Does a Human Being have a body?

[SPF]

I just pointed out how that definition of "body" cannot be true.

So you're more authoritative than the dictionary? The only reason you disagree with that definition is because you have your own preconceived beliefs which contradict all of science and so the only way to try and logically hold your belief is if you rewrite all the educational material we have.

But yes, a human being does have a body. In its most earliest forms, the body looks like a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus, then a newborn. The human body develops over time. Indeed, the entire developmental period of a human is a good 25 years. Though certainly the body does still continue to change.[/quote]

 

[Open Heart]

the teachers said that if we cited wikipedia in a paper that we would automatically get an F.

Sure. You can't cite any encyclopedia in a term paper. It's just not done. That doesn't mean that encyclopedias aren't, by and large, decent, credible sources--certainly good enough for an internet forum. They just aren't ORIGINAL sources, which you need for a term paper. If you can find an original source document for the forum, that of course is superior.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Also, under your definition, it would be possible for a human being to actually lose their body. For example, there is an Italian doctor who in the next year will perform the first head transplant (or full body transplant) in China. It is not inconceivable to imagine, if he is successful, that eventually we will be able to place heads upon prosthetic bodies. If we utilize the very specific definition above, then we would have to say that it would be possible for a human being to lose their body.

For your information, the replacement of a body part is NOT the same thing as the disappearance of a body. What you say here is nothing of relevance.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

For clarification, I would say that while a fetus inside the womb does eventually qualify as having a body, in its most early developmental stages a human being does not possess all of the prerequisites in your definition.

This together with the agreement that a human being has a body, means you are admitting the (early) fetus is NOT a human being.

Finally getting it right!

 

[Open Heart]

For your information, the replacement of a body part is NOT the same thing as the disappearance of a body. What you say here is nothing of relevance.

You keep talking about the visibility of the body to the normal human eye as if it were a significant point. I'm tired of it. Find a different point or I'm moving on.

 

[SPF]

This together with the agreement that a human being has a body, means you are admitting the (early) fetus is NOT a human being.

Finally getting it right!

Incorrect champ. Humans goes through about 25 years of development. The body of a human begins as a zygote and progresses through a number of different stages. At no time does the level of development of the body impact the humanity of the human being.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Incorrect champ. Humans goes through about 25 years of development. The body of a human begins as a zygote and progresses through a number of different stages. At no time does the level of development of the body impact the humanity of the human being.

Yah don't matter if we have bodies or not! Very funny.

 

[SPF]

Yah don't matter if we have bodies or not! Very funny.

I’m not sure who you’re talking to. I certainly never said that.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You keep talking about the visibility of the body to the normal human eye as if it were a significant point. I'm tired of it. Find a different point or I'm moving on.

It's the other guy that wants to disappear the body as a necessary feature of a human being.
That was what I was referring to in my reply to the other guy - nothing about visibility. So somebody didn't know what they were talking about.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I’m not sure who you’re talking to. I certainly never said that.

The body is nothing - there is NO BODY in the zygote.
So in other words you are saying as human beings it does not matter whether we have bodies or not.

Seems you have gone back to the old fallacious single-cell human being mantra - confusing human beings with the lowest possible life-form on the earth. For shame to identify God's greatest that way.

 

[SPF]

The body is whatever contains the human being. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization. We know this scientifically. We know at conception a new, unique individual with its own unique DNA exists.

The body begins very small and continues to develop until death. You run into a problem though with your own definition because a fetus would meet the criteria as having the body of a human being, yet you want to maintain the position that human beings never at any time exist in the womb, an outlandish belief in itself that you cannot support or provide any article, paper, textbooks, or even fringe scientist who agrees with you. Yikes.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The body is whatever contains the human being. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization. We know this scientifically. We know at conception a new, unique individual with its own unique DNA exists.

So worried about me all the time, pretending to be concerned that I am "all alone."
Anyway, it appears you have noticed that human beings having to have a real human being body is not going to further your mistaken viewpoint, so have reverted to no real body being required and "human being" needing only to be defined by DNA. As though a blueprint is all one needs for there to be a house.
(By "no real body" I mean having no substance, a mere invisible single cell will do without even a hit of flesh and blood.)
One should eventually become aware that merely repeating "a new unique individual comes into existence at fertilization," is no argument at all, as though being fertilized is all that is required for a plant to be a plant. (Doing a little takeoff for humor sake.) And your old standby which it really nothing, "We know this scientifically," when the "science" you present is merely someone else, a professor or something like that, ALSO MERELY SAYING, "human beings begin at conception."

Where you are able to go astray, for of course it is the most deliberate backtracking that is engaged in here, is the "pro-lifer" can neatly substitute "individual" for "human being," and only a bit later without any sort of argument convert that to "human being."
The zygote, the fertilized human egg, is of course something rather than nothing. One could call it "X," if one did not need to predetermine that it is a human being. "An individual" sounds so much like what any real person is, so the confusion can be introduced at the beginning.

In other words, one thing I am claiming is that to refer to it as "an individual" is pretty much to beg the question. Suppose we call it "X," refraining from introducing anything of the conclusion into our premises. What is it? Well one thing we could notice, if we cared for truth, is that initially it is not even visible to the naked eye, about the furthest thing from a human being that it is possible for something alive to be. Like a single protozoa or actual one-celled animal, quite other than the ultimate of God's creation.
Then we could investigate what a human being actually is, that it has a human being body, for instance. But the realization it would then have to have at least some flesh an blood means that would never do for the ardent "pro-lifer," so would have to be dropped, ignored, and the strict rules of being sure to NOT pursue the truth, prevail.

The first little paragraph here neatly illustrates the circular reasoning involved. If a body is required, then one says, "whatever there is in a womb or definitely on it's way there is a "body" that "contains a human being." And then identifying it as "a individual" with unique DNA of course proves it. Whereas it only proves that defining things like "body" and "individual" any way one wants to is all that is required to "SHOW" (to the satisfaction of the "pro-life" inclined), that indeed any womb contents is a human being.

 

[SPF]

One should eventually become aware that merely repeating "a new unique individual comes into existence at fertilization," is no argument at all,

Correct, it is an assertion. The evidence to support the assertion is that at fertilization a unique and previously not existing lifeform comes into existence. This lifeform has its own unique DNA and allowed to mature in the proper environment has begun a 25 year developmental period in which it will develop into a fully mature creature of its species. This is biology 101.

In other words, one thing I am claiming is that to refer to it as "an individual" is pretty much to beg the question. Suppose we call it "X," refraining from introducing anything of the conclusion into our premises. What is it? Well one thing we could notice, if we cared for truth, is that initially it is not even visible to the naked eye, about the furthest thing from a human being that it is possible for something alive to be.

I bolded and underlined for emphasis because I thought this was really funny. You want to avoid begging the question, and then you go and beg the question by asserting that a zygote is the furthest thing from being a human being. I thought we were trying to determine what a human being is? If so, stating that a zygote is the furthest thing from being a human being is in fact, begging the question. "Hoisted by your own petard" would be what my father would have said of this.

Then we could investigate what a human being actually is, that it has a human being body, for instance. But the realization it would then have to have at least some flesh an blood

This here is another one of your assertions, or standards rather that nobody else agrees with. Namely that a human being must possess flesh and blood to qualify as a human being. I've never read that anywhere in any medical or science book. Can you provide support for that assertion other than that to you its "obvious" ?

And last time I checked fetus' have flesh and blood so even though they're in the womb they pass your qualification for being a human being.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

And last time I checked fetus' have flesh and blood so even though they're in the womb they pass your qualification for being a human being.

Not so.
Last time you made this false claim I should have rebuffed it.
There is much more to a human being body than merely having flesh and blood, I am pretty sure. And would not mean to indicate otherwise.

Check your own - I am pretty sure you have one.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I bolded and underlined for emphasis because I thought this was really funny. You want to avoid begging the question, and then you go and beg the question by asserting that a zygote is the furthest thing from being a human being. I thought we were trying to determine what a human being is? If so, stating that a zygote is the furthest thing from being a human being is in fact, begging the question. "Hoisted by your own petard" would be what my father would have said of this.

It's a truth.

I'm not begging a question simply to assert a truth in accord with my position. I perhaps should have said,"the zygote is about the furthest thing (alive) from being a human being body," since you want to call it a body. I presume you do not think your saying "the zygote has a body" is begging the question? (Though it pretty much is when you never provide any reasoning to lend any credibility to the idea that it is a human being body.)

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The evidence to support the assertion is that at fertilization a unique and previously not existing lifeform comes into existence. This lifeform has its own unique DNA and allowed to mature in the proper environment has begun a 25 year developmental period in which it will develop into a fully mature creature of its species. This is biology 101.

You got that right! Congratulations! Perhaps took a fresh look at your old textbook.

The only thing in this I would think is suspect is that it seems to be implying that the zygote has the same lifeform (the speller does not seem to like, seems to not like, "lifeform."

"Life form" is perhaps the better formulation.

It rather blatantly indicates what it is, 1. Something that is alive, and 2. Something of a particular form.
"Form" is not forms - the singular is not plural.

Does a zygote look like a real human being, er born baby, shall we say?
DO YOU HAVE THE SAME FORM AS A ZYGOTE? Totally ridiculous.

So, "lifeform" is okay when referring to a zygote, and "lifeform" is something an adult human being also has. But certainly they are not the same life form.
The form, yea even substance, of a zygote is about as far as one could get from a human being body.
That is not me begging the question - when you see it in terms of life forms . The so-called "body" of the zygote could not possibly be the body of the real human being, a definitely different life form.

"Biology 101" otherwise has it correct. ESPECIALLY IN NOT CALLING IT A HUMAN BEING BUT RATHER THE MORE NEUTRAL "LIFEFORM," especially in that is your "biology" correct.
Seems more like literature and philosophy to me. But then I am merely a philosopher and writer, er student of philosophy and dabbler in literariness. So what would I know BOUT ANYTHING WRIT?

 

[SPF]

I presume you do not think your saying "the zygote has a body" is begging the question? (Though it pretty much is when you never provide any reasoning to lend any credibility to the idea that it is a human being body.)

It all comes down to definitions. For example, if my working definition of body is: 1. body: The material structure and substance of an animal. Then I can rightly say that a zygote has a body. Human beings at all stages of development have a body, it just happens to look different at different points of development.

Does a zygote look like a real human being, er born baby, shall we say?
DO YOU HAVE THE SAME FORM AS A ZYGOTE? Totally ridiculous.

Of course a zygote does not look like a born baby. But guess what, you don't look like a born baby either. Humans look like what they're supposed to look like at whatever level of development they're at. So the embryonic human being looks different than the infant human being, and the adult human being looks different than the prepubescent human being. We shouldn't discriminate who is or who isn't a human being based upon looks or age.

So, "lifeform" is okay when referring to a zygote, and "lifeform" is something an adult human being also has. But certainly they are not the same life form.

Yes, they are the same life form. They are human beings at different stages of development.

The form, yea even substance, of a zygote is about as far as one could get from a human being body.

Again, that all depends on how you define human body.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

It all comes down to definitions. For example, if my working definition of body is: 1. body: The material structure and substance of an animal. Then I can rightly say that a zygote has a body. Human beings at all stages of development have a body, it just happens to look different at different points of development.

No, of course not.

One cannot say it is "nothing of an animal," but it sure ain't much.
And certainly no animal being.

You can say "a zygote has a body," somewhat broadly meaning is something physical, but that goes nowhere to showing it has a "human being body."
In fact to any right-thinking common man, a human being body would certainly have blood and flesh.
BE flesh and blood, one might almost say.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Yes, they are the same life form. They are human beings at different stages of development.

You cannot define "life form" to be nothing about form. Totally ridiculous.

 

[SPF]

You can say "a zygote has a body," somewhat broadly meaning is something physical, but that goes nowhere to showing it has a "human being body."

The human being body looks different at different stages of its development. My human body as an adult male looks different than a 12 year old prepubescent body, and the 12 year old prepubescent body looks different than a toddler body, and a toddler body looks different than a fetus body. All human beings with bodies that look different at different stages of development.

In fact to any right-thinking common man, a human being body would certainly have blood and flesh.

Why not?