Are "people" with Down Syndrome humans?

[QuanSai]

There are plenty of "abnormal" mutations that come about everyday in terms of human development from the fetus to birth. I'm impartially asking if a "person" with Down Syndrome is to be considered a human being (homo sapiens sapiens).

As most of you know or should know, Down Syndrome is a "condition" that arises when there is an extra mutation in chromosome 21. A "normal" human being is born with a total of 46 chromosomes, whereas a person with Down Syndrome is born with a total of 47. A chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) normally holds 48 chromosomes. Although the number of chromosomes may not be the pinnacle classification factor in terms of species typification, there are other constituents to be considered, like intelligence, facial structure, and frequency of reproduction. I think there is no need to say that those with Down Syndrome are abnormal in terms of all three factors I've just mentioned.

So, what is the fact of the matter? Are "people" with Down Syndrome humans?

 

[lrkun]

There are plenty of "abnormal" mutations that come about everyday in terms of human development from the fetus to birth. I'm impartially asking if a "person" with Down Syndrome is to be considered a human being (homo sapiens sapiens).

As most of you know or should know, Down Syndrome is a "condition" that arises when there is an extra mutation in chromosome 21. A "normal" human being is born with a total of 46 chromosomes, whereas a person with Down Syndrome is born with a total of 47. A chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) normally holds 48 chromosomes. Although the number of chromosomes may not be the pinnacle classification factor in terms of species typification, there are other constituents to be considered, like intelligence, facial structure, and frequency of reproduction. I think there is no need to say that those with Down Syndrome are abnormal in terms of all three factors I've just mentioned.

So, what is the fact of the matter? Are "people" with Down Syndrome humans?

Do you mean to say that a person with down syndrom is not a normal human or that the person with down syndrom is entirely different from that of a human?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

As AronRa is fond of pointing out, it's impossible to grow out of your ancestry. So properly speaking, yes.

If we're not speaking scientifically, I'd have to say yes as well. Certainly.

EDIT: If you were referring to speciation, on account of people with Down's Syndrome rarely being able to reproduce, then I would remind you that speciation refers to populations not individuals.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

What is the point of this question?

 

[QuanSai]

There are plenty of "abnormal" mutations that come about everyday in terms of human development from the fetus to birth. I'm impartially asking if a "person" with Down Syndrome is to be considered a human being (homo sapiens sapiens).

As most of you know or should know, Down Syndrome is a "condition" that arises when there is an extra mutation in chromosome 21. A "normal" human being is born with a total of 46 chromosomes, whereas a person with Down Syndrome is born with a total of 47. A chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) normally holds 48 chromosomes. Although the number of chromosomes may not be the pinnacle classification factor in terms of species typification, there are other constituents to be considered, like intelligence, facial structure, and frequency of reproduction. I think there is no need to say that those with Down Syndrome are abnormal in terms of all three factors I've just mentioned.

So, what is the fact of the matter? Are "people" with Down Syndrome humans?

Do you mean to say that a person with down syndrom is not a normal human or that the person with down syndrom is entirely different from that of a human?

We aren't "entirely different" from chimpanzees, but chimpanzees are classified as something different from us because of our major differences.

 

[lrkun]

We aren't "entirely different" from chimpanzees, but chimpanzees are classified as something different from us because of our major differences.

And this answer would be correct if I asked with respect to chimps.

^-^

 

[QuanSai]

We aren't "entirely different" from chimpanzees, but chimpanzees are classified as something different from us because of our major differences.

And this answer would be correct if I asked with respect to chimps.

^-^

lol I'm not here to debate. I'm here for enlightenment. So, please, enlighten me. =P

 

[Anachronous Rex]

At the point when people with Down's Syndrome break off from the rest of the population, interbreed primarily with each other, and form an independent genepool then they might qualify as a human sub-species. They would still be human, however. Just as with our Neanderthal cousins.

 

[lrkun]

lol I'm not here to debate. I'm here for enlightenment. So, please, enlighten me. =P

Yes, you will be enlightened after answering my question.

In a strict sense, I am not debating you, I am only asking a question for clarification.

There are plenty of "abnormal" mutations that come about everyday in terms of human development from the fetus to birth. I'm impartially asking if a "person" with Down Syndrome is to be considered a human being (homo sapiens sapiens).

As most of you know or should know, Down Syndrome is a "condition" that arises when there is an extra mutation in chromosome 21. A "normal" human being is born with a total of 46 chromosomes, whereas a person with Down Syndrome is born with a total of 47. A chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) normally holds 48 chromosomes. Although the number of chromosomes may not be the pinnacle classification factor in terms of species typification, there are other constituents to be considered, like intelligence, facial structure, and frequency of reproduction. I think there is no need to say that those with Down Syndrome are abnormal in terms of all three factors I've just mentioned.

So, what is the fact of the matter? Are "people" with Down Syndrome humans?

Do you mean to say that a person with down syndrom is not a normal human or that the person with down syndrom is entirely different from that of a human?

Emphasis

I'm clarifying which question you are refering to, because I don't understand your position in full.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

lol I'm not here to debate. I'm here for enlightenment. So, please, enlighten me. =P

So, I guess you're not here to have a discussion, because that might involve answering the questions people ask of you.

Explain your position more exactly, please.

 

[QuanSai]

At the point when people with Down's Syndrome break off from the rest of the population, interbreed primarily with each other, and form an independent genepool then they might qualify as a human sub-species. They would still be human, however. Just as with our Neanderthal cousins.

I can't dispute that.

 

[QuanSai]

lol I'm not here to debate. I'm here for enlightenment. So, please, enlighten me. =P

So, I guess you're not here to have a discussion, because that might involve answering the questions people ask of you.

Explain your position more exactly, please.

I'm here to have a discussion, but I don't have a solid stand on the issue I've presented. I asked because I wanted help understanding species classification in terms of what's considered "human."

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm here to have a discussion, but I don't have a solid stand on the issue I've presented. I asked because I wanted help understanding species classification in terms of what's considered "human."

You don't have any position AT ALL?

Somehow, I find that hard to believe.

 

[lrkun]

At the point when people with Down's Syndrome break off from the rest of the population, interbreed primarily with each other, and form an independent genepool then they might qualify as a human sub-species. They would still be human, however. Just as with our Neanderthal cousins.

p.s. why did you change your avatar?

Incest, hmmm, not the way to go yeah?

 

[QuanSai]

I'm here to have a discussion, but I don't have a solid stand on the issue I've presented. I asked because I wanted help understanding species classification in terms of what's considered "human."

You don't have any position AT ALL?

Somehow, I find that hard to believe.

I actually don't know where to stand... I'm doing my research, but I'm extremely confused. I'm afraid to call them human, but I'm afraid to refrain from calling them that too.

 

[QuanSai]

Do you mean to say that a person with down syndrom is not a normal human or that the person with down syndrom is entirely different from that of a human?

Emphasis

I'm clarifying which question you are refering to, because I don't understand your position in full.[/quote]

It doesn't seem like a person with DS is a normal human being. They're extremely different from what's considered normal, I think.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

At the point when people with Down's Syndrome break off from the rest of the population, interbreed primarily with each other, and form an independent genepool then they might qualify as a human sub-species. They would still be human, however. Just as with our Neanderthal cousins.

p.s. why did you change your avatar?

Incest, hmmm, not the way to go yeah?

Skeptic Penguin was birthed of the micah debate, and is also an anachronous dinosaur. I feel it more accurately reflects my demeanor as well.

 

[lrkun]

It doesn't seem like a person with DS is a normal human being. They're extremely different from what's considered normal, I think.

I see, it's about how people with that condition is not normal. Thank you for the clarification. It is a bit ambiguous at first glance, because I can infer that you may be thinking that people with DS - is no longer human.

Skeptic Penguin was birthed of the micah debate, and is also an anachronous dinosaur. I feel it more accurately reflects my demeanor as well.

I see. Interesting choice.

 

[Prolescum]

It doesn't seem like a person with DS is a normal human being. They're extremely different from what's considered normal, I think.

It's "quite" simple, really. Those who "use" certain punctuation "incessantly" are "different" from your "standard" human, being "unable" to stop themselves from "emphasizing" words "unnecessarily". They are extremely different by "virtue" of their idiosyncratic "habit". It's "curable", though - a single dose of "parody" and a minute or two to "digest" it usually works.

It doesn't matter how many "words" you separate this way, nor how many "types" of "normal" human you think there are currently, because "people" whose parents are "human" are, wait for it...

...

...

Human!

Having an extra chromosome doesn't change your lineage. Sorry, neglected the emphasis there... "lineage". That's "better".

 

[QuanSai]

It doesn't seem like a person with DS is a normal human being. They're extremely different from what's considered normal, I think.

It's "quite" simple, really. Those who "use" certain punctuation "incessantly" are "different" from your "standard" human, being "unable" to stop themselves from "emphasizing" words "unnecessarily". They are extremely different by "virtue" of their idiosyncratic "habit". It's "curable", though - a single dose of "parody" and a minute or two to "digest" it usually works.

It doesn't matter how many "words" you separate this way, nor how many "types" of "normal" human you think there are currently, because "people" whose parents are "human" are, wait for it...

...

...

Human!

Having an extra chromosome doesn't change your lineage. Sorry, neglected the emphasis there... "lineage". That's "better".

The sarcasm is unnecessary. I only put quotation marks around terms I was unsure of how to use for political correctness.