living being of the human species".

Bottle..take that chance! Tell us what you think constitutes a human person so we can tell you how you're wrong!


Or she is just trying to learn something and promote critical thinking in herself and others. Perhaps she is hoping that someone else can think of something she hasn't thought of - so she can finish a school project or something who knows. She already stated that she doesnt have an answer.

I find it pretty sad that you must call it blather just because you can't let go of the idea that any talk of what makes a human a human automatically suggests that it's an abortion debate. Or maybe it's because you are scared of posing a suggestion and looking stupid when that suggestion gets shot down. Who knows? I will not judge you.

You must not be familiar with Bottle if you do not know that she is always very straightforward. It is very apparent in all that she writes.

A human person is someone who is aware of what they are and their relation to the greater whole, and they act upon this relation. In other words - FAITH dammit, a human person has the capacity to believe and act upon those beliefs.

OK Bottle,

I WAS WRONG TO BE SUSPICIOUS OF YOUR MOTIVATION AND CRITICAL OF YOUR RESPONSES.


[I am just so damn tired of these abortion threads that I do come outta the chute too quickly.]

Now that that's cleared up, let the debate resume!!!

Any thoughts on the personhood of genetically altered hybrid organisms??

Now that that's cleared up, let the debate resume!!!

Any thoughts on the personhood of genetically altered hybrid organisms??

I think you laid out the best terms for hybrid organisms gaining the status of personhood.

Words take whatever meaning we want, so humans are whoever we think they are. This would of course mean that in WWII Germany Jews weren't human but now they're superhuman.

A human person is someone who is aware of what they are and their relation to the greater whole, and they act upon this relation. In other words - FAITH dammit, a human person has the capacity to believe and act upon those beliefs.

So if someone has no faith they're not human? That rules me out then.

Technically to be of the human species you must be able to have sex with humans. This explains why kids have less rights.

1. Ability to feel pain, use language, experience emotion, or other specific cognitive functions.

Shouldn't 'ability to feel pain' be 'ability to display pain-behaviour' as there is no way to scientifically determine if there is actually an agent that feels pain, whereas it is possible to define a set of criteria which would scientifically define pain-behaviour?

This all, obviously, goes back to the philosophical chestnut of 'how can I be sure that others feel pain?'

We were actually just discussing this topic in my tutorial today at university. Actually, the topic was about the new developments in genetic engineering with cross-species hybrids, etc. Mice with human brain cells, mice created partially with human stem-cells, pigs with human blood and organs, the list goes on. When do we classify an animal that has human cells as worthy of the rights we give to human persons? Does a mouse with 30% human brain cells qualify for rights that a mouse with 100% human liver cells does not?

As we asked these quaestions, we naturally had to define what it is to be a person in the first place. The best we came up with was that any entity that is born of two Humans, automatically qualifies, while cross-species hybrids must be subject to a standard cognitive test (which must be somwhat arbitrarily setby government) to determine their "personhood", and thus determine if they should be subject to medical/medicinal testing.

On the other hand, we regularly kill animanls with the cognitive level of young children, so why should there be any standards implemented?

I'd be interested to know other people's opinions of the hybrid-species personhood angle. We as a society are going to be facing these questions very soon
You are, unfortunately, correct. When compared to the development of genetic engineering, the development of atomic energy appears like child's play.

Given the fact that every living thing affects ( and is affected by ) the environment, tampering with genetic codes is tatamout to playing with fire in a petroleum tank farm ... there's no assurance that you will start a massive conflagration, but neither is there any assurance you won't!

My personal take on this is that we need to create an experimental group and place it in total isolation from the environment ( with its own, essentially identical environment ) before making any genetic changes, with the mass of the human race then becoming the control group. After a considerable length of time ( years at a minimum ), the experimental group and its environment could then be assessed to check for genetic drift, genetic transfer between species, impact on the environment, etc.

If no problems surface, then we might ( MIGHT ) consider introducing postive genetic changes into the larger environment.

Any other options seem to me to carry an unnecessarily high risk.

So if someone has no faith they're not human? That rules me out then.

Everyone has faith, even me.

The best we came up with was that any entity that is born of two Humans, automatically qualifies, while cross-species hybrids must be subject to a standard cognitive test (which must be somwhat arbitrarily setby government) to determine their "personhood", and thus determine if they should be subject to medical/medicinal testing.

Surely if any entity born of two human beings is defined to be human as you argue, then we are precluding the future development of another species from the human being which does not qualify as human?

Everyone has faith, even me.
i don't have faith. please do not presume to generalize to what all people believe or think...you can't possibly know that ;).

i don't have faith. please do not presume to generalize to what all people believe or think...you can't possibly know that ;).

You have to read it in context of my earlier posts

Okay here is my take on what a human person is

A human person knows by inner experience, in this life , her or his relation as a self (self-aware) with a cosmic whole which she or he may or may not call God, Buddha, Atman, the universe or Fred. And the human person enacts this relation in her apprehensions, percepts and actions. She acknowledges that Being is.And that her existence is a part or phase of it.

That said, Angelina Jolie would not be condsidered a human person by my definition.

from my point of view thats the only distinction between a human person and an non-human person.

A human person is a living being of the human species. Got it? Was that too hard?

once again you miss the point. as my original post stated, it is easy to determine if something is alive and human in origin, but that is not sufficient for dermining personhood. you have just restated the question, which is not an answer.


Now, if your inane question is: What are the minimum characteristics required in order for one to be considered a "living being of the human species", then you truly are simply wasting everyone's time by asking an unaswerable question.

on the contrary, it is easy to define the biological characteristics of a member of our species. that is not what i asked. i have clarified numerous times...perhaps somebody else can use different words so UP gets it?


Uhh..2 legs (oops, one got cut off), uhh independent breathing (oops, Joe's on a ventilator), uhh brain waves (oops, Granny's flatlined on life support), uhh human DNA (oops he's been dead for a thousand years and we still can identify his unique DNA).

exactly, none of those things define human personhood. i've already made that point.


Like I said..a little intellectual honesty is in order. Other than learning what clearly doesn't make sense, you really think you're going to learn "THE" answer to your question?

i believe there is an answer, and i have no reason to doubt the intelligence of many of the people i have met around here. i think talking about questions is the best way to learn, and testing one's own opinions is the best way to grow. if you just want to re-state the obvious and be abrasive then that's fine, i like laughing at you, but you could also try using the brain that i am assuming you have (if you are, indeed, a member of our species :))


Get a grip, kid...
hint: just repeating what i have already said to you doesn't make you seem cool or witty, it makes you seem confused and parrot-ish.

Surely if any entity born of two human beings is defined to be human as you argue, then we are precluding the future development of another species from the human being which does not qualify as human?

Correct. I wouldn't classify anything that was born from humans as un-human in any way, that's just dangerous. (I don't think too many people would be up for bearing (Insert-animal-here)-human Hybrids anyway.) My question concerned the humanity of clinically created Hybrids.

Correct. I wouldn't classify anything that was born from humans as un-human in any way, that's just dangerous. (I don't think too many people would be up for bearing (Insert-animal-here)-human Hybrids anyway.) My question concerned the humanity of clinically created Hybrids.

By this logic, if we apply the same principles to our evolutionary ancestors, such as lungfish*, then human beings should be classified as lungfish.

However, I am more concerned with the species which might come after us, or those species which might come after them - according to you they will all be human, although given millenia they may possess no common characteristics to us.



* assuming that we are actually descended from lungfish.

My personal take on this is that we need to create an experimental group and place it in total isolation from the environment ( with its own, essentially identical environment ) before making any genetic changes, with the mass of the human race then becoming the control group. After a considerable length of time ( years at a minimum ), the experimental group and its environment could then be assessed to check for genetic drift, genetic transfer between species, impact on the environment, etc.

If no problems surface, then we might ( MIGHT ) consider introducing postive genetic changes into the larger environment.

Any other options seem to me to carry an unnecessarily high risk.

I think this is a bit of overkill. I mean, having someone genetically altered is not as scary as it seems on the surface. In most cases where its used for treatment, it would merely consist of usingthat same person's stem cells, cultured into healthy (insert disfuctional organ here) tissue, and re-introduced into the body. There is little or no risk to the population in that.

I Agree that hybrid species should not be allowed to breed in a natural way following their creation, and should be restricted to an isolated environment, so they don't escape and contaminate ecosystems, however, putting people who have been slightly genetically altered in a buble for x amount of years makes little sense to me.

We also discussed the creation of humans through genetic engineering that would only be functioning bodies, for the purpose of organ-harvesting, with little or no brain function, would we classify these as persons? and if not, can they be considered mere "plantations"? I can see this happening in the near future, otherwise I wouldn't bring it up

By this logic, if we apply the same principles to our evolutionary ancestors, such as lungfish*, then human beings should be classified as lungfish.


* assuming that we are actually descended from lungfish.

the difference is, we're not talking about evolution of our species (which would take millions of years). You can call yourself a lungfish, and my descendants can name themselves the borg, for all I care. We're talking about the classification of newly created living things in terms of their personhood. I mentioned the thing about being descended from a human automatically qualifying you as human as a protection against one person (through a standardized cognitive test) scoring as being more "human" than another, which would be a very bad thing. Such a test should only be used on new organisms that we're not sure about....

that said, it seems to me, that in actual fact any type of regulation is next to impossible. People will go ahead with every experiment they can imagine, if they have the money

Shouldn't 'ability to feel pain' be 'ability to display pain-behaviour' as there is no way to scientifically determine if there is actually an agent that feels pain, whereas it is possible to define a set of criteria which would scientifically define pain-behaviour?

This all, obviously, goes back to the philosophical chestnut of 'how can I be sure that others feel pain?'
you are quite right, i was not specific with my language. *hangs head in shame*

I would say that a person would be able to verify that they are a person, and a non-person would not. There may be exceptions, but I believe that understanding the question "are you a person?" would be a good indicator.

When they first began teaching chimps sign language, they tried an experiment with one of them. They gave him a stack of pictures containing many pictures of human beings and other primates, including a picture of himself. They then asked him to sort the pictures into humans and other apes. He got every single one right, except that he placed the picture of himself into the human pile. Does that make him human?

Everyone has faith, even me.

I assume you don't hold your nation's name's tenets dear then. I am very unfaithful. Just don't tell any possible girlfriends.

Does anyone have an opinion on my assertion?

Computers are now capable of responding to the question quite easily. As are dolphins, dogs, chimps, etc (with different criteria for the response).

I believe that your suggestion should be a part of the criteria for personhood, but not the whole. I am of a more open mindset than most when it comes to granting personhood to non-human entities, but I wouldn't imagine granting a chat-bot or a dog that's figured out he should nod his head to certain vocal stimuli any sort of legal personhood.

what human biology? be more specific. human genome? human feet? human heart? all of the above? none? how much human biology is necessary? and how should we confirm that the person is, in fact, experiencing self-awareness, rather than just repeating something they heard from another?

And, if you are going to define it by some criteria of biology, how do we make exceptions for people that are now or are going to have been implanted with artificial organs, animal organs, or genetic modifiers. As well as those beings that contain more than one set of genetic code (chimera) or those who are seperate but contain the same set (twins).

IMO personhood begins at conception.

Modern biology makes it quite easy to determine what is and is not alive, as well as what is and is not human. However, many things are both human and alive yet are not human persons (human liver cells, organs inside a person who has just died, human sperm, etc). Therefore, the question now becomes: what are is/are the standard(s) for determining if a give entity is a human person?

To get the ball rolling, I have presented some of the major suggestions for answers to this question, as well as why I personally find them insufficient for modern purposes, in the post below this one. Feel free to add more or discuss the ones I present.

1. A human person must have human DNA.
2. A human person must be autonomous, that is, an entity unto itself.

These requirements would disqualify human organs and tissues, as well as unborn humans. It would still include cyborgs and test tube babies, as well as severely retarded persons. I'm not sure how Siamese twins would fit with this requirement. Perhaps a human person must have a human brain as a minimum requirement. It sounds like a reasonable requirement, anyway.

This is just idle speculation on my part.

The requirements for personhood, general:

1. Aware: A being must have a method (or several methods) to take in data from its environment, process that data, and produce an output.

2. Self-Aware: A being must be able (to demonstrate) that it distinguishes itself as seperate, unique, and can recognize self from other.

3. Self-protecting: A being must be able (to demonstrate) that it has concern for it's own well-being.

4. Rudimentary logic/Cause-Effect understanding: A being must be able (to demonstrate) that it has understanding of cause-effect relationships and that it is capable of predicting results based on this understanding.

5. Self-determination: A being must be able (to demonstrate) that it is capable of determining it's own actions and have a desire to do so.

6. Self-development: A being must be capable of (demonstrating) developing skills and knowledges beyond what it is taught by other beings. They must be capable of develloping beyond the sum of their programming/training/education.

Further for personhood, human, in addition to the above:

1. Meet the (Biological) requirements for life: A being must eat/produce waste, reproduce (as a species, not individual), growth and development, response to stimuli, et cetera.

2. Meet the (biological) requirements for human life: A being must have human DNA, be the product of at least 1 human parent, circulate blood (beating heart, but artificial counts), oxygenate blood (breathing, or machine), and have active brain waves.

The definition for general personhood would allow for the inclusion of some of the more intelligent animals, it would also allow for the potential of extra-terrestrial life (should that prove possible), and for advanced AI (should that prove possible). A young child would not qualify for personhood. This however is not a problem for me, since I would not let my future children make certain decisions for themselves until they are old enough to understand them, so they are not self-determining until they are capable of being so. Again, I don't see that as a problem, if we are talking legal personhood. Rights can (and are) provided without personhood, though certain rights (like self-determination) require it.

That's the best set of criteria I can come up with.

1. A human person must have human DNA.
2. A human person must be autonomous, that is, an entity unto itself.

These requirements would disqualify human organs and tissues, as well as unborn humans. It would still include cyborgs and test tube babies, as well as severely retarded persons. I'm not sure how Siamese twins would fit with this requirement. Perhaps a human person must have a human brain as a minimum requirement. It sounds like a reasonable requirement, anyway.

This is just idle speculation on my part.
conjoined twins are certainly not autonomous in many cases, so they wouldn't qualify by your definition. human sperm have human DNA, and are autonomous (i.e. can live outside the human body, can move independently, etc). but you're basically on the same track i am...trying to find some combination of genetics and physiological independence that will distinguish human persons from mere human tissues.

I assume you don't hold your nation's name's tenets dear then. I am very unfaithful. Just don't tell any possible girlfriends.

Nihilism, my dear, holds no tenets, and if I didn't have faith I would be shit-house out of luck. What I mean by faith is not religious faith, it is more like saying "Yes, this can be so" or "This will be done", which goes with my belief in nothing which to me is not what people would think it is. Nothing to me is like that feeling you get when you walk into an empty room or look at that blank page in your journal. It is Vast Emptiness but that emptiness is full of potential and possibity. A pleroma, both all and nothing.

Here is an illustration of what I mean:
http://abacus.best.vwh.net/oro/oro5.jpg

Form and Emptiness.

bump for Brians Test

I think this should help you look a little deeper into the question you are asking.

Well obviously to be a human person, one needs to be 'human'.

Personhood is a social attribute, so social factors will determine who or what in a particular society has the attribute 'personhood'.

I suggest that a necessary condition is the capacity to participate in relationships with other persons (either through one's own efforts or through efforts made by other 'persons' on one's behalf).

Well obviously to be a human person, one needs to be 'human'.

Personhood is a social attribute, so social factors will determine who or what in a particular society has the attribute 'personhood'.

I suggest that a necessary condition is the capacity to participate in relationships with other persons (either through one's own efforts or through efforts made by other 'persons' on one's behalf).


so if I treat my dog like a person than it is? it participates in a relationship with me so does that make it a person?

so if I treat my dog like a person than it is? it participates in a relationship with me so does that make it a person?
Not necessarily.

Not necessarily.
Since you didn't say "no" flat out, I would appreciate if you could tell me the circumstances under which a dog is entitled to personhood.

Okay how about this:

Human personhood is determined by the fact that the being has human DNA, and was born into this world alive by medical standards (even if it needs machines to keep it alive). Does it need to go any further than that?

1. Ability to feel pain, use language, experience emotion,



may as well rule out anyone from Essex then

Okay how about this:

Human personhood is determined by the fact that the being has human DNA, and was born into this world alive by medical standards (even if it needs machines to keep it alive). Does it need to go any further than that?
I'm good with that definition.

I'm good with that definition.


I win!

*gives myself a cookie* :p

anyone born of a human mother is a human person.

regardless of health, age; ability to think, move, speak; having faith or not, having aspirations or not, wanted or not, loved or not.

anyone born of a human mother is a human person.

regardless of health, age; ability to think, move, speak; having faith or not, having aspirations or not, wanted or not, loved or not.

What about test tube babies?

What about test tube babies?
arent those born of a human mother?

arent those born of a human mother?


Oh I don't know. I was imagining them in a tube where you could watch them grow. :p :D

1. Ability to feel pain, use language, experience emotion, or other specific cognitive functions. There are many beings we currently recognize as human persons which are unable to do one or more of these things (persons who have suffered brain damage, for instance), and there are many animals that have been observed to demonstrate one or more of these functions.

2. Possession of a soul. Since it is not possible to empirically prove the existence of the soul, let alone to give any verifiable measurement of its nature or presence, it is not useful as a gauge of human personhood because it cannot be confirmed.

3. Consciousness or self-awareness. These terms are ill defined at best, creating more problems than are solved by using them as a determining quality of personhood. Adult chimpanzees show greater self awareness than human children under the age of 4, and pigs have shown greater consciousness than human infants in numerous studies. Until the definition of “consciousness” is refined, it is an essentially useless term to try to apply in this context.

4. Physiological similarity to beings that are unequivocally human. This is the proposition usually put forward by people who show pictures of late-term abortion aftermath, as they seem to think that the structural similarities between the body of a late-term fetus and a born human child are verification that the two are equivalent beings. However, it is possible to remove or transplant virtually any part of the human body (other than the central nervous system) without in any way altering the person who inhabits that body; as a result, the physical similarities between human shapes do not appear to correlate with their personhood. An infant with no legs, for example, shows less objective similarity to a normal human infant than a healthy newborn gorilla would, but we do not say the chimp is a human person while the legless infant is not a human person.

5. Possession of unique and human DNA. Unfortunately, modern genetics renders this theory obsolete. Within a single human person there are numerous mutations in the genetic code, which would lead to the conclusion that a cell with mutated DNA is actually a separate human person from the rest of that being’s body. Additionally, the mitochondria in most human cells possess their own DNA, distinct from the nuclear DNA, replicating on a different time course than the mitotic cycle of the cell; if individual DNA were the criterion for personhood then all of us would be host to trillions of tiny persons, in the form of the mitochondria that exist in our cells. We can also expand in the other direction and find the equally absurd conclusion that identical twins must be one human person, since they have identical DNA.

6. Probability that the being in question will one day become unequivocally human. This is the argument often applied to justify granting human personhood to human fetuses. However, since potential status is not used to describe the actual being of anything else in our practical lives, it seems foolish to try to use such criterion for personhood; we do not refer to a pile of nails and lumber as a house no matter how likely it is that the house will be built, and we do not refer to all living humans as “corpses” even though it is 100% certain that they will one day exist in that form.
I generally say that all individual living humans are persons. Some of the definitions of personhood I have seen would not qualify a newborn or mentally disabled human as a person. The question then becomes, at what point does a fetus/embryo become an individual? (Obviously it is both human and living from the point of conception. In fact, sperm and egg cells are both human and living.) I say that an argument can be made that an embyo is human from the point of conception. While your points concerning the uniqueness of mitochodrial DNA are very good, mitochondria only contain part of the genetic code necessary to qualify as humans and are, therefore, merely part of an individual living human. The same of course applies to individual cells, (mutated or otherwise.) Also, it is not necessary for the DNA to be unique, but merely individual since, as you pointed out, identical twins have identical DNA. Nevertheless, one could argue that a fetus does not become an individual human until it has recieved all the necessary hormones required for human growth during pregnance since, without those hormones, stem cells cannot properly form the various cells in the human body.

Okay how about this:

Human personhood is determined by the fact that the being has human DNA, and was born into this world alive by medical standards (even if it needs machines to keep it alive). Does it need to go any further than that?
That is a more than adequate definition of a human life, but I don't know that it is sufficient for human personhood. For instance, the placenta has human DNA and is born into the world alive by medical standards.

I think the problem is that you use the word "being" in your definition, and that's basically an (inadvertant) sidestep of my original question. Essentially it translates as me asking "what is a human person?" and you answering "a person who is human." You defined the human part just fine, but the person part is still murky.

That is a more than adequate definition of a human life, but I don't know that it is sufficient for human personhood. For instance, the placenta has human DNA and is born into the world alive by medical standards.

I think the problem is that you use the word "being" in your definition, and that's basically an (inadvertant) sidestep of my original question. Essentially it translates as me asking "what is a human person?" and you answering "a person who is human." You defined the human part just fine, but the person part is still murky.

OK I lose then. *puts the cookie back* Sorry I already took a bite.

but what definition of person are you using again? I may have glossed over that.

at dictionary.com I found:


per·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrsn)
n.
1 A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
Physique and general appearance.
5. Law. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
6. Christianity. Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
7. Grammar.
a, Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
8. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: “Well, in her person, I say I will not have you” (Shakespeare).



I guess I was going with the first definition. Your original post said:

Modern biology makes it quite easy to determine what is and is not alive, as well as what is and is not human. However, many things are both human and alive yet are not human persons (human liver cells, organs inside a person who has just died, human sperm, etc). Therefore, the question now becomes: what are is/are the standard(s) for determining if a give entity is a human person?

To get the ball rolling, I have presented some of the major suggestions for answers to this question, as well as why I personally find them insufficient for modern purposes, in the post below this one. Feel free to add more or discuss the ones I present.

So I was going for a simple way of explaining what would make something a human and a person. Like you said somethign can be alive and human, but still not a person, so I came up with what I did. What do I need to make it clearer exactly? I think that it covers all the bases in my mind eprsonally.

Modern biology makes it quite easy to determine what is and is not alive, as well as what is and is not human. However, many things are both human and alive yet are not human persons (human liver cells, organs inside a person who has just died, human sperm, etc). Therefore, the question now becomes: what are is/are the standard(s) for determining if a give entity is a human person?

To get the ball rolling, I have presented some of the major suggestions for answers to this question, as well as why I personally find them insufficient for modern purposes, in the post below this one. Feel free to add more or discuss the ones I present.
I think the standard for a person is that it have a conscious mind, will and heart (not the organ). The outstanding characteristic of a "person" is that it has personality, characteristics that are individual, the accumulation of which is a unique person.

They would have to have all the requriements of any living organism - i.e. survive on their own (why a fetus or a liver isn't a person), feed, grow, etc.

Then they would have to belong to the Homo genus.

Then they would have to be able to speak, write, build and use machinery all in one go.

They would have to have all the requriements of any living organism - i.e. survive on their own (why a fetus or a liver isn't a person), feed, grow, etc.

Then they would have to belong to the Homo genus.

Then they would have to be able to speak, write, build and use machinery all in one go.


so a baby that cannot speak or write or someone who is mentally handicapped and unable to do these things are not persons?

Since you didn't say "no" flat out, I would appreciate if you could tell me the circumstances under which a dog is entitled to personhood.
I dont see what entitled has got to do with it. Personhood is a social attributed, if people consider you are a person and treat you accordingly, then you have personhood, whether or not you are 'entitled'.