# Catholic politicians and the RC Church **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 21, 2004, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009 "2004-12-21T18:19:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/61 "2004-12-24T18:26:33Z")
Ah, but that’s the problem with being a scriptural literalist: Someone will invariably trot out contradictory verses that you must either ignore, tortuously interpret–or else agree that the contradicitons make the matter less conclusive than you suggest. For example, Romans 11:22: > [@](#): > > Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off. Or Galatians 5:4 (again, Paul): > [@](#): > > You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. Or 1 Corinthians 9:27 (our buddy Paul again): > [@](#): > > I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified. As noted on the [site](http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0203sbs.asp) where I found this, “this is not the language of ‘once saved always saved.’” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/62 "2004-12-24T18:33:33Z")
Yeah, good ol’ Paul. How might things have been, if Saul of Tarsus had taken that left turn at Alburqueque, and never gotten on the road to Damascus. Guy was a real pain. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/63 "2004-12-24T19:34:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > was a real pain. Well, it’s not a guarantee he was a good prophet, but haven’t most of them met this description? And hey, compared to [Elisha](http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=827) and some of the others, Paul was a paragon of social grace, if a bit stern. ---
**Author:** ![JMS\_CCT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbe5ce/32.png) [@JMS\_CCT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JMS_CCT)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/64 "2004-12-24T22:51:12Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Ah, but that’s the problem with being a scriptural literalist: Someone will invariably trot out contradictory verses that you must either ignore, tortuously interpret–or else agree that the contradicitons make the matter less conclusive than you suggest. For example, Romans 11:22:Or Galatians 5:4 (again, Paul):Or 1 Corinthians 9:27 (our buddy Paul again):As noted on the [site](http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0203sbs.asp) where I found this, “this is not the language of ‘once saved always saved.’” There are no contradictions in the Bible, only apparent contradictions. If one follows the principle of right division (2 Tim. 2:15), considering the context of the scripture in question, these apparent contradictions fall away. The context of Galatians 5 is established in verses 1 & 2: **"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."** This is not about losing one’s salvation; it’s about losing the liberty which that salvation provided these Galatians, which they were, according to Paul, giving up by observing the law. If salvation is what is being lost here, how do you explain what it clearly says in 1 Cor. 3? \*\*10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. 14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 _If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire_. \*\* (1 Cor 3:10-15) The fire is going to burn the bad works, not the individual believer. 1 Cor. 10:23 says: **“all things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient.”** If we are under grace we cannot be condemned by (transgressing)the law (Rom. 8:1); **“for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”** (Gal. 2:21) That which is not expedient (profitable, beneficial), would be doing anything–including going back to the observance of the law–that is contrary to the spirit of grace. The word “grace” in Gal. 5:4, simply means “benefit,” or “blessing.” Those Galatians who were observing the law were fallen from the liberty that made them free, i.e., the blessing of their salvation, but not the salvation itself. There are to many other places that say salvation is disconnected from works for this to be the case (e.g., Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; Romans 3:20-22; 4:4,5; 11:6; Gal. 2:16) Paul put his flesh under subjection so he could finish his course and obtain the “crown of righteousness,” which is “the reward of the inheritance” (Col. 3:24; 1 Tim. 4:7), not salvation. Salvation is of God, through Christ’s work at Calvary. All we must do is receive it. (1 Cor. 15:3; Col. 2:6) From that point on–if we desire to get the reward of the inheritance (which we are already in–by virtue of our salvation), then we must “walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we have been called.” (Eph. 4:1) \*\* “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, _rightly dividing the word of truth_.”\*\* (2 Tim. 2:15) (KJV) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2004, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/65 "2004-12-25T07:59:47Z")
> [@JMS@CCT](#): > > (Ronald Reagan got the UN to acknowledge the Vatican as an official Nation/State) While Reagan did send the first US ambassador to the Holy See, it’s had “permanent observer” status at the UN since 1957 (It probably could have member status, but it wants to maintain neutrality), and Pope Paul VI addressed the UN in 1965, praising its work and calling for an end to war and poverty and for universal recognition of human rights. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2004, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/66 "2004-12-25T12:42:25Z")
> [@JMS@CCT](#): > > There are no contradictions in the Bible, only apparent contradictions. If one follows the principle of right division (2 Tim. 2:15), considering the context of the scripture in question, these apparent contradictions fall away. Ah, I see you’ve chosen tortuous interpretation. All things mean what they literally state, except when they don’t. And I never use the principle of right division when analyzing scripture. I’m partial to the new math. Anyway, Merry Christmas to you as well. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2004, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/67 "2004-12-25T12:48:45Z")
And a Serene Solstice to you as well, friend **Strato**. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2004, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/68 "2004-12-25T12:58:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And a Serene Solstice to you as well, friend **Strato**. God bless us, everyone. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2004, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/69 "2004-12-27T15:15:44Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > But a fetus is human (check the DNA), and it is a distinct, developing entity–a being that is much more than potential. That parenthetical comment always trips me up. Is that, then, the criterion you set for obtaining legal rights? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/70 "2004-12-28T15:14:53Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > That parenthetical comment always trips me up. Is that, then, the criterion you set for obtaining legal rights? > > Daniel No. It serves quite nicely, though, in determining if something is human (in the same way it can confirm that some entity is a tiger or a sea slug or a three-toed sloth). Were you poised to make the, “So, then you must believe that a human hair has legal rights” counter? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/71 "2004-12-28T15:44:19Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > No. It serves quite nicely, though, in determining if something is human (in the same way it can confirm that some entity is a tiger or a sea slug or a three-toed sloth). > > Were you poised to make the, “So, then you must believe that a human hair has legal rights” counter? No, I prefer the, “So, then you must believe that a tumor has legal rights?” counter. I find the chromosomal makeup of a being (or its possible lack of genes) to be wholly irrelevant to whether it deserves rights. If the sentient gasclouds of the Orion Nebula turn out to have self-awareness, desires, fears, a sense of identity over time, and interests, I’ll treat them as possessing rights. To the extent that a fetus lacks these traits, I’ll treat it as not possessing rights. To the extent that a tumor lacks these traits, I’ll treat it as not possessing rights. Like I said, it trips me up. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/72 "2004-12-29T00:54:02Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > No, I prefer the, “So, then you must believe that a tumor has legal rights?” counter. I find the chromosomal makeup of a being (or its possible lack of genes) to be wholly irrelevant to whether it deserves rights. My point was that DNA is actually a very good way of determining whether or not something is human. That’s not controversial, is it? I bring it up when people make statements like, “A fetus is not a human being.” As I stated, you can try to assign rights to different categories of human beings, but that won’t make them something other than human. If that trips you up, oh well. > [@](#): > > If the sentient gasclouds of the Orion Nebula turn out to have self-awareness, desires, fears, a sense of identity over time, and interests, I’ll treat them as possessing rights. To the extent that a fetus lacks these traits, I’ll treat it as not possessing rights. To the extent that a tumor lacks these traits, I’ll treat it as not possessing rights. Does an adult who is temporarily lacking brain activity–a documented though rare circumstance–possess rights? Or could we kill that adult while he was in that state without moral reservation, even if we could be reasonably certain he would regain brain activity? > [@](#): > > Like I said, it trips me up. Maybe. We’ll see. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/73 "2004-12-29T13:50:22Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > My point was that DNA is actually a very good way of determining whether or not something is human. That’s not controversial, is it? Not a bit (assuming you consider tumors to be human)–which is why I didn’t ask you anything about that. I asked you whether you were taking the next step. Let me repeat: > [@](#): > > Is that, then, the criterion you set for obtaining legal rights? Not “is that the criterion you set for being a human.” Very different question. Which you answered with, “no.” What, then, DO you use for determining whether an entity should receive legal rights? > [@](#): > > Does an adult who is temporarily lacking brain activity–a documented though rare circumstance–possess rights? Or could we kill that adult while he was in that state without moral reservation, even if we could be reasonably certain he would regain brain activity? No, of course not, no more than we’re ethically allowed to kill someone while they sleep. The adult who temporarily lacks brain activity has an identity, has desires, has goals, has fears, has interests. She may temporarily lack self-awareness, and her desires, goals, fears, etc. may not be currently expressed, but they existed and they exist and they will most likely continue to exist. A fetus **may** , at some point in the future, have an identity, desires, goals, fears, interests. It has never had them before; it does not have them currently. If you kill the fetus, it never will have them. No **actual** identity is thereby snuffed out; no actual goals are thereby thwarted; no actual interests are thereby squelched. To put it in less metaphysical terms, Bob over here is in a coma, and we’re trying to decide whether to murder him. Let’s see: - Is he self-aware? No. - Does he have an identity? Sure. Bob works as a computer store, and fiddles with computers all the time. He quotes Monty Python movies. He’s in a long-distance relationship with some woman he met over the Internet. He grooves to Rush. - Does he have fears? Sure. Bob is terrified of his dad, and hates that fact. He doesn’t like driving big vehicles. His grandmother is dying of emphysema, and he lives in dread of her eventual death; for this reason, he avoids cigarettes passionately. - Does he have desires? Sure. He desires to be in a physical relationship. He desires to watch good movies. He desires to learn to dance. Then there’s this fetus in Janet’s womb. Let’s see: - Is it self-aware? No. - Does it have an identity? No. - Does it have fears? No. - Does it have desires? No. With Bob, I know what to do. Bob definitely desires to learn to dance. If I kill him, I thwart that desire. I thwart his desire to watch good movies, to be in a physical relationship, to listen to Rush, to meet this long-distant woman. I make it impossible for him to resolve his issues with his dad, to say goodbye to his grandmother. With the fetus, it’s similarly clear. If I kill the fetus, no desires (of the fetus) are thwarted. No interests are squelched. Bob’s coma makes a tiny difference: if I have to choose between Bob’s death and the death of someone not in a coma, all other things being equal, I’d choose Bob’s. But that’s a pretty rare circumstance. While he isn’t currently experiencing any of those fears, desires, etc., they are well-formed. They’ve existed in the past, and it’s very likely that they’ll exist in the future; the fact that the existent desires, fears, etc. are suspended is immaterial. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/74 "2004-12-30T01:49:19Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Not a bit (assuming you consider tumors to be human)–which is why I didn’t ask you anything about that. I asked you whether you were taking the next step. Let me repeat: > > > [@](#): > > > > Is that, then, the criterion you set for obtaining legal rights? Let me repeat. No. > [@](#): > > Not “is that the criterion you set for being a human.” Very different question. Yes, indeed it is. I brought up the DNA point in response to a comment along the lines of, “A fetus is not a human being.” Had I cited this point in reponse to something along the lines of, “Where is the undisputed boundary that marks legal rights,” that would have invited comments asking whether tumors or stray hairs possess rights. > [@](#): > > What, then, DO you use for determining whether an entity should receive legal rights? Depends upon the legal right. > [@](#): > > No, of course not, no more than we’re ethically allowed to kill someone while they sleep. The adult who temporarily lacks brain activity has an identity, has desires, has goals, has fears, has interests. She may temporarily lack self-awareness, and her desires, goals, fears, etc. may not be currently expressed, but they existed and they exist and they will most likely continue to exist. No, I’m sorry they do _not_ exist. By definition. I’m not referring to a comatose patient. I refer to situations where a person temporarily loses _all_ brain activity–i.e., he is a “flat-liner.” Certain people rescued from severe hypothermia, for example, have been in this condition, then regained brain functions. But while his brain activity was absent, that person simply lacked the capacity for desires, to conceptualize a goal, to fear anything at all, to hold an interest in anything. During this period, the patient cannot desire to learn to dance. He has no knowledge of any long-term relationship. As far as his brain activity goes, he is simply a mass of cells with the potential for future sentience. That’s all. He **may** , at some point in the future, have an identity, desires, goals, fears, interests. He has none at the moment. > [@](#): > > They’ve existed in the past, and it’s very likely that they’ll exist in the future; the fact that the existent desires, fears, etc. are suspended is immaterial. Wait, is the presence of some form of brain activity a requirement for rights, or isn’t it? Remember your position: > [@](#): > > If the sentient gasclouds of the Orion Nebula turn out to have self-awareness, desires, fears, a sense of identity over time, and interests, I’ll treat them as possessing rights. To the extent that a fetus lacks these traits, I’ll treat it as not possessing rights. Sorry, but your position seems as incoherent as Senator Kerry’s. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/75 "2004-12-30T13:59:55Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I brought up the DNA point in response to a comment along the lines of, “A fetus is not a human being.” Fair enough–but I think you misunderstood the person you were responding to. They weren’t suggesting that a fetus isn’t a human being; they were suggesting that there’s very little that’s **human** about a fetus. The adjective’s definitions include such phrases as: > [@dictionary.com](#): > > Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race. > Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness. > Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he’s only human; human frailty. Conflating the metaphorical with the genetic is your mistake, not mine. > [@](#): > > No, I’m sorry they do _not_ exist. By definition. I’m not referring to a comatose patient. I refer to situations where a person temporarily loses _all_ brain activity–i.e., he is a “flat-liner.” Certain people rescued from severe hypothermia, for example, have been in this condition, then regained brain functions. No, I’m sorry, they **do** exist. You missed Bob, didn’t you? Even if Bob is legally brain-dead, I can tell you specifically what fears, desires, beliefs, interests, and so forth he’ll have when his brain resumes activity. Those specific neural pathways are established in his brain. They are not established in a fetus’s brain, so I can tell you almost nothing about the fetus’s potential fears, desires, beliefs, and interests if the fetus brain at some point in the future regains activity. Yes, Bob can’t learn to dance **now**. But we know that he wanted to, and that he will want to if he resumes brain functioning. Again, the patterns are set for Bob. The patterns for a fetus are **nonexistent**. > [@](#): > > Sorry, but your position seems as incoherent as Senator Kerry’s. Snarky insult for snarky insult: your wllful lack of understanding does not equal incoherence on my or Kerry’s part. Now that we’re square, I’ll lay off the insults if you will. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/76 "2004-12-30T21:38:43Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Fair enough–but I think you misunderstood the person you were responding to. They weren’t suggesting that a fetus isn’t a human being; they were suggesting that there’s very little that’s **human** about a fetus. The adjective’s definitions include such phrases as: > > Conflating the metaphorical with the genetic is your mistake, not mine. I am conflating nothing, though you seem very much to want me to take a position I have specifically disavowed. I am not assigning a human personality to a fetus. I am saying that to assert that a fetus is absent of anything human is flat out a mistatement, in that the friggin’ little guy is, well, a human. I have clarified this for the last time. > [@](#): > > No, I’m sorry, they **do** exist. You missed Bob, didn’t you? Even if Bob is legally brain-dead, I can tell you specifically what fears, desires, beliefs, interests, and so forth he’ll have when his brain resumes activity. Those specific neural pathways are established in his brain. They are not established in a fetus’s brain, so I can tell you almost nothing about the fetus’s potential fears, desires, beliefs, and interests if the fetus brain at some point in the future regains activity. Listen, the forms of certain verbs here are key to the particular debate we’re having, given your original assertion. Bob _was_ conscious. He is currently without consciousness. Bob _desired_ certain things. He currently desires nothing–indeed, he lacks the the capacity to desire anything. This is not a trivial point. He currently lacks anything resembling a personality, your ability to predict what he will want when he regains consciousness notwithstanding. He is a mass of cells, with brain activity comparable to the pre-sentient gasclouds of the Orion Nebula. If he never regained brain activity, would you consider him worthy of rights? If not, why, considering the fact that we know what he used to like and need? And, BTW, why would the ability to predict what he’ll want be important? Can you elaborate? A fetus will almost invariably develop specific wants, needs, and aspirations. The fact we don’t know the specifics of these things is important, why? Suppose a test could predict accurately from the fetus’s DNA (there’s that pesky DNA again) his likes and propensities. Would that change the fetus’s status somehow? > [@](#): > > Yes, Bob can’t learn to dance **now**. But we know that he wanted to, and that he will want to if he resumes brain functioning. Again, the patterns are set for Bob. The patterns for a fetus are **nonexistent**. No, there are patterns present in his DNA and developing brain (depending upon which fetus you’re considering) that would (if we could discern them) undoubtedly and inexorably lead to certain characteristics specific to this entity. > [@](#): > > Snarky insult for snarky insult: your wllful lack of understanding does not equal incoherence on my or Kerry’s part. Now that we’re square, I’ll lay off the insults if you will. No snarkiness intended on my part. I’m sorry, but your argument seems incoherent when you hold this position… > [@](#): > > If the sentient gasclouds of the Orion Nebula turn out to have self-awareness, desires, fears, a sense of identity over time, and interests, I’ll treat them as possessing rights. To the extent that a fetus lacks these traits, I’ll treat it as not possessing rights. …and simultaneously hold that a “brain dead” adult, who also lacks these traits, does possess rights. You then concede that the adult does indeed lack these attributes _now_, but since we know what they’ll be when he regains consciousness, that somehow gives him rights that exist even given your concession. So, my comment on your argument was nothing personal; I simply find your positions impossible to reconcile. Perhaps you can convince me otherwise, but you haven’t yet. Your ad hominem attack, however, was personal. It was also beneath the argument you were making, one that I was enjoying being a part of. (Notice how I _willfully_ ended that last sentence with a preposition. The horror continues.) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/77 "2004-12-30T21:54:42Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I am conflating nothing, though you seem very much to want me to take a position I have specifically disavowed. I am not assigning a human personality to a fetus. I am saying that to assert that a fetus is absent of anything human is flat out a mistatement, in that the friggin’ little guy is, well, a human. I have clarified this for the last time. …hopefully because you just realized that you’re attacking a straw man, and that nobody disagrees with the DNA of the fetus, and that nobody was claiming the fetus lacks human DNA; they just deny that DNA has much to do with the relevant definition of “human.” Hope springs eternal. > [@](#): > > Listen, the forms of certain verbs here are key to the particular debate we’re having, given your original assertion. Bob _was_ conscious. He is currently without consciousness. Bob _desired_ certain things. He currently desires nothing–indeed, he lacks the the capacity to desire anything. This is not a trivial point. He currently lacks anything resembling a personality, your ability to predict what he will want when he regains consciousness notwithstanding. He is a mass of cells, with brain activity comparable to the pre-sentient gasclouds of the Orion Nebula. If he never regained brain activity, would you consider him worthy of rights? If not, why, considering the fact that we know what he used to like and need? It all depends on what the definition of “is” is, huh? Okay, I can work with that. If we know for a certainty that Bob will never regain brain activity, then no, Bob no longer has any rights whatsoever. What desire of his can we possibly violate at this point? We can’t violate his desire to learn to dance, because that existent desire is already violated by virtue of his never waking up. And so forth. But if we don’t know that, then we CAN violate these existent desires. Again, those neural pathways are there: they’re likely to start back up again. They’re suspended right now. It’s no different from if I were able to stop time with a Twilight Zone stopwatch: I certainly wouldn’t be thereby granted the right to go on a killing spree, just because the existent desires were suspended. There is a difference between suspended and nonexistent that seems to be escaping you and leading you to see a contradiction where none exists. Jamie over here is suspended from Anderson High School for a week. Her teachers prepare for her return, and well they should: she’s been to specific classes, she’s got a schedule, she’s got goals. Frank here has never been to Anderson High School, and his family is still deciding whether to move to that district. His parents aren’t preparing for his arrival, and rightly so: they don’t know whether they’ll ever have him as a student at all. They only need to prepare for his arrival once they know he’ll be coming, and at that point their preparation is very different from that for Jamie, since Frank will come in a blank slate without class schedule, goals, etc. Do you see the difference between a suspended student’s schedule and a potential student’s schedule? Do you see how the teachers need to take Jamie’s schedule into account but not Frank’s? Thus it is with a person in a coma versus a fetus. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/78 "2004-12-30T22:00:07Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > So, my comment on your argument was nothing personal; I simply find your positions impossible to reconcile. Perhaps you can convince me otherwise, but you haven’t yet. Your ad hominem attack, however, was personal. On the contrary: I believe your lack of understanding is willful, and I believe you’re searching for a way to shoot down an argument instead of considering it fairly. Your protestations of your own innocence ring hollow and disingenuous. Have the courage of your snark at least. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/79 "2004-12-30T22:06:08Z")
Sorry, you found me out. You’re just too much to me. Excuse me while I run sobbing to my bedroom in shame. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/80 "2004-12-30T22:07:58Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Sorry, you found me out. You’re just too much to me. Excuse me while I run sobbing to my bedroom in shame. Well, THAT makes a lot of sense. Tragically, I’m about to go on vacation, so I’ll be away from the boards for a week. Cheers, all! Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009.md?page=5)