Arlo, First, my questions were more rhetorical that inqusitive. They were meant as critical questions of Steve's contention of the "biological pattern only" being the complete MoQ position. It was to highlight things that are totally obvious but which contradict Steve's straightforward (cold) explanation.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with you about the socialization aspects you raised that explain the insticive reaction. My feeling is that there is an innate biological aspect to protection of our young which is not socially ingrained. I don't protect my infant child because society tells me its the right thing to do. A lioness certainly doesn't either. There's more. I do however see what you are getting at with the inter-relation of patterns. That infant is part of my pattern from conception. When my (now ex, full disclosure) wife got pregnant, hell even before when we were just trying, our patterns were inter woven and any inkling of a pregnancy signalled a new pattern created out of our interwoven patterns. That new pattern, that baby, was US *and* itself. In that sense I see a direct MoQ explanation of the instinct to protect that child before and after birth. There is however, I think, the added notion of "potential". Protecting our young is IMO directly related to our innate appreciation for their potential, for the extent of patterning they have yet to experience and create as compared to ours. That they have more opportunity for Quality patterning ahead of them than we do is something a parent recognizes and works their butt off to assure. This, again is not IMO a social norm. It is innate. So... Is there such a thing as "potential Quality"? I'm not sure what MoQ says about this. Ham and I discussed it briefly with respect to his Value ideas if you followed that at all. Or is it more that "potential Quality" is what patterns recognizing Quality learn to do to align themselves in ways so as to better have Quality experience? > [Michael] > Yes, exactly. We need to define that line in an MoQ moral > framework to be able to apply it to a greater discussion of abortion. > This is what I've been saying from the outset. > > [Arlo] > Well, unfortunately my point was that no such line can be found. When > we isolate a fracture point (pre-social/post-social), we have a line > that in abstraction may make a valid intellectual point, but in > practice does not (can not) take into consideration the many, many, > complex, interweaving values, patterns, considerations etc. MP: (Remember! Take our opinions, put them on the shelf, and lets just explore where MoQ takes us) I agree that drawing a line in the continuum would be realistically arbitrary in this MoQ understanding. However... if the line is drawn at the intiation point of the continuum, would this not avoid that problem? In abortion, that would be conception, yes? I don't suggest that because of this MoQ is read to support defining life as defined in the Constitution as beginning at conception. Steve's point still applies even if its the complete MoQ view. And there's still all the social issues to get to on the subject. It seems to me just plain intuitively obvious that conception is a clear marking point. The MoQ question we need to resolve is "of what." But if (and its a big if) MoQ morality can be relevant to the issue of abortion, where we draw that line (or if we can't) is a critical issue to resolve. If we can't draw it anywhere, even at the initiation point, then I'm not sure MoQ morality is relevant to abortion. I find that ludicrous (MoQ morality is relevant to vegetarianism but not conception/abortion/birth!??) so have to think we can draw that line *somewhere.* But we'd need to get through that to know how to proceed further. (I'm rambling at this point, but want to get one more thought down...) As a sample of the next step: If we take the MoQ line to be drawn at conception, (hypothetically, to show how we'd proceed) we are only saying "that is where a new human life pattern starts." Technically, Zen-wise, this too is an arbitrary line. But lets say it is ok to do in MoQ. Then, the next step is to determine the value of that pattern in a greater context. If its two loving people, seeking to conceive a child, the pattern is one thing. If its a product of a rape, its entirely another. If its a single woman who uses a sperm bank donation its a third. Working from there, we can show that while conception initiates the pattern, social issues immediately come into play that affect the pattern. And given those social patterning sources, different MoQ life valuations already begin, and we are only at the moment after conception. Relative to abortion, and notably social laws governing that act, MoQ already has something to say. Yes? (This, btw, and not to get back into politics, is one of my beefs with R v. W. It was a very specific issue, a rape, which IMO if it demanded a court decision at all demanded a specific one. Instead we got an incredibly general one, which by definition is MoQ morally suspect; it drew that line specifically where, as you point out, the line can't really ever be drawn in any one point and be right for all. That's the problem with generalizations; it may be a general truism, but its rarely right about any one specific case.) 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/
