Abortion argument invalidates parental responsibility on the part of the man?

[runningdude]

Your utilitarian definition above doesn’t work. If, by nature we are protective of our species and of our young then the only rational act in this scenario-

3 men on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean with only enough water to allow two to survive until rescue-

-would be to murder one of the men. It would be irrational to not murder one individual in order to save the other two.

Perhaps our issue is that we are using different understandings/definitions of the words “rational” and “irrational.”

Where are you getting utilitarianism from my post???

I am describing Natural Law philosophy; murdering the third man in the boat would be against our human nature, and thus irrational as well.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Where are you getting utilitarianism from my post???

I am describing Natural Law philosophy; murdering the third man in the boat would be against our human nature, and thus irrational as well.

“The Natural Law tells that humans are innately rational beings, and that morality can be deduced through rational reasoning. By nature, we are protective of our species and especially protective of our young. It is against our nature and thus irrational to destroy our children…”

-No, murdering the 3rd man wouldn’t be against human nature since doing so would protect the species (2 members of the species continue to live vs. all three members dying). Not my fault your own definition (cited above) doesn’t support your argument.
-What exactly would you label the idea that the value of a human life is due to natural (as in evolutionary, biological/social aspects of our species that can also be found in other animal species) characteristics rather then spiritual (i.e. a soul) characteristics? “Protective of our species and especially protective of our young” applies to pretty much every herd animal on the planet. I don’t know about you, but I’d label such an idea as utilitarian.
-As to what you are trying to describe- I’m still trying to figure that out.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

oldcatholicguy:

The pro-abortion argument is that the woman is the only one with the right to determine if the child should live or die. Given that, shouldn’t pro-abortionists also be arguing that if the woman decides the child should live that the man can not be held liable for any support (parenting, financial, emotional, etc) for the child? I ask because if we assume the pro-abortion stance that the right to life for the child is only held by the mother, logic dictates that she is also the only one that holds any responsibility for that child.

 

[runningdude]

“The Natural Law tells that humans are innately rational beings, and that morality can be deduced through rational reasoning. By nature, we are protective of our species and especially protective of our young. It is against our nature and thus irrational to destroy our children…”

-No, murdering the 3rd man wouldn’t be against human nature since doing so would protect the species (2 members of the species continue to live vs. all three members dying). Not my fault your own definition (cited above) doesn’t support your argument.
-What exactly would you label the idea that the value of a human life is due to natural (as in evolutionary, biological/social aspects of our species that can also be found in other animal species) characteristics rather then spiritual (i.e. a soul) characteristics?

Where are you getting any of this from my argument?

"Protective of our species and especially protective of our young" applies to pretty much every herd animal on the planet.
…

The difference is that humans are rational beings, and animals are not. Humans know better than to murder our own. Animals do not have an immortal, rational soul. They are not accountable for their actions. **It the immortal rational soul that give humans value, and I honestly do not understand why you are ascribing to me a belief contrary to this…
**

I don’t know about you, but I’d label such an idea as utilitarian.

Natural Law philosophy specifically rejects the pursuit of “utility” as the basis for morality, in favor of living according to God’s design for humanity:
The Catholic Encyclopedia:

The contents of the natural law

Radically, the natural law consists of one supreme and universal principle, from which are derived all our natural moral obligations or duties. We cannot discuss here the many erroneous opinions regarding the fundamental rule of life. Some of them are utterly false—for instance, that of Bentham, who made the pursuit of utility or temporal pleasure the foundation of the moral code, and that of Fichte, who taught that the supreme obligation is to love self above everything and all others on account of self. Others present the true idea in an imperfect or one-sided fashion. Epicurus, for example, held the supreme principle to be, “Follow nature”; the Stoics inculcated living according to reason. But these philosophers interpreted their principles in a manner less in conformity with our doctrine than the tenor of their words suggests. Catholic moralists, though agreeing upon the underlying conception of the Natural Law, have differed more or less in their expression of its fundamental formula. Among many others we find the following: “Love God as the end and everything on account of Him”; “Live conformably to human nature considered in all its essential respects”; “Observe the rational order established and sanctioned by God”; “Manifest in your life the image of God impressed on your rational nature.” The exposition of St. Thomas is at once the most simple and philosophic. Starting from the premise that good is what primarily falls under the apprehension of the practical reason—that is of reason acting as the dictator of conduct—and that, consequently, the supreme principle of moral action must have the good as its central idea, he holds that the supreme principle, from which all the other principles and precepts are derived, is that good is to be done, and evil avoided (I-II, Q, xciv, a. 2).

newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

The Natural Law is the primary philosophical framework used by the Catholic Church. I have consistently cited Natural Law as the basis of my argument. Please cease accusing me of promoting Utilitarianism.