[Helm]

"metaphysical" over "moral"

Methaphysical? Why choose this already established philosophical term, when it has little to do with the case at hand? Why do you use this narrow definition of morality?

Anyway, point is, one can define "humanness" in terms of what occurs when a sperm and an egg meet, the onset of consciousness, the onset of self awareness, intrinsic genetic differences between homo sapiens and other species, the ability to reason, the ability to create language and skyscrapers, the ability to do evil... Whatever. There cannot be a "correct" explanation of what is human because the contexts in which these definitions operate are distinct. The meaning of the word human depends on the context. And for many of us, most if not all of these explanations are relevant in our super-definition of "humanness".

This is a very good point which I've never considered in the past. However, if any, which context would be the applicable one in the case of abortion, seeing how the latter is mostly a moral issue?

BTW, you may notice that I seem to be contradicting stuff I said a few months before. My thoughts are always changing, but more on that later.

I could say the same thing. I've taken a somewhat steep turn towards some aspects of determinism. The thread about free will played a part in broadening my understanding on a lot of subjects. At some point, I'd like to discuss the nature of emotion with you.

Should we bring up the ability to be self aware as well to include if something can be human? Humans are one of the few beings that can understand the whole concept of "me" and "I". We look in a mirror, we know we are seeing ourselves. The only animals I know that can do that are monkeys and dolphins. Should that be a measuring stick as well?

In a philosophical context, my point was that yes, to be human you must be self-aware.