The Armchair Thomist

     The Nature-Grace debate may not be something a non-Christian is familiar with, but in short, it is a long-standing debate in Christian theology as to how God's grace (some actuality in relation to the capacity for holiness given to creatures as a free gift directly from God) relates to the natures (the essences of things understood as principles of the scope of a thing's activities) of creatures. The debate, as least from what I have seen, focuses on whether the giving of God's (salvific) grace to creatures satisfies a natural appetite in the creature or a supernatural appetite in the creature (and thus whether the appetite for God is a natural or supernatural appetite), the degree to which God is obligated to Himself to provide creatures with (salvific) grace, and whether the beatific vision (the experience of God's essence and the final end of Man) is a natural end or supernatural end.      Here I have whipped up a few arguments for the position that...

     Given that there has been the recent stirrup in the culture about the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade, I thought I would revamp an old argument of mine and share it with all of you, whoever you may be!      This argument is essentially a reductio against those who argue for abortion on the basis of rights and thus, does not apply to those who endorse access to legal abortions for other reasons. Without further ado: P1. Humans have the rights to life, liberty, and property. P2. In order to the have the rights to life, liberty and property, one needs to be alive. P3. If one needs to be alive in order to have the rights to life, liberty, and property, then protection of the right to life is more important than protection of the rights to liberty and property. C1. Protection of the right to life is more important than protection of the rights to liberty and property. P4. If protection of the right to life is more important than protection of the righ...