Legal Definition of Human
- Thread starter Fafnir665
- Start date
Avatar said:
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.
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.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
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.Avatar said:
And some people can't be bothered to read what is just half a dozen lines above their own post.
Fafnir665 said:
homo sapien. a homanid type species of mammal ? DNA testing would classify right?
peace.
Fafnir665 said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.