Fuck the Motherfucking Pope

The BBQ Pit
581

Well, how about this: once an already-born human being is deprived of his/her brain matter, or otherwise ceases brain activity, that person becomes an ex-person.

That’s a hard, cold fact about the connection between brain activity and personhood.

I suppose one could argue that even though persons aren’t present after their brain activity takes its leave, that somehow persons are present before their brain activity commences.

But that’s based on nothing except the wanting of it to be so, and one could just as solidly argue that persons are present before their bodies come into being, too, and that failure to conceive a child at the appropriate time (“not tonight, dear, I have a headache”) deprives these persons of corporeal existence, leaving them forever wandering in some pre-body limbo. Hell, there are lots of things one could argue with equal foundation, once one accepts the notion that only cessation, but not commencement, of brain activity has any relation to the beginning or end of the experience of personhood in this world.

582

That’s the Pali spelling of the word. Look it up – there are only about 300,000 Google hits for the word. Theravada Buddhism, with which I am most familar, often uses the Pali words for basic concepts. The Tipitaka is written in Pali.

583

Matthew 15 is of particular interest to me because I have never seen it used when it did anything but make the exact opposite point of the point the poster was making. In other words, it buttresses the counterargument.

And your post was the same, IMV. You said, “Whatever canon law is, didn’t Jesus Christ” …“repeatedly preach practicing the spirit of the law rather than blind adherence to the letter of the law?”

Yet the only reasonable conclusion we can make from this account is that Jesus was making a case----at the very least---- for adherence to the law, if not a blind adherence of the law.

Look at the account: It’s clear the Jesus is angling for this discussion when his disciples eat without ceremoniously washing their hands. The exact parallel account of this incident (with additional detail) can be found at **Mark 7. ** In verses 2-4 of that chapter it describes an elaborate routine practiced by the sanctimonious Jews of ceremonial hand washing.

Except it was not required by the Law Code.

So Jesus was ready for the rebuke that not following that tradition would bring, and the discussion that was to follow.

And what followed?

In Matt 15:3 he begins by asking why they *“overstep the commandment of God because of your traditions?” *; and gives us an example in verse 4. As you know the Jews would have been well acquainted with thew admonishment to “honor their mother and father.” (Which we would identify as Ex 20:12, and De 5:16) “Honoring” one’s mother and father would certainly involve providing for them materially if needed.

Yet the Pharisees/Sadducees added amendments to many of the laws in the Law Code, many of which became tradition.

In this case, as Jesus noted, they added the exception that any material resources that they may “honor” their parents with were exempt if they had been designated as “gifts to God.” (read it: Matt 15:1-4)

Was this the case in Matthew 15?:

The Law Code: Honor your mother and father. (EX 20:12/ DE 5:16, and interestingly reaffirmed by Paul without exceptions at Eph 6:2)

**The Pharisees/Sadducees application of the Law Code: ** Honor your mother and father, ***unless *** those resources were dedicated to God as gifts, although they remain in your possession and you continue to enjoy the use of them. (Matt 15:5)

They were not being rebuked for blind adherence of the Law. They were being rebuked for not following the Law at all! They were being rebuked for gaming the Law. They were being rebuked for paying lip service to the Law, and yet adding layer after layer of self serving amendments that after many years had become tradition.

So look what Jesus actually said at Matt 15:8: 8" 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men." (NIV highlighting mine)

**“Their teachings are but rules taught by men.” **Jesus wasn’t rebuking them for blind adherance of the Law but that their self serving “rules” had invalidated the Law.

The SBMD scholarly message that an enlightened Christian must step outside the rules to do good, as if the rules act as an encumbrance to doing good, is simply not reflected in this text.

Look above; which had the “greater good”; the Law Code as written, or the same Law as amended by the Jews? The Law Code, plain and simple.

I think it’s an overreach to say that Jesus was making a case for “blind adherence to the Law”, but he sure was making a case for actually following the Actual Law Code; encumbered by man made tradition, self serving amendments, and ritualistic ceremony.

Jesus rightfully called them hypocrites. He was making a case of following the rules, unvarnished by man made interference.

584

Indeed.

I lurk from time to time, and post here, however seldom.

What you won’t find me doing, is coming here shrieking names and other nonsense.

585

Yeah, Nibbana… Leela’s pet on Futurama.

586

A lengthier response when I have more time to research, but-

Jesus was referring to Jewish law. IF your version is correct, Jewish law does not explicitly condemn abortion, and in fact when fetuses are mentioned at all it is clear that causing the death of a fetus is not murder; a man who causes a woman to miscarry must pay a fine, but it is not a capital crime. Further, Jewish law is clear that it is no sin to abort a child when not to do so would endanger the mother’s life, and this was the case with the woman whose abortion would authorize.
Therefore, since Catholic Canon Law is NOT Jewish law but laws that were added by tradition centuries later, would Jesus not still in Matthew 15 condemn blind adherence to this particular law?

587

The clear condemnation of abortion is only 60 years after Jesus died.
There is no “blind adherence” to a law that says “don’t kill innocent babies”.

588

Nonsense.

I’ve seen my own fertilized eggs. Eight cells three of them without fragmentation inserted into my own uterus with the help of a doctor and a nurse.

You know what it was?

It was two weeks of hell followed by the beta of 24 that did not rise in the next two weeks. It was the huge blood clots that streamed out of me and caused cramps so bad I was on the floor at 3 a.m. grasping for the Ibuprofen. It was my little girl who asked me why she didn’t have a brother or sister like her friend Leah or her friend Caitlyn or Emma up the block.

In short it was nothing at all. And all the wishes of Catholic church officials and five hundred begging prayers said to god while I wanted to curse his name can’t change that fact.

Enough already. A fertilized egg is not a person. People who can’t tell the difference between a human being and an embryo turn make a mockery of all human beings.

589

Were you trying to make a biological point or an emotional one?
It is not a blod clot, since blod clots are made of platelets and fibrinogen. Any blood or clots came from you.
So you saw the eggs and what…you draw a biological conclusion there? A personhood conclusion? “My post in my cite” is it your position?
Had it been painless would it have been different? Had it been successful?
How can you tell the difference? What are your criteria? Is it simply shape? size? convenience?
Those 30k go to the Pope, of course.

590

So your point is that a chemical pregnancy is a person?

:rolleyes:

That is the scientific term, BTW. You know since we’re discussing actual biological terms and not what some men who adhere to a religion believe or assert.

It was a late period and nothing more. A very common experience where many woman don’t even know they’re pregnant. It was not a human being. It was a clump of cells. Why is that so hard to understand or admit?

The Catholic church stance makes me batshit insane on this one. Many fertilized eggs are not people. They fail to implant in the uterine wall. Or they fail to stay attached. Or they don’t attach in the first place. Or they don’t have the right structure and the woman winds up with a later miscarriage.

Polycarp was correct. Pilpul indeed. Legalistic, idiotic, useless, santimonious hairsplitting that ultimately does nothing at all other than indicate the person in question wants to feel good about themselves and their allegedly superior morality.

591

You were pregnant and had a miscarriage; I’m sorry for your loss.
The term refers not to the personhood/humanity status of the embryo/clot, it refers to the method by which the pregnancy is detected.
Was it a clump of cells or a blood clot? at least get your story right.
You definition of person seems to be ex post facto, you need to pass some sort of biological hurdles (e.g. implantation) before you get it.
A late period is not the same as an early miscarriage, they are two biologically/physiologically different things.
There is nothing legalistic about defening the innocent.

592

raindog, it looks like Sampiro has your dogmatic bullshit tied up pretty well. You, apparently, will never admit it, but that’s OK. I’ve dealt with true believers my whole life. You people lack the ability to surprise me with your delusions. Have a nice day.

593

What about about that innocent woman who would have DIED had she not had an abortion?
What about the case of the fucking NINE-YEAR-OLD GIRL, raped by her stepfather, pregnant with twins, and when her family procured an illegal abortion for her, her mother, AND the medical staff involved WERE ALL EXCOMMUNICATED???

So don’t talk to ME about “defending the innocent.”
Apparently to the Catholic Church, life begins at conception…and then ends when a woman is old enough to get pregnant and give birth. Then hey – you’re on your own!

FUCK THAT.

594

Oh, I think it should be pretty obvious why the Catholic hierarchy would be so opposed to using that as a criterion for personhood.

595

Well, that proves it.

Since you are allowed to make definitive statements I must accept, and all.

596

You are coming to this issue from a religious perspective, yes? GOD “designed” women to abort as much as 40-60% of all “babies” before they are born. There are mechanisms in pregnancy to detect genetic flaws in the embryos and reject them when something goes wrong. Now why would god design such sinful biology? Why do you care more than God for these zygotes. Again, they have no brain no consciousness no humanity, it is a set of instructions a blueprint on how to make a human no more.

I think part of the problem is how catholicism comes to their conclusions. They are very heavy into philosophy and somewhat like proofs in geometry in which you can determine properties with an initial set of assumptions and then use logic to obtain the ends. Women in their eyes are “for having babies” that is their primary function. Many encyclicals have testified to this. So a woman who wants out of a pregnancy for what ever reason is going against her natural purpose and therefore out of order. It is not surprising they would hold the view that a woman in some circumstances should die in pregnancy since she is nobly giving her life for her natural ends as a human being given Catholic philosophical assumptions.

I have a question if some how a human lost their head and the body was kept alive through technological means would that headless but alive body have the same moral standing in your eyes as a normal person?

597

Thanks!

You too.

598

You owe me a new ironimeter.

599

Obviously the fertilized egg is more important than the mother. The mother has already shown, through her willingness to defy The Church by agreeing to the abortion, that her training just wasn’t good enough. On the other hand, the fertilized egg can be trained from day one to follow The Church without question.

600

Apparently you haven’t read any of my posts and the repeated mentioning of what should have occured.
There’s also enough mentioned about the excommunication and how that would be remedied.

ha, ha, ha…because Catholics don’t think, dude, so ingenious.

I imagined that purely religious concept were not going to cinvinced you, I used biological ones and now it’s MY fault that I don’t use arguments you want to dismiss.
I never used the word designed. Also, 100% of people die. Women don’t cause those abortion voluntarily. What’s next? Saying that cars are designed to kill people?
It is obvious that biological mechanisms are a mystery to you. Humans (and nature) are imperfect, mistakes happen. Some mistakes have deadly consequences, ergo the spontaneous abortion.
“A blueprint” is a very interesting choice of words because it’s a self reading and self-executing blueprint. Maybe the concept of blueprint escapes you too?
Abortions are not wrong because they end pregnancies. They are wrong because they kill.
Can you quote one of those encyclicals?
There is no such “die nobly” requierement.
I won0’t go into your desperate-sounding headless guy expample. If I answer it, it’s going to be turtles all the way ("…but what if there are two finger and 30$ of the pancreas?)

“Obviously” to a person unwilling to read or unerstand?
So the Church is wrong if she aborts an wrong if she doesn’t?
Nice to see that your level of argument is simply “Catholics R teh sheeple” because it lets me bother less with your posts.