Um:
(emphasis added)
I always thought that was Mary Magdelene (probably because the first school I went to was Saint Mary Magdelene in Camarillo, and they might have encouraged this interpretation).
Too many chicks named Mary in that book, that’s all I’ve got to say…
ETA: Too many Lazaruses, too.
No, too much wiggle room for that general statement to be true. There is something called the defense of necessity – to paint a classic example, you may trespass to save a dying man, and assert necessity as your defense.
Having checked some online legal dictionaries, I think you’re confusing intent and motive.
The general premise here is that Mahony knew his actions would likely prevent prosecutions of molesting priests, and did those actions anyway.
As best as I can tell, that defines intent. He may have been motivated by another goal, but that’s neither here nor there.
Black’s Law Dictionary describes intent as follows:
“a resolve to do or forbear a particular act…Intent shows the presence of will in the act which consummates a crime. It is ‘the exercise of intelligent will, the mind being fully aware of the nature and consequences of the act which is about (o [sic] be done, and with such knowledge, and with full liberty of action, willing and electing to do it.”
Note the recurring presence of the word act. It seems that intent applies to the act, and includes the consequences of that act to the extent that one is aware of them, and commits the act freely.
So I think you’re asking me to assume two contradictory things at the same time: first, that Mahony knew his actions would likely prevent prosecutions of molesting priests, and did those actions anyway, and second, that he had no intent whatsoever to prevent those prosecutions.
Don’t get me started on the parade of James.
I know how trials work. I also know how negotiations work. You can take responsibility for what you did wrong and still dispute the amount of damages.
It isn’t a matter of science, though we do have the power to use science to make a delineation.
In other words, science doesn’t decide it for us, but we can use science to articulate a decision.
Because we give people heart transplants and lung transplants and liver transplants, and they’re still the same person. You can lose an arm or leg, and you’re still the same person. But scoop out your brain, and you’re an ex-person, at least within the confines of this reality. The brain seems to be unique in this property, among all of the organs of the body.
Whether there is a greater reality in which persons continue to exist once they’re ex-persons in this one is a subject on which we are almost certainly in agreement. But it’s not something you can go basing laws on.
I’m asking you to assume that Mahoney didn’t CARE about prosecutions of priests. He cared only about making sure nothing stained the Church’s name.
Granted that his actions in protecting the Church also could have frustrated a police investigation. But that was never his specific intent.
Are you seriously asserting that your church saw a *necessity *to rape children?
If that defense does not apply here, then your answer could have been a simple Yes. But that would be admitting something everyone else here but you already knows, wouldn’t it?
No, he’s not. He’s answering a question about law that I asked.
Excuse me, but that’s a circular definition: the brain makes you a person. Why? Because when you lose it, you’re not a person.
If you lose your nervous system – except for the brain – you’re not a person either, I might claim with as much rationale.
The brain is undoubtedly a critical organ. But other aspects of our bodies are also critical.
We can. But science doesn’t compel a result: science provides information and insight into what is happening in the natural world.
How we define a person is not a matter of scientific fact.
So a tubal pregnancy is a human being to you and one must take care not to kill it deliberately?
Is that what you truly believe?
Because that’s just a belief that has no grounding in science. A tubal pregnancy is not a person anymore than chemical pregnancy is a person. Your argument is a crazed and quite frankly cruel and evil assertion that forces women to undergo needless surgery and lose a body part rather than have far less invasive shots and blood tests. No human being should be denied appropriate medical care because of another person’s deliberate ignorance.
It’s not defensible policy. It’s sexism and nothing more. Were the celibate, stupid old men who run the church to get pregnant, it’s not even a medical process that would be a matter of procedure anywhere. It is utterly disgusting to see you defending this nonsense yet again.
No, counselor, that’s motive, not intent. The ‘why’ you did it, the what he cared about, is motive.
I agree completely.
I just wish you agreed that an embryo was also a human being.
See, this is where you are stuck. I get that you don’t believe it.
You seem to believe that what a “human being” is is somehow a matter of science. But to shore up that belief, you simply keep repeating it, and throwing insulting phrases at me to boot, as though that also strengthens your argument.
I don’t concede to you the power or ability to define what constitutes a human being.
No.
His intent is whatever outcome he wished to occur as a result of his actions. His motive is the REASON he wished for that outcome to occur.
The outcome he wished was no stain on the Church’s reputation.
Did he ALSO wish no prosecution for the priests? I say he didn’t care about that, except to the extent it reflected on the Church. You can say – and have good evidence to support – the claim that he ALSO intended for no prosecutions to occur – that he did care about that,
Only if you ignore the fact that when you lose your brain, you, or rather your body, becomes an inert slab of spoiling meat. And by any reasonable definition, that’s not a person.
I really thought that was too obvious to need to say, but how could I forget your willingness to nitpick practically anything?
And if you contend that an inert slab of spoiling meat IS a person, then please get help.
I provided for that possibility.
Sorry, but I’ve got a law dictionary cite that says you’re wrong.