Definition of Human Being Posted: 11-29-07 23:32pm
We are erect bipedal primate mammals, not
single-celled organisms.
mammal
: any of a class (Mammalia) of
warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as
placentals, marsupials, or monotremes)
that nourish their young with milk
secreted by mammary glands, have the skin
usually more or less covered with hair,
and include humans
— mam·ma·li·an Listen to the
pronunciation of mammalian
\mə-ˈmā-lē-ən, ma-\ adjective or noun
human a
bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens: man;
broadly : hominid
— hu·man·like Listen to the
pronunciation of humanlike \-mən-ˌlīk\
adjective
hominid
: any of a family (Hominidae) of erect
bipedal primate mammals comprising recent
humans together with extinct ancestral and
related forms
— hominid adjective
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-30-07 00:34am
Or even two celled organisms. I maintain
the obvious fact (in my mind) that a fetus
does not truly become a person until it is
born; and it does not have a right to life
until it is developed enough to survive
outside of the female's body.
Person = independent
In my opinion, anyway. No, not 100%
independent. But at least a newborn isn't
physically attached to someone; anyone now
can give it care and love.
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2121 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 11-30-07 11:04am
Human being=
any living or extinct member of the family
Hominidae characterized by superior
intelligence, articulate speech, and erect
carriage
does this mean a child 2 years of age is
not a human being?
|
Emma2
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 May 2006 Posts: 4406 Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-30-07 13:08pm
An infant cannot survive on it's own
outside . It needs to be nourished by
someone else. I guess that makes an infant
not human because it cannot survive on
it's own well until they are about 2!
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3941 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Posted: 11-30-07 14:29pm
I didn't actually see the definition of a
human being in there anywhere. Just
"mammal" and "human". What's a fetus if
it isn't human?
|
Verizon-y
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3291
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-30-07 14:32pm
I don't know where you guys are getting
your definitions, but I was
differentiating between what we are not,
which are single-celled bacterium and what
we are, which are multi-cellular mammals
first, primates second.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3941 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Posted: 11-30-07 14:35pm
I still don't see the definition of a
human being, as per the title of this
thread. Just a mysogynistic definition of
human.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-30-07 15:18pm
meblonde01
wrote:
Human being=
any living or extinct member of the family
Hominidae characterized by superior
intelligence, articulate speech, and erect
carriage
does this mean a child 2 years of age is
not a human
being?
A 2 year old is still smarter than most
(if not all) of the rest of the animal
kingdom.
Human being also has to do with your DNA,
your genetics. Please stop being obtuse.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-30-07 15:19pm
Birch
wrote:
I didn't actually see the
definition of a human being in there
anywhere. Just "mammal" and "human".
What's a fetus if it isn't
human?
It could be a fish fetus or many other
animals. Most of them go through fetal
stages.
A human fetus is (duh) human.
I've never been one of the people saying
fetuses aren't human. They are. They are
not individuals, however.
|
Cambion
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 748
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-30-07 15:25pm
Being sentient is also a noticecable trait
of a real human being; real human beings
can see, smell, hear, think, feel, taste,
and overall function on their own. I know
some people are limited in their senses,
but having bad hearing or being
near-sighted or paralyzed from the waist
down doesn't mean that person isn't a
human being. If a born person has
absolutely no senses - if they are just
being kept alive by machines like some
twisted science experiment, then they lay
upon the fine line between human and
vegetable.
I kind of agree that babies and toddlers
aren't people because they lack an
important trait that all human beings
have: a personality. Babies and toddlers
all act the same by nature because they
haven't matured enough physically to
become an individual with his or her own
unique belief system and feelings. I don't
hold it against them because they are sort
of 'humans in training', and doG knows,
I've never seen a baby or toddler act like
a normal human person (more like monkeys
on crack).
|
Sandbox Party
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 25 Jul 2006 Posts: 7276
Posted: 11-30-07 17:13pm
i beg to differ, Cambion.. both my 1 year
old and my 2 and a half year old each have
a unique personality.. they may not know
what religion or hate is yet, but they do
have personalities unique to them. They in
no way act alike.
|
Georgia59
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 5539 Location: Along the Mississippi, USA
Thanks: 88
Thanked:31
Posted: 11-30-07 17:44pm
meblonde01
wrote:
Human being=
any living or extinct member of the family
Hominidae characterized by superior
intelligence, articulate speech, and erect
carriage
does this mean a child 2 years of age is
not a human
being?
Oh snap!
Ok, I thought it was a good argument.
My mom has an african grey that is smarter
than most two year olds.
Perhaps we need to be defining what
personhood means rather than human?
|
Verizon-y
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3291
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-30-07 18:21pm
Personhood is different, and it would be
an interesting conversation. There is a
whole group of scientists that think
chimpanzees should have personhood:
Should apes have human rights?
Gorilla
By Tom Geoghegan
BBC News Magazine
Apes and humans have common ancestors but
should they have the same rights? An
international movement to give them
"personhood" is gathering pace.
What would Aristotle make of it? More than
2,000 years after the Greek philosopher
declared Mother Nature had made all
animals for the sake of man, there are
moves to put the relationship on a more
equal footing.
Judges in Austria are considering whether
a British woman, Paula Stibbe, should
become legal guardian of a chimpanzee
called Hiasl which was abducted from its
family tribe in West Africa 25 years ago.
The animal sanctuary where he has lived is
about to close and to stop him being sold
to a zoo, Ms Stibbe hopes that she can
persuade the court he deserves the same
protection as a child.
APES AND US
Gorillas, bonobos, orang-utans and chimps
are great apes
Chimpanzees and bonobos differ from humans
by only 1% of DNA and could accept a blood
transfusion or a kidney
All great apes recognise themselves in a
mirror
Elephants and dolphins show similar
self-awareness
Great apes can learn and use human
languages through signs or symbols but
lack the vocal anatomy to master speech
Great apes have displayed love, fear,
anxiety and jealousy
In 1997 the UK government banned
experiments on great apes but not on
primates such as marmosets and macaques
Sources: Ian Redmond, Charlotte
Uhlenbroek
Chimps genetically close to humans
Spanish MPs are also being urged to back a
similar principle, one already endorsed by
the Balearic parliament and held dear by
the international organisation The Great
Ape Project - that apes be granted the
right to life, freedom and protection from
torture.
So should apes such as those at London
Zoo, which opens its Gorilla Kingdom on
Thursday complete with gym and climbing
wall, get the same rights as their
zookeepers?
They need greater protection in the eyes
of the law, says Ian Redmond of the UN's
Great Apes Survival Project, who believes
welfare groups could use guardianship as a
way to rescue ill-treated apes.
Some rights are conferred on apes but only
because they are endangered. And the
international trade ban is flouted in
Africa and South-East Asia, where mothers
are shot and their infants shipped off as
pets, circus performers or lab animals.
Vivisection on apes is banned in much of
Europe but still goes on in the US and
Japan.
"Apes are special because they are so
closely related to us," says Mr Redmond.
"Chimpanzees and bonobos are our joint
closest living relatives, differing by
only one per cent of DNA - so close we
could accept a blood transfusion or a
kidney. Gorillas are next, then
orang-utans."
Charlotte Uhlenbroek
If you take a chimp away from its family
groups it's a real wrench
Charlotte Uhlenbroek
But there is a stronger cognitive
argument, he says, because the apes'
intelligence and ability to reason demands
our respect.
"Show a gibbon a mirror and the reaction
suggests he or she thinks the reflection
is another gibbon. But all the great apes
have passed the 'mirror self-recognition'
test and soon begin checking their teeth
or examining parts of their body they
couldn't see without the mirror. This
self-awareness surely suggests that they
know they exist."
Family ties
Apes also share a range of human emotions,
says zoologist Charlotte Uhlenbroek, who
thinks they should be afforded legal
protection enshrined in law.
The great apes: Status check
In pictures
They have a similar lifespan to humans and
form strong family bonds which they
maintain for life, she says. And apes have
displayed a tenderness which could be
described as love, anxiety when separated,
and fear, jealousy and trauma.
"If I was an alien from Mars and looked at
human society and a society of apes then
in terms of the emotional life I would see
no distinct difference, although we live
very different lives because of language
and technology."
Giving them rights does not mean throwing
open all the cage doors because some zoos
are important to preserve the species, but
it is vital to establish a principle that
apes should not be treated like objects,
she says.
Daniel Sokol, a medical ethicist, says
apes possess cognitive and emotional
faculties that make them worthy of moral
consideration.
Orang-utan (pic supplied by Ian Redmond)
Orang-utans can kiss and cuddle
"Justice and consistent thinking require
that we treat non-human animals who share
morally-relevant properties in a
respectful way, and that surely means
giving them the opportunity to flourish
and not be tortured or subject to cruel or
degrading treatment."
John Pickrell in England
for National Geographic News
May 20, 2003
A new report argues that chimpanzees are
so closely related to humans that they
should be included in our branch of the
tree of life. Chimpanzees and other apes
have historically been separated from
humans in classification schemes, with
humans deemed the only living members of
the hominid family of species.
Now, biologists at Wayne State University
School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan,
provide new genetic evidence that lineages
of chimps (currently Pan troglodytes) and
humans (Homo sapiens) diverged so recently
that chimps should be reclassed as Homo
troglodytes. The move would make chimps
full members of our genus Homo, along with
Neandertals, and all other human-like
fossil species. "We humans appear as only
slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes,"
says the study.
"The loss of the [wild] chimp and gorilla
seems imminent," said Morris Goodman, a
study co-author. "Moving chimps into the
human genus might help us to realize our
very great likeness, and therefore
treasure more and treat humanely our
closest relative," he said.
However, experts say many scientists are
likely to resist the reclassification,
especially in the emotionally-charged and
often disputed field of anthropology.
Knowing Me, Knowing You
The term genus describes a very closely
related group of similar species, thought
to have diverged from one another
relatively recently, and is the first
grouping above the species level. Common
chimpanzees and bonobos have until now
been classified into their own genus,
Pan.
Historical classification schemes, based
on physical similarities such as bones,
argued that chimps and gorillas were each
other's closest relatives, and that both
were closely related to orangutans to the
exclusion of humans.
However, with the advent of molecular
techniques to compare similarities in our
DNA starting in the 1960s, most experts
have come to accept the fact that humans
and chimps are most closely related.
Studies indicate that humans and chimps
are between 95 and 98.5 percent
genetically identical.
Derek E. Wildman, Goodman, and other
co-authors at Wayne State argue in their
new study, published today in the journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, that given the evidence, it's
somewhat surprising that humans and chimps
are still classified into different
genera. Other mammalian genera often
contain groups of species that diverged
much earlier than chimps and humans did,
said Goodman. "To be consistent, we need
to revise our definition of the human
branch of the tree of life," he said.
Historically Flawed
Goodman and colleagues used computer
methods to analyze the amount of
similarity between 97 important human and
chimp genes and as many of the same gene
sequences as are currently available for
less-studied gorillas, orangutans, and Old
World monkeys.
The results suggested that within
important sequence stretches of these
functionally significant genes, humans and
chimps share 99.4 percent identity. (Some
previous DNA work remains controversial.
It concentrated on genetic sequences that
are not parts of genes and are less
functionally important, said Goodman.)
Follow link at top to read the rest of the
story....
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3941 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Posted: 11-30-07 19:05pm
Eiri
wrote:
Birch
wrote:
I didn't actually see the
definition of a human being in there
anywhere. Just "mammal" and "human".
What's a fetus if it isn't
human?
It could be a fish fetus or many other
animals. Most of them go through fetal
stages.
A human fetus is (duh) human.
I've never been one of the people saying
fetuses aren't human. They are. They are
not individuals,
however.
To quote you, "Please stop being obtuse".
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2121 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 12-01-07 10:22am
Eiri
wrote:
meblonde01
wrote:
Human being=
any living or extinct member of the family
Hominidae characterized by superior
intelligence, articulate speech, and erect
carriage
does this mean a child 2 years of age is
not a human
being?
A 2 year old is still smarter than most
(if not all) of the rest of the animal
kingdom.
Human being also has to do with your DNA,
your genetics. Please stop being
obtuse.
then we are when we are a fetus too..
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 12-01-07 10:41am
We are humans as fetuses yes. Again, for
the millionth time, I've never denied
that. But we are not PEOPLE.
(currently) All people are humans. But not
all humans are people. Why? Because they
have not DEVELOPED into people yet. They
do not have the qualities that people
have.
Sight.
Hearing.
Breathing.
Thinking.
Eating.
Etc.
Are these the ONLY things that make us
people? No. But they are some.
Why don't YOU define what you think a
person is? Is it "just" a being that is
human and alive? Isn't the egg a "being"?
It's half a being, right? It has the
potential to become a person.
Even a fetus only has the POTENTIAL to
become a person, because it could
naturally miscarry during any stage of
pregnancy. Thus, the zef is a POTENTIAL
person, but it is not yet one.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 12-01-07 10:45am
The links were great!!! What oh What will
the creationists and the devout do?!
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2461 Location: ,
Thanks: 14
Thanked:7
Posted: 12-01-07 11:08am
Eiri
wrote:
We are humans as fetuses
yes. Again, for the millionth time, I've
never denied that. But we are not PEOPLE.
(currently) All people are humans. But not
all humans are people. Why? Because they
have not DEVELOPED into people yet. They
do not have the qualities that people
have.
Sight.
Hearing.
Breathing.
Thinking.
Eating.
Etc.
Are these the ONLY things that make us
people? No. But they are some.
Why don't YOU define what you think a
person is? Is it "just" a being that is
human and alive? Isn't the egg a "being"?
It's half a being, right? It has the
potential to become a person.
Even a fetus only has the POTENTIAL to
become a person, because it could
naturally miscarry during any stage of
pregnancy. Thus, the zef is a POTENTIAL
person, but it is not yet
one.
Remember people Eiri is very particular
about the semantics. See you can't call a
fetus "person" literally because then for
her it would be wrong to abort them. So
the definition for her is very important.
Abortion = wrong when it's person.
And what a fetus IS?
What a "person" IS when it's 8+ weeks
into gestation.
It's amazing her obtusiveness.
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2121 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 12-01-07 11:20am
nightangel73
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
We are humans as fetuses
yes. Again, for the millionth time, I've
never denied that. But we are not PEOPLE.
(currently) All people are humans. But not
all humans are people. Why? Because they
have not DEVELOPED into people yet. They
do not have the qualities that people
have.
Sight.
Hearing.
Breathing.
Thinking.
Eating.
Etc.
Are these the ONLY things that make us
people? No. But they are some.
Why don't YOU define what you think a
person is? Is it "just" a being that is
human and alive? Isn't the egg a "being"?
It's half a being, right? It has the
potential to become a person.
Even a fetus only has the POTENTIAL to
become a person, because it could
naturally miscarry during any stage of
pregnancy. Thus, the zef is a POTENTIAL
person, but it is not yet
one.
Remember people Eiri is very particular
about the semantics. See you can't call a
fetus "person" literally because then for
her it would be wrong to abort them. So
the definition for her is very important.
Abortion = wrong when it's person.
And what a fetus IS?
What a "person" IS when it's 8+ weeks
into gestation.
