# Fuck the Motherfucking Pope **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 20, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182 "2010-05-20T21:15:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 36
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/701 "2010-05-27T15:16:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > True dat. > > But I guess I’m suggesting that there’s a somewhat wide gulf between, “We believe he’s in a persistent vegetative state and will never recover,” and “We believe his brain was removed and processed by a Cuisinart.” True, but just for precision’s sake, someone in a persistent vegetative state isn’t brain-dead. > [@](#): > > In other words, you seem eager to brush aside the “rare” cases of “it looked like brain death but wasn’t.” I’m not, because when the stakes are so high, to err on the side of utmost caution seems obvious. Except that this isn’t a high-stakes issue _relative to this debate_. There is no debate in this thread over when to pull the plug on people. The only question is, if your brain has ceased to have any functionality whatsoever, are ‘you’ there anymore? That’s why I dispensed with language like ‘cessation of brain activity’ which you seemed to want to hair-split over, and talked about scooping out the brain and pureeing it instead. I thought of going there in the first place, but thought, “no, that’s gross.” But since non-gross language didn’t seem to get the point across that I was simply saying that once there’s no functional difference between a person’s brain and a bowl of Jell-O, we would all agree that there’s no person present, I went to the more graphic terminology. > [@](#): > > But for the record, I agree with you that a once-living individual whose brain has been removed and pureed is no longer a live person. Good. That’s all we have to agree on, with respect to end of life and personhood. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/702 "2010-05-27T15:29:57Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > The point still stands–and you have conceded–that the brain is the seat of personhood in the body. So why you can accept that someone whose brain has been irreparably damaged is not a person, but not that someone who doesn’t yet have a functioning brain also is not a person, is beyond me. Many things are beyond you. For the sake of your salvation, I hope that some of the more important ones manage to seat themselves in your consciousness someday. As to this point: is someone who doesn’t now have a functioning brain, but will in the future, a person? As I understand your position the answer is: _yes_, unless it’s an unborn child that hasn’t yet developed a brain, in which case, _no_. And if, indeed, your definition of personhood is what you claim, I’d be curious to know your position on late-term, “partial-birth” abortion? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/703 "2010-05-27T16:10:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Many things are beyond you. > > For the sake of your salvation, I hope that some of the more important ones manage to seat themselves in your consciousness someday. I’m impressed with your ability to convey stuffiness and a sense of looking down one’s nose in the name of the Lord. > [@](#): > > As to this point: is someone who doesn’t now have a functioning brain, but will in the future, a person? No, they’re not yet ‘some **one**.’ > [@](#): > > As I understand your position the answer is: _yes_, unless it’s an unborn child that hasn’t yet developed a brain, in which case, _no_. I’m not **Shot From Guns** , but I’m a consistent No on this. > [@](#): > > And if, indeed, your definition of personhood is what you claim, I’d be curious to know your position on late-term, “partial-birth” abortion? I don’t have a position. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have anything to add to the discussion. First of all, late-term and partial-birth abortions aren’t synonymous. Second, I’d note the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. A functioning brain is a _necessary_ condition for personhood. What’s sufficient? Damned if I know. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/704 "2010-05-27T16:21:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Many things are beyond you. > > For the sake of your salvation, I hope that some of the more important ones manage to seat themselves in your consciousness someday. And you know better, how? :dubious: For the sake of YOUR salvation, I hope you can someday understand how you’ve been supporting child rape. For the moment, that appears to be beyond YOU. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/705 "2010-05-27T16:41:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > For the sake of your salvation, I hope that some of the more important ones manage to seat themselves in your consciousness someday. For the sake of your enjoying life to its fullest, since this is all we get, I hope you apply those logical skills you seem to think you have to your religion some day, and realize that you’re subscribing to a very eloquent pack of lies. Well, okay, there are three possibilities for God in the Christian sense: God is irrelevant, God is an asshole, or God doesn’t exist. I prefer the lattermost. > [@](#): > > As to this point: is someone who doesn’t now have a functioning brain, but will in the future, a person? > > As I understand your position the answer is: _yes_, unless it’s an unborn child that hasn’t yet developed a brain, in which case, _no_. Those two things are not equivalent. Regaining something you once had, but temporarily lost access to, is not the same as gaining something for the first time. When you block the reinstitution, something is lost. When you block the inception, nothing is lost. > [@](#): > > And if, indeed, your definition of personhood is what you claim, I’d be curious to know your position on late-term, “partial-birth” abortion? Loaded terms. Define each and give concrete examples of the contexts in which they occur. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/706 "2010-05-27T16:44:28Z")
[For reference:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion#.22Partial-birth_abortion.22) > [@](#): > > The term “partial-birth abortion” is primarily used in political discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States.[6] The term is not recognized as a medical term by the American Medical Association[7] nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.[8] This term was first suggested in 1995 by Congressman Charles T. Canady, while developing the original proposed Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.[9][10] According to Keri Folmar, the lawyer responsible for the bill’s language, the term was developed in early 1995 in a meeting among herself, Charles T. Canady, and National Right to Life Committee lobbyist Douglas Johnson.[11] Canady could not find this particular abortion practice named in any medical textbook, and therefore he and his aides named it.[12] “Partial-birth abortion” was first used in the media on 4 June 1995 in a Washington Times article covering the bill.[13] **Bricker** must know better. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/707 "2010-05-27T17:08:03Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > A fertilized embryo to be implanted in a uterus is outside the body. If location is the only criterion, why can those be disposed of without consequences? After all, they’re human and alive. Well, they _can_ (and often are) disposed of without consequences, though I think the point is to implant at least some of them into the body of the woman who is paying for the procedure. In other words… what’s your point? > [@](#): > > Again, not sure why you’re addressing any of this to me. I address who I feel like addressing. I’ve addressed Bricker a few times, but I think he’s ignoring me at this point. > [@](#): > > None of these are things I would disagree with, except to question why birth is necessarily your criterion for #2. Well, it’s a fairly significant and unmistakable benchmark. Doctors can analyze fetal brainwave patterns and lawmakers try to bash together some kind of legal framework, but inside/outside is a much clearer demarcation and as stages of pregnancy go, birth is pretty unarbitrary. > [@](#): > > It seems a very arbitrary point to start treating someone as a human being, such that a baby delivered prematurely at 30 weeks could have more rights and be considered more of a person than one that’s a few days from popping out at the nine-month mark. I’m okay with the distinction you describe, where rights only attach when you detach, as it were. If I had to accept a political compromise like “no elective abortions in the third trimester”, I guess I could. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/708 "2010-05-27T17:12:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And if, indeed, your definition of personhood is what you claim, I’d be curious to know your position on late-term, “partial-birth” abortion? Wow, you’ve actually resorted to asking about “partial birth” abortion? I always had that pegged as an act of desperation, picking something that (one hopes) will shock the senses. Surely you realize that extreme cases lead to bad decisions in law and policy, or are real-world results to be thoroughly abandoned at this point? ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/709 "2010-05-27T17:18:31Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > In other words… what’s your point? My point is, if \*location \*is your criterion for when it’s okay to kill an undeveloped thing that may turn into a person, why is it okay to kill a fertilized egg that’s outside of the mother’s body and therefore no threat to it? > [@](#): > > I’ve addressed Bricker a few times, but I think he’s ignoring me at this point. That’s because you raise points that are inconvenient to him. > [@](#): > > Well, [birth is] a fairly significant and unmistakable benchmark. Sure it is. That doesn’t make it a \*good \*one. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/710 "2010-05-27T17:33:00Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > My point is, if \*location \*is your criterion for when it’s okay to kill an undeveloped thing that may turn into a person, why is it okay to kill a fertilized egg that’s outside of the mother’s body and therefore no threat to it? Ah. I understand. So I guess now I have to add a qualifier recognizing a difference between a newborn and a pre-implantation fetrilized ovum. That’s no great burden, since I try (most of the time) to stay in the real world. > [@](#): > > Sure it is. That doesn’t make [birth] a _good_ [benchmark]. If you’ve got a better one in mind, don’t hesitate. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/711 "2010-05-27T17:45:00Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > If you’ve got a better one in mind, don’t hesitate. I’d go with viability–not as the benchmark of personhood, but as the main criterion for when the rights of the fetus start to be more balanced with the rights of the mother. If it could survive outside of the womb, assuming that it can get to that position without undue risk to the life and limb of the mother, why not give it that chance? Of course, viability is also linked to medical technology. It’s conceivable that at some point in the future, a zygote could be considered viable. So we could tie viability into brain development at the threshold after which a reasonable attempt could be extended to preserve the life of the fetus. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/712 "2010-05-27T17:46:02Z")
I wonder what the Catholic view of synthetic life is? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/713 "2010-05-27T17:50:46Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I’d go with viability–not as the benchmark of personhood, but as the main criterion for when the rights of the fetus start to be more balanced with the rights of the mother. Well, define “more balanced”. At what point (if any) can the state declare the fetus’s rights trump the mother’s, which means she’s no longer in full control of medical decisions that affect her body? ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/714 "2010-05-27T18:06:59Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, define “more balanced”. At what point (if any) can the state declare the fetus’s rights trump the mother’s, which means she’s no longer in full control of medical decisions that affect her body? The problem is that abortion is a medical decision that affects not only your own body, _but someone else’s_. Now, for a good portion of the pregnancy, that “someone else” isn’t a person, so your needs are absolutely paramount. At some point, though, that fetus crosses a murky threshold into being a person in its own right. There’s no truly comparable situation; the closest thing would be conjoined twins. Is one twin allowed to make medical decisions for the whole body? What about a decision for their side of the body that would result in the death of the other twin? Obviously the situation isn’t a perfect parallel. But post-birth babies are dependent on their parents for support in much the same way as before they were born: they’re just not physically connected to anyone anymore. And while you may decide to give up the responsibility of caring for that child, there are procedures that must be followed to ensure the child is cared for by someone else in your place. So, in the same way that we’re not allowed to dump a newborn into a garbage can, I’m uncomfortable with the idea of being allowed to terminate a fetus that would be viable outside of the womb instead of delivering it through the birth canal that you seem to think magically imbues people with rights. ETA: I am “in full control” of my fists. But my right to swing them around ends at your nose. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/715 "2010-05-27T18:35:56Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > The problem is that abortion is a medical decision that affects not only your own body, _but someone else’s_. Now, for a good portion of the pregnancy, that “someone else” isn’t a person, so your needs are absolutely paramount. At some point, though, that fetus crosses a murky threshold into being a person in its own right. There’s no truly comparable situation; the closest thing would be conjoined twins. Is one twin allowed to make medical decisions for the whole body? What about a decision for their side of the body that would result in the death of the other twin? Well, I could respond with other analogies involving trespassers and such, but if we agree that pregnancy is unique, then they’re all irrelevant. I think we should ignore the murk and if a few viable late-term fetuses get aborted, that’s the price of defending women’s rights, an important issue in itself. > [@](#): > > Obviously the situation isn’t a perfect parallel. But post-birth babies are dependent on their parents for support in much the same way as before they were born: they’re just not physically connected to anyone anymore. And if the parents no longer wish to provide that support, there are mechanisms in place for them to transfer the responsibility to someone else. Personally, I think it’s a bad idea to trap anyone in a situation from which there is no possible escape. Even convicted criminals serving life sentences have the (remote) possibility of release through pardons and commutations. > [@](#): > > And while you may decide to give up the responsibility of caring for that child, there are procedures that must be followed to ensure the child is cared for by someone else in your place. I have no problem with a few minor hoop-jumps in the process, though in practice I’d like to keep things simple in recognition of the difficulty of the situation, hence “safe haven” laws. > [@](#): > > So, in the same way that we’re not allowed to dump a newborn into a garbage can, I’m uncomfortable with the idea of being allowed to terminate a fetus that would be viable outside of the womb instead of delivering it through the birth canal that you seem to think magically imbues people with rights. Oh, that’s lovely. It doesn’t matter what reasoning or statistics I can bring to the argument, since apparently I “seem to think” magic is involved. Anyway, your discomfort is not enough, I figure, to deprive others of their rights though I’d compromise (if I had to) to mollify you. No elective abortions in the third trimester. Is that satisfactory? > [@](#): > > ETA: I am “in full control” of my fists. But my right to swing them around ends at your nose. If I’m inside your body at the time, swing away. If the situation were reversed, I’d want the right to make that choice. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/716 "2010-05-27T18:49:20Z")
You know, I’m starting to swing to allowing infanticide, just to piss the Pope off. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/717 "2010-05-27T18:59:25Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I think we should ignore the murk and if a few viable late-term fetuses get aborted, that’s the price of defending women’s rights, an important issue in itself. Not all rights are equal. One might argue that life is the most important right of all, for without it, all others are moot. So, IMO, at the point at which it’s viable, the fetus’s right to be delivered and live trumps the mother’s right to not have to go through a delivery just 'cause she didn’t want to–not when she’s had ~6 months before that to terminate the pregnancy. Just as she can’t give birth and then suddenly decide she doesn’t want the baby and dispose of it into a trash can instead of at a location designed for such things. > [@](#): > > And if the parents no longer wish to provide that support, there are mechanisms in place for them to transfer the responsibility to someone else. Personally, I think it’s a bad idea to trap anyone in a situation from which there is no possible escape. Which is why my cutoff is _viability_. If the fetus is at a viable stage, instead of getting an abortion, the woman can choose to induce labor at that point. If the baby lives or dies after that, it at least has the chance. No one is trapped into anything. Her mechanism for escaping the pregnancy is abortion up to the point of viability, and after that point removing the fetus from the womb in a way that doesn’t immediately kill it. > [@](#): > > Oh, that’s lovely. It doesn’t matter what reasoning or statistics I can bring to the argument, since apparently I “seem to think” magic is involved. Well, as I see it, there’s no substantive change to the baby as it moves through the birth canal, that it somehow goes from having no rights on one side to having full rights on the other. > [@](#): > > No elective abortions in the third trimester. Is that satisfactory? Is that the current viability cutoff? That would work for me. And with a broad definition of “medically necessary,” so that a woman who’d be genuinely put into danger by delivery or C-section wouldn’t have to jump through ridiculous hoops to prove it. > [@](#): > > If I’m inside your body at the time, swing away. If the situation were reversed, I’d want the right to make that choice. If I see someone open my door and dump you unconscious in my living room, am I allowed to shoot you in the head for trespassing when you didn’t enter of your own volition and cannot leave unaided? ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/718 "2010-05-27T19:37:37Z")
So, no reply then? If life is holy due to some mysterious process, then can human synthesised life be holy? What is the Catholic position on this, or do we wait for some Copernican apology? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/719 "2010-05-27T19:39:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Wow, you’ve actually resorted to asking about “partial birth” abortion? I always had that pegged as an act of desperation, picking something that (one hopes) will shock the senses. Surely you realize that extreme cases lead to bad decisions in law and policy, or are real-world results to be thoroughly abandoned at this point? I don’t quite understand this objection. It seems to me that if our law and policy won’t prevent undesirable extreme cases like this, we should continue to work on our law and policy. Or are you saying that because it happens so rarely, we can simply ignore it as we formulate policy? Because that doesn’t seem to be the rule applied to discussing rape and incest-related abortions. I don’t recall you, or anyone, caviling over rarity as we discussed the pregnant nine-year-old victim of rape. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/720 "2010-05-27T19:40:50Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > So, no reply then? If life is holy due to some mysterious process, then can human synthesised life be holy? > > What is the Catholic position on this, or do we wait for some Copernican apology? I don’t know. What is “synthesized life?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182.md?page=37)