At what point after conception does one become "human"?

This is not an abortion debate. There is already one active.
What I am trying to determine is when people believe we become "Humans". It seems as there is no clear cut definition in the medical community that I can find. So when is it? When the heart starts beating? When they can hear and think and feel? Then they can survive outside of the womb? At birth? First breath?
What do you think and why?

reply to post by calstorm


It is considered human when the mother believes it to be. Plain and simple.

reply to post by calstorm


at no point after conception does one become human. one becomes human at conception.

reply to post by Xiamara


i think you might have misspoke, is there an upper bounds to this standard of yours, like say, at birth? otherwise no human being is human at any age before or after birth ever unless the mother considers him/her to be.

reply to post by Xiamara


I understand what you mean and where you are coming from, but in that case a mother can say, "Well I may have given birth 2 months ago but its still not a human yet so I can treat it how ever I want" I read on a thread recently where a poster didn't believe we were actual humans until a month after birth.
What I want to know is scientifically when we become human.

reply to post by calstorm


Scientifically you could say at conception, or at the first heart beat, some say when there is brain activity, others say an arbitrary month. Others would say first breath. There is no exact day, you could also rationalize we become human when we become self aware, but what is that point. Its like defining the colour red...

I do believe it matters as it determines when one is entitled to human rights.

reply to post by calstorm


at the point of conception a zygote is created. a zygote is defined as:

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"),[1] or zygocyte, is the initial cell formed when a new organism is produced by means of sexual reproduction.

it's the initial cell of a NEW ORGANISM. it is not the mother, it is not the father, again, it is a NEW ORGANISM. a new individual separate from the mother and father is formed at conception. scientifically that is when life begins. because it is formed from two homosapien parents, the new oganism is homosapien, otherwise known as human.

reply to post by calstorm


Ahh, well in the case of human rights I say By the mothers views or until first breath. If the mother deems their fetus to be a human at conception then it is as such. If the mother believes it is at first breath then so be it.

reply to post by Xiamara


And if the mother doesn't believe it is human after birth?
I am sorry, but that just seems like way to much leeway for one person to decide when another person is eligible for rights?
Just because one person believes something doesn't make it so, what about people who don't *insert random race here* are human?

reply to post by calstorm


Is why I say OR until first breath.

reply to post by calstorm


Human conception begins when the egg is fertilized, however those who are created in the image of God are conceived in the moment of their first recollection of memory. Mine was about 3 years old. Before that time, I existed not in the flesh, and my past hidden from me.

reply to post by calstorm


Well it can certainly be broken down in kiddy terms. 1. It certainly isn't dog dna. 2. It's not cat dna. 3. It is not any other animal dna. Well I guess that leaves us with one other option. At conception it is human dna unless unless one is an e.t. hybrid lol.

I've always had the opinion that you move from being an animal to being a human when you are able to communicate well enough through speech (or sign language equivalent) to be able to tell somebody what you need and have them give it to you.

A very crude example would be, at what point does a car become a car, when he leaves the concept in the mind of the designer, or when the last piece is assembled, or when the engine starts after it has been fed fuel.

the previous poster wisely named after one acquires consciousness, but that brings even more questions, because if that were so, then all human provoked deaths of other humans should also be illegal, in all cases, under every circumstance.

Again one can argue that we are almost all of the time existing in states of semi consciousness, so we aren't actually fully developed humans.

No one can answer this question to the satisfaction of every group available out there who has a say in the matter. I have been told by some people that i deem wise, that one becomes, after the 2 parental energies sum up generating a third that is "a new product" in itself.

I believe that if the affected take full responsibility then it has to be whenever they feel, when one is under direct responsibility because of being unable to take independent action, then there isn't much to ague about the actions of the first!

Human rights are a lie, and are only applied whenever the powers feel they should prove some point.
All life and the mysteries of existence, should by definition be protected and cherished like the strange unexplainable occurrence it is, and we do exactly the opposite!

I believe that we rarely become human in our lifespans, we act as inhumanely as possible most of the time!

the question wasn't when life begins, the question was "when does one become human." What makes human beings unique is consciousness and self awareness. So I believe one becomes "human" when one gains consciousness... whenever that is.

Originally posted by calstorm
What I am trying to determine is when people believe we become "Humans".

First, define human.

The zygote is human. It's human DNA. It's a potential human being.

But as to human rights, it is entitled to human rights when it becomes viable and its rights don't interfere with the rights of the woman carrying it.

reply to post by Xiamara


this standard of 'when the mom decides OR first breath' is a little vacuous don't you think?

it's clear that you're starting at the position of what you want the rule on abortion/infanticide to be... and then imposing that position back onto the separate question of when one becomes 'human' without actually investigating what makes something 'human' to begin with.

you're not really using a framework that is built for the question. you're using one built for a separate question which is the question of abortion.

here's an illustration:

1. in your framework, abortion would be legal or morally acceptable yada yada up to birth. basically you're making a viability framework. live outside the mother? legal rights. can't? no legal rights. see, that's a consistent rule for abortion.

2. but then we apply your framework to the question of human life.... assume a pregnant woman whose mind is not made up and goes to a debate on the issue of when human life begins. both speakers are incredibly compelling and literally everytime one of the speakers speaks the pregnant woman changes her mind on the issue. ... under your framework, this pregnant woman is literally calling human life in and out of existence every minute... isn't that a tad bit silly?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


i've worked with plenty of either injured or developmentally disabled clients who would not be considered 'viable' any more than some babies who, if the doctor decided, could be delivered prematurely.

There is a belief (i believe it is buddhist) that the soul enters the body 40 days after conception.