Does a Human Being have a body?

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The basic thing that some people appear to have difficulty comprehending is that a human being body must be built. The process of doing so is called gestation or pregnancy.

What is being done in the womb is not done before it is done, before the human being body has been constructed. It does not exist before it is constructed - to pretend that it does is to be in denial of reality.

 

[SPF]

The basic thing that some people appear to have difficulty comprehending is that a human being body must be built. The process of doing so is called gestation or pregnancy.

What is being done in the womb is not done before it is done, before the human being body has been constructed. It does not exist before it is constructed - to pretend that it does is to be in denial of reality.

the reason we know this is false is that the developmental period of a human is 25 years. Development doesn’t end at birth.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

the reason we know this is false is that the developmental period of a human is 25 years.

Doesn't follow at all. Not about same thing.

You can talk about a "development period" of 25 years, in an attempt portray what happens in the womb being part of what comes after, as all of one piece. I am pointing out the so called "development" before birth is quite different from what comes after. Because there is before birth no real animal acting independently on the earth. In fact long before birth there is not even any flesh and blood of a real animal body. None at all. Not a bit of the body in the zygote, for instance.

NOTE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REAL ALIVE HUMAN BEING BODIES, not something incapable of doing anything, incapable of behaving in any way whatsoever.

 

[SPF]

You can talk about a "development period" of 25 years, in an attempt portray what happens in the womb being part of what comes after, as all of one piece. I am pointing out the so called "development" before birth is quite different from what comes after.

I don't see how aside from location that development is different. The human being begins to grow at fertilization and continues to grow for about 25 years. Certainly the location changes at birth, but the biological way that a human being develops is consistent from inside the womb to outside the womb.

Because there is before birth no real animal acting independently on the earth.

Again, this depends upon how you define independently. The fetus inside a womb independently sucks its thumb if it wants to, responds to outside stimuli if it wants to. If you ever have the joy of marrying and going through a pregnancy with your wife, you'll see that the unborn respond to things like music and sound once they reach a certain level of development.

Also, once you have experience with infants you will quickly realize how utterly dependent for survival an infant is upon its mother. You'll find very little difference in terms of "independence" between a newborn and a viable fetus.

In fact long before birth there is not even any flesh and blood of a real animal body. None at all.

Sure there is, if there wasn't flesh and blood prior to birth then can you imagine what birth would look like? At just the second week the heart is beating, and there is movement of blood through the main vessels. So with regards to flesh, or the body, it's there for all to see after just 2 weeks.

Your attempts to discriminate against humans based upon their age, location, size, developmental level are all arbitrary, subjective, and inconsistent. I don't know on what authority you support your position other than your own mind, so I see no reason to accept your outlandish notion that a human being does not exist until birth.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I don't see how aside from location that development is different. The human being begins to grow at fertilization and continues to grow for about 25 years. Certainly the location changes at birth, but the biological way that a human being develops is consistent from inside the womb to outside the womb.

After birth it is an actual animal acting in and on the earth. To dismiss birth as making no difference, marking no difference, is to really go in the direction of ignorance. Profound transformations at birth mean there is no longer just flesh in a bag, an "under water" type atmosphere of total darkness and absolute imprisonment.
Would you think there was little change, little actual difference involved, if you were transfused in a manner to supply oxygen and completely encased in a plastic bag covered over so no light could enter - such imprisonment would not be much of a change, right?
If you could no longer see anything and there were only muffled sounds, that would not be much of a change, right? Essentially deaf and blind, little difference there, right. Not to mention other senses.
And these are just the more obvious differences of absolute situation, sensory and movement deprivation.

In fact other differences between the womb situation of mere flesh in a bag, and life in the world of animals and plants, may be even more important. That many basic systems of human being existence do not ever function prior to birth, but certainly do afterward, they mark the emergence of a brand new human being. The construction of that being occurs in the womb, and therefore one can point to that construction as "the beginning" of the bodily being, but only at birth does an autonomous being, a real animal, become actual.

 

[SPF]

After birth it is an actual animal acting in and on the earth

Correct, and before birth there is an actual animal acting in a womb on the earth.

To dismiss birth as making no difference, marking no difference, is to really go in the direction of ignorance. Profound transformations at birth mean there is no longer just flesh in a bag, an "under water" type atmosphere of total darkness and absolute imprisonment.

I've certainly never dismissed birth as making no difference. There is a lot of developmental changes that occur at birth. Birth is certainly a milestone in the development of a human being. But so is the development of the nervous system in the womb, and so is learning to walk, and talk, and going through puberty. There are a number of milestones in the development of a human being.

That many basic systems of human being existence do not ever function prior to birth, but certainly do afterward, they mark the emergence of a brand new human being.

No, the emergence of a brand new human being was marked at fertilization when a new, unique life was created. Birth marks the emergence of the human being from development in a womb to development outside the womb.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The fetus inside a womb independently sucks its thumb if it wants to, responds to outside stimuli if it wants to

"If it wants to" is your hypothetical, your fiction, your imaginary construction that there is "want" or desire in a fetus. Sheerest speculation.

If muscles contract to bring a finger to a mouth, that we know happens.
WHAT YOU SPECULATE happens is your embroidery, something you merely assume.

 

[SPF]

"If it wants to" is your hypothetical, your fiction, your imaginary construction that there is "want" or desire in a fetus. Sheerest speculation.

I understand that you have to reject that because you believe that until birth the fetus is for all intents and purposes brain dead with no ability to have thoughts on its own. Which of course as we know completely contradicts Scripture when the unborn John the Baptist lept for joy in his mother's womb.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Correct, and before birth there is an actual animal acting in a womb on the earth.

No animal acting whatsoever.

And certainly not on the earth, only flesh in a bag doing nothing.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I understand that you have to reject that because you believe that until birth the fetus is for all intents and purposes brain dead with no ability to have thoughts on its own. Which of course as we know completely contradicts Scripture when the unborn John the Baptist lept for joy in his mother's womb.

YOU CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE, to say "the unborn John the Baptist" did something.

Totally spurious SPECULATION.

(Perhaps "contradict" is too strong - you go way beyond Scripture.)

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Birth is certainly a milestone in the development of a human being. But so is the development of the nervous system in the womb, and so is learning to walk, and talk, and going through puberty. There are a number of milestones in the development of a human being.

"The development of the nervous system in the womb" is a milestone? How is that? When it has so developed we know it is a fully conscious sentient being interacting with an environment external to itself.

Oh, that only happens at birth, the nervous system functioning in a meaningful way.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

... the emergence of a brand new human being was marked at fertilization when a new, unique life was created. Birth marks the emergence of the human being from development in a womb to development outside the womb.

"The emergence" here should be a signal to one trying to understand.

NOTHING EMERGES UNTIL BIRTH.
Conception is so far from emergence that it is not even visible to the naked eye if one accessed it and looked, which would take some doing for what it specifically has not done is emerge.

Birth marks actual emergence. Your "emergence" is nothing.

 

[SPF]

"The emergence" here should be a signal to one trying to understand.

NOTHING EMERGES UNTIL BIRTH.
Conception is so far from emergence that it is not even visible to the naked eye if one accessed it and looked, which would take some doing for what it specifically has not done is emerge.

Birth marks actual emergence. Your "emergence" is nothing.

You shouldn't discriminate against human beings because of their size or location

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You shouldn't discriminate against human beings because of their size or location

Yes I know - although God would think they are ALL pretty small indeed, even God really shouldn't discriminate against ANY of them. (They say.)

BTW, it was better before you added "or location."
Because "location" reveals that that is all the fetus has. ALL IT IS.
All it is in terms of human being activity.

(Like a criminal in a prison cell, usually "location" is about the only thing it has.)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

YHWH CREATED humans.

Humans rebelled against YHWH.

Humans still rebel against YHWH.

Nothing has changed for most humans - they forfeit their chance to be restored to YHWH when they reject Yahushua (Jesus).

Most humans won't even or ever hear the Voice of the Perfect Shepherd...

Seek Him while He may be found , in this life, before it is too late.

Seek Him to be free from all the traps of the enemy, from sin, from the flesh.

Seek Him to be free from the power (false knowledge and false wisdom) of the world.

His Salvation is FREE to all who find it, the narrow road to LIFE, JESUS.

 

[SPF]

Yes I know - although God would think they are ALL pretty small indeed, even God really shouldn't discriminate against ANY of them. (They say.)

BTW, it was better before you added "or location."
Because "location" reveals that that is all the fetus has. ALL IT IS.
All it is in terms of human being activity.

(Like a criminal in a prison cell, usually "location" is about the only thing it has.)

Interesting you say that all the criminal “has” is location, yet you say that all the fetus “is” is location. You make no sense sometimes.

A fetus is only location? Yea, that makes a lot of sense.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Interesting you say that all the criminal “has” is location, yet you say that all the fetus “is” is location. You make no sense sometimes.

A fetus is only location? Yea, that makes a lot of sense.

"Has," and "is" in the case of the fetus. It is nothing of holy being and even it's location is off. Yet if it "has" anything, it is location.

The criminal has actually quite a bit more, in many if not all cases.
Friends on inside and outside, dealings, etc.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You make no sense sometimes.

Remember, or ask YHWH to reveal, the motives behind the false ideas presented here on this thread (and of course the forum overall).
Then this all becomes clear, YHWH willing.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Remember, or ask YHWH to reveal, the motives behind the false ideas presented here on this thread (and of course the forum overall).
Then this all becomes clear, YHWH willing.

It's obvious to me.

"Somebody" wants to try to defend the "pro-life" viewpoint.

 

[SPF]

It's obvious to me.

"Somebody" wants to try to defend the "pro-life" viewpoint.

Personally, I'm only interested in defending what is true. Unlike you, I don't approach Scripture attempting to prove a particular point of view, I allow Scripture to dictate what my beliefs are.

Biblically speaking, I believe Scripture teaches that mankind is unique among all of God's creation. Mankind alone is created in the image of God and possesses inherent moral worth and value. This moral worth and value is applied to all mankind, regardless of age, race, and gender. That is the foundation that I hold to because that is what I see taught in Scripture.

Thanks to advances in science, medicine and technology, we now know that a new and unique human being comes into existence at fertilization. We now know that when a sperm fertilizes an egg that each contribute genetic information and we can literally watch as a new organism comes into existence. This organism, allowed to grow and develop has begun a process that will take roughly 25 years to fully mature.

So if one wants to discuss what is obvious, then it is obvious that a new human comes into existence at conception.

Douglas, the problem I have with your position is that nothing you say is supported by science. You have to literally come up with your own definitions for terms, throw out known science, and then argue for an arbitrary line in the sand so to speak about when a human being comes into existence which is not even internally consistent.

And then with regards to Scripture, you clearly bring your preconceived beliefs into your interpretations of Scripture and are once again forced to do isegesis and magical word-smithing to create an interpretation that is literally rejected by 100% of theologians throughout all of history.

So for me, someone who desires to base their beliefs on Truth, when someone like you comes along and literally rejects the past 100 years of science, rewrites definitions, and then throws out 2,000 years of Biblical understanding - I can't help but look at you and be like "really? You expect people to believe you?" Honestly, the stuff you say makes you sound more like a cult leader or a gnostic heretic than someone with any bit of credibility. You bring no educational credentials, and you bring no scientific, medical, or theological support for your position.

Every single post you make is filled with fallacy after fallacy, from begging the question, to poisoning the well, to red herrings, to categorical mistakes, to straw-men, to circular reasoning, false analogies etc etc.. I mean really, a great exercise for a introduction to critical thinking class could be a professor having their students read your threads and point out the fallacies.

Until you can bring something to table other than your own "because I said so" argument, I don't see any reason why your belief that human beings never exist inside a womb should not be utterly rejected. I've asked countless times for one, just one source outside your own brain that agrees with your position, even a fringe scientist. You've never been able to produce even one.