NationStates Jolt Archive

I want you to tell me, philosophically, what life is. I am not asking about your stance on abortion. I don't care. But I'm asking because 99% of all debates about abortion are:

This is my opinion about abortion. Everyone else is wrong!
No, YOU are wrong. How can you have that opinion?! My opinion disagrees with yours!
And you're wrong, because MY opinion disagrees with YOURS!
People who have your opinion are bad people!
Oh yeah, well at least politicians aren't trying to make YOUR opinion law!
You know where else they had your opinion? NAZI GERMANY!

The disagreement right now is not over whether not abortion is good or bad. It's what life actually is. Who can say, with certainty, what is "a human life"?

What is a human? These are questions that even philosophers don't agree on. That's why, in my opinion, with abortion, you need to look at consequences. Instead of focusing on whether it's "good" or "bad", ask how is it used? Which would be a greater benefit to society?

But anyway, I'd like for anyone here to tell me what they consider "a human life" and why. Regardless of abortion, I want to know why a 3rd trimester fetus is a human, but a 1st trimester baby isn't.

I want to know what MAKES us human. Is it intelligence? DNA? "A soul"?

Life is a series of chemical reactions and electrical pulses.

What makes us human? Our genetics.

Life is a series of chemical reactions and electrical pulses.

What makes us human? Our genetics.
Embryonic stem-cells have neither chemical reactions, nor electrical impulses. Well, on the cellular level, I suppose, but not what you'd consider "reactions" and "impulses."

As for the second statement, my saliva has my DNA. Is my saliva "a human"?

And even dead people's bodies have chemical reactions and electrical impulses, or at least they can.

I didn't say anything with DNA is human, nor did I state everything that has a chemical recation is alive. I said all living things are alive because of chemical reactions and electrical pulses.

I said our genetics makes us human, not that our genetics are humans theirselves.

Stem cells do have chemical reactions all the time. They are formed through chemical reactions, they exist to produce chemical reactions and they dies as a chemical reaction.

And even dead people's bodies have chemical reactions and electrical impulses, or at least they can.

[Forgot to answer this] I'm sure you would find some diffrent chemical reactions in dead people when you compare them to living ones.

Your mom and dad make you human

I want you to tell me, philosophically, what life is.

I want to know what MAKES us human. Is it intelligence? DNA? "A soul"?

The Bible describes it as the breath of the Spirit of God.

I don't think that anything without an EEG pattern can be have 'awareness'. This happens at about 27 weeks, so that's the earliest a fetus could be considered 'alive', IMO.

I don't think that anything without an EEG pattern can be have 'awareness'. This happens at about 27 weeks, so that's the earliest a fetus could be considered 'alive', IMO.

Are you saying that something needs to be aware in order to be alive, or at least human?

What is an EEG pattern?

What is an EEG pattern?
Electro EncefaloGram

I think

Electro EncefaloGram

I think

Sounds like brain waves.....would that be right?

DNA makes us human. Advanced awareness and personality makes us human (which I realize also humanizes many animals, which I have no problems with....now I have an excuse to talk to my fish :) ). By advanced, I mean....well, you know how when you poke a slug it will recoil? More aware than that....but I also believe that such awareness to the point of "humanity" and being recognized as "alive" doesn't actually occur until mid-to-late second trimester.

EEG is how you measure brain activity. If you don't have any you can't be aware, think, sense or anything. Death is defined by the loss of the EEG pattern, I think.

Simonist']DNA makes us human. Advanced awareness and personality makes us human (which I realize also humanizes many animals, which I have no problems with....now I have an excuse to talk to my fish :) ). By advanced, I mean....well, you know how when you poke a slug it will recoil? More aware than that....but I also believe that such awareness to the point of "humanity" and being recognized as "alive" doesn't actually occur until mid-to-late second trimester.

Hang on a moment, just what is your version of 'awareness'? And supposing that your definition is one that most people would feel comfortable with, how do you suppose it awakens.....like one long slow arising out of a deep sleep.....or the jump bang awakening of an instant?

The proper question is not "what is life?" or "what is human life?"

I'll set aside the fact that this discussion sets aside the rights of the woman -- the only undeniably alive, human, person with rights in the equation -- as most discussions do. But I will note in passing that women are not mere vessels and deciding the moral status of zygotes and fetuses does not end the equation.

The proper question is: what is personhood? who is entitled to rights and why?

The question is whether a zygote-embryo-fetus has rights.

Why skip over that question? We do not assume all life has as right to life. We do not assume that all human life has a right to life.

So the issue is what things do we recognize as having rights and why (which includes why do other things not have rights).

Persons have rights. The basis for those rights should be part of the criteria for personhood. In other words, a person is morally entitled to rights because a person meets certain criteria.

Two common and rational criteria for personhood:
1. being conscious -- e.g., being aware of one's surroundings.
2. being conscious of itself -- i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.
3. being able to reason and know -- e.g., plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.
4. being a sentient being -- e.g. feel pain/pleasure.
5. being able to have emotions.

A being who actually has (1)-(5) is a person in the moral sense, i.e. has moral rights.

Another lower potential set of criteria for personhood:
1. consciousness,
2. the ability to reason,
3. self-motivated activity,
4. the capacity to communicate, and
5. self-awareness.

A being who actually has (1)-(4) is arguably a person in the moral sense, i.e. has moral rights.

Good post Cat-Tribe!
That's more what I was thinking. Strictly speaking sperm and oocytes can be 'metabolically' alive, but i don't think they can be considered humans or persons. "Where does personhood begin?" would be a better question.

The proper question is not "what is life?" or "what is human life?"

I'll set aside the fact that this discussion sets aside the rights of the woman -- the only undeniably alive, human, person with rights in the equation -- as most discussions do. But I will note in passing that women are not mere vessels and deciding the moral status of zygotes and fetuses does not end the equation.

The proper question is: what is personhood? who is entitled to rights and why?

The question is whether a zygote-embryo-fetus has rights.

Why skip over that question? We do not assume all life has as right to life. We do not assume that all human life has a right to life.

So the issue is what things do we recognize as having rights and why (which includes why do other things not have rights).

Persons have rights. The basis for those rights should be part of the criteria for personhood. In other words, a person is morally entitled to rights because a person meets certain criteria.

Two common and rational criteria for personhood:
1. being conscious -- e.g., being aware of one's surroundings.
2. being conscious of itself -- i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.
3. being able to reason and know -- e.g., plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.
4. being a sentient being -- e.g. feel pain/pleasure.
5. being able to have emotions.

A being who actually has (1)-(5) is a person in the moral sense, i.e. has moral rights.

Another lower potential set of criteria for personhood:
1. consciousness,
2. the ability to reason,
3. self-motivated activity,
4. the capacity to communicate, and
5. self-awareness.

A being who actually has (1)-(4) is arguably a person in the moral sense, i.e. has moral rights.

By your definition, with all respect, it is questionable whether a one day old baby is really a person.

By your definition, with all respect, it is questionable whether a one day old baby is really a person.

And that rules out the definition because ....?

One could also argue the criteria is over-inclusive. Chimps and dolphins may qualify as persons.

Whether a one-day old baby is a moral person could, as a question of morals, be questioned. Yes. So?

I wouldn't concede these criteria rule out newborns. I think it is, at worst, a close call. They definitely meet most of the criteria and we cannot be sure about the remaining. Unlike, for example, zygotes -- who meet none of the criteria.

There are also reasons other than personhood why we may wish to protect newborns.

There are also reasons why granting artificial status as persons to newborns is unproblematic -- i.e., that does not infringe on the rights of other undeniable persons.

Your mom and dad make you human
Strange - I was made out of discarded chewing gum wrappers and a lightbulb. I'm held together with PVA glue. :D

So here is a basic definition of life, from a scientific point of view. I can really only give this view because I am a bioinformatician and not a philosopher.

Life is any self-replicating, evolving system.
Source: "The universal nature of biochemistry" by Norman Pace in PNAS Jan 30, 2001 vol 98 p805-808

Using this basic definition of life a zygote, a 1-day old infant, and even bacteria and tape worms are alive. However, in the case of a zygote or tape worm the lifeform cannot surivive with out a host. Does this fact make the tapeworm any less a life form? Does this fact make the tapeworm "human" when in a human host? The answer to both of these questions is no and therefor should also be extended to a zygote.

Consequently, the next question is of course is a zygote an independant life or it it merely a mass of tissue, like one's liver. It is true that humans are classified as eukorya. Which means that humans are multi-cellular organisms. All parts of the human must be present for a human to function, in general, and likewise an individual part cannot survive on its own, in general.

So then how can a zygote be considered independant life when one's liver is not? The answer is in the genetic divergence. Human being from human being have about 98% percent genetic similarity, while the organs in your body have over 99% genetic similarity. Yes, it is a mere 2% difference that yeilds the abundance of diversity between human life on Earth, but 2% is significant. The zygote's DNA also differs from its host's by 2% therefore it also is an distict human life.

Strange - I was made out of discarded chewing gum wrappers and a lightbulb. I'm held together with PVA glue. :D
Well you're not exactly human are you?

http://fapfap.org/evwrest1.html

I didn't say anything with DNA is human, nor did I state everything that has a chemical recation is alive. I said all living things are alive because of chemical reactions and electrical pulses.
Well, I didn't ask about what causes us to be human. I asked us why we we're human. Our defining qualities - what makes a cell or a fetus "human" and why.

I said our genetics makes us human, not that our genetics are humans theirselves.
But what's the diffference? If I was tossed into a gigantic blender and liquified, my body would still have the same DNA and the same amount. Would I still be a "living human"? Obviously not. So, DNA cannot be used to define humanity, either.

[Forgot to answer this] I'm sure you would find some diffrent chemical reactions in dead people when you compare them to living ones.
Probably. But you find different chemical reactions from person-to-person. You find different chemical reactions in fetuses than you do in grown adults. But it's obvious "we're all human."

Your mom and dad make you human
What about clones, then? Or test-tube babies?

Two common and rational criteria for personhood:
1. being conscious -- e.g., being aware of one's surroundings.
2. being conscious of itself -- i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.
3. being able to reason and know -- e.g., plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.
4. being a sentient being -- e.g. feel pain/pleasure.
5. being able to have emotions.

A being who actually has (1)-(5) is a person in the moral sense, i.e. has moral rights.

Another lower potential set of criteria for personhood:
1. consciousness,
2. the ability to reason,
3. self-motivated activity,
4. the capacity to communicate, and
5. self-awareness.

A being who actually has (1)-(4) is arguably a person in the moral sense, i.e. has moral rights.
That is a good definition, which I would use. But what is your basis for using that, and what makes it more "rational" than other definitions, other than than that you believe it?

And that rules out the definition because ....?
One could also argue the criteria is over-inclusive. Chimps and dolphins may qualify as persons.
So that shows your definition doesn't even work!

So here is a basic definition of life, from a scientific point of view. I can really only give this view because I am a bioinformatician and not a philosopher.

Life is any self-replicating, evolving system.
Source: "The universal nature of biochemistry" by Norman Pace in PNAS Jan 30, 2001 vol 98 p805-808

Using this basic definition of life a zygote, a 1-day old infant, and even bacteria and tape worms are alive. However, in the case of a zygote or tape worm the lifeform cannot surivive with out a host. Does this fact make the tapeworm any less a life form? Does this fact make the tapeworm "human" when in a human host? The answer to both of these questions is no and therefor should also be extended to a zygote.
Fallacy of the undistributed middle term.

Humans have legs.
Chairs have legs.
Humans should be considered like chairs.

Tapeworms can't survive without a host
Zygotes can't survive without a host
Therefore, zygotes should be considered like zygotes.

And your answer only addresses "life", not "human life."

Come on, people! People are always for or against abortion, very strongly. You mean to tell me none of you can even give me a proper definition of "human life"?

:confused:

No, I expected this. The point was to demonstrate it. Try as hard as you can, you can't define human life. ;)

*snip*

That is a good definition, which I would use. But what is your basis for using that, and what makes it more "rational" than other definitions, other than than that you believe it?

<sigh>

I'm not going to teach a course on ethics and moral rights in a few posts.

But, the definition of who is a person (i.e., who has rights) I gave is -- as I said -- directly related to why a person has rights.

Ask why should X have freedom? why is freedom good? why does X have rights?

Almost any rational answer relates to or requires that X have most -- if not all -- of the criteria for personhood that I described.

So that shows your definition doesn't even work!

Um. No. :rolleyes:

Why would you think that?

I did not offer a definition of "human life" as that is the wrong question.

I offered a defintion of who is entitled to rights -- who is a person.

The possibility that chimpazees, pigs, or dolphins may qualify as persons (or at least have a better claim than a zygote) is not a priori wrong.


Come on, people! People are always for or against abortion, very strongly. You mean to tell me none of you can even give me a proper definition of "human life"?

:confused:

No, I expected this. The point was to demonstrate it. Try as hard as you can, you can't define human life. ;)

Actuallly, human life was defined and rather easily. It just isn't relevant.

As it was the wrong question, these definitions did not, of course, solve the problems you subsequently expected them to answer.

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

Human life should be defined by self-awareness.

No, I expected this. The point was to demonstrate it. Try as hard as you can, you can't define human life. ;)

It is very easy to define human life. The problem is that human life, regardless of what the UN and other states have written, is not intristicly entitled to any form of rights.

Criminals have a different set of rights and freedoms, as do fetuses, as do soldiers and POW's, as do citizens of different countries.

It is IMHO trivial to build a case that a fetus is a human life. It is not a trivial matter to decide what rights, protections, and freedoms a fetus should have.

I want you to tell me, philosophically, what life is. I am not asking about your stance on abortion. I don't care. But I'm asking because 99% of all debates about abortion are:

This is my opinion about abortion. Everyone else is wrong!
No, YOU are wrong. How can you have that opinion?! My opinion disagrees with yours!
And you're wrong, because MY opinion disagrees with YOURS!
People who have your opinion are bad people!
Oh yeah, well at least politicians aren't trying to make YOUR opinion law!
You know where else they had your opinion? NAZI GERMANY!

The disagreement right now is not over whether not abortion is good or bad. It's what life actually is. Who can say, with certainty, what is "a human life"?

What is a human? These are questions that even philosophers don't agree on. That's why, in my opinion, with abortion, you need to look at consequences. Instead of focusing on whether it's "good" or "bad", ask how is it used? Which would be a greater benefit to society?

But anyway, I'd like for anyone here to tell me what they consider "a human life" and why. Regardless of abortion, I want to know why a 3rd trimester fetus is a human, but a 1st trimester baby isn't.

I want to know what MAKES us human. Is it intelligence? DNA? "A soul"?
I define human personhood by the only criterion we currently apply in real life...consciousness.

Two humans may have identical DNA but not be the same person (identical twins). Two humans may even share body parts and not be the same person (conjoined twins). One person may have additional organs, limbs, digits, or other body parts, but if they have only one consciousness we recognize them as a single person who happens to have extra parts.

Personhood is defined by consciousness, in my opinion, and thus I believe that human personhood begins when consciousness begins in a living human. A first trimester fetus cannot, biologically, possess consciousness, and therefore cannot be a human person. A third trimester fetus may possess rudamentary consciousness, just as a human infant of one month may have, so they may be recognized as human persons.

Of course, I support a woman's right to end her participation in a pregnancy at any time and for any reason. Whether or not a fetus (at any stage) is a human person does not impact my support of abortion rights.

I think that what defines life is consciousness. When we attain a comprehension of our environment, we are conscious. Animals are capable of consciousness, and demonstrate their comprehension of their environment by interacting with it. Even comatosed patients mat have a comprehension of their environment which we cannot understand, and they cannot demonstrate to us.

Plants are alive but not conscious, but there's an exception to every rule, isn't there?

A human is someone who is capable of getting at least part of what it needs to survive on its own. This is a very basic definition, though, which would need furthering. I am not quite sure of the wording, though. Because obviously someone could be unconscious and not breathing, but still human. So it would have to include something like a time limit, or perhaps capability.

We do not assume that all human life has a right to life.I do.

The US goverment has defined life as begining at conception.

Don't believe me?


The Gov't does not allow hunting of animals during gestation periods in order to not reduce the population of the species.

The opinions and practices of those not in the US don't apply as far as my reply is concerned.

The US goverment has defined life as begining at conception.

Don't believe me?


The Gov't does not allow hunting of animals during gestation periods in order to not reduce the population of the species.

The opinions and practices of those not in the US don't apply as far as my reply is concerned.

That's a rather different matter, in effort to increase the number of a certain species. It has nothing to do with their position on when Life begins.

That is a good definition, which I would use. But what is your basis for using that, and what makes it more "rational" than other definitions, other than than that you believe it?

A possible basis is the idea that one cannot harm something (by killing it for instance) that does not conform to this definition; since for the lifeform itself it makes no difference if it exists or not. The only way it can be said to be harmed is if you can show that life is per definition something positive, instead of merely a neutral fact which is made positive or negative by the way it is lived.

We do not assume that all human life has a right to life.

I do.

1. I doubt it. A single human cell has a right to life?

2. Why?

3. The first part of your post indicates otherwise. You don't consider all human life to have a right to life. Instead, you try to redefine human to exclude forms of human life that you don't believe has a right to life.