Recently I have read here at forum that some think the foundational right to life should apply only to post-natal human beings, that some think it should apply to pre-natal human beings closer to birth, and that some think it should apply to pre-natal human beings from the moment of conception.
Indeed, this is a hot topic in U.S. politics, and has been for some time.
But when discussing their perspective, people often return to the foundational matter of what is a human and when does a human begin to be.
These are good questions.
There seems to be just as many different answers given among posters as there are posters, however, and all of those answers can't be objectively correct, I would rationally conclude.
So if we were to try to obtain the correct objective answer to the question of what is a human and when does a human begin to be, rather than appeal to religion, or idiosyncracies of the various posters, or biased groups and the lot, it would seem reasonable that we modern people appeal to science.
So, what does science say on the matter?
Geneticists of respected DNA science say that to be human, to be a human cell or collection of cells, that each cell must be a diploid cell with two sets of 23 sets of chromosomes, each set received from one parent, and that the genetic content of those chromosomes can be identified to uniquely present the species of that cell to be human.
But, of course, though that's one of the requirements for being a human being, that's not enough to be a human being, as a brain cell, for instance, meets the aforementioned human criteria, but is certainly not by itself a human being.
So let's proceed further.
To be a human being, one must be an individual, standing apart from others of the same species.
Geneticists of respected DNA science also say that in addition to being able to tell the species of an entity from its chromosome's genetic code, that they can also differentiate individual entities within species the same way.
Geneticists of respected DNA science also say that though a cell may meet the human species qualifier, that within "the body" of an entity, if the single cell or all the cells are (all) of the same entity, then there is only one human present.
Geneticists of respected DNA science then go on to say that if, however, there are, by genetic chromosome observation, different human entities within the observed body, then, in reality, there is more than one distinct human within that body ... as in the fact that immediately prior to birth, there is what will within minutes become a birthed "baby" inside of the mother, thus inside the mother's body there is a separate human, by DNA observation, and thus there are two human entities within the skin of the mother: the mother herself, and the human who will soon be her baby.
Okay, so now we know how to identify a human, from DNA science's perspective, and how to differentiate between different individual humans from DNA science's perspective.
And yes, some of this is an obvious reality to us intuitively, but that's not the point. The point is that it is also respected modern-day science.
So the next question is when does a cell(s) of a unique identifiable human become a living human being?
Let's start with the first appearance of a different human: conception.
Geneticists of respected DNA science tell us that the first cell to become completely human is the cell of conception. Immediately after the haploid cells (half the chromosomes necessary to be a human) of sperm and egg unite, whether in the womb or a dish, that they begin to transform into and soon do become, before the first cellular division of growth, a complete diploid 23-chromosome human cell, of the human species. The process of egg and sperm uniting is called conception, and the result of that unity is likewise called a conception.
Geneticists of respected DNA science also tell us that the newly conceived human cell is unique from any other human being's cells with respect to genetic identification of the DNA presenting a cell of a uniquely separate human. Thus, if the conception takes place within the mother's womb, there is then from that point two separate sets of cells within the mother's skin: the cells that are "her's", with respect to her individual entity, and the cells which belong to the newly conceived human within her.
Now again, I know that all this is intuitively accepted by us, but the scientific presentation is important here, so please bear with me.
Okay, so now we know from respected DNA science's perspective that a newly conceived cell is a unique entity of the human species.
But, is it a living being?
To determine if it is a living being, we must first determine if it is alive. If it passes the "is it alive" test, then by virtue of it already being a unique entity of the human species, the scientifically logical conclusion is that it is a living being.
Enter respected life science.
Life scientists have created a consensually accepted conventional multi-criteria test for determining if an entity is a living being. Here are the criteria, and an entity must meet all or reasonably most of the criteria:
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
(Continued in next post as there is a 10,000 character restriction per post.)
Indeed, this is a hot topic in U.S. politics, and has been for some time.
But when discussing their perspective, people often return to the foundational matter of what is a human and when does a human begin to be.
These are good questions.
There seems to be just as many different answers given among posters as there are posters, however, and all of those answers can't be objectively correct, I would rationally conclude.
So if we were to try to obtain the correct objective answer to the question of what is a human and when does a human begin to be, rather than appeal to religion, or idiosyncracies of the various posters, or biased groups and the lot, it would seem reasonable that we modern people appeal to science.
So, what does science say on the matter?
Geneticists of respected DNA science say that to be human, to be a human cell or collection of cells, that each cell must be a diploid cell with two sets of 23 sets of chromosomes, each set received from one parent, and that the genetic content of those chromosomes can be identified to uniquely present the species of that cell to be human.
But, of course, though that's one of the requirements for being a human being, that's not enough to be a human being, as a brain cell, for instance, meets the aforementioned human criteria, but is certainly not by itself a human being.
So let's proceed further.
To be a human being, one must be an individual, standing apart from others of the same species.
Geneticists of respected DNA science also say that in addition to being able to tell the species of an entity from its chromosome's genetic code, that they can also differentiate individual entities within species the same way.
Geneticists of respected DNA science also say that though a cell may meet the human species qualifier, that within "the body" of an entity, if the single cell or all the cells are (all) of the same entity, then there is only one human present.
Geneticists of respected DNA science then go on to say that if, however, there are, by genetic chromosome observation, different human entities within the observed body, then, in reality, there is more than one distinct human within that body ... as in the fact that immediately prior to birth, there is what will within minutes become a birthed "baby" inside of the mother, thus inside the mother's body there is a separate human, by DNA observation, and thus there are two human entities within the skin of the mother: the mother herself, and the human who will soon be her baby.
Okay, so now we know how to identify a human, from DNA science's perspective, and how to differentiate between different individual humans from DNA science's perspective.
And yes, some of this is an obvious reality to us intuitively, but that's not the point. The point is that it is also respected modern-day science.
So the next question is when does a cell(s) of a unique identifiable human become a living human being?
Let's start with the first appearance of a different human: conception.
Geneticists of respected DNA science tell us that the first cell to become completely human is the cell of conception. Immediately after the haploid cells (half the chromosomes necessary to be a human) of sperm and egg unite, whether in the womb or a dish, that they begin to transform into and soon do become, before the first cellular division of growth, a complete diploid 23-chromosome human cell, of the human species. The process of egg and sperm uniting is called conception, and the result of that unity is likewise called a conception.
Geneticists of respected DNA science also tell us that the newly conceived human cell is unique from any other human being's cells with respect to genetic identification of the DNA presenting a cell of a uniquely separate human. Thus, if the conception takes place within the mother's womb, there is then from that point two separate sets of cells within the mother's skin: the cells that are "her's", with respect to her individual entity, and the cells which belong to the newly conceived human within her.
Now again, I know that all this is intuitively accepted by us, but the scientific presentation is important here, so please bear with me.
Okay, so now we know from respected DNA science's perspective that a newly conceived cell is a unique entity of the human species.
But, is it a living being?
To determine if it is a living being, we must first determine if it is alive. If it passes the "is it alive" test, then by virtue of it already being a unique entity of the human species, the scientifically logical conclusion is that it is a living being.
Enter respected life science.
Life scientists have created a consensually accepted conventional multi-criteria test for determining if an entity is a living being. Here are the criteria, and an entity must meet all or reasonably most of the criteria:
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
(Continued in next post as there is a 10,000 character restriction per post.)