Does a Human Being have a body?

[Denadii]

Yes a baby will look like a baby, but your supposedly "newly conceived human" never looks like a human being whatsoever. That should be a clue that it is NOT a human being.

A small amount of thought could tell you that that one-cell is NOT a human being. There are one-celled animals, but they are the farthest from being a human being there could possibly be. (Protozoa and the like.)
Yes, it is "human," it is a human cell. Yet like I seem to always have to point out, so too is a cancer cell - in other words, being "human" and not canine or simian or avian does NOT make it a human being. No, I'm afraid the single cell, whether of either a cancer or a (prospective) fetus, is never a human being, though certainly human.
Got it?

Holy Bless!

This is a perfect example of what I said above....Intelligent people spouting idiocy. Do a DNA test on that cell that does not look human because it lacks arms and legs...What will you find? You will find that it is HUMAN! Put that in your pipe and smoke it instead of smoking banana peels.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

This is a perfect example of what I said above....Intelligent people spouting idiocy. Do a DNA test on that cell that does not look human because it lacks arms and legs...What will you find? You will find that it is HUMAN! Put that in your pipe and smoke it instead of smoking banana peels.

I guess you can't read. (So you are your own "perfect example.")

I specifically said, I specifically agreed that it IS HUMAN.
That one cell. But unfortunately, being human, the fact that it is human, does not make any one cell a human being.

 

[Denadii]

I guess you can't read. (So you are your own "perfect example.")

I specifically said, I specifically agreed that it IS HUMAN.
That one cell. But unfortunately, being human, the fact that it is human, does not make any one cell a human being.

A single cell does not make a MATURE human being.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

A single cell does not make a MATURE human being.

It does not make anything that even resembles a real person in any way whatsoever!

 

[SPF]

You can say this nonsense- doth not make it true.

A fine "house" you find for your supposed person. Lots of heat but no light. Absolutely nothing to do, in fact where nothing can be done. Unless you count something on the order of sleep and perhaps an occasional twitching of limbs to be something worth noticing.
TOTAL FLOOD CONDITIONS. Fine home indeed.

Of course you would only begin to think this is a fine home for a human being because you mistakenly think there is one in a gestating womb. At least I hope you recognize your "home" is far worse than any prison any real human being was ever incarcerated in. The fetus, far from being a "recently created human being," is IMPRISONED, TOTALLY IMPRISONED there. Nothing of human action possible.

Actually, the womb is certainly a "fine house" for the newly created human being. In fact, the womb is the absolute best, most perfect, coziest, and safest place for its initial development. You couldn't find a better place for a newly created human to begin its development.

In fact, and again your immaturity and inexperience with regards to children doesn't help serve your purpose in understanding this - but after a baby is born, often times parents will use sound machines that emulate a heart beat or other womb noises that the baby typically heard as a soothing technique for them. I had a friend that always played the same lullaby for their unborn baby at night and then when they were born that lullaby was what soothed them when it was time to sleep.

Yes a baby will look like a baby, but your supposedly "newly conceived human" never looks like a human being whatsoever. That should be a clue that it is NOT a human being.

Unless, the newly conceived human being looks exactly like what a newly conceived human being looks like. In which case, it does look like a human being! Human beings look very different at different stages of life. A newborn infant looks a lot different than it will once it finishes developing!

Out of curiosity (and I'll probably regret asking this), how do you defend your position that a fetus is not a human being when the definition you are working off would qualify a fetus as having a human being body?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

... how do you defend your position that a fetus is not a human being when the definition you are working off would qualify a fetus as having a human being body?

I tried to indicate here just recently that this claim you keep repeating is not true. There is no definition I am "working off" that would qualify a fetus as having a human being body. I have been pointing to features of a real human being body that rather obviously disqualify the zygote from being a human being. Seems to me you can't even recognize that, so why would I bother (at this point) about all the features of a human being (body) that are required for it to be a human being? That is, it only takes the smallest bit of understanding of the body, the physical substance, of a human being, to know that a zygote could not possibly be that. Your arguments have been for a "from conception" view, and that is what we have been discussing in this present thread.

Nevertheless, I have more than once pointed out there are manifold substantial and critical changes that occur at birth that in fact mean the unborn "body" does not fully qualify.

There is a difference between having "a body," some (any) physical substance, and having a body that at least has some semblance to a human being. Thus when the zygote does not appear (to the naked eye looking "at it"), AT ALL, does not even have enough "body" be to visible, let alone having a body with any resemblance to an actual person, Q.E.D.. Yet there remains, is, a difference between that and fully qualifying to be an actual animal, an actual member of the human species.

I would argue that latter point with you if you conceded that there cannot possibly be a human being at conception. Otherwise, why bother - if your position remains so easy to demolish, has so little possibility of being true, and still you hold to it, how can the more difficult sorting out of birth's reality even be relevant?

 

[SPF]

Douglas, this is very simple. You provided a number of pages back a working definition that you would accept as a "human body". Based upon the definition that you provided, a fetus qualifies as having a human body.

So, do you need to revise and update your definition of human body to make it keep to your agenda and exclude a fetus? If so, please let's hear it. Please revise your definition of human body. What new definition of "human body" are we to work with?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas, this is very simple. You provided a number of pages back a working definition that you would accept as a "human body". Based upon the definition that you provided, a fetus qualifies as having a human body.

So, do you need to revise and update your definition of human body to make it keep to your agenda and exclude a fetus? If so, please let's hear it. Please revise your definition of human body. What new definition of "human body" are we to work with?

"A 'human body'" is somewhat ambiguous. Whether it is merely some (alive) human cells, or a real animal being, a "human being," that is being referred to. The usual "pro-life" confusion.

You claim I provided "a working definition" that I would accept as a "human body." If this means "human being body," then quote it here and we can perhaps see what you are talking about?

It is you that is claiming I need to "revise my definition of human body." Was it just a "human" body, a body that has human substance, or was it a "human being body?" What precisely are you talking about, what "definition" do I now need to revise?

 

[SPF]

There is a difference between having "a body," some (any) physical substance, and having a body that at least has some semblance to a human being. Thus when the zygote does not appear (to the naked eye looking "at it"), AT ALL, does not even have enough "body" be to visible, let alone having a body with any resemblance to an actual person

Here's an example of one of the problems you have, and where you continue to "beg the question" in your lines of reasoning. when you say "some semblance to a human being" you are projecting an image you accept of a human being, and then comparing whatever we are talking about (usually a zygote) against that image of a human being that you accept. That's begging the question because the very thing we are discussing is what a human being is, and so you cannot say that a zygote does not appear to be a human being when we have not yet established what a human being is. This is EXACTLY what begging the question is. Exactly.

For example, I, as a fully developed adult male actually look less like a newborn infant than an unborn fetus looks like a newborn baby. So if you're going to bring looks into the discussion, you will have a problem.

Zygotes look exactly like zygotes are supposed to look like, and the same goes for embryos, fetuses, newborns, toddlers, teenagers, adults, and elderly. They all look different and its because they are all at different stages in their lives. But we don't (or shouldn't) attempt to say that one is not a human being because it doesn't look like one at a different stage, or because it is less developed. There's no way to do that and be logically consistent.

 

[SPF]

Try for what we really want, a definition of a human being body:
The physical structure and material substance of an animal that is a human being.
AND,
The human body is the entire structure of a human being. It is composed of many different types of cells that together are tissues and organ systems. They ensure homeostasis and the viability of the human body.

According to the definition that you provided, a fetus qualifies as possessing a human body. Now, we all know you consider abortion to be a good thing, and believe in promoting abortion at any time an unborn child is inside a womb - so this is where you'll need to update your definition of human body so that you can still promote abortion at any time.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
Try for what we really want, a definition of a human being body:
The physical structure and material substance of an animal that is a human being.
AND,
The human body is the entire structure of a human being. It is composed of many different types of cells that together are tissues and organ systems. They ensure homeostasis and the viability of the human body.

According to the definition that you provided, a fetus qualifies as possessing a human body. Now, we all know you consider abortion to be a good thing, and believe in promoting abortion at any time an unborn child is inside a womb - so this is where you'll need to update your definition of human body so that you can still promote abortion at any time.

You are really quite false in your slander, your casting aspersions, your bearing of false witness.
I do not promote abortion, let alone "at any time."

It's the encyclopedia definition, and according to it the fetus does NOT qualify as possessing a human body.
It is the body of a animal; surely that means a pretty functioning body, functional, not merely "some tissue" that might "some day" actually work. "Homeostasis" is pointed to - this means not only are various organs and their systems fully functional and functioning, but are maintained in an autonomous fashion. A self regulating ACTUAL ANIMAL ORGANISM, not merely some parts that might appear to be like parts of a real human being but have never functioned.

The fact any fetus has never functioned as a human being, an actual animal, that any fetus has not even breathed as an autonomous being means it is not a human being.

Of course there can a human being body that is not functioning, but then it is dead. That is not what we are talking about.

 

[SPF]

Sorry, but a viable fetus meets the criteria. That’s why they call it viable. So now you’re asserting that a viable fetus that could be removed at any time from the womb and survive does NOT possess a human body? Come on Douglas, get real.

I’ve never seen someone live in such denial of overwhelming medical and biblical truth. You’re legitimately on par with cult leaders.

 

[SPF]

The fact any fetus has never functioned as a human being, an actual animal, that any fetus has not even breathed as an autonomous being means it is not a human being.

Once again, another glaring example of begging the question. The fetus functions exactly how a fetus is supposed to function. You're assuming that human beings do not function in the womb. Therefore, if human beings do not function in the womb, then clearly a fetus has never functioned as a human being because a fetus has only ever existed inside the womb. This is precisely what begging the questions is. If a human being exists inside a womb, then a fetus most certainly HAS functioned as a human being. I'm starting to think you actually are incapable of giving a response that isn't fallacious.

It's like your brain literally cannot process the notion that a human being might actually exist inside the womb.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Sorry, but a viable fetus meets the criteria. That’s why they call it viable. So now you’re asserting that a viable fetus that could be removed at any time from the womb and survive does NOT possess a human body?

THERE IS NO VIABLE BODY, until there is a viable body. An actual body vying.

Without birth it still lacks those manifold and crucial characteristics that only first appear at birh and do not appear without birth.
So take it out "prematurely" ... and yes with the necessities that come only at birth already accomplished, it will survive. Then it will survive.
Were it merely taken out of the belly and put into "some other tub of water," it would not survive, or only would be surviving as a fetus.(In other words, such a thing like unto a tub of water would never be a home for a human being.)

I.e. things like breathing are crucial, necessary for human being life.
NOT SOMETHING PERIPHERAL OR OPTIONAL !

edit: In terms of your question, "a viable fetus that could be removed at any time from the womb and survive does NOT possess a human body?"
Yes, when it is still a viable fetus, then what is there IS NOT a human being body.

It whatever "it" is, always has (is) a "human body," in that it consists of human cells. Seems you may still be wanting to slide on "human" to "human being," without anyone noticing?

 

[SPF]

Just so we're clear on this - you're asserting that a viable fetus, meaning a fetus developed enough in that it has skin, blood, flesh, organs, functioning nervous system, etc... - you're asserting that it does not actually have a human body?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Just so we're clear on this - you're asserting that a viable fetus, meaning a fetus developed enough in that it has skin, blood, flesh, organs, functioning nervous system, etc... - you're asserting that it does not actually have a human body?

NO.
By virtue of the fact I pointed to in my very last point, I'm asserting it does not have human being body, though it does have a human body in some sense of the word.

What "it" as a fetus ACTUALLY HAS. It DOES NOT HAVE some crucial elements of a human being body, even though it may have quite a bit of a human being body, and if a "viable" fetus certainly will have.

NOTE WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT IT MIGHT HAVE.

btw, the question, if I may remind you, is whether what is IN the womb is a human being, i.e. has a real human being body.
Don't confuse what is in the womb with what is not only "viable," but verified.
ACTUALLY A HUMAN BEING.

 

[SPF]

Can you provide some scientific support for there being some sort of difference between a "human body" and a "human being body"? Or are you making these terms up yourself?

Kind of a rhetorical question as we know you're making these terms up and we know you're not able to point to any actual definition. So for the sake of discussion can you actually provide a 1-3 sentence definition of both "human body" and "human being body" so we know exactly what you're talking about?

And what about Bob, who was in a gruesome car accident and the doctors were successfully able to transplant his head onto a fully prosthetic body? I don't think Bob would any longer have a human being body, but wouldn't we still consider poor Bob a human being?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Sorry, but a viable fetus meets the criteria. That’s why they call it viable. So now you’re asserting that a viable fetus that could be removed at any time from the womb and survive does NOT possess a human body? Come on Douglas, get real.

I’ve never seen someone live in such denial of overwhelming medical and biblical truth. You’re legitimately on par with cult leaders.

One purpose maybe brings understanding of the persistent errors: trying to defend a gross abomination against God by human (or worse) reasoning, because of gross heinous sin in the world.

The truth cuts right through it all, and is too painful to bear , it seems.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Can you provide some scientific support for there being some sort of difference between a "human body" and a "human being body"? Or are you making these terms up yourself?

Kind of a rhetorical question as we know you're making these terms up and we know you're not able to point to any actual definition. So for the sake of discussion can you actually provide a 1-3 sentence definition of both "human body" and "human being body" so we know exactly what you're talking about?

And what about Bob, who was in a gruesome car accident and the doctors were successfully able to transplant his head onto a fully prosthetic body? I don't think Bob would any longer have a human being body, but wouldn't we still consider poor Bob a human being?

I just told you about twice!

To be a "human body" all the "thing" (remember your definition of "body") requires is that it be composed of human cells. A human being is very much NOT THE SAME AS A HUMAN CANCER.

It is nothing about making terms up: it's about the difference between an adjective and a noun.
NO MADE UP TERMS.
The term "human" in "human body" modifies "body," demanding only that it have something of human substance, i.e. human cells.
"Human being body, on the other hand, demands it be the body of a human being, and not merely have some "humanness."

NOTHING HAPPENED TO BOBS BODY, except instead of one particular head it has another. NOTHING about whether or not the body complete with head is a human being body.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Guilt.

What is the only (when it is available) remedy for guilt ?

i.e. to stand in YHWH'S PRESENCE with a perfectly clear conscience ?