Sure, if, to you, being human is nothing but a biological checkbox, then the discussion is pretty limited. Anybody capable of reading this thread is, by technical definition, human. Nothing to see here.
Some people, on the other hand, tend to consider the range of human emotion and what human beings are capable of experiencing and achieving as part of the human experience, as being literally part of what makes them a human. Is a grasshopper really a grasshopper if it's caught by a child and kept in a jar with a few blades of grass until it dies prematurely? Technically, yes. Whatever happens to it doesn't change the fact that it's a grasshopper. But it was biologically programmed for certain functions it was deprived of based on external circumstances. Is a tiger in a zoo really a tiger? It might have everything it needs for survival, but it certainly isn't living under the circumstances it was biologically designed for. If a tiger in a zoo was capable of realizing it was being externally deprived of the thrill of the hunt, of the search for a mate, of the proving of its own value against an unforgiving wilderness, would we really blame it if it wanted to end its own life deemed as unworthy? At the very least, would we blame it for being confused about whether its own life had any meaning?
