> Hi All, > > The MOQ takes an evolutionary view, which means that besides the > "line > drawing" problem in fetal development for defining humanity leading > the > absolutists to draw the line the only place they can, at the moment > of > conception, there is also the problem of deciding at what point in > human evolution do we draw the line and say, "from this point > forward > all descendants are human." Obviously, there is no analogous "moment > of > conception" for making the distinction between human and non-human > in > biological evolutionary terms. Do you see the problem here? > Anti-abortionism is about protecting specifically human life, not > just > any life, but there is no such thing as humanity from the > evolutionary > perspective unless you buy into Adam and Eve or some other distinct > first humans from which all others descend. Humanity itself is > distinguished only by an arbitrary line that modern humans decide to > draw at some point in evolutionary history. > > Best, > Steve
MP: This is the same as Arlo's attempt at diverting discussion from MoQ to the concept that everything requires faith to affirm, thus faith is irrelevant. Yes, one can nihilistically boil all of reality down to "just stuff in a continuum" but its altogether a useless way to practically live in reality as we know it. I've already noted this, validated the POV you raise, but noted that such a POV is not relevant to this discussion because it effectively negates all discussion. Either one accepts that part of human existence is drawing real lines in a practical reality OR that such lines are pointless in hypothetical metaphysical constructs. But this discussion is necessarily about seeing if MoQ can enlighten the societal process of drawing such practical lines. To be meaningful, this discussion needs to accept that such lines get drawn in a practical reality. To drop into metaphysical hypothesising about the meaninglessness of drawing lines in a continuum is to basically ignore the point of the discussion and is as such irrelevant to the discussion. Its pretty much saying; this discussion is pointless because all discussion is pointless. Maybe. Maybe. But also, if true, pointless in itself. PS: That you make comments about "anti-abortionism" but fail to acknowledge the variety of reasons people have issues with abortion itself, or Roe v. Wade, or that there is a continuum of opinion regarding abortion (pro and con) completely undercuts any authority of your position. You seem to believe the only position to be held is yours, and the rest are held by "absolutists." The point is that the majority of opinions on abortion are NOT absolute positions. They are part of a continuum of opinions. To reject any that fall out as what you describe as "anti-abortion" as an argument against drawing lines is to draw your own line. You realize that, right? Point I'm trying to make (I'm not seeking to defend a position on abortion, lest you all jump on that wagon to avoid my point) is that I'm trying to see if MoQ can offer moral guidance in a practical world. In this instance, it happens to be on abortion. Steve's comment would be to suggest MoQ cannot do so because its above that. Pirsig on the other hand has given us direct examples that contradict Steve, directly. So I'm going with the notion that MoQ is relevant to practical decisions, and proceeding to attempt to sort out how so in this case. If MoQ'ers don't have the stomach for it, I'll do it on my own. 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/
