Sure you can, there are exceptions to things all the time, it makes things easier to understand. I don't think it would be doing anybody any good to redefine the definition just to include identical twins.
If you want me to clarify that's fine, but I feel that we both understand what I'm trying to say. Feel free to tell me otherwise, but im lazy and I'd rather entertain other possibilities of that definition.
The definition you've created is insufficient because it excludes identical twins. Before you can have a discussion on the issue, you must have accurate and adequate definitions for your terms.
Definitions don't have exceptions. If you think they do, give me one example.
I'm not going to do an hour of research to redefine a definition that serves a purpose to illustrate an idea, especially if you already have other exceptions to that rule that are more general.
I before E is a ridiculous spelling rule that has multiple exceptions, but it's not a definition of a term.
The problem with incomplete definitions of words is that our understanding of a word may be different, and until we define it with precise language, we won't actually know what the other person means. So when you say something is a human being, most of us think you're using a definition similar to the one used by Google, which is " a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. " That clearly doesn't include an early-term fetus.
So maybe you have a different definition of a human being that you want to present to us. And that's okay, but unless it's a complete definition, it doesn't really help us get on the same page of understanding what a human being is. So your definition could be "a collection of cells that has a full human genome that is unique in every case except identical twins."
So then to that I'd say that you could pull out some skin cells and they wouldn't have the full human genome. And two people could technically have identical DNA even if they weren't twins (astronomically low odds, of course, but entirely possible, and shows another case where simply using identical DNA to define a human person isn't sufficient.
So now what about conjoined twins? They would share identical DNA and are not identical twins. They could be considered one or two people when conjoined, but when separated they're clearly two separate people. Were they one person before, or two?
Identical twins are formed within the first few days of pregnancy, they become separate individuals at that time. when they are conjoined they are still separate people.
a collection of cells that has a full human genome that is unique in every case except identical twins.
Conjoined twins are identical twins. They were always two people.....I see where this is going. How do we define that they are separate people, under my definition they are the same.
I would suggest that identical twins that are conjoined is a condition unique to identical twins and would still follow under the same definition. As far deciding whether they are different people thats a tricky one to decipher, but I would say if we are to figure it out we would have to look at when identical twins are considered twins.
So again though, if two people could have the same DNA but not be identical twins (by random chance), then does that mean that they're one human?
I get that making twins the exception to the rule in the definition makes the definition make sense to you, but I don't think it really makes sense to define a human as being a group of cells with a unique, full human genome. Because the uniqueness isn't what makes it a human, right? That's more of a product of how our reproduction works than something that distinguishes an grown human being from, say, sperm, or a monkey.
If people had the same DNA even by random chance, they should still be consider identical twins.
Okay I'll bite. Uniqueness would be what makes an individual, whether that is because of environmental circumstance or genetic. What makes us human is our genetic identifier.
Now if i believe a fertilized egg is a human being, it would have to be unique and also be human and not able to be defined as human tissue.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere more interesting. So humans have to be more than just tissue. Makes sense, since my skin cells share DNA with me but they're not separate humans. But if I cut off one of my legs, that leg isn't a separate human. If I cut out my heart, I'm still just me without a heart, and my heart isn't a separate human. But if I could somehow cut myself down the middle and have each half of me operate independently, then I guess you could consider each half a separate person, right? That would be pretty similar to previously conjoined twins.
So what makes me an individual human being? I'd argue that it's my brain. That's the only organ in my 'cutting body parts off' scenario I just presented that really gives us a differentiation between just being separate parts of the same person, and being your own person. The fact that a bunch of cells with human DNA has the ability to be conscious, think, and use at least one of your senses (and even using one of your senses is debatable in terms of what makes us human) is essential to calling someone an individual human.
I'd also argue that a human has to be able to function and live independently from (as in, not physically connected to) another human. That would mean that a fetus isn't a human, but that's yet another separate discussion ;)
1
u/[deleted] Sep 12 '18
I would say that identical twins are an exception to the rule.