What is legally considered a human being?

What is legally considered a human being?



From Wikipedia. umans (Homo sapiens) are bipedal primates of the superfamily Hominoidea, together with the other apes—chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons. They are the dominant sentient species on planet Earth and define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. The scientific name for humans, Homo sapiens, comes from the Latin for "wise man."

Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects and using tools. The human brain is capable of abstract thought, reason, speech, language, and introspection. Bipedal locomotion appears to have evolved before the development of a large brain. The origins of bipedal locomotion and of its role in the evolution of the human brain are topics of ongoing research.

The human mind has several distinct attributes. It is responsible for complex behavior, especially language. Curiosity and observation have led to a variety of explanations for consciousness and the relation between mind and body. Psychology attempts to study behavior from a scientific point of view. Religious perspectives emphasize a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterized by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. Philosophy, especially philosophy of mind, attempts to fathom the depths of each of these perspectives. Art, music and literature often express these concepts and feelings.

Like all primates, humans are inherently social. They create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups. These range from nations and states down to families, and from the community to the self. Seeking to understand and manipulate the world around them has led to the development of technology and science. Artifacts, beliefs, myths, rituals, values, and social norms have each played a role in forming humanity's culture.

What is legally considered a human being?

Why do U ask ?

R U not sure about yourself ?

BTW Genetically U can b tested for.

Ricky, is that a LEGAL definition, or just a description?

The law does not generally refer to a "human being" but to a "person." That's the definition that is required. Whether or not a fertilized ovum, a fetus, an anacephalic baby, or a brain-dead accident victim is a human being is biological hair-splitting. But whether or not it is a person and therefore has the rights of a person, that is an important legal issue.

I don't believe there is any standard legal definition of a person. However, corporations are described as "artificial persons."

It stems from a debate I was having with someone. They are adament that if someones DNA was edited at any point from pre-conception to birth, than the person should not be considered human.

i have done a google search on the phrase 'legal definition of human being'
and i can't find an answer
the only thing that you can do fafnir is to legaly define human as it pertains to the various regions of the world
what is legaly human in the u.s.a. is not human elsewhere

it seems to me that if there was a legal definition then you would find it at the u.n. but even they do not have one

Are you reading my mind again leopold? Even down to the UN issue?

They are adament that if someones DNA was edited at any point from pre-conception to birth, than the person should not be considered human.
this argument will not fly
for how does one know if dna has not been 'edited' by cosmic rays, or x-rays for that matter, while in the womb?

Through direct human intervention. Your use of quotes around edited shows that you understood the nature of my statement, and the nature of your own.

the biggest problem i see with this issue is how can you legaly define human and still take into consideration evolution

as soon as you put a legal definition on what is human on the genetic scale you immediatly rule out evolution.
that is probably why there is no legal definition and probably never will be

As already said there is no legal definition of a human, and none is needed or required,
but there are physical and juridical (or artificial) persons (like a company),
also public (mainly state owned) and private persons.

A person consists of the ability to have rights and duties; and of the ability to actually take action in using those rights and performing duties.

The first is for all persons that have been born (and in the cases of inheritance from a deceased person fetuses also have the ability to have rights).
The second is not for mentally ill persons, children, etc (dependant on national laws of each country)

And know that in law nothing is set in stone. Definitions change and adjust to new situations as time goes. The thought that in some future human rights would stop function solely because of the fact that humans would have evolved into another species is lunatic.
There's a whole subscience category called "interpretation of law".

p.s. I'm a law student.

Fafnir:
It stems from a debate I was having with someone. They are adament that if someones DNA was edited at any point from pre-conception to birth, than the person should not be considered human.

Can you paraphrase or elaborate a little on your opponent's position? My understanding is that his position makes absolutely no sense. Does he make any decent or legitimate points? I can't understand how he could come up with any, with a premise like that. It makes absolutely no sense. Why would the variations of a person's DNA render him/her not a person?

You should point out to your friend that no person, nor living thing's DNA stays the same through its life. In fact, that's why most organisms age. The telomere (non-informative junk DNA) at the ends of the chromosomes thin out and eventually result in the later generations of the concerned cells to start cutting out meaningful chunks of data during replication (which in normal circumstances would be telomere, which is its presumed function), resulting in all kinds of dystrophy, like improper cell funtioning, cancer and, well, you get the point.

Also is there a certain IQ a human isn't considered a human intellectually? What if a dog had an IQ of a really mentally retarded human or one who is mentally handicapped by other medical disorders, should society consider giving that dog the rights of humans? Myself, I believe if we're born human, we're legally humans. I guess the details are for the people and/or court to decide should the situation arise. And I also believe in respecting other living creatures, not just humans, so any animal to me has a right to be respected as one of God's creatures. It may seem off topic but human or not, or human which is questionable, should be treated with respect and given a right to a healthy life.

Human is anything that has human DNA in all cells of its body, meanining cytosines...adenines...thymines...all of em...in right position as exons...actually with a function. A human DNA is unlike any other species DNA and can vary only by 0.01% or so.

What is legally considered a human being?
Someone of the 'Homo sapiens' species.

It stems from a debate I was having with someone. They are adament that if someones DNA was edited at any point from pre-conception to birth, than the person should not be considered human.

A species is ordinarily a class of animals which can interbreed to produce viable offspring able themselves to reproduce.

If ever a set of human-like beings was produced, perhaps by genetic engineering, who could breed with each other but not with "unaltered" humans to produce viable offspring, then members of that set would be a new species.

Bt what if I could pass on my genes from my X chromosomes without worry of infelteration from the womans X chromosome ?

Sorry, that's not how genes work.

Then i guess I am a new Specie, thanks

I see a lot of the same arguments I used against him. Basically his argument was that the only humans are those that are unaltered by artificial means. Say we figure out how to remove the blading gene, make the kids smarter, and throw in some anti-senesence. He would say that that is no longer human, no matter what.

What is legally considered a human being?
Talk about taking humanity out of humanity. Legally drunk, legally married, legally possesses, legally tired, legally crazy, legally frustrated....I hope congress one day enacts a legally tired clause...maybe I can call into work and say I'm legally tired. Supposing we perfect artificial wombs, will people of this birth be legally human? What about a clone?

Thats the argument. It really boils down to me arguing against his ridiculous support of every law based on morality of a specific sub-group systimatically limiting the freedom of americans.

A human being isnt something that is exact, that is what we consider as human beings can vary greatly...However what defines human biologically/physically is human's DNA...those creatures that have human DNA are humans, human DNA however varies from person to another person. Something that is defined as human changes its characteristics overtime, as a result of evolution. Humans however have an ability to replicate during this time, this however future if what will evolve from us will not have an ability to replicate or we will have divergent evolution then we have entirely new species forming. Humans are those who have human DNA and make up same group of species.

So youre saying that we can edit a humans DNA so long as he can interbreed, and still be able to call hi human?

So youre saying that we can edit a humans DNA so long as he can interbreed, and still be able to call him human?That wouldn't pass the species test. Animals only have to belong to the same genus to be able to interbreed. Dogs and coyotes, horses and donkeys, scarlet macaws and military macaws, etc.

Humans and Neanderthals could interbreed, and it's widely accepted among anthropologists that they did. Although I don't know whether they have enough Neanderthal DNA to be able to test either hypothesis. It's been suggested that modern humans never actually killed off the Neanderthals or even ran them out of the more easily survivable territories, but rather just assimilated them into the larger gene pool.

What Neanderthals are to humans, humans are to me.

Meet me, Human 2.0 :p

Meet me, Human evolution friendly

Then i guess I am a new Specie, thanks
Bullshit

Humans and Neanderthals could interbreed, and it's widely accepted among anthropologists that they did. No it isn't. This already unpopular view has become a definite minority one as a consequence of mitochondrial DNA analysis.

Krings, et al DNA sequence of the mitochondrial hypervariable region II from the Neandertal type specimen PNAS Vol. 96, Issue 10, 1999

The DNA sequence of the second hypervariable region of the mitochondrial control region of the Neandertal type specimen, found in 1856 in central Europe, has been determined from 92 clones derived from eight overlapping amplifications performed from four independent extracts. When the reconstructed sequence is analyzed together with the previously determined DNA sequence from the first hypervariable region, the Neandertal mtDNA is found to fall outside a phylogenetic tree relating the mtDNAs of contemporary humans. The date of divergence between the mtDNAs of the Neandertal and contemporary humans is estimated to 465,000 years before the present, with confidence limits of 317,000 and 741,000 years. Taken together, the results support the concept that the Neandertal mtDNA evolved separately from that of modern humans for a substantial amount of time and lends no support to the idea that they contributed mtDNA to contemporary modern humans.

The complete paper may be read here: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/10/5581

Bullshit

Here a preview of how I am gona make U humans extinct.

I am wokring on a virus that will be used to infect large populations women, this virus is designed to infiltrate the womans egg with my DNA and get them pregnant. Within next century Humans will be replaced with my desendents,

Human 2.0

specie : Hetro Sapien :D

I see. Excuse me if I don't believe you.

I want U not to believe in it, and I have succeded in that first step, now no one will suspect let alone stop me.

He's just an idiot, Hamster, don't bother replying.

Thanks for the help Avatar.

I know why U chose that name, U thought thats what U are supposed to type when U registered in SciForums as your friend told U ,

Thats one hell of a funny fact.

If I were to sum up what everyones been saying, would a likely sum read "As of now there is no method for determining what is legally human. No precedent has yet been set, and it is not concievable that one shall be set in the near future." ?

Neanderthals and homo sapiens interbreeding? probably not, but there is a slight chance.

I remember that some archaeologists in France, I think, discovered remains of a 4 year old child that had both homo sapiens and neanderthal characteristics. At that time they told that more research is needed on the remains and that it could be a genetic anomaly, but still - the question remains open.
Maybe someone has some more recent factual input regarding this subject?

I thought homo sapiens were the result of some intermixing between neanderthal and cro-magnon...

Incorrect thought.
Neanderthals inhabited Europe and parts of western Asia from about 230,000 to 29,000 years ago, during the Middle Paleolithic period.
Homo sapiens came to Europe from Africa long after Neanderthals already lived there.

-------
Here is the article from 1999 summarising the find and evidence that might support the idea that Neanderthals did indeed mate with Homo sapiens (that is not proven (that N. were a subspecies) as far as I know, there is data that supports it, and other that doesn't):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/323657.stm

What would be wonderful is if we got our hands on some neanderthal DNA, it would be an incredebly lucky find though, if it happened.

Oh. Okay. Thanks, I was a bit confused about all that.

What would be wonderful is if we got our hands on some neanderthal DNA, it would be an incredebly lucky find though, if it happened.


You could sample Anomalous?

Incorrect thought.
Neanderthals inhabited Europe and parts of western Asia from about 230,000 to 29,000 years ago, during the Middle Paleolithic period.
Homo sapiens came to Europe from Africa long after Neanderthals already lived there.

Avatar, neanderthals and homo sapiens coexisted, Ive been to Natural Museum of History in NY,NY,USA and they had recreated sites that suggested that both of these species have existed side by side, but neanderthals died of because of food shortage, they had larger brains so needed more food.

hobbits goliaths and other homanid type species existed together,
i would guess we ate them all, and farmed them,

neandertal could have bred with homo sapien, that might be why people now sometimes are born with sub level intelligence,


like dragon, :) jokes,


peace.

What would be wonderful is if we got our hands on some neanderthal DNA, it would be an incredebly lucky find though, if it happened.Sometimes I get really pissed off. I go to the trouble of tracking down a specific reference, in this case to Neanderthal DNA analysis; I provide a full citation for said reference; I include the abstract of the paper; I offer a link to the complete paper on-line.
And some people can't be bothered to read what is just half a dozen lines above their own post. :rolleyes:

Avatar, neanderthals and homo sapiens coexisted, Ive been to Natural Museum of History in NY,NY,USA and they had recreated sites that suggested that both of these species have existed side by side, but neanderthals died of because of food shortage, they had larger brains so needed more food.
Of course, but you didn't pay attention in what context I replied.
Hapsburg suggested that Homo sapiens partially evolved from Neanderthals.
There is no proven evidence of why exactly Neanderthals died out,
could be a factor of things.

Sometimes I get really pissed off. I go to the trouble of tracking down a specific reference, in this case to Neanderthal DNA analysis; I provide a full citation for said reference; I include the abstract of the paper; I offer a link to the complete paper on-line.
And some people can't be bothered to read what is just half a dozen lines above their own post.
:D :D shit happens
I read the thread, but didn't notice your entry. :m:
Thanks for directing my attention to it

Think nothing of it. It is just so rare these days one can find anything of value to post, other than nicely crafted ad hominems, that one rather hopes one's serious efforts will be seen.

You could sample Anomalous? Ya U should , then U will realize the nearness of your Extinction.

Singularity is comming !

And so is the time to take evening medicine.

What is legally considered a human being?

homo sapien. a homanid type species of mammal ? DNA testing would classify right?


peace.

Ricky, is that a LEGAL definition, or just a description?

Ask wikipedia, not me. But isn't the original point of this thread, kind of rhetorical? Is this a question that needs an answer? Perhaps. But i wouldn't think it does. Besides why does this need to be answered? Is there illegal humans? Clones maybe? But even a clone would be a "legal" human. So what exactly was your point to this thread? I'm a little confused to that. Does it have something to do with abortions? If so, a legal human could be summed up as a homo sapian that breathes air.

i seriously doubt if there will ever be a legal definition of human on a genetic scale

Are you sure a clone would be considered a legal human?

There is no such thing as a legal human in law theory.
So the answer is "no".
Nobody is considered to be a "legal human" because no such definition or term exists.

Part of my question was trying to figure out an approximate precedent, or a situation where a precedent would have to be made. What if someone created an artificial brain, and cloned a human, and stuck it in there. Would that being be considered a human being with all the rights given one?

If such a case were brought before court, then the court would appoint a medical expert (commision).
Then that expert commision would tell, because it's not a legal, but a medical question.
The same as courts don't directly judge on whether the person is sane or insane, the doctors do, the court bases it's judgement on what doctors think, the competence of the court is only the law.

And the case wouldn't be about if that is human, but whether it's a physical person, because only a physical person has human rights.

Which comes back to the spirit of the original question ;)

Whats considered a physical person?

I believe I've already told that in this thread too.
A born alive human being.
A fetus has rights only in the case of testament, if the father (for example) dies when the child is still unborn, the fetus has testamentary rights on the property of the deceased,
but he can receive the property only if is born alive.

Whether that is human or not is a medical question.

There is no such thing as a legal human in law theory.
So the answer is "no".
Nobody is considered to be a "legal human" because no such definition or term exists.

So Can I Sue a DOG for barking on me ?

You can sue the owner of the dog for the dog barking at you. If the dog barks on you, you should remove it, lest its paws muddy your clothing.

You can sue the owner of the dog for the dog barking at you. If the dog barks on you, you should remove it, lest its paws muddy your clothing.

Why not the Dog , is he not Human ? is that in the law ?

Uh, no. The dog is certainly not Human.

Are you sure a clone would be considered a legal human?

I would say it would be, if there was legal humans. The only thing they don't do like us, is have a birth of any sort like ours. But you would even call a test tube baby, a "legal" human.

Uh, no. The dog is certainly not Human.

Which law says that smartass

Natural law

Natural law

So why dont U get a PHD on it and use other such natural laws for legal cases.

Main Entry: you
Function: pronoun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English Eow, dat. & accus. of gE you; akin to Old High German iu, dative of ir you, Sanskrit yuyam you
1 : the one or ones being addressed -- used as the pronoun of the second person singular or plural in any grammatical relation except that of a possessive <you may sit in that chair> <you are my friends> <can I pour you a cup of tea> -- used formerly only as a plural pronoun of the second person in the dative or accusative case as direct or indirect object of a verb or as object of a preposition; compare THEE, THOU, YE, YOUR, YOURS
2 : ONE 2a

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=you

p.s. I think that you are not only Wounded Iraqi Muslim, but also Anomalous and Singularity in one person.

Captain obvious has struck again!

Well, I thought he'd at least try to look a bit different.
Guess somebody should notify JamesR about this, so he can ban 2 of preference.

What is legally considered a human being?

Does this have anything to do with abortion?

Yes actually it does ;)

What is legally considered a human being?Human being. See Monster.
Monster. A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. “A monster… hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage; but, although it hath deformity in any part of its body, yet if it hath human shape, it may be heir.” 2 B1. Comm.246.
Law Dictionary by James Ballentine

Commerce
Definition – Noun

1 : the exchange or buying and selling of goods, commodities, property, or services esp. on a large scale and involving transportation from place to place
: See also trade
see also commerce clause Fair Labor Standards Act in the Important Laws section
2 : the act of engaging in sexual intercourse

Recursion - noun
Definition: see recursion

If it looks like a human, and it walks like a human, and it quacks like a human, then, guess what, it is a HUMAN!!!

you all look very confused, so here's the correct definition of human: a being who can think consciously. animals can't do that, so humans are not animals.

btw, don't try to look up the definition of human in encyclopedias or dictionaries because the definition is usually wrong.

..., so here's the correct definition of human: a being who can think consciously. animals can't do that, so humans are not animals.

Can you show conclusively that other animals can't think consciously?

Storing food for the winter seems to me to be conscious thought ...and many animals do it. And if you say that it's purely "instinctive", then show why it's NOT instinctive for similar acts by humans.

Baron Max

If it sucks its human

If it sucks its human

...LOL! That's not bad, but ....maybe it's something like "Humans are the only animal that actively and consciously pollutes it's own environment."

Baron Max

Wow, someone mastered the art of necrothreading. This was originally about edited DNA, but since I originally posted it the question has kind evolved to, "What legal definition should be applied to beings such that they qualify for basic human/civil rights."

But really, necrothreading, awesome, I <3 sciforums for the interest people have in threads from yesteryear.

Apparently somewhere between 12 and 20 weeks (gestational age) the fetus legally becomes a person. This is different for different countries and, I believe, even for different states in the US.