[Michael]
All I'm saying is that it appears we have shown it quite clear that
for a human "new pattern" social patterns layer onto the initial "new
pattern" biological pattern. The social patterns we (you and I) have
identified so far are those of the involved parents; biological
mother, birth mother, biological father.
[Arlo]
Sure, and the grandparents, and family friends, and you could
reasonably extend the social patterning a bit further. I'm agreeing
with you, I'm just saying that drawing a line at "the involved
parents" is somewhat arbitrary as well. Let's just say we agree that
social patterns layer onto the biological pattern at some point,
typically (I'd argue) at the time of awareness, and that these
(often) strengthen with time.
[Michael]
I hate to add a wrinkle in here, but I think it is worth asking
before we move on if patterning of the "new pattern" can be said to
exist in advance of conception...
[Arlo]
Ask it like this, let's say you and your wife learned she was
pregnant. For the next few weeks you began the preparations, started
that whole abstraction-potential stuff, maybe even picked out a name,
talked to your friends about "your child", etc. Then let's say you
learned that it was an error (lawsuit aside), that she never was
pregnant in the first place. Ask, were those social/intellectual
patterns that were created not real?
Or, let's say an infertile couple plans for their child while
undergoing fertility treatment. There is a host of social patterns,
real patterns, that often exist independently of the biological
pattern. But yes, with regards to this discussion, some lines have to
be drawn somewhere, and I'd say that "conception" for the beginning
point of the created biological pattern is likely the best pragmatic
choice (for when the organism begins).
[Michael]
Ok, here I'm going to have to again ask you to not
interject opinions like this. I could derail this thread entirely by
taking justifiable offense to a lot of what you say and how you say
it but will refrain
[Arlo]
I really do not know what you could've taken offense to. You made the
statement that the MOQ would see nothing immoral about "preventing
pregnancy", in that since the biological pattern "begins" at
conception, preventing pregnancy does not "kill" anything.
All I did was point out that YOU are making an assumption here, and
that is those advocating the immorality of conception are advocating
this on considerations of the biological patterns involved. The MOQ
may indeed point to instances where "preventing pregnancy" via
contraception (or other means) could be immoral (think China, forced
sterilization, etc.). And, I add, many could make the argument that
preventing pregnancies is immoral because it may increase sexual
behaviors, spread disease, and cause a host of emotional-social
problems. These are other arguments, to be sure, but the point is
that you made a statement about what the MOQ would say ("there is no
immediate and obvious immorality to preventing a pregnancy") based on
an erroneous assumption.
How on earth do you take offense at that? Really. I'm not sure how
you read "personal opinion and bias" into that.
[Michael]
We (you and I) have managed, I think, a few simple, but significant
MoQ isolations;
1) conception is the initiating point of the "new pattern"
2) biological patterning is the only initial patterning at and
shortly after initiating point
3) social patterning comes into play rather soon, mostly in the form
of "potentializing" by several specific factors: biological mother,
birth mother, biological father.
4) as the new pattern progresses in time, lack of social patterning
in no way diminishes or negates the biological patterning going on.
[Arlo]
Well, again with three I think you are being overly limiting. The
social patterning involves a web of people, maybe the ones you
mentioned (maybe not always), but also other such as grandparents,
friends, loved ones, other children, etc.
[Michael]
I'm asking if you would agree if based on what we have established so
far it would be safe to say that MoQ morality would not have invitro
as immoral simply because many initiated biological new patterns die
off as part of the process of assuring one survives? Would you say
that it is safe to say such a practice is not immoral in MoQ terms? I
think so. And if you do, we have progress.
[Arlo]
We have progress if I agree with you? Hmm... In any event, if I can
restate, you're asking me if simply because some fertilized eggs are
passed out of the woman's body naturally, if that alone is sufficient
to provide a moral base to remove this biological pattern
deliberately? No, I'd say that is not sufficient moral grounds to
make that proclamation. Miscarriages, in and of themselves, do not
morally justify abortions.
[Michael]
Even if the father is a rapist, his social patterning comes into
play, even (I'd say arguably more so) if it is negative patterning.
Its still patterning. If we say the rapist's patterning does not come
into play in MoQ terms, the logical moral result is that the father
of a new pattern in a woman pregnant by rape is no different than the
one of the new pattern in a woman that got pregnant through a sperm
bank donation. No... the rape father pattern is in play. It must be.
[Arlo]
Well, I'd differentiate between a volitional part of a consensual
union and the consequences to the woman's social patterning based on
negative-passive realities of the biological father's life. Knowing
the organism in your uterus is the result of a rape may cause the
mother's socially patterning to be quite different than what it would
be otherwise. Yes, I'd agree the situation is whole context, and
factors surrounding the presence or absence of the involved
biological parents contribute greatly to how those involved act, feel
and think. My point is many times the father absconds, and has no
interest or concern or investiture in the organism. While his absence
may alter/effect the mother's behavior, the only social patterning
surrounding that organism are those of the mother (and other
involved, active parties- grandparents, neighbors, etc.)
[Michael]
A child will ask "who's my daddy?" and the answer is social
patterning no matter who the daddy was.
[Arlo]
You just made a HUGE leap from an invitro organism to a socialized
child. I can't speak for all adopted children, or children who were
abandoned by a biological parent, but I'd say that the social
patterning made by the parties involved (adoptive father, etc.) is
what makes the child. Deadbeat dads can take credit for producing a
biological organism, for sure, but in the evolution of that organism
to "human" the play no part.
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/
