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.
Does a Human Being have a body?
Page 1 of 17
Human yes, yet do you recognize one needs to have more than that, more than the "merely human," if you get my drift ...
HUMAN IS CANCER, HUMAN IS FETUS, HUMAN IS HUMAN BEING.
And one is not the other.
Human being is "automatically" human; human is NOT "automatically" human being, for it may be human cancer.
Yept, same number of chromosomes that the single cell of the cancer has, is that what you are referring to?
Idk actually. I just remember my dad saying that to me over 10 years ago, and that seemed to be what he percieved as the cusp of human life.
Sarah Knapton, science editor
26 APRIL 2016 • 11:49AM
Human life begins in bright flash of light as a sperm meets an egg, scientists have shown for the first time, after capturing the astonishing ‘fireworks’ on film.
An explosion of tiny sparks erupts from the egg at the exact moment of conception.
Scientists had seen the phenomenon occur in other animals but it is the first time is has been also shown to happen in humans.
Northwestern University, in Chicago, noticed that some of the eggs burn brighter than others, showing that they are more likely to produce a healthy baby.
Eggs flash as they meet sperm enzyme, capturing the moment that life begins CREDIT: NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
Somewhere in the Eastern part of New York my 9th Grade biology teacher cringes.
46 chromosomes gentleman. Forty six.
Does no good, does not help at all for you to identify something as human, for surely the cancer is human. That is, it does NOT make it a human being. HOW MANY MORE TIMES WILL THE CANCER EXAMPLE HAVE TO BE THRUST IN YOUR FACE?
"If not human, then what."
It is human - I keep trying to tell you that. But it is NOT a human being.
It does not even have a body - it is certainly not a person.
My original proposition.
(When I said "Who knows?)
How many oak trees are in one acorn? There's not even one oat tree!
Actually, and truly, and obviously, there is not a single oak TREE in an acorn, not even one.
Or one might say, there are just as many oak trees in an acorn as there are human beings in a womb - NEVER ANY.
(It may be the parallel does not quite fit, and even comparing an acorn with a zygote would not be quite the same sort of thing.
Is it not that the acorn is pretty much a seed, so it is like a sperm, and needs to germinate, to start growing.
Before that it is not a tree, not even one.
It shows a lack of understanding molecular biology.
If you have cancer and a surgeon hacks off some of the tumor the DNA will be yours alone.
The conceived human being has its own DNA distinct from each of the parents. If you refuse to acknowledge this basic fact of biology then there is little hope of moving on to more complex issues.
I HAVE NEVER DENIED THAT.
But of course I deny the false claim you throw in that what we are talking about is (therefore) a human being.
"The conceived" zygote is a NOT a human being. One way of seeing that is in the first post of this thread, that THERE IS NO BODY.
Did the body snatchers get it? NO, there never was one!
In passing, if one refers to the zygote as a human being, that is going beyond anything "biology shows." Against what a careful and sensible person would notice. It is a false and misleading way of speaking.
DNA itself, the DNA blueprint does not itself a human being make.
Now you acknowledge that what I said is true.
I acknowledged the truth of what you said, and pointed to the falsity you introduce.
Perhaps you don't yet understand why one points to the cancer? It is to try to rid the discussion of the falsity that because something is correctly called human it is a human being. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
The cancer too is human (and alive) cells.
It is not only self-evident and obvious, any understanding of an animal organism that a human being must be, what an animal is to be the member of a species, requires a flesh and blood body. AT LEAST. That is, a more technical biology class consideration of what an organism is requires it have a body, that it to be an animal must be a self-regulating homeostatic entity that maintains itself, is capable of reproduction, etc. There is nothing of this in the one cell that is a zygote - because to look at it (it is invisible), THERE IS NO BODY.
More axiomatically put, if you like that term, a human being is a bodily thing and everybody knows it without thinking for more than a second.
Page 1 of 17