> [Arlo] > Anyway, I said my peace here. Maybe you can find someone else to engage > on this. MP: Arlo. Stop drop and roll. If you don't want to get into this, I respect that. But I think you have me pegged wrong.
You are misinterpreting the purpose and source of my questions. I am not questioning the validity of your opinion on the presumption it is invalid, and then in comparison to mine or anyone else's. No. I am asking rhetorical questions of your voiced opinion in the interest of getting you to look at the underlying moral presumptions, decisions, considerations, valuations you have made to get to it, and then for the purpose of identifying them as moral valuations in the face of an MoQ moral framework as opposed to cultural, societal or personal ones. I ask these of you because you have expressed an opinion, but they are questions to myself and to the readership as much as to you. We have no place to pronounce OR criticize opinions from a MoQ moral standing if we haven't sorted out the underlying MoQ foundations first. That's all I'm trying to do; the sorting out. I have, in spite of asking many hard questions of your opinions, not ONCE voiced my opinion on abortion. It may seem that way to you, but it is a fact. The only opinion I have so far voiced that comes close is: Thu Mar 19 19:53:52 PDT 2009 "My basic take on life in general: if you are going to kill it, you better have a *damn good* reason." It should not take you long to sort that out and come to the conclusion that my position on abortion is in fact not that far off from yours as you stated it. But I am intentionally avoiding expressing it for the same reasons I stated in my first post about this; stating our opinions first and then trying to sort out the MoQ morality is a sure fire way to turn this debate into a flaming train wreck. Our opinions on a subject, especially one so socially and culturally "hot" are by nature prone to MoQ static defense mechanism. This is why I started my part in this debate to Ron with: Wed Mar 18 08:04:14 PDT 2009 "FWIW Ron, You have expressed your personal opinion. That is all well and good. But how does that opinion relate to your cultural make-up and how does it relate to the MoQ." I have an opinion on abortion. I have taken it for the time being, put it on the shelf labelled "MoQ morally suspect; in need of investigation" and embarked on a journey to sort out the MoQ moral underpinning that may or may not have a bearing on that opinion. If we all don't do that, all we will end up with is an opinionated flame war. If you don't want to do that either, I certainly understand and respect that, but then don't read on. Now... to answer a few of your responses in light of what I'm trying to do above; > [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? MP: First; the tribunal is the Supreme Court. Laws can no longer be made that do not follow the adjudicated legal stipulations and precedents emanating from R. v. W. The SC is not elected, it is appointed, and then for life. We have nine people deciding how all of American Society *must* act with respect to abortion. That is a tribunal. Secondly; You clearly don't understand the legality of R v. W. The decision had nothing to do with assigning woman's choice. A woman has all the rights under the Constitution to make choices. Always had, still does. It was about when, where and how a State law can impose it's will over that of a woman. It was a State's rights decision, not a human rights one. In the third trimester, the SC actually gave the State nearly full reign to legislate over the woman's choice if it decides it is in the State's best interest. How far things have strayed since then, with no democratic input (only tribunal) show just how injurious that SC decision was to the Constitutional right of the people to decide for themselves (via legislature) what to do on abortion. (Consider that partial abortion is the even being debated in court.) The ultimate problem was that the SC actually *wrote a law*; it defined things legally. That is not its job. The Judicial branch is supposed to interpret a law against the Constitution and decide if it does or does not comply. If it finds it doesn't, the SC's job is to state why and then send it back and let the legislature try again, NOT to dictate to the legislature *how* to do it. R v. W instead legislated; it said *how* to legislate on the issue. But R v. W was a States' rights decision in this regard. It did not create a right to abortion or choice. Those already existed. It defined (outside its purview, but did so nonetheless) where and when States could impinge on that right. > [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. MP: Now *this* is more like it. This is the sort of discussion I am seeking to encourage. There are probably a score of such questions that comprise the MoQ moral underpinning of opinions on abortion. I initially listed seven I think, but have thought of several others since. I'd actually fall out right now to say "yes" where you say your final "no." A blastocyst arguably cannot "experience." There's no system developed yet to have experience in any way all that much greater than a rock. An amoeba has a greater experience than a blastocyst. In the this sense, in the moment, saving a blastocyst over an amoeba is arguably MoQ immoral. The intellectual complication is the blastocyst having the *potential* for greater moral standing where the amoeba does not. So is there an MoQ moral understanding of potential as it compares to actuality? I don't know, but we clearly need to sort that out to get back to resolving the initial question, right? We may fall out that you are right about MoQ on this; potential = actuality with respect to morals, even where it does not with respect to biological Quality interaction and conception is the MoQ moral starting line. But we need to keep digging to get to the bottom of this corner of the foundation to get to that point. > [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. MP: First comment is what I'm trying to do, second one confuses by skipping up about three levels. We'll get to that second issue some day, but need to sort out all the other subfactors involved in that higher level decision about laws when we do it, and need to have sorted out the underlying question's subsets before we even get to laws and need to have sorted out the subsets of the life questions before we can combine our findings on law to those of life. So, in that vein, I'd focus on the first comment alone; what MoQ moral underpinning would support your position that the 30yo woman's life takes precedent over that of the unborn child? (Again; not disagreeing with you. Just seeking to explore deeper) The way I see it we have more digging to do to get to the bottom of even such a simple position: If you are correct about the MoQ moral position on this question, then does that mean the contrary is the case, that the mother's life instead takes precedent over that of the unborn child? Does it make a difference morally if the woman is the biological mother but not the birth mother? If so, then is the not the father is arguably morally involved? If not, then does the birth mother have moral standing over the biological mother after birth? If not, then does this not raise the issue of there being no difference in moral distinctions across and the due to temporal line drawn by birth (itself not a momentary instant but stretched out over time, again opening moral dilemmas across that time period; consider partial birth abortion)? Meaning; if biological mother has moral standing before birth, what is the specific difference the child's birth out of the birth mother makes in the process with respect to how her personal decision relates to the life of the child? This is slippery ground; if birth makes no difference, it opens the door to suggest the biological mother can kill the born child for the same reason as killing the unborn one. In this one issue there are as I count them now four or five distinct sub-sets of moral questions that need to be explored before we can return to the initial position to say "yes, we've got a strong MoQ moral map on this one." We need to be rigorous and disciplined and force ourselves to sort them out before deciding we've sorted out the main question with which we started. If we don't we'll have left the foundations unexplored, and we don't know if we are building on stone or sand going forward. If we do, we'll have one more under our belt to proceed up the moral food chain to something like laws governing such an issue, right? > [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. Ok, good, another MoQ moral brick being laid. I think we need to test your conclusion though. I wonder if you come to this conclusion because society has a well established system to deal with DS children and adults, and this assures a Quality life? Seems to me from your previous statements that you have, but you need to expound. It may also be that you simply see that in MoQ DS is nothing more than an alternative biological pattern of Quality. The former is something I'd want to avoid at this low level of our intellectual investigation, as societal moral issues are something we need to deal with only after we've sorted out the fundamental subsets. The latter to me seems MoQ well founded as a basis to hold your position, and if we can agree on that, then we've sealed up the birth defects issue pretty tightly from an MoQ moral perspective. Although there are ranges of "handicap" where DS is pretty mild. Others, lets say some fatal, degenerative disease present a different moral issue; drastically shortened life expectancy with low Quality (lets say painful) life on top of it. Not sure we'd come to the same moral conclusion as we do with DS, and the field starts to grey already. But do you see what I'm trying to do? Small steps, one brick at a time. > [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. MP: To the latter, I'd agree with your MoQ position. Another moral brick laid. To the former... I personally agree, but its on the shelf with the rest of my opinions. Its jumping up a level, but we would need to sort out why can't society have the right to asses individual risks as they apply to greater society? If the bacteria in my mouth that generally speaking serve me well get out of hand I believe (I hope!) I have an MoQ moral standing to wipe them out regardless of what it means to them as individual biological patterns of quality. Why can't society do that morally to us as individuals with respect to risk decisions? (Again; not seeking to undermine your opinion, its mine too. Seeking to sort out if MoQ moral structure supports it or not.) I'd hesitate to tackle this one until we have dealt with the subsets, but it is to a degree a separate line of moral reasoning. We could pursue it as an underlying subset of societal moral issues if we maintain a firewall between it and the fundamental moral inquiry of the life questions. I rhetorically wonder what your opinion is of the nationalization framework of the Obama Health Care proposals. That is what they are doing; federal bureaucracy takes the risk management decisions on for individuals out of their hands and that of their doctor by withholding payments that are not available privately. Apparently well meaning politically motivated people seem to think this is a morally sound position. I think you've just sealed the case that the MoQ position on these proposals probably is that they are immoral; lacking a truly extreme situation, society has no place to "consume" our freedom in this way when there are alternatives that don't consume our freedom as much or at all. But I digress... I hope I've shown what I'm trying to do. Attack the issue from the ground up, one minute step at a time, careful not to pollute the first steps with issues that are further up the structure. This is the sort of thing I think we need to do to move forward on the issue of MoQ morality on abortion. I refer back to my original post. We need to sort out the MoQ foundational moral subsets of the issue, and then from the ground up. - On the ground, so to speak are the life questions. - From there we can tackle the individual choice questions (generically, then with respect to the life questions solved). - Then the choice questions with respect to society v. individual (but generically, not with respect to abortion) - Then the choice questions of society v. life - Then the choice questions of society v. individual choice - Only then do we have MoQ moral foundation to apply them all with respect to abortion - And only after that do we have any standing to assess social and cultural positions on abortion as they relate to the MoQ I fear if we aren't rigorous about it per above we risk just flaming this issue out as an opinion war and not resolving anything other than we disagree and are great at cutting each other up with words. Since we already have determined the latter, I'd very much like to see us try the former instead. Maybe its not possible in this format, I dunno. Seems maybe better in a controlled curriculum it would work better; more structure to the discussion, more ability to "put up on the board" those issues resolved and those not yet so. But we can try, yes? MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." 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/
