Does a Human Being have a body?

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Human body
Human body, the physical substance of the human organism, composed of living cells and extracellular materials and organized into tissues, organs, and systems.

This is from the Encyclopedia Britannica, long considered about the most authoritative general reference work available.
It's definition of the body of a human being is pretty much the same as the Wiki definition quoted earlier; quite possibly the latter was pretty much copied from the long-standing authority.

Dictionaries tend to supply definitions of single words, not more developed concepts. Definitions of "body" are not really what we are looking for, since it has been noticed that pretty well anything having any physical reality can be referred to as a "body."

We require an understanding of what a human being is, how it consists of (or "has") a human (being) body. NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH JUST ANY "BODY," which requires merely have anything of physical substance whatsoever. A confusion which at least one person on this thread has tried to exploit into making the definition of human being to be no more than a single cell virtual nothing.

A human being is certainly not to be confused with a stone or a fly, so it needs to be noted that it is (has) a multi-cellular bodily organization of many organs.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Life is precious, don't take a life at any stage.

Don't murder babies citing they are to young for it to matter as justification.

It just sounds so cowardly when I think about it. At least wait till they are fully grown so they have a chance to defend themselves. But I suppose that would take to much courage...get them when they are at their most defenseless stage.

 

[SPF]

The problem with the Britannica encyclopedia entry is that it is utilizing a fully grown human body as the context of its discussion. If you look at the corresponding pictures that the article uses, it is of fully developed human beings.

Just like in theology we emphasize the importance of context when discussing topics, so the same applies here. The Britannica entry is not attempting to discuss what constitutes a human body at any stage other than fully developed. Therefore, it cannot be used to assert that a human being does not have a body if it lacks certain aspects of a fully developed human body.

If you want to have a discussion over what constitutes a fully developed human body, then that article would be a great foundation. Unfortunately, that is not the focal point of this discussion.

And then of course Douglas runs into the problem that even with that definition, the fetus actually does possess all those and so an unborn fetus would qualify even for Douglas as having a human body.

But again, I would personally reject that definition of human body in the context of this discussion because that encyclopedia entry is in specific relation to a fully developed human body. It is not comprehensive enough for this discussion.

That's why we need a broader, simpler definition of body. Such as...

Dictionary.com:
The physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant, living or dead.

Merriam-Webster:
1: the main part of a plant or animal body especially as distinguished from limbs and head
2: the organized physical substance of an animal or plant either living or dead

Christian Apologetic and Research Ministry (CARM):
A body is the physical structure that carries the life of an organism. Bodies differ in types, structures, sizes, etc

Oxford Dictionary:
The physical and mortal aspect of a person as opposed to the soul or spirit.

Cambridge Dictionary:
The whole physical structure that forms a person or animal

MacMillian Dictionary:
1a - The whole physical structure of a person or animal, including the head, arms, and legs.
1b - The main part of a person's or animal's body, not including the head, arms, or legs.

Yourdictionary.com:
The definition of a body is the physical part of a living thing or the main part of anything.

With those definitions it is easy to see that a human being, which comes into existence at fertilization, does indeed always have a body.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Life is precious, don't take a life at any stage.

Don't murder babies citing they are to young for it to matter as justification.

It just sounds so cowardly when I think about it. At least wait till they are fully grown so they have a chance to defend themselves. But I suppose that would take to much courage...get them when they are at their most defenseless stage.

What? Can't get it in your head that the only question is whether it is a baby or not?

AGE IS NOTHING ABOUT IT.
Except for the well known fact, that everybody knows a persons real age is from birth.

For instance, there is no question it is murder if it is an actual baby, is born.
NO MATTER WHAT IT'S AGE.
So even if one wants to maintain the preposterous, "It is a human being in the womb," still age doeth not matter.

(Almost wrote: " ... it is a human begin a human in the worm ...")

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The problem with the Britannica encyclopedia entry is that it is utilizing a fully grown human body as the context of its discussion.

FALSE.
There is no need to look at any pictures - words (word pictures) are thee accuracy.
To explore meanings we do not rely on pictures - the words must be complete in themselves.
Thus we have:
Human body, the physical substance of the human organism, composed of living cells and extracellular materials and organized into tissues, organs, and systems.

So I am sorry, it is nothing about age.
What it is about is having to have physical human being substance AND STRUCTURE - NAMELY HUMAN BEING ORGANS. IF THERE ARE NO ORGANS THERE IS NO ANIMAL ORGANISM, not any animal of the type that mammals are, for instance. No human being, in this case.

btw, Would a human being have anything like an eye or an ear? NOT IF IT WAS A ZYGOTE.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What? Can't get it in your head that the only question is whether it is a baby or not?

That's a problem you created, not me.

So maybe it's not a matter of what I can't get into my head, but more a matter of what you need to get out of yours.

It's life...life is precious...don't take lives.

 

[SPF]

Sorry Douglas, but you're ignoring the context of the human body entry. The pictures provided are indeed important as they demonstrate that the language being used is that of describing a developed human being. I completely agree with that definition of a human body so long as it pertains to a human body that has reached that particular level of development.

But the good thing though about that definition of human body would be that it would actually include a fetus. It's amazing just how quickly the human body develops in its earliest stages. Just at 2 weeks for example we already have blood flow.

So what I have provided are multiple definitions of what a body is from multiple sources. What Douglas has provided is an encyclopedia entry specifically dealing with an already developed human body.

Mine can be applied to human beings at any age of development, Douglas' cannot.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

That's a problem you created, not me.
So maybe it's not a matter of what I can't get into my head, but more a matter of what you need to get out of yours.
It's life...life is precious...don't take lives.

I kill mice whenever I can.

AREN'T I AWFUL!

Some things can be killed, some things not. Problem is that some cannot recognize the fetus is not a human being, and think it is murder to kill it.

Non-human being flesh is usually killable; any human being must never be killed.

 

[Strong in Him]

I kill mice whenever I can.

AREN'T I AWFUL!

Well I couldn't kill them, but mice are rodents; not quite the same - especially if they get into the house.

Some things can be killed, some things not. Problem is that some cannot recognize the fetus is not a human being, and think it is murder to kill it.

It is; on both counts.
No doctor will say to a pregnant woman, "eat what you want/get drunk if you wish/smoke"; they give advice to the mother to protect the unborn child.
Years ago, women took thalidomide, and as a result, some children were born with severe deformities. Some of these have won financial compensation, because their mothers took a drug which interfered with/arrested their development while they were still in the womb. No doctor has ever made the defence, "well you weren't alive/human at that point, so it didn't matter what rubbish you were given."

In the UK, the limit for abortion is 24 weeks. Before then, if a woman was so inclined, she could say "well I'm only carrying a blob/collection of cells; it doesn't mean anything", and have that life terminated. Though I have read some accounts by atheists, and dedicated feminists, who have had abortions, and still regret it years later. Women have given birth at 30+ weeks, or even full term, and sadly the child has been born dead. No one says "well since it wasn't a human anyway, there's no need to be upset." If your child was born dead, you'd be mourning the loss of a human life, not the loss of a collection of cells.

I find it a far bigger problem that a Christian, which presumably you are since you identify with a denomination, can almost promote abortion, or maintain that it is no big deal.
Like I said, that sounds as though you know someone who has had an abortion and you are trying to make them feel better by denying that it was a human life that was ended. There are other ways to make someone feel better - denying facts isn't one of them.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I kill mice whenever I can.

AREN'T I AWFUL!

Some things can be killed, some things not. Problem is that some cannot recognize the fetus is not a human being, and think it is murder to kill it.

Non-human being flesh is usually killable; any human being must never be killed.

And some cannot recognize a fetus, and before you get confused... the fetus we discuss here, is not a mouse.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Sorry Douglas, but you're ignoring the context of the human body entry. The pictures provided are indeed important as they demonstrate that the language being used is that of describing a developed human being. I completely agree with that definition of a human body so long as it pertains to a human body that has reached that particular level of development.

But the good thing though about that definition of human body would be that it would actually include a fetus. It's amazing just how quickly the human body develops in its earliest stages. Just at 2 weeks for example we already have blood flow.

So what I have provided are multiple definitions of what a body is from multiple sources. What Douglas has provided is an encyclopedia entry specifically dealing with an already developed human body.

Mine can be applied to human beings at any age of development, Douglas' cannot.

Sorry, that is FALSE.
You are far into the deep end of grasping at straws, yet that is all you have of course.

The definition of the encyclopedia does NOT include illustrations - that is, the pictures present are to give an indication of what is being talked about. You don't seem to notice that.
IT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF "DEVELOPED HUMAN BEING" that we are talking about; what we require and what the encyclopedia is talking about, is the human being body, regardless of state of development.
I do not have the illustrations you talk about in front of me - they of course should include a real baby if they do not. I suspect they do, but you don't want to mention that. In any case, "stage of development" is irrelevant to the definition - yet the real pictures of real people's bodies should give you an indication of what a "human being body is," and that is of course that it does not include fetal flesh.

You are false to say the actual definition of the actual encyclopedia also applies to the fetus - that is NOT SO, I do not say it is so, and the encyclopedia does not say it is so.

Of course the body will be more or less developed - yet it in any case must have the characteristics that the true and real definition says.

How many times will it have to be pointed out to you that "multiple definitions of what a body is from multiple sources" is not all we require - there has to be what distinguishes the human being body from all other bodies. You are still trying to use definitions of "body" as the definition of "human being body," which is grossly illegitimate.

 

[SPF]

The definition of the encyclopedia does NOT include illustrations - that is, the pictures present are to give an indication of what is being talked about

That’s kind of my point. The illustrations are of fully developed humans. But anyway, it’s impossible to make progress with you, so let’s use your definition.

The answer to the OP question given the narrow and precise definition you’ve provided is thus, “Sometimes”.

The times therefore in which a human being would not have a body would be prior to being developed enough to meet the qualifications, or as a result of losing the necessary qualifications after development. Still a human being in either scenario.

Though, I of course think a broader definition of body applied to human is more consistent and appropriate.

 

[Denadii]

Does a human being have a body? Of course, is the obvious answer.

I consider it a fact, that human beings, actual animals, members of the species, have bodies.

So the zygote, a single cell with human DNA, cannot itself be a human being.
Since it is only one cell, it cannot possibly have any flesh and blood and bone, i.e. a body.

The implication is, there cannot possibly be a human being at conception.
(Other than the newly pregnant woman.)


Note this is NOT about any disembodied "soul," not about "souls surviving the body," things like that. It is about real human beings alive on the earth.

Ah? Is this to justify abortion? If so....I'm done reading this thread.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

That’s kind of my point. The illustrations are of fully developed humans. But anyway, it’s impossible to make progress with you, so let’s use your definition.
The answer to the OP question given the narrow and precise definition you’ve provided is thus, “Sometimes”.
The times therefore in which a human being would not have a body would be prior to being developed enough to meet the qualifications, or as a result of losing the necessary qualifications after development. Still a human being in either scenario.
Though, I of course think a broader definition of body applied to human is more consistent and appropriate.

So, you're going to go with the idea that there are HUMAN BEINGS WITHOUT HUMAN BEING BODIES.

The disembodied, unbodied. A human being, huh?

Thing is, the "being" of a human being ANIMAL is the body. You are claiming there are body-less animals? You then disagree with my post that Denadii just posted in #273.

One cannot really proceed in this way, it does not get you to where you want to be, since you are actually still claiming the womb contents are a body, only that it is not a human being body. You want to apply your definitions of body, some parts of your definitions, to the zygote, say. That is, it is something rather than nothing. And every thing has a body.

So it has a body, only not a human being body.
Therefore, it is not a human being.

Note that "being" is not the same thing, not the same word as "thing." A being in our discussion is an animal being, not some "animal thing" which could be only an ear, for instance.

 

[SPF]

So, you're going to go with the idea that there are HUMAN BEINGS WITHOUT HUMAN BEING BODIES.

If you’re forcing your particular, narrow definition, then yes, I am.

For example, there is an Italian doctor working out of China who is in the process of performing a head transplant (or full body transplant, depending on how you view it).

Given where technology is headed, it is not beyond the realm of plausible to imagine also a fully prosthetic body. If we use your narrow definition of body, then those people would not actually have bodies any more. Yet, I’m sure we would still consider them human beings.

For me, I have no problem believing what science has demonstrated - which is that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. If you feel the need to say that at the beginning of a human beings life that it doesn’t have a body then that’s fine. But it certainly has a body BEFORE it leaves the womb no matter what you want to say.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Ah? Is this to justify abortion? If so....I'm done reading this thread.

I think this was pointed out several times, and is why it is in this section -
it has nothing to do with LIFE!, JESUS, the BIBLE, YHWH, or SALVATION,
nor anything to do with what YHWH SAYS. Apparently, rather, it has been a futile attempt (with mankind's corruption/what is falsely called knowledge) to discredit all that YHWH SAYS.
(as written, nothing and no one opposed to YHWH can succeed)
YHWH was already WON ! ETERNALLY!

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

If you’re forcing your particular, narrow definition, then yes, I am.
For example, there is an Italian doctor working out of China who is in the process of performing a head transplant (or full body transplant, depending on how you view it).
Given where technology is headed, it is not beyond the realm of plausible to imagine also a fully prosthetic body. If we use your narrow definition of body, then those people would not actually have bodies any more. Yet, I’m sure we would still consider them human beings.
For me, I have no problem believing what science has demonstrated - which is that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. If you feel the need to say that at the beginning of a human beings life that it doesn’t have a body then that’s fine. But it certainly has a body BEFORE it leaves the womb no matter what you want to say.

Yes, so long as you have your "science has demonstrated," then you have your conclusion. Ready to hand.
Simply repeat that unsubstantiated conclusion, and your argument is complete - right?

Problem for you is that my "particular narrow definition" is the broad one of the encyclopedias. Applying to all human beings, but unfortunately not inclusive enough for you, to fit into it what is not a human being, what is in the womb.

Surprised me a little that you did not try to legitimately construct a definition of "human being body," from your "body" definitions. Not with a mere slight of hand like you did try, not with obscuring the difference between "body" and "human being body." But then perhaps you realized in the end it would have to agree with the encyclopedia definitions we already have. Those who have constructed the encyclopedias have done the work for us.
A glance back at your definitions of "body" shows a couple of the problems - first a definition of "animal" would have to be agreed upon, since those definitions rely on that term.
And your:

MacMillian Dictionary:
1a - The whole physical structure of a person or animal, including the head, arms, and legs.
1b - The main part of a person's or animal's body, not including the head, arms, or legs.

shows another problem - a human being body is only complete if it includes the external organs (not within the torso) of head, arms, and legs.
Whereas you want there to be human beings WITHOUT EVER HAVING THESE THINGS, which is a foolhardy quest going way beyond reality.

btw, on your "fully prosthetic body," do you mean a completely artificial robot? Having no organs that were formed in a womb to be a human being? I think that is pretty silly, and a totally unrealistic concept. Not even a bit of original skin or bone or flesh? NONSENSE. Beyond the realm of plausible, I would say.
Another point about it would be, IF everything of a human being body were replaced by artificial constructs, that would be the brain too. SO MUCH TECHNOLOGY simply to produce what God made wombs for, a human being. IF it had all the organs, functioning organs of an actual human being, then one might be correct to call it a human being. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN, imho.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Silly thread,
it is what YHWH Says that is TRUTH.

No excuse of mankind , nor of any so-called science opposed to YHWH,
has a say so.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Silly thread,
it is what YHWH Says that is TRUTH.

No excuse of mankind , nor of any so-called science opposed to YHWH,
has a say so.

So, what YHWH says about human being bodies, is that only in your mind.

OR can it be shared with others?

btw, Can this thread EVER have anything of YHWH ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Can this thread EVER have anything of YHWH ?

What does His Word say about a bad tree? What is it fit for ?
Thus also false knowledge, as YHWH calls it, as well as devious motives, when they occur