Does a Human Being have a body?

[Strong in Him]

Oh yah? You are suggesting there is more God paying attention to what is in a womb than to babes AND BEYOND in the "born" side of things? I doubt it.

I didn't say that God paid more attention to babies in the womb than those outside it. I am saying that unborn babies are still alive, and human beings seen, and created, by God.

Other than the couple of things you reference here, is there really much more even peripheral Biblical reference to womb things? I doubt it.

The purpose of Scripture is not to discuss the state of unborn children, so there may not be too much about it in there; but there is some.
The point is though that God creates and sees babies - and all of us - before we are born. There is nothing which suggests that God is indifferent to unborn babies and only start to care for that new life once it has emerged. Humans don't do that - they take care to eat the right foods, not prescribe anything that will harm an unborn child and so on. If we can show care to our unborn; why wouldn't the God who created them?

 

[~Anastasia~]

EXACTLY.
God values human life, from the womb.
"From" meaning after.
Not before or even in it.

Making sense George!

Who is George?

John the Baptist and Christ were inside the womb when they recognized each other.

You can twist my words if you like, but God knows us before we are born. Abortion has always been forbidden to Christians.

Excerpt from…
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

The Didache

(1st Century AD)


The Lord's Teaching to the Heathen by the Twelve Apostles:

1 There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference.

2 Now, this is the way of life:…

The second commandment of the Teaching: "Do not murder; do not commit adultery"; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; "do not steal"; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant. "Do not covet your neighbor's property; do not commit perjury; do not bear false witness"; do not slander; do not bear grudges. Do not be double-minded or double-tongued, for a double tongue is "a deadly snare." Your words shall not be dishonest or hollow, but substantiated by action. Do not be greedy or extortionate or hypocritical or malicious or arrogant. Do not plot against your neighbor. Do not hate anybody; but reprove some, pray for others, and still others love more than your own life.

 

[SPF]

Well that is one possible definition of "body," I suppose.
So even something with the barest amount of physicality (a speck of dust in the physical universe) is "a body." A speck of dust, or one cell bearing human genetics.
Well in that sense yes, a minuscule invisible nothing could be considered a body, but it is nothing like an actual human being animal body.

I think what you mean is that it is nothing like an actual human being animal body that has developed to point X. The actual human body goes through many developmental stages and changes. For instance, the actual human body of a newborn infant looks very different than the actual body of a fully developed 25 year old who has gone through puberty. Yet, we wouldn't dispute that both encapsulate a human body. The problem is that you're attempting to disregard all human beings prior to birth.

One cell does not even one organ make, let alone one organism.

All organisms come into existence with one cell (and then quickly divide).

Yes, the life there is human, but it is the same life there was in the sperm, and in the egg.
NO NEW LIFE, and no new human life.

This is demonstrably false. Douglas, we actually know, meaning it's a fact, that at fertilization a new organism with its own unique DNA comes into existence. This fact is literally indisputable. Can you point to any source material that would agree with you that there is "no new life" at fertilization? Can you offer anything other than your opinion?

And what if a baby is premature? Are you saying that God values a 30 week old baby that has been born, and sees it as a real person; but a 30 week old baby that is still in the womb is a non-entity?

Yes, that is precisely what Douglas is saying. In fact, Douglas is saying that if a woman who was 2 weeks past her due date suddenly decided that she wanted to abort her baby for no other reason than she changed her mind - it would be morally acceptable and nothing wrong with that because at no time does there exist a human being inside a womb. Absurd, isn't it?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I don't know where you get the idea from my post that I value a person less than a jellyfish.

The "person" you value is less than a jellyfish, for the so-called "person" you here argue for the preservation of, is only one cell.

It is not capable of moving about let alone doing anything useful. Totally worthless in itself, really. Only could prove valuable IF it does indeed develop into something else. But that is only potential, not what it actually is.

 

[SPF]

The "person" you value is less than a jellyfish, for the so-called "person" you here argue for the preservation of, is only one cell.

It is not capable of moving about let alone doing anything useful. Totally worthless in itself, really. Only could prove valuable IF it does indeed develop into something else. But that is only potential, not what it actually is.

Well Douglas, thankfully we don't determine the moral worth and value of something based upon its utilitarian capabilities. If we did, then full grown animals would be considered of more value than newborn babies.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Yet the Psalmist says;
For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be. Psalm 139:13-16

God created us and saw us before we were even born.

God created us in the sense that he created the entire world and all that is in it.
And of course our concept of God includes the fact that he can "see" everything, including future things.

Surely not even in the case of Jesus Christ did God somehow "on his own" put together you or me or any other person and then somehow at birth have his creation come through the birth canal.
We are created in wombs and by wombs (and womb holders), according to the pattern and knowledge of God.
We see in the Psalm a picture of God overseeing the entire process of the creation of a person in a womb. It never is hidden from God.

"Your eyes saw my unformed body," is, in the King James: "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect;" The substance that was there when he "was being made." The unfinished or inadequate "substance" ("unformed") reflects the fact when something is being created or made, there is always the time when it is only partially made, that is has some substance but is NOT YET the thing being created.
That does not mean the creation is there before it is created!
The beginning of the creation is never the creation itself.
So to say a zygote is a human being is to completely ignore the necessary process of creating a human being.

Actually whatever translation was initially presented is rather obviously self-contradictory with the "unformed body" terminology.
A body is a form (or at least has a form); the "unformed" does not, very obviously does not yet have that form.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Well Douglas, thankfully we don't determine the moral worth and value of something based upon its utilitarian capabilities. If we did, then full grown animals would be considered of more value than newborn babies.

Well, whether we consider grown animals to be of more value than newborn babies or not, they probably usually or generally are!

For instance, a calf might sell for a hundred dollars whereas a cow might bring a thousand. No difference there of course. "Nothing to be seen!"

Also I suspect most sane people would value a completed house more than one that someone was just beginning to build.

Your idea that a fetus has to have the same value as an actual person is ridiculous.

 

[SPF]

I'm referring to moral worth and value. All human beings are equally created in the image of God and all human beings possess equal moral worth and value.

Human beings begin their existence at fertilization. Therefore, all human beings, from the moment of conception throughout the entirety of their lives possess the same inherent moral worth and value.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

A body is simply whatever physical form encases the individual of a species. That would include a zygote. A human being is any individual that has human chromosomes,

"Encases" is not correct - any body includes whatever is inside its form.
"Individual" is also incorrect when it is claimed that an "individual" zygote is the member of a species. It is NOT.
We are not a species of invisible single cells.

Of course "a body" can be "any thing"; it seems anyway there are those who use the term that way. Thus if you want to confuse things you can call a zygote a "body," when it is only one invisible cell. And you can even claim it is a "human being" body, if you want to be ridiculously false.
Only if somehow you think it is possible for a human being to not have any flesh and blood whatsoever (and still be a human being) would you claim such a falsehood.
The body of a person would be a built actual structure, not a single cell that is virtually nothing in itself.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I'm referring to moral worth and value. All human beings are equally created in the image of God and all human beings possess equal moral worth and value.

Human beings begin their existence at fertilization. Therefore, all human beings, from the moment of conception throughout the entirety of their lives possess the same inherent moral worth and value.

If "begin their existence" means "come from there," it is perhaps correct. But if it is a claim there are human beings
before the being of a human is created, before gestation, it is far wrong.
THE BEING IS BUILT - THEN THERE IS THE BEING.

btw, How is moral worth and value different from regular worth and value?

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes, that is precisely what Douglas is saying. In fact, Douglas is saying that if a woman who was 2 weeks past her due date suddenly decided that she wanted to abort her baby for no other reason than she changed her mind - it would be morally acceptable and nothing wrong with that because at no time does there exist a human being inside a womb. Absurd, isn't it?

Absolutely. Almost criminal, in fact.

If a baby died in the womb at 34 weeks, and the woman gave birth to a perfectly formed child, it would be heartless to suggest to her that it didn't really matter since it wasn't really a baby at the point when it died. I'm not saying that Douglas has suggested that, but that would seem to be the logical conclusion.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Absolutely. Almost criminal, in fact.

If a baby died in the womb at 34 weeks, and the woman gave birth to a perfectly formed child, it would be heartless to suggest to her that it didn't really matter since it wasn't really a baby at the point when it died. I'm not saying that Douglas has suggested that, but that would seem to be the logical conclusion.

ALMOST CRIMINAL, her defamation.

(Not to mention the suggestion that "Strong in Him" (we won't say in whom will we), the suggestion that guy is suggesting somebody wit a name like mine suggested ...)

 

[Strong in Him]

God created us in the sense that he created the entire world and all that is in it.
And of course our concept of God includes the fact that he can "see" everything, including future things.

Surely not even in the case of Jesus Christ did God somehow "on his own" put together you or me or any other person and then somehow at birth have his creation come through the birth canal.
We are created in wombs and by wombs (and womb holders), according to the pattern and knowledge of God.
We see in the Psalm a picture of God overseeing the entire process of the creation of a person in a womb. It never is hidden from God.

"Your eyes saw my unformed body," is, in the King James: "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect;" The substance that was there when he "was being made." The unfinished or inadequate "substance" ("unformed") reflects the fact when something is being created or made, there is always the time when it is only partially made, that is has some substance but is NOT YET the thing being created.
That does not mean the creation is there before it is created!

God gives life.
God created the process of conception and the fact that a sperm may fertilise one of the hundreds of eggs available but not others.
When this occurs an embryo forms and starts to grow. It's true that it may take several weeks for that embryo to develop into a miniature, recognisable human, but the process has begun. That doesn't mean that the embryo/child is unimportant until it is fully formed and able to see/think/hear for itself. It is still a miniature human being.

So to say a zygote is a human being is to completely ignore the necessary process of creating a human being.

It may not be a human being until the 3rd/4th month of pregnancy - I'm not sure of the details - but it is still alive. There are websites/books that can tell you what happens at each stage of pregnancy; when the child can feel pain etc.
To suggest that a woman is not carrying a child in the 39th week of pregnancy, but suddenly gives birth to one in the 40th, is absurd.

If someone is in favour of abortion, I suppose they could argue that a 4 week old fetus is not a child and has no rights. That may even be the case legally - I see no evidence that that is the case in God's eyes.
And a 27 week old fetus is just as alive, and just as much a child, as a 27 week old baby that has been born and is receiving medical intervention to stay alive.

 

[Almost there]

42*

*The number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

God gives life.
God created the process of conception and the fact that a sperm may fertilise one of the hundreds of eggs available but not others.

Huh?
How is that again? HUNDREDS OF EGGS AVAILABLE ?

Is that in one womb, or many wombs?

 

[SPF]

If "begin their existence" means "come from there," it is perhaps correct. But if it is a claim there are human beings
before the being of a human is created, before gestation, it is far wrong.
THE BEING IS BUILT - THEN THERE IS THE BEING.

One of the myriad of problems you face is that you ignore the fact that human development takes about 25 years. Birth is certainly a milestone, but so is being able to walk, being able to feed ones self, puberty, etc... One make comments about needing flesh and blood and a body, but you don't actually mean that because babies inside a womb do eventually have flesh, and blood, and what you define as a body, yet you don't consider them human beings.

A human being is created at fertilization, when there is the creation of a new and unique being. Though certainly very small and under developed, the new human being begins it's 25 year journey to maturity.

 

[Strong in Him]

ALMOST CRIMINAL, her defamation.

(Not to mention the suggestion that "Strong in Him" (we won't say in whom will we), the suggestion that guy is suggesting somebody wit a name like mine suggested ...)

I said that the suggestion was almost criminal; not that you are.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if a doctor who carried out an abortion on a 38 week old fetus was prosecuted - in the UK at least, abortion is illegal after 24 weeks.

 

[Strong in Him]

Huh?
How is that again? HUNDREDS OF EGGS AVAILABLE ?

Sorry, I meant it the other way around.
Thousands, if not millions, of sperm are released during sex - to fertilise one egg.

Either way, the creation of life is pretty miraculous.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

One make comments about needing flesh and blood and a body, but you don't actually mean that because babies inside a womb do eventually have flesh, and blood, and what you define as a body, yet you don't consider them human beings.

It takes more than flesh and blood to make a person, for there to be a person.
One way of perhaps noticing this is that real rats are flesh and blood, and yet not persons.

Yet it takes at least flesh and blood to make a person, for there to be a person.

 

[SPF]

It takes more than flesh and blood to make a person, for there to be a person. Yet it takes at least flesh and blood to make a person, for there to be a person.

I still don't understand what authority you have which allows you to dictate what is necessary for their to be a human being. Why should anyone agree with your standard for what determines what a human being is or is not? You certainly are incapable of providing any scientific evidence to support your assertions.

One way of perhaps noticing this is that real rats are flesh and blood, and yet not persons.

Correct, and nobody claims that rats are persons. Whether rats in a womb, or rats that are born, or rats that have died. But it is probably worth mentioning that a rat first comes into existence at fertilization.