NationStates Jolt Archive

An offshoot from abortion debate number 562.623.987, give or take a few million:

Could someone please give an accurate definition of "a living human being" ?
Some possible pitfalls may be:
- making sure animals do not qualify (though PETA will not complain)
- making sure an embryo qualifies (though pro-choicers will not complain)
- making sure most people we bury do not qualify (though horrorfans will not complain)
- making sure human bodyparts do not qualify (I do not know of a group that pleads for the rights of bodyparts, but there no doubt are several)

For bonus points:
Give an accurate definition of "a living person".

An offshoot from abortion debate number 562.623.987, give or take a few million:

Could someone please give an accurate definition of "a living human being" ?
Some possible pitfalls may be:
- making sure animals do not qualify (though PETA will not complain)
- making sure an embryo qualifies (though pro-choicers will not complain)
- making sure most people we bury do not qualify (though horrorfans will not complain)
- making sure human bodyparts do not qualify (I do not know of a group that pleads for the rights of bodyparts, but there no doubt are several)

For bonus points:
Give an accurate definition of "a living person".

The problem is embryos don't qualify.

An offshoot from abortion debate number 562.623.987, give or take a few million:

Could someone please give an accurate definition of "a living human being" ?
Some possible pitfalls may be:
- making sure animals do not qualify (though PETA will not complain)
- making sure an embryo qualifies (though pro-choicers will not complain)
- making sure most people we bury do not qualify (though horrorfans will not complain)
- making sure human bodyparts do not qualify (I do not know of a group that pleads for the rights of bodyparts, but there no doubt are several)

For bonus points:
Give an accurate definition of "a living person".

1. I thought humans were animals. Checks for root system. Nope, definitely not a plant. I'm not sure how we can disqualify animals.
2. Since embryos contain the same DNA as parents, assuming the parents are human, the embryo should qualify.
3. Dead people, as a rule, do not breathe, eat or grow, so maybe we can use that as a criteria to determine their status.
4. Apply the maxim that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. (Yeah, I know, that wipes out the protagonist from "Johnny Got His Gun".)Establish a criteria that parts must be connected to be considered viable.

As for the bonus question, observe Al Gore. If the being in question resembles him, it's not a living person.

I can't do it.

Really because I think that a person in a coma is a living human being, but I have heard from people that they are "alive" in the sense that they aren't dead, but that they are no longer human..............no, wait, it was that they were human but not a person.:confused:

I can't do it.

Really because I think that a person in a coma is a living human being, but I have heard from people that they are "alive" in the sense that they aren't dead, but that they are no longer human..............no, wait, it was that they were human but not a person.:confused:

What is the point where you stop considering the comapatient to be "a living human being" ?

An offshoot from abortion debate number 562.623.987, give or take a few million:

Could someone please give an accurate definition of "a living human being" ?
Some possible pitfalls may be:
- making sure animals do not qualify (though PETA will not complain)
- making sure an embryo qualifies (though pro-choicers will not complain)
- making sure most people we bury do not qualify (though horrorfans will not complain)
- making sure human bodyparts do not qualify (I do not know of a group that pleads for the rights of bodyparts, but there no doubt are several)

For bonus points:
Give an accurate definition of "a living person".


Main Entry: 1live
Pronunciation: 'liv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lived; liv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English libban; akin to Old High German lebEn to live
intransitive verb
*1 : to be alive : have the life of an animal or plant
2 : to continue alive
3 : to maintain oneself : SUBSIST <lived on rice and peas>
4 a : to occupy a home : DWELL <living in a shabby room> <they had always lived in the country> b : to be located or stored <the silverware lives here>
5 : to attain eternal life <though he die, yet shall he live -- John 11:25 (Revised Standard Version)>
6 : to conduct or pass one's life <lived only for his work>
7 : to remain in human memory or record <the past lives in us all -- W. R. Inge>
8 : to have a life rich in experience
9 : COHABIT
transitive verb
1 : to pass through or spend the duration of <lived their lives alone>
2 : ACT OUT, PRACTICE -- often used with out <to live out their fantasies>
3 : to exhibit vigor, gusto, or enthusiasm in <lived life to the fullest>
4 a : to experience firsthand <living a dream> b : to be thoroughly absorbed by or involved with <she lives her work>
- live it up : to live with gusto and usually fast and loose <lived it up with wine and song -- Newsweek>
- live up to : to act or be in accordance with <had no intention of living up to his promise>
- live with : to put up with : ACCEPT, TOLERATE <had to live with their decision>

Human:

Main Entry: 1hu·man
Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&n, 'yü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain, from Anglo-French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being -- more at HOMAGE
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2 : consisting of humans
3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature <such an inconsistency is very human -- P. E. More>
- hu·man·ness /-m&n-n&s/ noun

Main Entry: 2human
Function: noun
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : HOMINID
- hu·man·like /-m&n-"lIk/ adjective

Main Entry: human being
Function: noun
: HUMAN


Main Entry: 1be·ing
Pronunciation: 'bE(-i)[ng]
Function: noun
1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : LIFE
2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : ESSENCE; especially : PERSONALITY
3 : a living thing; especially : PERSON

Main Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: 'p&r-s&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosOpa, plural of prosOpon face, mask -- more at PROSOPOPOEIA
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5 : the personality of a human being : SELF
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
- per·son·hood /-"hud/ noun
- in person : in one's bodily presence <the movie star appeared in person>

All from m-w.com
It does not allow for animals as it specifies homo sapiens aka humans.
No specific mention is made of an embryo.
The process of living (respirating, moving, speaking, thinking, responding to stimuli) is not shared by corpses.
Parts =/= a whole. A tire is not a car.

2. Since embryos contain the same DNA as parents, assuming the parents are human, the embryo should qualify.

4. Apply the maxim that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. (Yeah, I know, that wipes out the protagonist from "Johnny Got His Gun".)Establish a criteria that parts must be connected to be considered viable.

These two seem to contradict eachother.

3. Dead people, as a rule, do not breathe, eat or grow, so maybe we can use that as a criteria to determine their status.

Actually some parts of dead people keep growing for quite a while after they died.

if looks like a human
feels like a human
acts like a human
and tastes like a human.

then that's good enough:)

Actually some parts of dead people keep growing for quite a while after they died.
true, and fetus' don't breathe, so that definition wouldn't work that way.

Defining what is "human" is not what is important here. Defining what a "person" is, is.

I define "personhood" by mental state alone. If I were just a brain in a jar, I'd be a person. If I'm an embyro that cannot think, I am not a person. If I am in a coma and braindead, I am not a person.

A human is anything that has human DNA. An embyro is a human. A braindead body is a human. A dead body is a human.

Being human does not necessarily mean you are a person.

Defining what is "human" is not what is important here. Defining what a "person" is, is.

I define "personhood" by mental state alone. If I were just a brain in a jar, I'd be a person. If I'm an embyro that cannot think, I am not a person. If I am in a coma and braindead, I am not a person.

A human is anything that has human DNA. An embyro is a human. A braindead body is a human. A dead body is a human.

Being human does not necessarily mean you are a person.
how does being a brain in a jar make you a person? does that mean a liver in a jar is a person? I don't understand.....

how does being a brain in a jar make you a person? does that mean a liver in a jar is a person? I don't understand.....
I believe that everything that makes me, me, is my mental processes - in effect, my brain. I am a person because I can think. My liver can't think, so it's not part of my personhood.

I believe that everything that makes me, me, is my mental processes - in effect, my brain. I am a person because I can think. My liver can't think, so it's not part of my personhood.

So your definition of a person would be "someone in the possession of a functioning human brain" ? (the "human" is optional and the functioning needs to be defined more clearly - but it is a basis).


That indeed excludes embryos and the early fetus. Up to the pro-life side to devise something better.

I believe that everything that makes me, me, is my mental processes - in effect, my brain. I am a person because I can think. My liver can't think, so it's not part of my personhood.
but a brain in a jar can not think, a person in a coma may be able to think. A fetus has some brain activity or they wouldn't be able to kick ect.

So your definition of a person would be "someone in the possession of a functioning human brain" ? (the "human" is optional and the functioning needs to be defined more clearly - but it is a basis).


That indeed excludes embryos and the early fetus. Up to the pro-life side to devise something better.
Well, not strictly a human brain. I'd still consider myself a person if my mental processes were replicated exactly inside a computer. I'd cease to be human, though.

but a brain in a jar can not think, a person in a coma may be able to think. A fetus has some brain activity or they wouldn't be able to kick ect.
Oh, sorry, I wasn't clear. By "brain in a jar" I mean a brain that is artifically kept active via electrodes or whatever, not just a brain sitting in some jar somewhere.

A fetus doesn't really match my definition because it is not capable of complex thought.

EDIT: In reference to a comatose person having the possibility to think: I'm not disputing that. If they can think, they're still a person. If they're totally braindead, they're not.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't clear. By "brain in a jar" I mean a brain that is artifically kept active via electrodes or whatever, not just a brain sitting in some jar somewhere.

A fetus doesn't really match my definition because it is not capable of complex thought.

EDIT: In reference to a comatose person having the possibility to think: I'm not disputing that. If they can think, they're still a person. If they're totally braindead, they're not.
okay define complex thought, can a baby do it?

okay define complex thought, can a baby do it?
A baby can do it, yes, and perhaps late-term unborn children. A lump of cells, even if it vaguely looks like a human, cannot do it. Complex thought, for me, is where you can mentally process input. For example, counting, recognising colours or patterns etc.

A baby can do it, yes, and perhaps late-term unborn children. A lump of cells, even if it vaguely looks like a human, cannot do it. Complex thought, for me, is where you can mentally process input. For example, counting, recognising colours or patterns etc.
babies can't count.

okay, yeah, that was not good.........anyway, when does this "complex thought" start? how do you measure it?

what about mentally disabled people? are they not people?

A living human being is someone of the species homo sapien, that has a measure of brain activity. Thus, Terry Schiavo, is not human because her brain had the same potency of a "Mr. Potato Head." This also eliminates other animals because they are not of the same species. (And intelligent aliens for the same reason)

A living human being is someone of the species homo sapien, that has a measure of brain activity. Thus, Terry Schiavo, is not human because her brain had the same potency of a "Mr. Potato Head." This also eliminates other animals because they are not of the same species. (And intelligent aliens for the same reason)
This again excludes embryos. If embryos could feel they would feel sad about that.

A living human being is someone of the species homo sapien, that has a measure of brain activity. Thus, Terry Schiavo, is not human because her brain had the same potency of a "Mr. Potato Head." This also eliminates other animals because they are not of the same species. (And intelligent aliens for the same reason)
they can measure brainwaves in a fetus, then they are living human beings?

babies can't count.

okay, yeah, that was not good.........anyway, when does this "complex thought" start? how do you measure it?

what about mentally disabled people? are they not people?
See, this is where my definition falls down. By my own definition, I'd strain to say that mentally disabled people are "people", but this just doesn't sit well with my ethics. I'm open to suggestions on how to improve it, of course.

But yes, babies can count. If you give them a toy, they play with it, then take it away when they're not looking, they're going to realise that they're -1 toy, even if it doesn't mean they're doing mental sums.

I have no idea when complex thought would start. I'd hazard a guess that it starts once a brain is sufficiently formed to process input from the senses in a coherant manner.

See, this is where my definition falls down. By my own definition, I'd strain to say that mentally disabled people are "people", but this just doesn't sit well with my ethics. I'm open to suggestions on how to improve it, of course.
I have no idea, that's why I said I shouldn't get into this discussion, my definition is far too simplistic.

But yes, babies can count. If you give them a toy, they play with it, then take it away when they're not looking, they're going to realise that they're -1 toy, even if it doesn't mean they're doing mental sums.
interesting.

My children until they were about 2 weeks old didn't do much of anything, they slept, they ate, they pooped, I don't think they even noticed me, other than I was the one with the milk.

I have no idea when complex thought would start. I'd hazard a guess that it starts once a brain is sufficiently formed to process input from the senses in a coherant manner.
nobody knows, and it's probably impossible to find out.

This again excludes embryos. If embryos could feel they would feel sad about that.

Actually it does not. embryos have the same DNA as humans, therefore they are homo spaiens. late-stage embryos can outthink a carrot so they are human beings.

The problem is embryos don't qualify.

The problem is embryonic humans count, embryonic antelopes do not.

Actually it does not. embryos have the same DNA as humans, therefore they are homo spaiens. late-stage embryos can outthink a carrot so they are human beings.

Embryos do not have brains. None at all. Those develop in the fetus stage - and the brainwaves start quite far into the pregnancy.

Embryos do not have brains. None at all. Those develop in the fetus stage - and the brainwaves start quite far into the pregnancy.


oh excuse me i got my terminology flipped around. fetuses are what i meant to say. the simple fact is that if it cannot think at all, it is not human. It's not even animal.

A living human has an immortal soul that is the spiritual child of God.

And if you don't like that non-technical answer, consider that there isn't a technical answer. Pro-Choice people will reject any defintinon that includes an unborn child, and Pro-Life people will reject any answer that doesn't.

If you don't like that answer on philosophical or religious reasons, then give up your search because otherwise there is *no* difference between humans and animals.

but a brain in a jar can not think, a person in a coma may be able to think. A fetus has some brain activity or they wouldn't be able to kick ect.

The first movements of the fetus are purely reflexive, and occur before the first synapse in the brain is even formed. The central nervous system forms more from the bottom up, so that the first synapses are found in the spinal cord, with the brain forming only later.

The first truly controlled movements we see begin between weeks 10 and 12, according to the latest sources I have seen. A woman doesn't start to feel kicking (generally) until closer to four months. In most places, elective abortions are restricted after about week 12.

Brainwaves of the sort we generally see in conscious people tend to begin somewhere between weeks 20 and 22, when the higher order portions of the brain are forming.

A living human has an immortal soul that is the spiritual child of God.

How do we test for such a soul?

How do we test for such a soul?

Wouldn't it be great if we could?

A living human has an immortal soul that is the spiritual child of God.

Which God ?

And if you don't like that non-technical answer, consider that there isn't a technical answer. Pro-Choice people will reject any definition that includes an unborn child, and Pro-Life people will reject any answer that doesn't.

That is untrue. Multiple people here seem to base their definition around the existence of a functioning brain or the capacity to think. Unborn children can possess those things; just not from the moment of fertilisation.

If you don't like that answer on philosophical or religious reasons, then give up your search because otherwise there is *no* difference between humans and animals.
The capacity to reason would be such a distinction; though one can argue that it does not exclude all animals. And of course it would be problematic to include already born babies, but not e.g. fully developed dogs (which are more intelligent than babies).

I know you guys are going to jump all over this...but the way I see it life is like energy. There are two kinds: potential and kinetic. The kind we have obviously is kinetic. The kind embryos have is potential.

I know you guys are going to jump all over this...but the way I see it life is like energy. There are two kinds: potential and kinetic. The kind we have obviously is kinetic. The kind embryos have is potential.

And what about animals and bodyparts ?

Which God ?
Does it matter?


That is untrue. Multiple people here seem to base their definition around the existence of a functioning brain or the capacity to think. Unborn children can possess those things; just not from the moment of fertilisation.It's the interpretation of those factors I refer to.


The capacity to reason would be such a distinction; though one can argue that it does not exclude all animals. And of course it would be problematic to include already born babies, but not e.g. fully developed dogs (which are more intelligent than babies).
One could, which makes it a less than useful definiton.

Animals have kinetic energy but they aren't human. The issue was if something was a living person not a living animal. And what exactly is the issue with body parts?

Does it matter?

Uncertain. The Bibles position for instance on the humanity of an unborn child is unclear: some translations state that causing a miscarriage merely requires the culprit to pay a fine to the father for the inconvenience, while others demand "a life for a life". Throughout the Bible there are multiple laws that dictate one should kill a pregnant woman under condition X with no regard for the unborn child at all.

So it is unclear what the Christian God thinks of His spiritual children. Other religions may be clearer. But perhaps you are right and is this question irrelevant: that God may not care does not mean that we should not care either.

Those issues are beyond the scope of the thread, are they not? This thread, as I understand it, is an offshoot from an abortion thread, aimed at defining what precisely constitutes a living human being. The issues you mention there are certainly worthy of a discussion, but seem to be beyond the scope of this one.

Animals have kinetic energy but they aren't human.
The issue was if something was a living person not a living animal.

The first question was to provide a definition for a living human. The bonus question was for a person. Does a person have to be human ?

And what exactly is the issue with body parts?
Bodyparts contain human dna. The definition needs to include something that explains why a soldier and his severed arm are not two persons.

Those issues are beyond the scope of the thread, are they not? This thread, as I understand it, is an offshoot from an abortion thread, aimed at defining what precisely constitutes a living human being. The issues you mention there are certainly worthy of a discussion, but seem to be beyond the scope of this one.

Why ? If one wishes to appeal to God or metaphysics to define what a "living human being" or a "living person" is, that is perfectly fine by me. Just as long as they can back it up.

Uncertain. The Bibles position for instance on the humanity of an unborn child is unclear: some translations state that causing a miscarriage merely requires the culprit to pay a fine to the father for the inconvenience, while others demand "a life for a life". Throughout the Bible there are multiple laws that dictate one should kill a pregnant woman under condition X with no regard for the unborn child at all.

So it is unclear what the Christian God thinks of His spiritual children. Other religions may be clearer. But perhaps you are right and is this question irrelevant: that God may not care does not mean that we should not care either.
there is only one translation that uses the word "miscarriage" all others use words that mean premature birth (ie the child is born living)


here (http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/abortion/exodus21.html)is a webpage that explains. ;)

there is only one translation that uses the word "miscarriage" all others use words that mean premature birth (ie the child is born living)

You are limiting yourself to English translations. Across the world there are quite a few more that let the "eye for eye... life for life" part refer to damage done to the mother.

there is only one translation that uses the word "miscarriage" all others use words that mean premature birth (ie the child is born living)

here (http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/abortion/exodus21.html)is a webpage that explains. ;)

I've seen more than one translation that either says miscarriage, or points out that it is a possible translation. The only one I know of that was translated directly to English uses the word miscarriage.

Of course, we also have to consider the company that this law is in. For instance, just before it:

20 When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.

I have to question the logic of a people who say, "If you kill your slave outright, you will be punished, but if you let him suffer for a day or two before dying, that's ok, since he's your property." :confused:

You are limiting yourself to English translations. Across the world there are quite a few more that let the "eye for eye... life for life" part refer to damage done to the mother.
it is true that I have not read the Bible in every language in the world, only in English (about 30 different translations of that ) and am studying Hebrew, Greek, ect. to try to figure out which one is closest, if you had read my link the whole way through you would see that they go back to the original languages and explain why using misscarriage instead of premature birth is wrong.

babies can't count.

Ooh! Time for a Super-Fun Bottlicious Nerdy Thread Hijack!

Via the BBC:

"Babies do maths: adding and subtracting

For example, even 4-month-old babies seem capable of rudimentary counting. Of course, they cannot count out loud, because infants do not speak their first words until they are about one-year-old. But psychologists can gain an insight into what babies know by presenting them with impossible events, a bit like magic tricks or illusions. If babies show surprise, we can be fairly sure that their expectations have been violated. And their expectations are based on what they know about the world.

A Mickey Mouse experiment: 1 + 1 = 1

In one experiment, infants are shown a single Mickey Mouse doll. A screen is then raised, hiding the doll from view. Infants next see the experimenter's hand reaching behind the screen to add a second Mickey Mouse doll. 1 + 1 = 2, right? Wrong, because unbeknown to the infant, the experimenter secretly removes one of the dolls. When the screen is lowered, there is only one Mickey Mouse doll, instead of the two that simple maths dictates. In effect, infants have been shown a sum equivalent to 1 + 1 = 1. Of course, this is an impossible outcome and infants stare longer at this event than when presented with a logically possible situation."

And if you don't like that non-technical answer, consider that there isn't a technical answer. Pro-Choice people will reject any defintinon that includes an unborn child, and Pro-Life people will reject any answer that doesn't.

The fact that people disagree does not automatically mean there is no correct answer.

Also, you're wrong. I'm pro-choice, and support a woman's right to end her participation in pregnancy at any time and for any reason, yet I don't particularly care if the fetus is defined as an "unborn child" or not. Just like I don't care if teenagers are defined as "unmatured senior citizens" or not. To me, whether or not a fetus is an "unborn child" is totally beside the point, and therefore I simply find it to be a boring attempt at an emotive argument.

Ooh! Time for a Super-Fun Bottlicious Nerdy Thread Hijack!

Via the BBC:

"Babies do maths: adding and subtracting

For example, even 4-month-old babies seem capable of rudimentary counting. Of course, they cannot count out loud, because infants do not speak their first words until they are about one-year-old. But psychologists can gain an insight into what babies know by presenting them with impossible events, a bit like magic tricks or illusions. If babies show surprise, we can be fairly sure that their expectations have been violated. And their expectations are based on what they know about the world.

A Mickey Mouse experiment: 1 + 1 = 1

In one experiment, infants are shown a single Mickey Mouse doll. A screen is then raised, hiding the doll from view. Infants next see the experimenter's hand reaching behind the screen to add a second Mickey Mouse doll. 1 + 1 = 2, right? Wrong, because unbeknown to the infant, the experimenter secretly removes one of the dolls. When the screen is lowered, there is only one Mickey Mouse doll, instead of the two that simple maths dictates. In effect, infants have been shown a sum equivalent to 1 + 1 = 1. Of course, this is an impossible outcome and infants stare longer at this event than when presented with a logically possible situation."

ha ha. when my oldest was about 3 months old she was in a study where they let her listen to a nonsense language for 20 minutes, then played some more of the same nonsense language only with errors (accents on different parts of the word and stuff) to see if she had picked up the "syntax" of the language.......they retested her again at 6 months and were supposed to again at 9 months, but she was speaking in complete sentences at that point and was excluded from the study.

I wonder what they ever found out.

Some possible pitfalls may be:
- making sure animals do not qualify (though PETA will not complain)
That could be dealt with by defining one particular person as a human being (say, me), defining the logical relationship 'has X% DNA in common', and then saying someone is human if they are logically related to that person by the transitive closure of that relationship (put simply: there is a chain of people meeting that condition linking them to that person). For sufficiently high X, only what we intuitively would call 'human' would qualify.

you could say survial make like.

That could be dealt with by defining one particular person as a human being (say, me), defining the logical relationship 'has X% DNA in common', and then saying someone is human if they are logically related to that person by the transitive closure of that relationship (put simply: there is a chain of people meeting that condition linking them to that person). For sufficiently high X, only what we intuitively would call 'human' would qualify.
Ooh, that's a very interesting idea!

But then, of course, we might run afoul of the fact that male and female human beings are not equally "related" to one another at the genetic level. In other words, if you were to use a female as your "prototype human," you could very easily wind up concluding that only beings with two X chromosomes are human. If you define "close relatedness" based purely on the total number of matching base pairs (the raw percentage you seem to be suggesting), then male human beings are more closely related to male chimps than they are to female human beings.

The trick here is that we shouldn't use the raw percentages. The genetic differences between men and women are all concentrated on one chromosome (X vs Y) and within about 80 genes, whereas the differences between humans and chimps are spread throughout the genome. This means that the individual genetic differences impact a whole lot more different genes.

In short, it's the quality, not the quantity, of genetic differences that is really important in what makes a human a human and a chimp a chimp.

Still, a very very cool idea.

it is true that I have not read the Bible in every language in the world, only in English (about 30 different translations of that ) and am studying Hebrew, Greek, ect. to try to figure out which one is closest, if you had read my link the whole way through you would see that they go back to the original languages and explain why using misscarriage instead of premature birth is wrong.

They give a reasoning with which others disagree. I do not know who is right; but cannot help noticing that the Bible in general does not care much about the fate of unborn children when it orders the death of pregnant women.

So whether or not the Christian God considers unborn children to be living human beings or persons remains unclear :(

Could someone please give an accurate definition of "a living human being" ?
Living = the state of being alive
Human Being = being (having and demonstrating) characteristic of the biological entity "human"

Therefore a person is not a "living human being" until they look remotely like us and demonstrate human-like behavior. So when is a person a human being? While a pre-natal baby is alive from the moment of conception, the child does not fulfil that definition until well after its 14th year of age.

I use 30 as a more reasonable and rounded arbitrary number. Just to be sure.

That could be dealt with by defining one particular person as a human being (say, me), defining the logical relationship 'has X% DNA in common', and then saying someone is human if they are logically related to that person by the transitive closure of that relationship (put simply: there is a chain of people meeting that condition linking them to that person). For sufficiently high X, only what we intuitively would call 'human' would qualify.

Don't humans and monkeys share about 99,4% of their dna ? X would need to be rather large then...

The fact that people disagree does not automatically mean there is no correct answer.
But the fact that it's a definition does mean there is no correct answer. Pro-choicers and pro-lifers argue over the definition because they rely on fallacious arguments of the form 'Embryos are/aren't human, therefore...' - whether embryos have a right-to-life or not is not connected to how we define 'human', as embryos are what they are no matter what definition of 'human' we use.

Don't humans and monkeys share about 99,4% of their dna ? X would need to be rather large then...
Sure, but speciation of humans and chimps occured long enough ago that the most genetically distinct individuals we would normally refer to as 'humans' share more DNA with each other than the most closely related human and chimp.

They give a reasoning with which others disagree. I do not know who is right; but cannot help noticing that the Bible in general does not care much about the fate of unborn children when it orders the death of pregnant women.

So whether or not the Christian God considers unborn children to be living human beings or persons remains unclear :(
true, but for me to get into the discussion with you about what God said and what is just "things of the time" and having to wade through and explain would be way beyond the scope of the thred.....don't you think?

But the fact that it's a definition does mean there is no correct answer. Pro-choicers and pro-lifers argue over the definition because they rely on fallacious arguments of the form 'Embryos are/aren't human, therefore...' - whether embryos have a right-to-life or not is not connected to how we define 'human', as embryos are what they are no matter what definition of 'human' we use.
Anybody who argues that human embryos aren't human is wrong. Pure and simple. Just like anybody who argues that a human stomach cell isn't human would be wrong.

Anybody who argues that embryos/fetuses are non-living is wrong. Pure and simple. A living human embryo is both alive and human. Just like a living human egg cell is both alive and human. If somebody tries to waste time claiming that such entities are non-living or non-human, ignore them. These are not definitions that are up for debate.

The question that is really debated is "personhood." Not whether or not a fetus is human, but whether or not it is a human being. And that, I believe, is the subject of this thread.

Of course, I happen to agree that the personhood of a fetus is totally irrelevant. Even if fetuses are to be recognized as 100% human, it still would be totally inappropriate to deny a woman the right to end her participation in pregnancy for that reason alone. I retain the right to deny use of my body and tissues to other human persons at any time and for any reason, so why should a fetus be granted rights that no human person possesses?

Sure, but speciation of humans and chimps occured long enough ago that the most genetically distinct individuals we would normally refer to as 'humans' share more DNA with each other than the most closely related human and chimp.
As I spelled out in a post further up the page, this is not exactly true.

If you want to look specifically at the number of base pairs that are shared between male humans and male chimps, and compare this to the number of base pairs shared between male humans and female humans, you will find that male humans share more base pairs with male chimps. Working with the raw percentages, male and female humans are 98.4% related, while male chimps and male humans are 98.7% related.

But, as I explained above, using these percentages is actually quite misleading, and will probably get you laughed at by geneticists. :)

Anybody who argues that human embryos aren't human is wrong. Pure and simple. Just like anybody who argues that a human stomach cell isn't human would be wrong.

Anybody who argues that embryos/fetuses are non-living is wrong. Pure and simple. A living human embryo is both alive and human. Just like a living human egg cell is both alive and human. If somebody tries to waste time claiming that such entities are non-living or non-human, ignore them. These are not definitions that are up for debate.

The question that is really debated is "personhood." Not whether or not a fetus is human, but whether or not it is a human being. And that, I believe, is the subject of this thread.

Of course, I happen to agree that the personhood of a fetus is totally irrelevant. Even if fetuses are to be recognized as 100% human, it still would be totally inappropriate to deny a woman the right to end her participation in pregnancy for that reason alone. I retain the right to deny use of my body and tissues to other human persons at any time and for any reason, so why should a fetus be granted rights that no human person possesses?

wow. thank you.

I get really annoyed with the "lump of flesh, fetus is not human or living" crowd.

I believe that a fetus, heck even an embryo is a human being, however, I am still pro-choice.........why? because I don't think some things should be up to the government, and abortion while I believe is morally wrong, just shouldn't be completely illegal.

As I spelled out in a post further up the page, this is not exactly true.

If you want to look specifically at the number of base pairs that are shared between male humans and male chimps, and compare this to the number of base pairs shared between male humans and female humans, you will find that male humans share more base pairs with male chimps. Working with the raw percentages, male and female humans are 98.4% related, while male chimps and male humans are 98.7% related.

But, as I explained above, using these percentages is actually quite misleading, and will probably get you laughed at by geneticists. :)
Good point. Some definition of a similar form still seems the only effective way of separating species though (the standard biological definition based on possibility of breeding has obvious flaws for the infertile, which can make up the majority of some species - ants, for instance).

Anybody who argues that embryos/fetuses are non-living is wrong. Pure and simple. A living human embryo is both alive and human. Just like a living human egg cell is both alive and human. If somebody tries to waste time claiming that such entities are non-living or non-human, ignore them. These are not definitions that are up for debate.

Usually when the discussion of living vs. non-living comes up, the idea is whether or not a given entity counts as an organism. A human egg cell is living, but is not considered to be an organism. A colony of algae is certainly living, but is not an organism in and of itself (although each individual algae cell is).

The question in those cases is whether or not the embryo/fetus, as an entity, at a given stage meets the criteria to be considered an organism.

Wouldn't it be great if we could?

If science were to locate a soul on someone, I'm fairly sure that eventually we'd find a way to power a weapon with it, and further then, we'd be driven to find the source of the souls and harness its energy for our own personal gain.

Anybody who argues that human embryos aren't human is wrong. Pure and simple. Just like anybody who argues that a human stomach cell isn't human would be wrong.
A definition cannot be either right or wrong. The English define a 'rat' as a small brown mammal, but the Germans define is as a collection of councillors - neither definition is right or wrong, as words can be defined any way we wish. Any argument of the form 'X is a member of Y by definition, therefore X has property Y' is fallacious, as the properties of X are dependent on X itself and not the definition Y - both of these arguments are fallacious:

1) "Embryos are human, therefore have a right to life"
2) "Embryos are not human, therefore don't have a right to life"

wow. thank you.

I get really annoyed with the "lump of flesh, fetus is not human or living" crowd.

I think the problem is usually one of semantics. People say, "A fetus isn't human," when what they mean is that "A fetus is not A human BEING." Pretty much everybody knows that a human fetus is, well, human, but a lot of people get sick of the fetus' human-ness being automatically equated with human personhood. You can usually get people to admit as much if you ask.

And it's equally annoying when it goes the other direction, too. There are people who insist that something is "a human being" if it has human DNA. Which would make my liver a human being, and that leads us to some very unpleasent speculations about the morality of my pub-crawling ways...


I believe that a fetus, heck even an embryo is a human being, however, I am still pro-choice.........why? because I don't think some things should be up to the government, and abortion while I believe is morally wrong, just shouldn't be completely illegal.
A great many people also believe that it's just too goddam dangerous to give the government that kind of authority, no matter what their personal feelings about abortion may be. If the government is granted the right to decide that you CANNOT choose to abort, you better damn well believe that they're going to try to decide that you MUST choose to abort. If we were to say that the government has an interest in controlling reproduction that supercedes the individual's right to choose, then that's gonna cut both ways.

A definition cannot be either right or wrong. The English define a 'rat' as a small brown mammal, but the Germans define is as a collection of councillors - neither definition is right or wrong, as words can be defined any way we wish.

A definition most certainly can be right or wrong. The word "rat" has one definition in English, and another in German. If you were to insist that the English definition of the word "rat" is "a container designed to hold cigars," you'd be wrong. Pure and simple. Whether or not the same set of sounds carries the same meaning in another language is beside the point.


Any argument of the form 'X is a member of Y by definition, therefore X has property Y' is fallacious, as the properties of X are dependent on X itself and not the definition Y - both of these arguments are fallacious:

1) "Embryos are human, therefore have a right to life"
2) "Embryos are not human, therefore don't have a right to life"
No argument here. I find the "personhood" of fetuses to be irrelevant to this discussion.

If you were to insist that the English definition of the word "rat" is "a container designed to hold cigars," you'd be wrong.
Indeed. The following in false:

"The English define 'rat' as a 'container designed to hold cigars'"

This however is not:

"A rat is a container designed to hold cigars"

The second statement makes no claim as to people actually using that definition, it merely defines the term for the purpose of an argument, and cannot be either right or wrong as it makes no assertion about truth. The word 'rat' could be replaced throughout the argument using that definition with any other set of characters without affecting the argument's validity.

These two seem to contradict eachother.



Actually some parts of dead people keep growing for quite a while after they died.

Well, I figured the embryo was a connected body of work, as opposed to separated body parts.

It isn't that hair and nails continue to grow after death, it's that the skin shrinks, giving the appearance of growth. At least, that's what my grandfather, the undertaker, told me.

The problem is embryonic humans count, embryonic antelopes do not.

No an embryonic human does not count as a live human because it can not live outside of it's host body.

<edit: If a embryonic human were to count as a live human then abortion, as well as distruction of the embryos created for infertility treatments that are no longer needed (due to sucessful implantation of an earlyer embryo) would be considered murder. These things are considered murder only by right wing religious nutbars.>

Anybody who argues that human embryos aren't human is wrong. Pure and simple. Just like anybody who argues that a human stomach cell isn't human would be wrong.

The argument to phrase it more properly is that neither the embryo or the stomache cell are A human.

Any argument of the form 'X is a member of Y by definition, therefore X has property Y' is fallacious, as the properties of X are dependent on X itself and not the definition Y - both of these arguments are fallacious:

1) "Embryos are human, therefore have a right to life"
2) "Embryos are not human, therefore don't have a right to life"Not necessarily. For instance, I could state that "Only humans have a right to life, but all humans have a right to life." Then I could easily make one of the two above statements and not be making a fallacy.

I believe that a living human being is someone with the standard allotment of organs and limbs (though sometimes not all of them, as some parents smoke or drink while they're preggers, or sometimes the baby just gets sick) who can experience. Therefore, a human being is not a human being until it has an active brain.
I think I read or heard somewhere that the brain activates sometime during the third trimester of a pregnancy, so the embryo (barely) qualifies.
The human does not have to be able to relate the experience, or necessarily remember it (I don't remember what it was like to be in the womb, but I've heard of people who remember in dreams).

Living human being: must meet the following characteristics:

1) (living)
a) have one or more cells
B) a metabolism that produces energy
c) can grow or use growth to replace damage
d) can respond to some form of stimuli ( broad)

2) human being: one organism that contains human DNA

from conception to death.

Living human being: must meet the following characteristics:

1) (living)
a) have one or more cells
B) a metabolism that produces energy
c) can grow or use growth to replace damage
d) can respond to some form of stimuli ( broad)

2) human being: one organism that contains human DNA


This defines my kidney.

This defines my kidney.
your kidney has a complete set of human characteristics? When will you be giving birth to it? If my kidney was a seperate organism I would be scared as hell. :p

Not necessarily. For instance, I could state that "Only humans have a right to life, but all humans have a right to life." Then I could easily make one of the two above statements and not be making a fallacy.
Of course, but without reference to some property of being human (even something with which many people would disagree, such as 'god declared humans to be special') your statement would be axiomatic, and such as axiom would be arbitary. If there was reference to some property of being human, it would then be the fact that embryos also have that property (which they would have to have, to meet the conditions of being human) that give them a right to life.

your kidney has a complete set of human characteristics? When will you be giving birth to it? If my kidney was a seperate organism I would be scared as hell. :p

Oh but that is not what you claimed at all.

You said it must be living (to which you outline 4 criteria) and must contain human DNA.

My kidney contains human DNA, and meets all 4 of your criteria.

Now if you want to state that something is not HUMAN until it has HUMAN characteristics, I absolutly, 100%, completely agree with you.

A fetus (at least until 3rd trimester) does not have a functioning nervous system, nor a sentient conciousness, which is a characteristic of "human".

And since a human is not a human until it displays the characteristics of a human (which is what you JUST admitted to), and a characteristic of a human is a functioning nervous system and sentient brain and a fetus does not have those...

well, I guess by your own admission a fetus isn't a human then.

Oh but that is not what you claimed at all.

You said it must be living (to which you outline 4 criteria) and must contain human DNA.

My kidney contains human DNA, and meets all 4 of your criteria.

Now if you want to state that something is not HUMAN until it has HUMAN characteristics, I absolutly, 100%, completely agree with you.

A fetus (at least until 3rd trimester) does not have a functioning nervous system, nor a sentient conciousness, which is a characteristic of "human".

And since a human is not a human until it displays the characteristics of a human (which is what you JUST admitted to), and a characteristic of a human is a functioning nervous system and sentient brain and a fetus does not have those...

well, I guess by your own admission a fetus isn't a human then.

organism: An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life

you are a dumbass or a liar of the worst sort if you believe that your kidney is an organism.
second....a functioning nervous system and sentient consciousness are not what make you alive. Jeez....you are on the attack with eyeshades on.

a functioning nervous system and sentient consciousness are not what make you alive. Jeez....you are on the attack with eyeshades on.

Correct, it is not what makes me alive. And if you had noticed, that is not what I said.

It is, however, what makes you HUMAN. A fetus is certainly ALIVE, I have never disputed the fact that is LIFE.

However, since it lacks a functioning nervous system and sentient consciousness it IS NOT HUMAN.

Therefore it is not afforded HUMAN rights, and as such we can treat it like other non human life, which we have no problems killing when convenient for us.

Correct, it is not what makes me alive. And if you had noticed, that is not what I said.

It is, however, what makes you HUMAN. A fetus is certainly ALIVE, I have never disputed the fact that is LIFE.

However, since it lacks a functioning nervous system and sentient consciousness it IS NOT HUMAN.

Therefore it is not afforded HUMAN rights, and as such we can treat it like other non human life, which we have no problems killing when convenient for us.
well looks like this abortion loon is at it again. Look, my definition still stands. Look at it again. "organism" does not apply to your kidney". a fetus meets every qualifaction I listed. You can go on and on about parasites, cows, and cakes like last night, but that does not make you logical or even right in your own mind. If you were, you would tone it down a bit MR I LIKE TYPING IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE ME SOUND MAD. hehe.

well looks like this abortion loon is at it again.

Agreed, you really should knock it off.

Look, my definition still stands. Look at it again. "organism" does not apply to your kidney". a fetus meets every qualifaction I listed.

OK great, it's an organism, good for the fetus. Still not a human organism though.

You can go on and on about parasites,

You have yet to refute exactly how a fetus is NOT a parasite, what part of the definition does not apply to it.

cows,

Cows? Let's talk about cows.

You can argue with me all you want, but the fact remains, a fetus (except in 3rd trimester) does not have a functional nervous system or a sentient conciousness.

A functional nervous system and sentient conciousness are what makes humans human, and different from other animals. Let me ask you one thing, why do humans have more rights than cows? Why do you call abortion murder but not a hamburger murder? What makes me as a human any better than bessy the cow?

To me, that is my mind, my sentient conciousness. That and that alone is what makes humans beter than cows. Since a fetus lacks that, it isn't human. And none of your lunatic rantings will change that.

You can argue with me all you want, but the fact remains, a fetus (except in 3rd trimester) does not have a functional nervous system or a sentient conciousness.not relavent

A functional nervous system and sentient conciousness are what makes humans human, and different from other animals.but has nothing to do with whether we are alive Let me ask you one thing, why do humans have more rights than cows? Why do you call abortion murder but not a hamburger murder? What makes me as a human any better than bessy the cow?we are living people, your statements make a person in a coma lose all civil rights, hey that sounds familiar.

To me, that is my mind, my sentient conciousness. That and that alone is what makes humans beter than cows. Since a fetus lacks that, it isn't human. And none of your lunatic rantings will change that.
And now I am a "lunatic"....for claiming that if you have human DNA, are a seperate organism, and having living cells you are alive. If that makes me a lunatic....I guess I don't know what else to say. It seemed rather 101 to me.

and oh yeah, complete organisms that have human DNA are human beings. Not a tough concept unless you are pro-abortion.

and oh yeah, complete organisms that have human DNA are human beings.
What if I inject human DNA into a non-human organism?

And now I am a "lunatic"....for claiming that if you have human DNA, are a seperate organism, and having living cells you are alive.

Once again, and do try, just TRY to read, ok. Don't respond, don't type, don't get all righteously indignant until you read what I am typing.

A fetus is life. It is alive. I agree with you there. Only an idiot would disagree with that.

It is not, however, a human. As such it does not have human rights. Since it does not have human rights, it is a non human living thing, and is afforded the same rights we afford all non human living things. We kill them if convenient.

and oh yeah, complete organisms that have human DNA are human beings.

Let's say I even agree with that comment (I don't, but what the hell). A fetus which is not developed, does not have a developed brain stem, or central nervous system, is not a complete human organism.

Since it is not a complete human organism as you define it, it's not a human being.

Therefore...not human.

An offshoot from abortion debate number 562.623.987, give or take a few million:

Could someone please give an accurate definition of "a living human being" ?
Some possible pitfalls may be:
- making sure animals do not qualify (though PETA will not complain)
- making sure an embryo qualifies (though pro-choicers will not complain)
- making sure most people we bury do not qualify (though horrorfans will not complain)
- making sure human bodyparts do not qualify (I do not know of a group that pleads for the rights of bodyparts, but there no doubt are several)

For bonus points:
Give an accurate definition of "a living person".

An embryo does not qualify. A zygote does not qualify. Sperm and eggs cells do not qualify. I'd say that by, say, towards the end of the 7th month, it would qualify as a living human.

and oh yeah, complete organisms that have human DNA are human beings. Not a tough concept unless you are pro-abortion.

You know, we share about 98% of our DNA with bacteria. And DNA does not make one thing alive. Take viruses, for example.

What if I inject human DNA into a non-human organism?
then you have either a dead non-human organism, or a living non-human organism that you fucked around with in an artificial way.

Once again, and do try, just TRY to read, ok. Don't respond, don't type, don't get all righteously indignant until you read what I am typing.

A fetus is life. It is alive. I agree with you there. Only an idiot would disagree with that.

It is not, however, a human. As such it does not have human rights. Since it does not have human rights, it is a non human living thing, and is afforded the same rights we afford all non human living things. We kill them if convenient.

All organisms have a species. You admitted that a fetus is alive. You are aware that it is a sperate organism after all of your talk about parasites...so...it is a living organism...if it's species is not human..than what species is it?

Let's say I even agree with that comment (I don't, but what the hell). A fetus which is not developed, does not have a developed brain stem, or central nervous system, is not a complete human organism.

Since it is not a complete human organism as you define it, it's not a human being.

Therefore...not human.

ah but by complete I mean has complete instructions, which it most clearly does.

An embryo does not qualify. A zygote does not qualify. Sperm and eggs cells do not qualify. I'd say that by, say, towards the end of the 7th month, it would qualify as a living human.
that seems rather random. Which week, which day? why not the day before that?

You know, we share about 98% of our DNA with bacteria. And DNA does not make one thing alive. Take viruses, for example.
you obviously missed my original post where I clearly defined human life. Go back and read it.

I'm out. V is for victory.

I'm out. V is for victory.

No, V is for Vendetta.

then you have either a dead non-human organism, or a living non-human organism that you fucked around with in an artificial way.
So when you said 'complete organisms that have human DNA are human beings' you were excluding those that have been artificially modified. What about humans that have received an organ transplant from an animal?

ah but by complete I mean has complete instructions, which it most clearly does.

Backtrack and redefine, backtrack and redefine... Offhand I'd say someone is having trouble with protecting their arguement.

Maybe you had better just go for the safest "Human souls" argument. At least the fact that they can't be detected allows you to stick to your guns. ;)

that seems rather random. Which week, which day? why not the day before that?

Well, it's a general area because the fetus will more than likely have a thalamus (a portion of the brain with a strong connection to conciousness, senses, and motor function) that is mostly formed around that time.

Living human being: must meet the following characteristics:

1) (living)
a) have one or more cells
B) a metabolism that produces energy
c) can grow or use growth to replace damage
d) can respond to some form of stimuli ( broad)

2) human being: one organism that contains human DNA

from conception to death.

"Yes. Women who have miscarriages should be jailed for manslaughter. And since around 25% of all pregnancies are miscarriages, we'd better start to crack down on this senseless slaughter of humans immediately. Send them to jail for a few years, as is the penalty of manslaughter. But what if she had a misscariage on purpose? How can we know? We'll just send them all to good Ol' Sparky, just in case. But some misscarriages happen before pregnancy can be detected, so to weed out the murderers, we should kill all women. I'm willing to do that. Are you?"

An offshoot from abortion debate number 562.623.987, give or take a few million:

Could someone please give an accurate definition of "a living human being" ?
Some possible pitfalls may be:
- making sure animals do not qualify (though PETA will not complain)
- making sure an embryo qualifies (though pro-choicers will not complain)
- making sure most people we bury do not qualify (though horrorfans will not complain)
- making sure human bodyparts do not qualify (I do not know of a group that pleads for the rights of bodyparts, but there no doubt are several)

For bonus points:
Give an accurate definition of "a living person".

Sicentifically speaking:

"A living human being"- a collection of animallike cells. This belong to the species Homo sapien sapien. This either refers to it as an organism that can fend entirely for itself, without any external support other than an environment with O2, water, and other nutrients; or while it is growing as a parasite-esque organism in a female "human's" uterus.

"A living person"- a human being who can do the following:
Grow/Develop
Metabolize
React To Stimuli

However, in the real world, these definitions do nothing as far as politics go. Most human politics say, in addition
embryo- not a human
human with no conscious thought- dead

However, we are now at a time where these ideas are being questioned. Which way will society lean? That is where the sentient "living human beings" come in...

Personally, I feel that abortion, if done before the fetus has real conscious thought, is OK.

The second one... is hard to say. Some cases yes, some no.

Living human being: must meet the following characteristics:

1) (living)
a) have one or more cells
B) a metabolism that produces energy
c) can grow or use growth to replace damage
d) can respond to some form of stimuli ( broad)

2) human being: one organism that contains human DNA

from conception to death.

Point 1d is a bit problematic if you wish to start at fertilisation. An embryo does not respond if you torch it.

"Yes. Women who have miscarriages should be jailed for manslaughter. And since around 25% of all pregnancies are miscarriages, we'd better start to crack down on this senseless slaughter of humans immediately. Send them to jail for a few years, as is the penalty of manslaughter. But what if she had a misscariage on purpose? How can we know? We'll just send them all to good Ol' Sparky, just in case. But some misscarriages happen before pregnancy can be detected, so to weed out the murderers, we should kill all women. I'm willing to do that. Are you?"
nice straw man. ;)

Point 1d is a bit problematic if you wish to start at fertilisation. An embryo does not respond if you torch it.

He is reffering to ANY stimuli, not ALL stimuli.

An embryo does not qualify. A zygote does not qualify. Sperm and eggs cells do not qualify. I'd say that by, say, towards the end of the 7th month, it would qualify as a living human.


So, my niece, born prematurely at 6 months, wasn't human?! Hmmmm, always thought the kid was a bit odd, but she seems human!

He is reffering to ANY stimuli, not ALL stimuli.

To what stimuli does an embryo respond ?

me.

An offshoot from abortion debate number 562.623.987, give or take a few million:

Could someone please give an accurate definition of "a living human being" ?
Some possible pitfalls may be:
- making sure animals do not qualify (though PETA will not complain)
- making sure an embryo qualifies (though pro-choicers will not complain)
- making sure most people we bury do not qualify (though horrorfans will not complain)
- making sure human bodyparts do not qualify (I do not know of a group that pleads for the rights of bodyparts, but there no doubt are several)

For bonus points:
Give an accurate definition of "a living person".

A member of the species homo sapiens sapiens with an iq over 125.

second....a functioning nervous system and sentient consciousness are not what make you alive. Jeez....you are on the attack with eyeshades on.
Actually, in the case of human beings, a functioning nervous system IS required for you to be alive.

It is possible for SOMETHING to be alive without having a functioning nervous system, but it is not possible for a human being to be alive without one. Such is the nature of our particular form of life.

And now I am a "lunatic"....for claiming that if you have human DNA, are a seperate organism, and having living cells you are alive. If that makes me a lunatic....I guess I don't know what else to say. It seemed rather 101 to me.
I think you are missing the point of his question.

Yes, a fetus is living. Yes, a fetus is human tissue (at the very least). However, the thread is about defining "human personhood" in such a way that fetuses will be included. Simply establishing that fetuses are living and human is not sufficient, since many things are both living and human and yet are not human persons.

Of course, but without reference to some property of being human (even something with which many people would disagree, such as 'god declared humans to be special') your statement would be axiomatic, and such as axiom would be arbitary. If there was reference to some property of being human, it would then be the fact that embryos also have that property (which they would have to have, to meet the conditions of being human) that give them a right to life.Okay, then I can agree with this, since quite evidently many people don't believe that humans have a right to life (otherwise they wouldn't be in favor of the death penalty) and so in that case, yes, they need to specify why the fetus would or wouldn't have the right to life beforehand.