Can human nature be applied to the unborn?

[Richca]

Your welcome. The response in my prior post to your opening post in which you ask ''What exactly is human nature" was essentially philosophical and philosophy is what can be know by the natural light of reason. In regards to the human soul, its existence, spirituality and immateriality, immortality, it being the form and act of the body and the principle of the life of the body can all be known by the natural light of reason through philosophy. That a human being is a composite of spirit or soul and a body made out of matter or dust which the Church teaches us from revelation is also a teaching in catholic christian philosophy much of which is derived from Ancient Greek philosophy most notably from Plato and especially from Aristotle. In this philosophy, a human being is a form/matter composite which are his/her substantial principles which make them a human being with a human nature that is common among all the individuals of the human species. As I said in the prior post, the substantial form determines the nature or specie of some thing and in the case of human beings this is the rational soul. The substantial forms of living things including plants and brute animals are called souls because they are the principle of the animation or life of the body of living things which have the nature of being alive or animated. The principle or specific difference in the souls of humans and all other living things on earth are the intellectual or spiritual powers of reason and free will by which we are principally made in the image and likeness of God and its immortal nature. Thus, man is defined as a ‘rational animal’. This is a philosophical definition. The concepts of form/matter, substantial form, principle, substance which I have used here are also philosophical as well as the concept of human nature. So, the answer to the question ‘what is human nature’ or ‘what is man or a human being’ can be answered not only from revelation or sacred theology which is most certain, but also by using the natural light of the human reason and philosophy.

 

[JoyfulTune]

humans who are born with deformities that make their nostrils different from a “normal person”?

Deformed human nostrils still human nostrils. It does not change into other mammals nostrils. Besides if we compare one human to another, their nostrils are not exactly the same. But all have human nostrils characteristics.

 

[o_mlly]

Don’t fully blame the woman for this, though.

Certainly not. It takes two.

Society has always tended to devalue motherhood in an economic/financial sense.

I think not. Prior to WWII, western civilization considered motherhood a sacred calling and beyond being monetized to determine its worth. The war effort pressed women into the workforce. Technology developments in woman’s hygenic products and later in the birth control pill allowed women to pursue careers outside the home.

My mother, her mother and all the mothers before her including my wife never worked for pay after their marriage. As to my mother, raising me was a full-time job (there were 5 others but they were easy). As to my wife, I added for pay above in order that she remain my wife should this post get leaked out.

When having children becomes rare enough to actually force changes on society, one response will be the horror of aborting any child. Their value will dramatically change in everyone’s mind. What I’m unsure of is, will that be what it takes?

We have yet to see the long-term effects of working women who use birth control pills or the effect on institutionalized children. The pill may be like cigarettes and cancer – takes a long term exposure to induce the disease. The drug problem in the generation of “latch-key” children may indicate problems already manifesting themselves from mom’s absence in the home. When we choose to live in ways we were not designed, the consequences may not be experienced immediately but only eventually.

 

[JimG]

I don’t think it’s so hard to define. Human nature is the property that is inherent to every human being–to every individual of the human species. We are each individual members of the human species beginning with our conception.

 

[Pattylt]

I think not. Prior to WWII, western civilization considered motherhood a sacred calling and beyond being monetized to determine its worth. The war effort pressed women into the workforce. Technology developments in woman’s hygenic products and later in the birth control pill allowed women to pursue careers outside the home.

My mother, her mother and all the mothers before her including my wife never worked for pay after their marriage. As to my mother, raising me was a full-time job (there were 5 others but they were easy). As to my wife, I added for pay above in order that she remain my wife should this post get leaked out.

I agree that the western ideal ranked motherhood higher but not in economic/financial ideals. The pressure of WW2 forced businesses to hire women and fully expected them to quit after the war. I was born in 1952…a boomer baby. Men were paid enough to live on one income. When women stayed or entered the workforce, wages were different for men and women in the same job. Then, with twice the available workforce, wages became almost impossible to live on one salary alone. Wasn’t this business taking advantage of the availability of workers? A supply and demand setting the pay?

Financially, women were never considered to have higher value. Their wages alone reflect that. The ideals of society didn’t matter if motherhood wasn’t financially valued. We are a capitalist economy and capitalism never valued motherhood otherwise we wouldn’t have had the treatment we did.

My mother never worked when I was little. She went into the workforce when I hit my teens.

I never worked when my kids were little, either. I went back to school when my youngest was 11 and entered the workforce when she was 13. I was a stay at home mom until then…something we didn’t call ourselves then. We were just mothers. When single wages could no longer support a family, many moms went to work…they had to. And the result was they started forcing changes upon businesses to accommodate them. In 1960, had you stated that you planned on having children in the near future, you wouldn’t be hired. And it wasn’t considered discriminatory either! Moms still have a ways to go, though. Businesses need to show that they value motherhood by having much better policies towards mothers. Many European counties are leading in this area and businesses will fight it every step of the way. How is that showing value towards children and motherhood?

 

[goout]

Kei:

Philosophically, a nature is like what something is.

Imagine a table. It doesn’t matter if it’s made of wood, plastic, or what have you, it is still a table.

There’s a tree in my garden. I’m going to cut it down and make a table. I won’t bother going through the multiple steps I go through (from cutting the tree down to varnishing the table). But can you pick a point when it ceases to be a large piece of wood and becomes a table?

At some point these discussions assume sane observation that can be commonly held among others.
Child has human dna, unique to itself, etc…
you know the drill.

Willfully denying what is common sense does not make for a good argument. It makes for endless parsing. Like parsing what the meaning of the word is is. (Thanks Bill Clinton for one of the all time text book examples of parsing commons sense language)

 

[JMMJ]

The drug problem in the generation of “latch-key” children may indicate problems already manifesting themselves from mom’s absence in the home. When we choose to live in ways we were not designed, the consequences may not be experienced immediately but only eventually.

Why is this assumed to be only mom’s responsibility? What about dad?

 

[o_mlly]

Why is this assumed to be only mom’s responsibility? What about dad?

It takes two.

Do both parents work out of necessity or out of greed? Some out of necessity, probably. But the data shows that not most families have 2 parents working for the necessities of life. Two “beemers” in the garage of a home in the suburbs is not subsistence living.

Median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, by sex, marital status,
and presence and age of own children under 18 years old, 2012 annual averages
Men	Women	Total Weekly	Annual	Men Only
Total, married, spouse present	$981	$751	$1,732	$90,064	$51,012
With children 6 to 17 years, none younger	$1,035	$746	$1,781	$92,612	$53,820
With children under 6 years	$935	$765	$1,700	$88,400	$48,620
With no children under 18 years	$973	$748	$1,721	$89,492	$50,596
Total, other marital statuses(1)	$685	$625	$1,310	$68,120	$35,620
With children 6 to 17 years, none younger	$790	$614	$1,404	$73,008	$41,080
With children under 6 years	$595	$490	$1,085	$56,420	$30,940
With no children under 18 years	$687	$654	$1,341	$69,732	$35,724
Footnotes:
(1) Includes never-married, divorced, separated, and widowed persons
Median weekly earnings by sex, marital status, and presence and age of own children under 18 in 2012 : The Economics Daily : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

[JMMJ]

I wouldn’t judge what a couple has determined their needs to be. Way over reaching, IMO.

 

[o_mlly]

I wouldn’t judge what a couple has determined their needs to be. Way over reaching, IMO.

Good for you. No one else has made that judgement either.

The community that provides and centralizes welfare payment must make that determination.

Poverty Guidelines

The 2024 poverty guidelines are in effect as of January 17, 2024. Federal Register Notice, January 17, 2024.The Poverty Guidelines API is now available with the 2024 data.U.S. Federal Poverty Guidelines Used to Determine Financial Eligibility for Certain Programs

aspe.hhs.gov

HHS Poverty Guidelines for 2020​

The 2020 poverty guidelines are in effect as of January 15, 2020
The Federal Register notice for the 2020 Poverty Guidelines was published January 17, 2020.

2020 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Persons in family/household Poverty guideline
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,480 for each additional person.
1 $12,760
2 $17,240
3 $21,720
4 $26,200
5 $30,680
6 $35,160
7 $39,640
8 $44,120

 

[JMMJ]

Good for you. No one else has made that judgement either.

I believe you used the word “greed” when describing couples who made a determination you seem to frown upon, no?

 

[o_mlly]

I believe you used the word “greed” when describing couples who made a determination you seem to frown upon, no?

No, read the post again. An interrogatory is not a judgment. If a reader assumed the answer to the question then it is the reader who judges.

 

[JMMJ]

Oh it was a judgement, alright.

 

[o_mlly]

Oh it was a judgement, alright.

Then you should take your own advice and stop your '“over reaching” IMO.