Keeping in mind that the question is: “What is a person?” what evidence have you for your claim?
And this is why debates about the personhood of the fetus, as opposed to the rights of the woman, are pointless.
But debates about how to deal with the consequences of it being strictly a matter of faith and belief are very much to the point. That does not include, however, a “debate” based on holding one’s own strictly-faith-based POV to be a simple fact, and others to be flatly “wrong”, as the Believer in question insists in doing.
Brain activity.
Yeah, yeah, and then the counter-response is whether or not a brain-dead accident victim can be casually disconnected from a ventilator.
Dissolve the embryo with a chemical = killing it.
Taking out a section of fallopian tube that doesn’t need taken out = killing it.
And you get a side order of harming the woman. You can’t argue the tube is the primary target of the surgery since without an embryo in it, the tube would not be futzed with.
I’ll have to admit I’m a little curious about just what women are supposed to do if they get an ectopic pregnancy in their abdominal cavity. Have their innards called “diseased” and yanked out?
Oh well. I’m done. Call me a pessimist, but I think all of the “justifications” for mutilating women and forcing them to risk their lives for doomed embryos have already been given.
I guess Bricker never learned the phrase, “actions speak louder than words.” It is the ACTIONS of the church that have shown just WHY people are so fucking furious.
Shot From Guns – nope, wasn’t me.
This has all made me more determined than ever to avoid a Catholic hospital for any gynecological issues. (I see my neurologist at one, but that’s it)
I thought it was only men who had their brain there
Too late to edit:
aruvqan, that’s extremely horrifying and disturbing – my condolences, even at this late time. How disgusting! (The attitudes of the church, NOT the actual procedure)
ETA: Angry Lurker – ha ha. That was really lame. 
Congratulations Sampiro!
You’re the millionth!
The millionth doper to misquote Matthew 15 in righteous indignation. Perhaps theres a coffee mug or other prize from Ed.
Got anything better? Or just laaaaaaaaaaaame snark?
My case exactly. My parents are still practicing Catholics, and most of my relatives too. There was anyone who convinced me to leave the church (then become an Atheist), it was the Church itself who drove me out. For a long time after that I really tried to believe, and even tried to “go back”. I couldn’t.
I have the distinct feeling that the RCC’s days in LA (as an important force) are fewer than my life expectancy. Chile, the most fiercely Catholic country in the continent elected an Atheist woman for president, that tells you where the winds are blowing.
Uhh, no.
But…should Sampiro not wish to correct me, and you’re game, I’d consider you a worthy surrogate.
Whaddayasay?
No question that brain activity is not present in an embryo.
But on what basis do you declare that brain activity is a sine qua non of personhood?
I’ll play, but before I can “correct” you it is incumbent upon you to explain exactly why Matthew 15 is “misquoted”.
I thought the Pit was too “uncivilized” for you? :rolleyes:
It’s worse than that. The dividing line for him between absolute fealty and leaving the organization entirely has nothing to do with what they do, but only in what they say they do. Only the words matter to him, not the deeds.
I’m fixated on biological truth.
Don’t try to teach me biology, please; I know enough for this debate. Viability may be important for others things, not for rights. Natural actions are morally neutral, so to non-omplantation of a fertlised egg (i.e. a person) results in its death.
The care afforded is analogous to giving the accused all sorts of rights instead of getting the guy in prison first and checking 20 years later. This often leads to pain and suffering for others people, yet we still do it.
There is no killing, so the riddle is wrong from the beginning. You apparently still don’t get the difference (and importance) between killing and being incapable to save a life. If we had artificial wombs we should use them.
“She’s only a woman” is your phrase.
Caring for the defenceless, for the dieing, for those who would not survive is only cruelty in your eyes.
Once more so you can understand, there is no biological reason for your statements. EP is a baby, unless personhood depends on the “geographical” position. Two centimetres to the left and your are not a person.
HMs are more complicated than my knowlege of Canon Law allows me to give answer, but staying with the general principle, if it is clearly a group of cells that’s no developing into what it should but something more akin to a tumour, then personhood/humanity would not be an issue.
Unless you’re batised, there would be no Anointment of the Sick. I’d guess death would happen too quickly unless baptism could be done immediately (it could).
There is a provision in canon law
The short answer is yes. They are not common, however.
“Nibbana?”
Is that a typo, or did you get your knowledge of Buddhism from transcripts of The Prakash and Andy Radio Hour?
I’ll let Bricker answer, but, here’s a secret, Google is your friend.