• 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. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Sorry, I don't think untruth should be attributed to God.
    (And the Jeremiah stuff is about God's all knowing, from even before anything in the womb. What would come to be.)
    And, it is certainly not about the beginning of life.
    That was at Adam, and did indeed come from God.
    No doubt when sperm and egg enter the womb, that is the beginning of there being life in the womb.
    But life itself does not begin then, and certainly not there, since the life in the womb comes only from the life that is in the sperm and egg.
     
  2. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    +3,048
    Christian
    Married
    There is not a fully formed human being at conception, but life has begun.
     
  3. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Servant of God † Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    +9,883
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Human beings have bodies, yes. And just like all other bodies, they start out as a single cell.

    Being not yet developed to a certain stage doesn't make the body - not a body.

    You could just as well argue that since the nervous system is not yet fully myelinated in an infant, that's not a body. Or that pre-pubescent child is not yet a body, since it can't reproduce. Oh, but then perhaps a post-menopausal woman is no longer a body either, since it can no longer reproduce, or a person who has had those capacities removed due to cancer surgery, perhaps.

    It's a body - just at various stages and with various capacities. Body=physicality.
     
  4. eleos1954

    eleos1954 Member Supporter

    203
    +106
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Did not God through divine intervention make it possible for the Virgin Mary to conceive? Yes, beyond our understanding.

    Creation .... happening because He spoke it? Do we understand how that is possible? No

    Can we fully understand Angels, creations of God? No

    Impossible for the human mind to grasp Gods foreknowledge and many many other things pertaining to the All Mighty in their totality. And pretty much futile for us to do so I think. Ok, I guess ... but on these things I don't spend much time on them. They are but fleeting thoughts and nothing more.

    However, we can understand this much as you said - "No doubt when sperm and egg enter the womb, that is the beginning of there being life in the womb."
    In this case. Why do we not go with what we do understand?

    God Bless.
     
  5. badatusernames

    badatusernames Member

    172
    +137
    United States
    Christian
    In Relationship
  6. nonaeroterraqueous

    nonaeroterraqueous Impractical Rat

    744
    +440
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    It never had to be. It was a worthless argument the first time. It did not gain value through repetition.

    I can always identify the loser in an argument by their need to carefully tune and tweak the definitions of words. You can win any argument by changing the meanings of words in such a way that their use can never logically support your opponent's position.

    What is a "body?" The term is actually much broader than you make it. All of this ironic talk of chromosomes overlooks the fact that the word literally means "colored body." Therefore, the term body frequently refers to things not fitting your definition. A cell has a body (the soma of a nerve cell is its "body." Soma means body).
     
  7. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    948
    +511
    Protestant
    Married
    Thanks for providing that. I asked because the statistics you provided seemed really high. Unfortunately, the link you provided does not affirm what you said.

    You:
    1)About 50% of fertilized eggs don't successfully implant on the uterine wall, and
    2)about 50% of those will result in miscarriages
    Source:
    1)Up to 50% of all fertilized eggs may spontaneously abort
    2)Women who know they are pregnant have a miscarriage rate of 15-20%

    Things worth noting would be that the 50% number includes both women who know they are pregnant and women who do not know they are pregnant.

    The question that I walk away most from this though is how exactly do doctors have any sort of idea of the percentage of fertilized eggs that spontaneously abort without a woman ever knowing she was pregnant? Doesn't the fact that the woman doesn't know mean that we wouldn't be able to produce a statistic on that?

    Now, as for Douglas... Here's a good educational read for him:

    Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.4 (emphases added)

    In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.5 (emphases added)

    ... Coalescence of homologous chromosomes, resulting in a one-cell embryo. ... The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo and is a highly specialized cell. (p. 33) ... t is now accepted that the wordembryo, as currently used in human embryology, means 'an unborn human in the first 8 weeks' from fertilization.6 (emphases added)

    In multi-cellular organisms, each of the cells that comprise it are only "parts" of that whole being. An organism is inherently capable of its growth and reproduction as a being; a cell can only multiply more cells, not more beings (unless they are totipotent, separated from the whole organism, and the state of differentiation of their DNA is reversed to "zero" by the process of "regulation" - the basis of cloning by "twinning".7).

    Rahilly addresses "human organisms", their distinction from just "cells", and their growth and development in his first chapter dealing with the science of human embryology. As Rahilly documents, the immediate product of human sexual reproduction is a single-cell organism:

    Although life is a continuous process, fertilization ... is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte. This remains true even though the embryonic genome is not actually activated until 2-8 cells are present at about 2-3 days.8 (emphases added)

    It is precisely because the immediate product is an organism that the international Nomina Embryologica Committee formally rejected the fake term "pre-embryo". As Rahilly put it:

    (4) it [the term "pre-embryo"] is equivocal because it may convey the erroneous idea that a newhuman organism is formed at only some considerable time after fertilization;9 (emphases added)

    Rather, the single-cell human organism - the human being, human embryo, human individual - simply then proceeds to grow bigger:

    Human embryology ... is the study of the human embryo and fetus. ... Development includes growth (an increase in the mass of tissue) and differentiation, by which is meant increasing complexity. Although early development, particularly that of the embryo, is the main focus of embryology, development continues after birth as well as before. ... Development is under the control of the genome, which operates at several levels of organization. A reductionist approach, however, needs to be complemented by descriptive embryology so that the end products of genetic and environmental interaction, mainly organs and systems, can be clearly discerned. (p. 7) ... Growth, strictly speaking, is an increase in the size of an organism or of its parts. ... The chief cause of prenatal growth is cellular division. Growth is ordinarily accompanied by the specialized cellular changes that constitute differentiation. Although growth is very marked prenatally and during the first two decades postnatally, it continues throughout life.10(emphases added)

    4 Keith Moore and T. V. N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed. only) (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), p. 18.

    5 William J. Larsen, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997), p. 1.

    6 Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001), p. 87.

    7 For a scientific explanation (with extensive scientific references) of the role of "regulation" in both sexual and asexual reproduction, see Irving, "Playing God by manipulating man: Facts and frauds of human cloning" (October 4, 2003), presented twice at the Missouri Catholic Conference Annual Assembly Workshop, Jefferson City, MO, at: http://www.mocatholic.org/uploads/IrvingCloning3.pdf, and at http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_22manipulatingman1.html; see also "Stem cells that could become embryos: Implications for the NIH Guidelines on stem cell research, the NIH stem cell report, informed consent, and patient safety in clinical trials" (July 22, 2001); written as consultant on human embryology and human embryo research as Fellow of The Linacre Institute (CMA), The Catholic Medical Association (USA), and The International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC), at:http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_39anlystemcel1.html.

    8 Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001), p. 31.

    9 Ibid., p. 88.

    10 Ibid, p. 98
     
  8. jesus316

    jesus316 All Truth is in Jesus

    787
    +303
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    A zygote is a body.
     
  9. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,371
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    I reject your definition of human body, and see no reason in the world to accord you the authority to decide what words mean. A zygote is alive and has uniqueness DNA and the Spirit that animates it. That’s a very tiny human body.

    I understand you want to redefine it so that you’re not a supporter of child murder. But that’s all you are.
     
  10. chilehed

    chilehed Veteran

    +398
    Catholic
    Married
    In some sense, as in by definition. A thing's body is the matter with which it is made.

    More nonsense. It is, by definition, a human being.

    When they're first created their flesh hasn't differentiated into the various forms of tissue. Your definition is false.

    A single-celled human zygote is, by definition, a human being that has a body comprised of one cell. All human beings have human rights. Abortion is murder.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  11. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Saved by Grace through Faith

    +548
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Without a seed, you have no tree. Not to mention, the Christian view of what it means to be human, entails more than the physical body. Not to mention, whether a human baby in the earliest stages of growth has had time to grow and form a body, does not take away the fact that assuming all is well if taken care of, will grow and an identifiable body will form. Taking away an egg from a Hen, doesn't take away from the fact that if it were not taken away eventually a chic would hatch from the egg. Ugh and I like eggs ewww.
     
  12. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Sure a cell has a body.
    What it does NOT HAVE is a human being body.

    NOBODY in their right mind would think the single cell is the human animal collectively known as mankind.

    btw, if it means "colored body," then it cannot be referring to the zygote. For it is invisible, that is, has no color.
     
  13. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Does a human being have to be an animal?
    YES

    Does an animal have to have a body (of flesh and blood)?
    YES
     
  14. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    948
    +511
    Protestant
    Married
    You do realize you're creating out of your rear your own definition of body, right? If you disagree, please cite a reference that defines a body as requiring flesh and blood.
     
  15. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    948
    +511
    Protestant
    Married
    Google is your friend. Type in zygote and then look at all the images. A zygote is not invisible.
     
  16. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +5,022
    Anabaptist
    This became a very controversial topic a few decades ago when it was published... the flu shot was implicated and admitted by many official sources as being a cause and or contaminated ( 3 out of 4 tested vials were found to be 'contaminated') ... long ago though, so might be out of date info...
    although from quik online search >>> (very much , yes very much worse than anyone might expect normally, and which is in line with the shots causing one after another in the same woman.... year after year .... ) >>>

    "There are about 4.4 million confirmed pregnancies in the U.S. every year. 900,000 to 1 million of those end in pregnancy losses EVERY year. More than 500,000 pregnancies each year end in miscarriage (occurring during the first 20 weeks).
    Miscarriage Statistics - Hopexchange.com "
     
  17. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +5,022
    Anabaptist
    COOL! and yes, this time. Maybe not always but this time perhaps yes.

    Being picky over 'a body' when Yahweh is not.

    For example: HOW MANY levites were in Abraham's loins according to SCRIPTURE ?
    Or the seed of Levy, which YAHWEH counted as Levy/ Levites ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE...

    So the real true question is , why would anyone oppose Yahweh ?
     
  18. Bible Believing Gentiles

    Bible Believing Gentiles New Member

    65
    +22
    United States
    Christian
    Widowed
    I'm not really going to give an argument here, I just wanted you to know how ridiculous this is:

    Quite.
     
  19. Stormy

    Stormy Senior Contributor

    +564
    Christian
    US-Others
    Within that small beginning is everything. From the basic beginning to the elderly senior everything is composed within.

    But if you are unable to agree to that..
    How about the heart beat. If emergency response comes to you in a time of stress, they will do everything possible to keep you alive.. If they detect a heart beat.
    Don't we at least owe that same consideration to the unborn?

    There are senators in congress working on such a bill. I pray it passes.
     
  20. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +160
    Pentecostal
    Private
    No, that something has a heart does not make it a human being.
    Rats have hearts.
    Don't we at least owe that same consideration to a real rat?

    What you say is untrue about what I agree on ...
    Elsewhere in the last 2 or 3 pages I have pointed out that it is true we come from such a small beginning - but like the house that first needs a foundation, digging a basement does not mean we have a house.
    Having only the blueprint DNA, the zygote has no human being actual animal substance.
     
Loading...