No. It would make them sentient dolphins, not "non-human people".
Whatever you want to call them - do you think that they would not be entitled to, at the minimum, a right to life to the same degree as humans (i.e. killing them should be treated as murder)?
If so, then what determines who has that right and who doesn't? Sentience? But zygotes aren't sentient.
23 chromosomes is a normal number for humans, but not all humans have 23 chromosomes - Down syndrome, XYY males and XXX females etc.
Ultimately, all this is just accumulated mutations and selection of them over the course of that 6 million years of divergence. By itself, that's still a quantitative difference, not qualitative - i.e. we know that things are different, sure, but they're also different between humans on genetic level. The question is, what exactly about those missing or extra chromosomes and DNA difference is responsible for having or not having natural rights? If you could incrementally edit a chimp's genome to make it human, at which point during the process is it "human enough"?
Anyone intelligent enough to post on
Enough for what? To eventually grow a human, sure. But to be a person? I don't know.
Thus, if self-awareness is the measure of humanity/personhood, it's just as ok to "put down" an eighteen month old human as it is to kill an unwanted dog.
You're correct - i.e. logically speaking, either both are okay, or neither is okay.
Or, possibly, the definition of "person" is more extensive than self-awareness. But I still don't see why it should have anything to do with DNA makeup.
I fail to see the difference between the two.
It's because the definition of "person" is not strict, and for most people who haven't given it consideration, it's basically "I know it when I see it". However, surely you can imagine a hypothetical non-human person, even under whatever subjective definition you subscribe to? E.g. suppose we do determine that dolphins are "intelligent enough", after all, and devise means to communicate with them with a full-fledged language - would that not make them persons?
"Human", on the other hand, is defined entirely in strict biological terms. It's still not a strict definition if you consider corner cases (which extinct hominids were human and which weren't, for example? and at which point the result of our future evolution can no longer be called "human" and becomes a different species?), but for practical purposes, you can just do a DNA test.
Where did I indicate such a thing???
You indicated that natural rights belong to humans, and humans are defined by DNA. I don't see why such differentiation by DNA is fundamentally different from differentiating within homo sapiens sapiens by DNA; the only difference is degree. Just as you can determine the difference between humans and chimps by comparing their genes, so you can determine the difference between different human populations by looking at some genetic markers or others (and yes, there are some that correlate pretty well with black skin, for example).
And don't pretend like the fact that one case straddles species boundary and the other one doesn't makes a huge difference - "species" themselves are a rather arbitrary human construct stemming from our desire to neatly label and categorize everything, but nature doesn't really care about such things. If you want to talk about objective facts, you'll have to show a difference in quality rather than quantity of differences (or demonstrate that some quantity is a threshold meaningful for some reason other than "because I said so").
It is relevant, because with it you boil the argument down to objective facts instead of philosophical and socio-political arguments.
You can't boil the argument down without agreeing on what the argument is about. This particular one is whether personhood or humanity is the defining factor for possessing natural rights, including right to life. Yes, if you arbitrarily resolve this question in favor of humanity, then you can boil it down to objective facts - DNA etc. But that first decision is arbitrary, and not everyone agrees to it.
People don't tend to stay at those places long, but if you haven't been able to get other work it can help pay bills until you can.
Swiping wallets from tourists at a busy attraction can also help you pay the bills until you can, but I don't think that's a valid argument in favor of the person doing so.
It's all great, but none of this explains why they completely shut down everything if the only faulty part is the sensor.
You might as well just replace it with another phone (with a native sensor and a software-based keylogger) if you're doing this kind of stuff.
Because if you RTFA, it actually specifically excludes US citizens.
Answer, part #1: Because the the human brain develops naturally from that zygote.
Sure, but why start with zygote? Why not the egg? Why not before? Any point in this chain is pretty arbitrary, and even if you pick one (like you did with "has its own DNA"), it's not clear what it has to do with personhood.
Answer, part #2: Babies with severe microcephaly have no self-awareness, but are still humans.
Sure. And it's a valid question to ask whether they should have the same rights as a self-aware human being. Ditto for braindead people.
Because their DNA is not human.
But then you're not basing your definition of rights on whether someone is a person or not. You're basing it on whether they're human or not (or rather - because there isn't really a hard delimiter between species in general - on whether someone is "sufficiently human"). I don't see why this is, in principle, any better than denying on a scattering of other genetic markers that correspond to dark skin etc.
Biology is irrelevant here, because it does not really concern itself with issues such as "personhood" and "natural rights".
So self-awareness, and brain in general, is not required to be a person?
Why aren't animals persons, then, and why don't they get all the same rights that a person should? Just because they have a wrong DNA? Does it also apply to humans with "the wrong DNA" (e.g. not sufficiently white)?
Unrelated: the link in your sig is broken (404).
That's directly related to the post. It's literally what the argument in it is:
1. If we bring them into US, they get "extended constitutional rights" (basically, due process)
2. If they get due process treatment, we'll have to let most of them go because there's not enough evidence to lock them up.
3. But they're bad guys who want to hurt us! I want them locked up.
4. Therefore, keep them at Gitmo where we can keep them locked forever without bothering with proving their guilt.
And yes, I'm well aware that the poster who made it does indeed think that this is a good thing. All it takes is looking at his comment history.
Bosnia is a bit of a special case in a sense that Bosniaks there were targeted by Christian Serbs and Croats - so it would still be natural for them to see it as a fundamentally religious war (which is in an of itself quite sufficient to get radicalized), but furthermore to see US as generally "in the same camp" on account of also being Christian.
But even if they do get radicalized, the question is who becomes their primary target.
All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins