[Michael]
Cumbersome, perhaps. But so is "inorganic static pattern of quality"
instead of "matter."
[Arlo]
I don't think so. My point is that "maximizing potential for Quality"
is a poor word choice if we are trying to stay accurate to what the
MOQ says. "Potential" is a socio-intellectual pattern of value, it is
a reflective abstraction and hypothetical projection. I agree that
"potential" is an important consideration here, but as a social or
intellectual pattern. Thus a lioness will protect her young not out
of any sense of "potential" in her young, but as a biological
instinct to propagate her genes. A socialized human may see in her
offspring the potential that her child will surpass her social
standing, produce familial wealth, or protect the family from future
dangers. On the intellectual level, we can discuss "potential" as it
relates to some abstract principle that is worthy of sacrificing for.
[Michael]
I see that potential as one of the main drivers of why some people
react one way and others another to the idea of aborting that life at
various stages in its development.
[Arlo]
Sure. And Right here you've already divorced "potential" from any
instinct or innate biological foundation.
Also, keep in mind that "potential" is not, as we appear to be
talking about it, always something positive. There is the "potential"
your child will grow up to be a serial killer. Many new parents dwell
on the potential that their child will get sick, or suffer some
tragedy. When we "maximize potential" it cuts both ways. You can't
maximize the potential for "good" while not also maximizing the
potential for "bad". Just making this clarification.
[Michael]
Can we agree that "maximizing the potential for Quality" by the
parents is a patterning factor that comes into play early on in the
"new life pattern"?
[Arlo]
Not worded like this, I don't think. Parents will, naturally,
abstract and begin organizing their affairs around the idea of
producing the best environment for what they see would be an optimal
life for their child. But here you've already made the assumption
that woman (and man) is already projecting longevity, in other words,
they've already decided to carry the infant to term. Nonetheless, I
do think that it is human nature to "see" possible futures, and I
would gather (with no evidence) that most women who find themselves
pregnant immediately play through a host of possible futures. What I
will say, and I caution, is that in your above formulation you've
already abstracted the child out of the context of the lives of the
parent/s and situations surrounding its conception. A young pregnant
woman faced with the potential for a life of financial burden,
raising a child who will suffer poverty, or any number of other
negative potentials for carrying the pregnancy to term will also
consider these, not JUST the potential future for the developing infant.
[Michael]
Maybe not much else, but I think we've established that to draw the
line BEFORE this biological moment is to be jumping the MoQ morality
gun. In other words; in an MoQ language the new life pattern starts
at conception
[Arlo]
Please stop using the royal "we". I am having grade school
flashbacks. :-) Yes, the MOQ would define (IMO) conception as the
beginning point for a new biological pattern. This would hold true
not only of human conception.
[Michael]
If nothing else, this establishes that in MoQ understanding there is
no immediate and obvious immorality to preventing a pregnancy, where
in some social or cultural morality systems there is.
[Arlo]
Well, again, Michael, you are taking a view that misses the forest
for a few trees. Those advocating the immorality of birth control
don't argue that its immoral because it causes the death of sperm or
eggs. They do so out of a social value that balances a condemning of
extra-marital sex, the idea that birth-control would lead to the
spread of disease, vice and other bad things, as well as an
interpretation of "God's Will" taken from their particular "book". It
is a social device for curtailing sex, not an immoral judgement about
"pre-fertilized biological patterns".
As a social pattern, the MOQ would ask if this "law" was necessary to
prevent the collapse of society. Or, if passing it would violate an
even greater intellectual pattern. Thus the morality of "birth
control" (from a legal stand point) would say it would be a moral law
IF it was necessary to prevent society from collapsing and IF it
violated no higher intellectual principle (it is moral for an idea to
kill a society).
From a non-legal, "personal" view, no, the MOQ would find nothing
immoral about a barricade that left some dead sperm and un-fertilized
egg in lieu of a fertilized one. But again, this "morality" is never
brought into question by those advocating such controls, as they are
not concerned with a biological morality, but with a social or
intellectual one.
[Michael]
This is actually very relevant as a step forward. It would, I think,
and if you'll agree for example establish in vitro as not MoQ immoral
simply because so many of the fertilized eggs die off, yes?
[Arlo]
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
[Michael]
The biological patterning is minimal, the social patterning
non-existent (the parents don't worry about the dead eggs, just the
surviving one once it becomes clear it has a chance.) Again, a
difference from many social moral views of that practice.
[Arlo]
I'd agree.
[Michael]
And the insufficiency is social patterning on the part of the
parents. Both parents. That's all I'm saying.
[Arlo]
Well, not always "both". That's one of the many social contextual
variables at play.
[Michael]
Personally, I'm not sure I am on board with the social patterning not
being at conception as well.
[Arlo]
Which may be a factor of awareness. You used an example of a couple
paying a lot of money for fertilization efforts, and would see the
loss of an egg quite differently than another woman/couple in another
situation. Sure. This just reveals the importance of context. The
couple in your example have likely created a strong social fabric for
their future child long before conception even. So the fertilized egg
immediately fills a role in this web. It becomes a "child" by virtue
of this almost immediately, and in many cases it has a name even
before it exists. Context.
[Michael]
It is important to note that lack of certain social patterning (eg:
an obese woman gets pregnant and doesn't discover she is until third
trimester) in no way diminishes or negates other patterning going on
during the interim.
[Arlo]
No, it doesn't. Biologically the organism become more viable outside
the uterus, and the move to social patterning thus is very rapid
(which could also be due to the resemblance the infant organism has
to "look human".
[Michael]
I think we would all agree that abortion of that third trimester
fetus via partial birth abortion because the woman doesn't want it
would be immoral in just about any framework, yes?
[Arlo]
I don't know about "we all", but I would, yes.
The rest of our exchange had to do with legality. I'm short on time
today, and this is long already, so I'll skip that for now.
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/
