The nature of slaves

In part III and IV, it is noted that slaves are not "enslaved by nature" but by law instead since they have conquered their people. But can you argue that it is not as all law? The way that slaves are treated are that they are not part of family, all they do is work, like machines do today. One quote that stuck out to me was "Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle of necessity, extends to all mankind." My question is this: Why would he say that if a man still rules another man when male slaves are deemed property of another male?

Hippocratic Oath

Based on the reading Euthanasia and the Physician's rule, it explains in detail the Hippocratic oath, and this oath "explicitly enjoins against any act by a physician or even any act by a physician that consists of providing the means by which a person can terminate his own or another's life. Actual medical practice in our times, however, does not necessarily abide by the restrictions of euthanasia found in the oath." Another key point in the oath is that a mortal human being does not have control over his own or another's life, the God's are the only one that hold that power, since humans "are their possessions or servants." Since the Hippocratic Oath is against assisted suicide, has the Hippocratic Oath been abolished in modern medicine?

Suicide Cato Rome

A main point mentioned was that suicide is frowned upon in many different societies. In Christianity, it is condemned because one will not live. The stoic theory, however, approved of suicide, with the belief that a man should be allowed to exit his life at will. It gave five reasons as to why one should leave his life but the third one really stuck out to me. It stated one could leave his life due to "protracted disease preventing the soul from using its tool, the body = spoilage of provisions at the banquet... As these are all reasons for a rational departure from life, this must indicate perceived diminution of one's mental faculties through illness or age, rather than a state of complete irrationality, which could be an explanation, but not a justification."This claim justifies euthanasia in today's world, as many animals are put to rest if they cannot function, or are in a great deal of pain. From experience, I had a dog who was twelve years old, and had a spinal tumor, which made it impossible for her to walk. We took the doctor's advice to put her down because the tumor was inoperable, and it was not worth her living if she could not walk. This raises another question: If we perform euthanasia on animals, is it permissible for doctors to perform it on humans?

Historical Views of when human life begins

The spartan approach seems a little odd, since they are against abortion only if it is a male's life to be forfeited because they are very intent on raising young men to fight for the army, and deem it morally permissible to kill one if "the child was judged to be unsuitable for some reason", which raises questions as to the spartans believe personhood was guaranteed after birth. It is surprising that they are opposed to abortion but deem it morally permissible to kill one after birth. The Jewish law makes more sense to me, since it deems abortion permissible without punishment as long as the woman is not injured, and murder of a human outside the womb is always considered punishable by death.