Defense of the abortion/Discussion about Ethics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nonatheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
l said that l got this idea from how we look at animal worth NOW.
l never tried to form a theory about human nature in general
 
Show me where you said it wasn’t a general theory. This whole thread, you’ve presented it this way.
 
l was clean when l said how l got to this theory.
l looked at how humans value life GENERALLY speaking, l was focusing on now mostly. But l think this would apply to most of the history.
 
Culture and religion can influence the values human have, but those are exceptions to the norm .
 
re. Abortion a discussion

I’ll often get challenged by supporters of abortion-on-demand who insist on knowing what I’ve done about adopting so-called ‘unwanted’ babies.

…don’t preach to us about abortion until you’ve "fixed world hunger, adopted every orphan, prevented every single rape, solved the epidemic of domestic violence, reversed global warming, cured cancer…(have I missed anything?)

Foolish me. Here I was thinking that the abortion lobby was all about “my body, my choice”. I never knew they were willing to negotiate and trade that so-called 'right" for a few red herrings
 
Last edited:
l don’t like such emotional approach to dicourse. l know that there are very emotional people defend the same point l am.
 
Nonatheist said:
When l said them l asked for an explanation
Click to expand...
Please allow me to try explaining again.
Why would torturing be immoral?
Click to expand...
The fundamental rule of eternally true friendship is always freely being patient and kind towards others and yourself, even amidst unjust cruelty through death, as Jesus demonstrated in His Passion and Crucifixion.
Following this rule grants everybody unbreakable peace with unlimited joy because everybody gets everything needed with unlimited wants fulfilled.

Torturing others will either go against freely being or patience and kindness.
 
Even though l think that core teachings of Jesus should be more prevalent in such materialistic world we live, this could only possiblely apply to humans.
Torturing animals would be allowed.
 
Last edited:
Nonatheist said:
That would be same as saying ‘we can’t ever know if trees feel pain’.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not the same as saying “we can’t ever know”. Medicine and technology have changed so rapidly in the past 100 years that I’m saying medicine may soon develop a method for determining what a human embryo or fetus thinks/ feels.

But you failed to understand my point.
If your argument is that the embryo/fetus/preemie/neonate/infant/toddler/child is less of a human being (or not even human) because its nervous system isn’t fully developed and thus it can’t think/feel/perceive pain/ perceive suffering,

then why the need for a consistent caregiver in the first three years? Why does trauma, in particularly early childhood trauma have such an impact on a developing brain? There’s something physically occurring in the developing neurosystem to create such a long-lasting impacts well into adulthood.

We do know that the neuro pathways are being mapped and we know that neurotransmitters play a role, but the exact mechanism and to what extent is still unkown.

According to your hypothesis of complex neuro systems, young humans in their earliest stages of development shouldn’t be phased by pain and trauma because they don’t have the brain/ nervous system capacity to have any awareness of the pain/trauma. There’s a breakdown in your train of thought based on evidence of the impacts of pain/trauma on young children.

As far as pigs go, they maybe more sentient than humans. It will take a mad scientist creating some pig/human chimeras for study. I can see it already. “What makes Wibur so darned sensitive?” “Oh, his doc used a porcine host to grow the stem cells for his stomach transplant. And you know how those piggies are more “feely” than us humans. We just become more sensitive when porcine hosts are used for our transplant organs.” j/k
Nonatheist said:
As for consciousness after death, there isn’t any real science on that topic
Click to expand...
And?.. What was the real science on the topic of DNA 100 years ago? 50 years ago?
Just 30 years ago we were initiating the Human Genome Project which completed the sequencing around the mid 2000s.

Can you tell me about junk DNA? I’d say there’s not a lot of real science on HARs yet, but one day there will be.
Nonatheist said:
‘Love to rub their faces’ don’t mean that they consciously do that.
It would mean ‘Usually they tend to do that’.
Click to expand...
Yeah.
Complex- neuro system adults seem to have the same issue as those little fetuses that aren’t deemed human beings (because they can’t think or feel). But darn, we need an article from Forbes to remind us not to touch our faces to avoid Covid. Must be some compulsion people have left over from our mindless fetal stage of development.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucel...-how-to-stop-touching-your-face/#271d7b1071d6
 
Nonatheist said:
Yes, natural law can’t explain many things in Christianity,: Sex outside mariage being just one of them.
Aristotle believed and focused his natural law theory around much different idea of God.
Click to expand...
Okay - so you are ready to say “natural law can’t explain X” but you just admitted that, while you’ve talked with “many Thomists” (like who?), you have until now had no idea that happiness is involved with natural law. IT IS THE ENTIRE POINT. That’s why Thomas and Aristotle both start their treatment of ethics with a discussion of HAPPINESS.

So, if you are really actually furrealzies interested in this (which I am very pleased with), may I suggest that you do three things.

1 - Admit to yourself that you are actually not that familiar with natural law theory, or what it contains, how it works in detail, what it can/can’t explain without xyz religious commitment, etc. (Easy - you did not know that happiness is the entire core of the theory, as put forth by both Aristotle and Thomas.)

2 - Give the Questions I referred to above a good, careful reading - and also the 5 ways (Question 2 Article 2)… Along with the Questions on Divine Simplicity, Perfection, and Goodness, and goodness in general. (Basically Questions 2-6 in the Prima Pars). Here: SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Prima Pars

3 - Send me a private message and we can start a more meaningful conversation.

-K
 
Last edited:
Could you please give me a reading material where they mentioned happiness as a core of natural law?
 
l can see how the goal of Aristotelian virtue ethics Is happiness ( Eudaimonia). He believed that humans by being virtues act according to their nature. And that being virtues would lead to Eudaimonia.
Thought, l would say that this is not happiness as we know it today, as its way too abstract.

Natural law theory works similarly, as God inscribed morality into human nature, and humans following it would lead to heaven. Thought natural law can’t explain everything.

In both cases, l wouldn’t say that happiness as we know it is a.core part of it.
 
Nonatheist said:
Even though l think that core teachings of Jesus should be more prevalent in such materialistic world we live, this could only possiblely apply to humans.
Click to expand...
I hope you pursue that thought by imitating and helping others imitate Jesus in His Passion and Crucifixion.
Torturing animals would be allowed.
Click to expand...
Though the torturing of animals and plants (beings less capable than eternally true friends) is also bad, how did you arrive at the conclusion that torturing animals would be good?
 
I am sorry but if you don’t care to do a little reading then I cannot help you. You just keep saying what you think about xyz related to natural law. Ok. That’s allowed but not helpful.

I will not be responding to you again on the thread. Feel free to do the reading I suggested and pm me.

-K
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top