• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Does a Human Being have a body?

Discussion in 'Debates on Abortion' started by Douglas Hendrickson, Dec 5, 2017.

  1. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    948
    +511
    Protestant
    Married
    Douglas, you didn't present an argument. You presented a number of statements. Here's what you said:

    "Does a human being have a body? Of course, is the obvious answer" - This is not an argument, it's a statement. There is nothing here by which you present to support your position that a necessary part of being a human being is possessing a body.

    "I consider it a fact, that human beings, actual animals, members of the species, have bodies." This was your next statement. Again, it is an assertion, there is nothing here by which you support this statement. Why is it a fact? Where is the support?

    "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." Your next statement is going off your previous assertions where you asserted that a human being must have a body. This here is not an argument, it is a statement demonstrating that a zygote cannot be a human being because it does not have a body. The problem is that you have yet to support your assertion that a human being must have a body. This, as you like to say oh so much, is begging the question. You cannot yet say that a zygote is not a human being because it does not have a body when you have yet to support your claim that a human being must have a body.

    So again, please actually support your assertion that a human being must possess a body.
     
  2. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Yah sure, a number of statements wouldn't possibly be an argument?

    And then again you take the one opening statement and claim it itself is no argument. As though there were nothing following it. As though it were the only thing I said in the post.
     
  3. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    And, I guess you didn't read post # 20. Try again.
     
  4. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    948
    +511
    Protestant
    Married
    Douglas, please show me what I missed in my previous post from your opening post that would provide support to your assertion.

    You didn't present an argument! You stated the conclusion to your argument TWICE, and then said that the zygote cannot be a human being because they don't have a body. That's not an argument!!!! Seriously, middle schoolers could do a better job!

    So again, you created this topic with the question of whether or not human beings must possess a body. Then, in your OP you stated your conclusion twice! There are no premises anywhere in your OP! Try again buddy!
     
  5. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    THE FACT it consists of "only one cell, it cannot possibly have any flesh and blood and bone, i.e. a body." Not plain enough for you?

    Do you take exception to that fact?
     
  6. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    948
    +511
    Protestant
    Married
    Oh I certainly agree that a zygote does not have flesh, blood, or bones.

    The problem again is that you didn't present premises supporting a conclusion in your OP. You stated your conclusion, back to back, and then said that since that's true, the zygote is not a human being.

    You haven't done the legwork to support your assertion yet that a human being must have a body. I'm still waiting for that.
     
  7. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Oh, so it's gotta look like a syllogism to satisfy you that it's an argument?

    I guess you are arguing for BODY-LESS human beings, having no substance? Such a defamation of humanity!

    SUCH A DEFAMATION OF HUMANITY. (To suggest human beings are ever invisible body-less things without any substance.)
     
  8. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    948
    +511
    Protestant
    Married
    I'm sorry, do you consider stating a conclusion twice without supporting the conclusion to be an argument? Come on, are you 10?
     
  9. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    948
    +511
    Protestant
    Married
    Are you actually going to give us something to discuss? Starting an OP with back to back conclusions and no supporting line of reasoning does not provide any room for discussion. I think we just wasted a few pages here because clearly you're incapable of providing support for your conclusions.
     
  10. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,373
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Of course; from the moment of conception until death.
     
  11. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    That is one example of a point toward the conclusion that a human being needs a body. And that a zygote could not possibly be one.

    DO YOU TAKE EXCEPTION TO THAT FACT?

    I.e., do you really think and like to perpetuate the idea there are bodyless human beings?

    You say you want something to discuss - discuss that. DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO CLAIM THERE ARE HUMAN BEINGS WITHOUT BODIES?
     
  12. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Douglas Hendrickson said:
    Does a human being have a body?
    And you have no conception of what a body is?
    That a human being body must have flesh and blood and bone.

    Perhaps you think there is flesh and blood and bone in the invisible zygote?

    At least you get the "of course" correct. Others can't seem to get that far.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  13. badatusernames

    badatusernames Member

    172
    +138
    United States
    Christian
    In Relationship
    IMO, the actual biggest problem with the idea that all life begins immediately at conception is that most conceptions don't result in birth, or even in a pregnancy. About 50% of fertilized eggs don't successfully implant on the uterine wall, and about 50% of those will result in miscarriages, most of them will occur before a pregnancy is even recognized because it occurs before a woman's first missed period. In other words, this would mean that most human beings have never even been born.

    That doesn't make abortion morally right or okay, because I still think it's killing the potential for life, however I don't believe that a person is a person immediately from conception.
     
  14. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Correct. (Thanks for the point!)

    It also shows how the idea a zygote is a human being is ridiculous.
    (That there have been many times more people alive than even the total number of people who have walked or crawled the earth.)

    A bit of a correction - there is no "all life begins" that is truthful; There is no beginning of life at conception since the only life that is there comes from the sperm and egg.
     
  15. chilehed

    chilehed Veteran

    +398
    Catholic
    Married
    That's the most amazing sophomoric nonsense I've heard in months. By definition, a single cell is a body.
     
  16. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    948
    +511
    Protestant
    Married
    Source?

    Also, it might be helpful if Douglas could define what he thinks a "body" is.
     
  17. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    In some sense, yes.

    But not in the sense of a human being body.
    I assume you know human being animal bodies have flesh and blood and bones?
     
  18. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    948
    +511
    Protestant
    Married
    Eventually they do, but at their earliest they do not.
     
  19. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Oh so now we have human being animal bodies that are invisible and have no flesh and blood and bones?
    RIDICULOUS.

    (Unless it is a one-celled organism, which is quite a different sort of animal.)
     
  20. eleos1954

    eleos1954 Member Supporter

    205
    +107
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Biblically

    Jeremiah 1

    5“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
    and before you were born I consecrated you;
    I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

    "Mans" (used generically) point of view or Gods.

    At what stage of development in the womb does one define "body"? It's not about a "body" it's about the beginning of life .... and I am amazed that at the very least, from "mans" point of view that main point is dismissed, when the egg is fertilized life begins ... in the womb. If the life process is interrupted then the outcome is effected.

    My self ... I'm sticking with God.

    God Bless.
     
Loading...