• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Semantics

What is the difference between "human" and "human being"?

Some people define them differently. Some people define them the same. It's rather subjective. This is my differentiation:

human - (n.) a member of the genus Homo and species Sapiens

human being - (n.) or (adj.) - a human with consciousness, rational thinking, and aware of its past, present, and future.

Are humans sacred or "set apart" simply by having human DNA?

Not even close.
 
Some people define them differently. Some people define them the same. It's rather subjective. This is my differentiation:

human - (n.) a member of the genus Homo and species Sapiens

human being - (n.) or (adj.) - a human with consciousness, rational thinking, and aware of its past, present, and future.



Not even close.

Does being human automatically grant an organism a special set of rights and protection, or is consciousness a requirement?
 
Does being human automatically grant an organism a special set of rights and protection, or is consciousness a requirement?

Does it grant it "rights?" Well, I think we can either have unlimited "rights" or no "rights." Consciousness is required to be considered a "being" in my view.
 
What is the difference between "human" and "human being"?

Are humans sacred or "set apart" simply by having human DNA?

To my mind, "human" does not imply an actually being unless it is used as a noun. You can have a 'human" cell, but it is not a "human being." A "human being" is an organism with human DNA. A "person" is something different. To me, a "person" refers to the qualities we typically attribute to a functioning "human being" like sentience, will, etc.

So, a braindead human is a "human being" but not a "person." This has legal precedent as well, as braindead human beings are considered legally dead, and lose their human rights.

A human cell is "human" but it is not a "human being" and certainly not a "person."

When we discuss rights, we are typically discussing "persons" because the reasoning behind having rights is that persons are entitled to a certain standard of personal integrity and well-being. If a "human being" is incapable of experiencing those things (and thus not a "person") there isn't really any reason for them to have rights.
 
That's how I view it, as well. But many people seem to equate being human, as in simply possessing human DNA, as sufficient reason to grant an organism actual rights.

Those people are weak.
 
Human beings and Humans refer to the same thing, but Human being is emphasising a specific property of humans.
 
That's how I view it, as well. But many people seem to equate being human, as in simply possessing human DNA, as sufficient reason to grant an organism actual rights.
Human life is still human life though. I think so much as this relates to abortion (though you didn’t mention it by name, it is rather transparent this is where you’re going) in terms of “giving life rights”, there are some rather complicated moralities which come about which are often times overlooked. Is the human at an earlier stage of life human? Is it a human being? What impact does this have? Erasing the human life early on does in fact erase an actual person given normal development. I’m sure there are plenty of exceptions we could drag up, but on the whole that is what it is. Every last one of us can extrapolate to our zero point, the moment at which we became this organism we are, and that is conception. Reproduction is how new humans are made. Biological fact.

In the end, your overgeneralization of a complex moral quandary is exactly that, an oversimplification. In order to make your case, you have used a good dose of hyperbole and spin.
 
Human life is still human life though. I think so much as this relates to abortion (though you didn’t mention it by name, it is rather transparent this is where you’re going) in terms of “giving life rights”, there are some rather complicated moralities which come about which are often times overlooked. Is the human at an earlier stage of life human? Is it a human being? What impact does this have? Erasing the human life early on does in fact erase an actual person given normal development. I’m sure there are plenty of exceptions we could drag up, but on the whole that is what it is. Every last one of us can extrapolate to our zero point, the moment at which we became this organism we are, and that is conception. Reproduction is how new humans are made. Biological fact.

Conception begins a new human life. No debate there. But why shouldn't a woman have a right to end said life? Nature does it all the time. Something like 30% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Also, what is so important about human life that it should be spared from the consequences of its parent's actions? It happens all the time after birth. A child is born unwanted and rejected. But what do people say in response? "That's life." Life is cruel and unfeeling. But social constructs and religion-based morality put a nicer spin on things. It deceives us into believing that our lives somehow make a difference when they don't.

After you die, how soon will it be that you are forgotten? I ask the same question. Out of 7 billion people on this planet, does one life make a difference?

And lastly, think of all of the children who have been force to exist (yes, forced- I would never have chosen to be born). Will there be relief for their suffering? Not likely. There is too much grief and misery in this world for us to argue that we are somehow special merely because we are human.

In the end, your overgeneralization of a complex moral quandary is exactly that, an oversimplification. In order to make your case, you have used a good dose of hyperbole and spin.

What hyperbole and spin? I think that is more or less how I would describe the other side's argument.
 
Conception begins a new human life. No debate there. But why shouldn't a woman have a right to end said life? Nature does it all the time. Something like 30% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Also, what is so important about human life that it should be spared from the consequences of its parent's actions? It happens all the time after birth. A child is born unwanted and rejected. But what do people say in response? "That's life." Life is cruel and unfeeling. But social constructs and religion-based morality put a nicer spin on things. It deceives us into believing that our lives somehow make a difference when they don't.

After you die, how soon will it be that you are forgotten? I ask the same question. Out of 7 billion people on this planet, does one life make a difference?

And lastly, think of all of the children who have been force to exist (yes, forced- I would never have chosen to be born). Will there be relief for their suffering? Not likely. There is too much grief and misery in this world for us to argue that we are somehow special merely because we are human.

Not on a functional level, no. But that doesn't mean we can run around killing folk. I mean, all those gun deaths recently, why bother since those lives are not going to make any difference on some cosmic scale, right? But instead we are burdened with morality thanks to our intelligence and as such we look in terms of that. Why shouldn't the woman have the right to end said life? Does anyone really own another human life? Is it an object to hold? Does it even belong to the woman herself? I would argue no, the life is property of the life created which will develop into a fully functioning human being given the natural course.

Now there are methods through nature in which a human life is created but doesn't make it to the end, such as miscarriages. I'm not saying we should be prosecuting for miscarriages, it is in the end an natural part of the process which can happen. It's sad and can be particularly devastating, but it is part of biology.

For those "forced" into being who do not want to be, is there relief for their suffering? Yes, it's called suicide. Tragic as it may be, it is an individual's choice to end their own life. Though it's not something I actually endorse. I'm just saying that if you truly didn't want to be born, you hate this life and this existence, there is a way out. I tend to believe, however, those saying that they wished they were never born but haven't offed themselves for whatever reason they choose to come up with aren't really that pissed off at life. In fact, they'd rather go on with it then end it, as evidence by their action.

What hyperbole and spin? I think that is more or less how I would describe the other side's argument.

I agree, that is exactly how YOU would describe the other side's argument. But not because you've made some accurate assessment, but rather these are your suppositions and assumptions and bias towards this side. We do not say all with human DNA is human. Lots of things have human DNA that left to their own will not develop into a human being. Anything that doesn't develop into a human being through its own natural processes could be argued to not be human life. Of course there are asides and breaking points and extremes to this point as well; but it's being taken currently on the median value of the distribution.
 
Last edited:
Not on a functional level, no. But that doesn't mean we can run around killing folk. I mean, all those gun deaths recently, why bother since those lives are not going to make any difference on some cosmic scale, right? But instead we are burdened with morality thanks to our intelligence and as such we look in terms of that. Why shouldn't the woman have the right to end said life? Does anyone really own another human life? Is it an object to hold? Does it even belong to the woman herself? I would argue no, the life is property of the life created which will develop into a fully functioning human being given the natural course.

Yes. It does. It is attached to her bloodstream. The only reason her immune system doesn't attack it is because of its parasitic properties which suppress her immune system. Her body belongs to her, and so does anything inside of it.

As far as morality is concerned, unfortunately, might makes right. Universal morality is a fairytale.

Now there are methods through nature in which a human life is created but doesn't make it to the end, such as miscarriages. I'm not saying we should be prosecuting for miscarriages, it is in the end an natural part of the process which can happen. It's sad and can be particularly devastating, but it is part of biology.

So random chance events can take a human life through a meaningless process, but an intelligent, guided process by a sentient being is wrong? If nature can "decide" to end a preborn life, why can't the woman?

For those "forced" into being who do not want to be, is there relief for their suffering? Yes, it's called suicide. Tragic as it may be, it is an individual's choice to end their own life. Though it's not something I actually endorse. I'm just saying that if you truly didn't want to be born, you hate this life and this existence, there is a way out. I tend to believe, however, those saying that they wished they were never born but haven't offed themselves for whatever reason they choose to come up with aren't really that pissed off at life. In fact, they'd rather go on with it then end it, as evidence by their action.

well i have a deadline. It's August 27th. I guess i'll wait and see.



I agree, that is exactly how YOU would describe the other side's argument. But not because you've made some accurate assessment, but rather these are your suppositions and assumptions and bias towards this side.

The same can be said about your side.

We do not say all with human DNA is human. Lots of things have human DNA that left to their own will not develop into a human being. Anything that doesn't develop into a human being through its own natural processes could be argued to not be human life. Of course there are asides and breaking points and extremes to this point as well; but it's being taken currently on the median value of the distribution.

A zygote is one cell. It couldn't possibly be equal to the woman whose body it will eventually hijack.
 
Yes. It does. It is attached to her bloodstream. The only reason her immune system doesn't attack it is because of its parasitic properties which suppress her immune system. Her body belongs to her, and so does anything inside of it.

No, this is called reproduction. It's a well known biological dynamic and the method through which we continue our species. The developing life is not a parasite, it's not an invasive species, it's human biology doing what human biology was designed to do.

As far as morality is concerned, unfortunately, might makes right. Universal morality is a fairytale.

There is universal morality, it comes from universal humanity (all humans being equal). Might makes right is an excuse used by those who want to do something they know is wrong.

So random chance events can take a human life through a meaningless process, but an intelligent, guided process by a sentient being is wrong? If nature can "decide" to end a preborn life, why can't the woman?

Nature vs. Engineer I suppose. There's always random probabilities which accompany any dynamic and if it's a natural result of the demographics, it cannot be held against any particular individual. There's a world of difference between a probability working itself out naturally and human intervention. And when that intervention causes the death of human life, we must tread carefully.

well i have a deadline. It's August 27th. I guess i'll wait and see.

Suicide is rarely a good alternative, it's game over. I've had a really good friend kill himself, it wasn't nice. So long as you live, there is always chance for change. All possibilities are erased upon death.

The same can be said about your side.

Certainly happens, though I can understand why the otherside makes the arguments they do. I do not agree with the premise, however.

A zygote is one cell. It couldn't possibly be equal to the woman whose body it will eventually hijack.

It is human life, left to its own devices it will develop into a fully functioning human being. A woman's body is not hijacked, it is in fact made for this specific purpose. All the dynamics meted out by nature have been done so because it best provides for the continuation of the species. While we are in no worry of population collapse, it should still be understood that this is a very basic and very well understood biological effect that is perfectly in line with the evolution of our species.
 
No, this is called reproduction. It's a well known biological dynamic and the method through which we continue our species. The developing life is not a parasite, it's not an invasive species, it's human biology doing what human biology was designed to do.

Granted, and I didn't claim IT was a parasite, only that it functions like a parasite while in the womb. Also, because we are sentient beings, we need not be at the mercy of nature each time ovulation rolls around. Personally, I find that idea abhorrent. Birth control can and often does fail. Abortion is a back up in that event.



There is universal morality, it comes from universal humanity (all humans being equal). Might makes right is an excuse used by those who want to do something they know is wrong.

No. Might makes right is reality. Those with the power enforce their own brand of morality. Universal morality is for the pietist who believe in an ultimate Source of said universal morality.




Nature vs. Engineer I suppose. There's always random probabilities which accompany any dynamic and if it's a natural result of the demographics, it cannot be held against any particular individual. There's a world of difference between a probability working itself out naturally and human intervention. And when that intervention causes the death of human life, we must tread carefully.

Agreed. But I just don't see a point in enforcing laws against abortions. I have had two unwanted pregnancies that I could not will myself to terminate. I could not live with myself if i did because i saw both of those babies as my children. And they were and still are. But truth isn't universal. I cannot force others to carry life in their wombs. I cannot force others to appreciate how it feels to give life to another person. It's a very personal decision.




Suicide is rarely a good alternative, it's game over. I've had a really good friend kill himself, it wasn't nice. So long as you live, there is always chance for change. All possibilities are erased upon death.

yeah but what a relief it would be to breathe that one last breath. No more hurt, worry, or disappointment.




Certainly happens, though I can understand why the otherside makes the arguments they do. I do not agree with the premise, however.



It is human life, left to its own devices it will develop into a fully functioning human being. A woman's body is not hijacked, it is in fact made for this specific purpose.

I am not merely a receptacle for breeding. Neither is any other woman. Sentience makes our former purpose less important.


All the dynamics meted out by nature have been done so because it best provides for the continuation of the species. While we are in no worry of population collapse, it should still be understood that this is a very basic and very well understood biological effect that is perfectly in line with the evolution of our species.

All of our efforts can be wiped out in a moment. Who knows what the universe has in store for our species. We will likely be yet another evolutionary dead end like most species that have come and gone over the last several hundred million years.

*btw, i seriously hope this doesn't get moved to the abortion forum. I enjoy the higher level of discussion we are having now as opposed to the alternative. *
 
Granted, and I didn't claim IT was a parasite, only that it functions like a parasite while in the womb. Also, because we are sentient beings, we need not be at the mercy of nature each time ovulation rolls around. Personally, I find that idea abhorrent. Birth control can and often does fail. Abortion is a back up in that event.

I think birth control is the precursor. But as we know how reproduction works, we know engaging in the acts which cause reproduction can....well cause pregnancy. There are definitely good ways to reduce those probabilities, but once the life is created then there must be consideration for that. It's no longer just the parent's convenience at work, but another life that is on the line. We do not need to be at the mercy of nature, this is true. We certainly understand how reproduction works and can choose to act in ways to avoid pregnancy or lower probabilities. But I don't necessarily think that just because we can augment nature that it is then always a good idea to augment nature.

No. Might makes right is reality. Those with the power enforce their own brand of morality. Universal morality is for the pietist who believe in an ultimate Source of said universal morality.

No, "might makes ability" is reality, it does not make "right". It is very possible to use force in unjust ways, the mere exercise of force does not define morality. And there is an ultimate source for universal morality, it's humanity.

Agreed. But I just don't see a point in enforcing laws against abortions. I have had two unwanted pregnancies that I could not will myself to terminate. I could not live with myself if i did because i saw both of those babies as my children. And they were and still are. But truth isn't universal. I cannot force others to carry life in their wombs. I cannot force others to appreciate how it feels to give life to another person. It's a very personal decision.

In terms of laws, there is nothing anyone can do regardless of position as the SCOTUS has ruled. Though I would say that while it could be a burden to carry through an unwanted pregnancy, the fact that there is another life on the line adds to necessity to protect it. Abortion really works off the fact that in early stages of development, humans are incapable of defending themselves. But it doesn't say that the defenseless are proper targets. I mean, China would probably say it does, but for some reason they love mowing down unarmed monks.

yeah but what a relief it would be to breathe that one last breath. No more hurt, worry, or disappointment.

No more joy, no more excitement, no more future, no more anticipation, etc. I cannot see drawing the last breath as being a relief, I never want to draw mine (though that is an impossibility)

I am not merely a receptacle for breeding. Neither is any other woman. Sentience makes our former purpose less important.

You are not, but I am talking biology reproduction, and that is what some organs were "designed" to do. This is known. You are not merely a "receptacle for breeding", but some of your organs certainly are designed to be a receptacle for breeding. On some level, I do not understand why some people rally so hard against biology. This is science, this is known.

All of our efforts can be wiped out in a moment. Who knows what the universe has in store for our species. We will likely be yet another evolutionary dead end like most species that have come and gone over the last several hundred million years.

Our species will not last for infinity, there is no infinite. We will die out eventually or evolve to something else. Never shall we stagnate, stagnation is death. But that doesn't mean that what is in the here and now is pointless or worthless or not worth experiencing. I think that because everything is so fragile, that it balances on the precipice of destruction, that life becomes even more worthwhile. At any point we can be wiped out, or individually we could die. That, to me, makes the present even more exciting and awesome and great. And I wouldn't want to rob the future from any other life. If I were aborted, it would suck. Well I wouldn't exist so I wouldn't know it would suck, but having had the particular fortune of being born I can look at it in such light. The future is ours to write, ours to experience, the good and bad and everything in between. All human life is entitled to experience it all.
 
I think birth control is the precursor. But as we know how reproduction works, we know engaging in the acts which cause reproduction can....well cause pregnancy. There are definitely good ways to reduce those probabilities, but once the life is created then there must be consideration for that. It's no longer just the parent's convenience at work, but another life that is on the line. We do not need to be at the mercy of nature, this is true. We certainly understand how reproduction works and can choose to act in ways to avoid pregnancy or lower probabilities. But I don't necessarily think that just because we can augment nature that it is then always a good idea to augment nature.

It seems cut and dry. People know how biology works; thus, they are without excuse in creating a life, and then wanting to dispose of it. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Many people are ignorant of biology, and others simply don't care. And in most instances, accidents just happen. Take a situation like mine. My husband just lost his job because the company is closing down.-the very same company that gave him a promotion several months ago.. He's smart, punctual, has a great attitude, and does great work. But the current economy, especially where i live, is deplete of opportunity. We cannot support another child if I were to become pregnant. Many people are in this same situation. And yet there are also many people who are against public assistance for people in these situations. So what happens to the kids involved? Morality is only useful to someone who can afford to apply it to their own life. As for me, I can no longer afford it. If I were to become pregnant, I would have no choice but to abort.

And should those who don't care enough about preventing pregnancy or educating themselves be parents against their will? I agree with you that all human life deserves consideration. But I don't agree that abortion shouldn't be an option. It is a necessary evil.



No, "might makes ability" is reality, it does not make "right".

Even still, it has the same results.

It is very possible to use force in unjust ways, the mere exercise of force does not define morality. And there is an ultimate source for universal morality, it's humanity.

Put two people in a room, and there are two different perspectives. Put two billion people in a room and there are two billion different perspectives. Morality is relative without an Ultimate Source.



In terms of laws, there is nothing anyone can do regardless of position as the SCOTUS has ruled. Though I would say that while it could be a burden to carry through an unwanted pregnancy, the fact that there is another life on the line adds to necessity to protect it. Abortion really works off the fact that in early stages of development, humans are incapable of defending themselves. But it doesn't say that the defenseless are proper targets. I mean, China would probably say it does, but for some reason they love mowing down unarmed monks.

Infants are incapable of defending themselves. So are five year olds. So are many other examples of people in various circumstances. The defenseless get killed all of the time. That is life. Unfeeling and with no context--only reactionary.



No more joy, no more excitement, no more future, no more anticipation, etc. I cannot see drawing the last breath as being a relief, I never want to draw mine (though that is an impossibility)

I think too much, so living hour to hour and day to day worrying about the fundamentals of my own survival is utterly unfulfilling. I'm not interested.



You are not, but I am talking biology reproduction, and that is what some organs were "designed" to do. This is known. You are not merely a "receptacle for breeding", but some of your organs certainly are designed to be a receptacle for breeding. On some level, I do not understand why some people rally so hard against biology. This is science, this is known.

So? Not everyone who becomes pregnant should be a parent.



Our species will not last for infinity, there is no infinite. We will die out eventually or evolve to something else. Never shall we stagnate, stagnation is death. But that doesn't mean that what is in the here and now is pointless or worthless or not worth experiencing. I think that because everything is so fragile, that it balances on the precipice of destruction, that life becomes even more worthwhile. At any point we can be wiped out, or individually we could die. That, to me, makes the present even more exciting and awesome and great. And I wouldn't want to rob the future from any other life. If I were aborted, it would suck. Well I wouldn't exist so I wouldn't know it would suck, but having had the particular fortune of being born I can look at it in such light. The future is ours to write, ours to experience, the good and bad and everything in between. All human life is entitled to experience it all.

To me, it only makes life empty and full of worry. Perception is what matters. People always tell me "It's all how you look at things" as in attitude matters. I suppose they're right. And yet, nothing changes.
 
Back
Top Bottom