[Michael] Not to intentionally get off on an argumentative foot, but you already make an assumption that the woman's choice takes precedent.
[Arlo] No. I did not. I said that the morality of the act is dependent on the reasons it occurs. And I said that allowing her choice may be precipated on the lessened violence that would be done to her if men felt they could force a birth upon her. In any event, what I found interesting is that in every case where I said the MOQ may see the act as "immoral", you agreed. And yet in every case where I said that the MOQ may support choice, you responded by telling me I was confused. Some further points. You mention the man's involvement, and again I can't help but think of this as situation dependent. Should a man who rapes a woman have any say over whether or not she keeps the child? What about a husband? Even in the married case, what if the man rapes his wife? Giving a man say opens many doors of control, and I would think in most cases the MOQ would say that denying this level of control gives moral precedence over the man's control over the pregnancy. Again, what I am saying is that in cases where the woman's chance to be victimized by laws preventing abortion I think the MOQ would say that those laws are immoral. One only has to look to other countries to see the effects of laws manipulated to enslave women. [Michael] All the rest of what you say is colored by that assumption. [Arlo] Not to be argumentative, but all of what you say is obviously colored by your assumption that abortion is immoral. In not one point where I say the MOQ sides with choice do you agree, indeed you criticize, and yet in every point where I say it would find abortion immoral, you agree. [Michael] For instance; "unborn child"... does the MoQ speak to the blastocyst? What about early first trimester? [Arlo] I don't think the MOQ points to a point in development. It would see, I'd argue, the moment of conception as the beginning of potentiality. [Michael] Is there a line on which MoQ would fall out morally bad v. morally ok? [Arlo] I'd say no. [Michael] Does a blastocyst human life have the same standing as a 30 yo woman? etc. [Arlo] I'd say an unborn child of any stage in development would likely not take moral precedence over the life of the mother. But again, I'm not advocating laws forcing a pregnant woman to abort if her life is in danger. If she chooses the life of the child over her own, that is her choice. [Michael] And in an MoQ sense, the newer pattern has greater potential for DQ experiences than the older one. [Arlo] Again, society has to then determine who will raise the child if it takes the life of its mother. Its one thing to say the life of the child takes moral precedence, but then a whole host of social conditions must exist to ensure that the motherless child is given a life that opens that potential. [Michael] We are now also talking about attempting prevention of future acts through punishment of prior ones. That's punishment to one person for what another hasn't even done yet. Morally suspect, IMO and has little to do with the moral questions inherent to abortion. [Arlo] Not at all. It has everything to do with the moral questions mentioned. Denying women in all cases abortion would, I can see, open the door to a lot of violence against women and potential for enslavement. That is not an aside. It is part of the issue. [Michael] Yes, three examples. What about a planned pregnancy aborted due to severe child handicaps, like DS? [Arlo] I'd say the MOQ would find this immoral. [Michael] What of the woman who "might" die in child birth? What if the one where the child "might" die? etc. [Arlo] As with all assessment of risk, the decision should remain with those involved. But I'd say the MOQ would see less and less risk as being more and more immoral. [Michael] Most abortions are not as obvious morally as the three you list. [Arlo] Didn't I say this? Of course. But the demonstrate that the morality of the situation is not absolute. It is context dependent. [Michael] Roe v. Wade was made by just such a tribunal. Do you accept that tribunal decision simply because it agrees with your sentiments? [Arlo] That's ridiculous. Roe v Wade left the decision up to the woman, which ideally should include all vested parties, but ultimately the decision must remain with the woman. What "tribunal" did Roe c Wade set up? No one forces anyone to have an abortion, and no one forces anyone to not have an abortion. If you are against it, you don't have it. [Michael] We accept countless decisions made for us by society without blinking an eye (seat belts anyone?) yet when it comes to the life of unborn children we seem perfectly happy to block society from having a say. Why? [Arlo] I'm against seat belt laws, and helmet laws. But these laws don't bring the potential for increased violence and subjugation that abortion laws would bring. No one is going to rape you because you have to wear a seat belt. But if you had to bear the rapist's child, I could see that quickly leading to escalating violence. Anyway, I said my peace here. Maybe you can find someone else to engage on this. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
