Originally posted by November Adam
But, by what basis is this definition made? Why does intellect, or ability to live independently have to occur to be "human"?
But, by what basis is this definition made? Why does intellect, or ability to live independently have to occur to be "human"?
As Blackice has brought up regarding socialogical dependence, why could this not extend to biological dependence?
Why does the stage in a species' development dictate whether it is to me considered a member of that species?
Again, I ask on what basis is this stance justified? It sounds as if it is not based on sound reasoning. For the reason I stated regarding life cycles.
But there is a similarity, a tadpole is one stage of a frog's life cycle, as is an embryo, and fetus in ours, the difference is in as you stated, that the tadpole is not dependent on it's parents.
So humans are to be faulted for the fact that we have evolved in such a way that we are dependent on our mother in our early stages.
Comment