Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

Your link cherry-picked and ignored the reality. The Papacy abrogated aspects of their previous bulls and functionally did nothing to punish or prevent slavery.

---

Facts not in evidence. I gave you consistent official documented positions. You give anecdotes, then accuse me of cherry picking.

Quote:

---

How was that different from Christian Europe after Columbus?

---

At this point it seems like you're actually not reading what's being discussed.

As noted multiple times on this thread there was slavery in Europe. Then there wasn't. Then there was again. And then there wasn't again. I'll leave it to you to figure out what caused those changes.

Feel free to have the last word.

---

I gave you dates and names. I also pointed out the extensive Christian-run slave economies that went on for centuries in the Pope's neighborhood. Your article ignored the events and dates I noted. It didn't bother to note that African slaves were seen as a fine alternative by Catholics to Native American slaves (even someone like de Las Casas). I haven't even bothered to discuss how fundamental slavery was to the Protestant British and Dutch empires and how much they incorporated scripture and faith into their slave codes. That faith did nothing for the slaves, who died at rates that would have disgusted the ancient Romans.

Zobel said:

---

Hang on, these aren't example of moral frameworks.

---

I wasn't trying to provide a full moral framework. If you're expecting me to come up with something a la Spinoza, I don't think that's a reasonable request. Rather, I was trying to provide examples that demonstrate the plausibility of such a moral framework existing and that we do indeed make value judgments all the time that implicitly subscribe to such a moral framework whether we acknowledge it or not. You can poke holes in the examples, sure, they're not exactly the same as abortion, but I would still contend my examples demonstrate instances where life is valued less than something else, and therefore is not at the top of a hierarchy of rights. And they're all things we regularly go along with on a societal level.

I'm not sure it's worth me rebutting your rebuttals to my examples, because the entire idea rests on accepting the axiom that a woman's right to choose what happens in her body (and I know you object to this verbiage, but it's correct -- if that right can stripped from you for nine months, you don't have that right during that time!) trumps the child's right to life. I imagine it's kind of like accepting that abortion is wrong axiomatically whether the embryo has a soul or not. Whether my examples are convincing to you or not, that is an axiom in use, and if you accept that axiom it's a purely deductive process to see that abortion should be legal.

Quote:

---

That we live in order to live is hardly a case against life being the chief good in our moral framework.

---

I do think it's worth noting that it seems you're using "live" in two different ways here. The first live refers to a quality of life, the second live refers the fact of being alive.