[MD] Morality, Abortion and the MoQ

[Michael Poloukhine]

> [Michael]
> I don't expect there to be a clear cut MoQ moral answer..
> 
> [Arlo]
> Here's my answer. Keeping in mind that the reasons many women choose
> abortion are complicated and varied... 

MP: Not to intentionally get off on an argumentative foot, but you already make 
an assumption that the woman's choice takes precedent. I'm not saying it 
necessarily doesn't, but you've eliminated without debate the possibility of moral 
superiority of society to dictate it, of the man's involvement, of the unborn child's 
rights, etc. You've jumped right over a whole host of fundamental moral 
questions with that one initiative assumption. All the rest of what you say is 
colored by that assumption. It makes sorting out the underlying morals of your 
examples difficult, because the starting point is are already morally tainted.

I'm saying we need to address the elemental moral questions I listed from an 
MoQ moral standpoint before we even get so far as to be proclaiming 
something like 'a woman chooses' as if its morally right that she is making the 
choice. We may find that it is. But we may also find that its not or that it 
depends.

People "choose to murder" all the time, and we have no compunction letting 
society come down on them with the fullest extent of the law, but that too is a 
choice they make.

What's the moral difference? That's a question that needs to be sorted out 
before one goes on the assumption that its the woman's choice by default.

 
> The MOQ values the life of the unborn child over MOST biological, 
> social and intellectual patterns. 
MP: I'm asking to first investigate a statement like this. For instance; "unborn 
child"... does the MoQ speak to the blastocyst? What about early first trimester? 
As compared to late third? Is there a line on which MoQ would fall out morally 
bad v. morally ok? And then how does that compare to where one life is pitted 
against another? Does a blastocyst human life have the same standing as a 30 
yo woman? etc.

IMO, in an MoQ view, the moment of conception begins a biological dynamic 
pattern of Quality that takes on a life of its own; the Quality train has left the 
station so to speak. And in an MoQ sense, the newer pattern has greater 
potential for DQ experiences than the older one. The newer pattern having 
greater Quality road distance ahead of her, and it seems arguable that such a 
"greater potentialized" life should take moral precedent over an older, arguably 
more static biological pattern. 

But that just to show that this simple topic "define life," needs greater MoQ 
moral investigation like this before we march right on past that to more complex 
moral questions based on this primary one.



> Having an abortion to escape social 
> stigma, for example, would be an example of something the MOQ would
> say is immoral. 
MP: Seems reasonable.

> However, having an abortion to save the life of the
> mother I would think the MOQ would say is moral.
MP: Not saying it isn't, but why? Is there a moral superiority of one human life 
over another dictated by age? If the child would survive the mother's death, is 
the scale morally balanced again? If lack of a mother does not kill the newborn 
child (lets say a caring father, or even societal care) does that raise the moral 
scale for the child?

> Incest becomes 
> tricky, as society has loudly made the claim that incest threatens
> social stability. In this case it may be that aborting children of
> incest is society's way of disavowing the act, that denying abortion
> in these cases is tantamount to condoning the act. The same could be
> said of instances of rape. In both cases of incest and rape, it may
> increase the acts of these types of violence if the perpetrater felt
> he could "force" the birthing of a child on the woman. Here I think
> the MOQ allows society the benefit of allowing behaviors that may 
> decrease acts of violence that would lead to greater social 
> disruption. By giving the woman freedom to choose, it may lessen
> acts 
> of violence perpetrated against her.

MP: Here's where we cross a bridge. We have both culture (incest) and society 
(punishment). Both very mushy in that there are different cultures and different 
societies, and each and all have untold moral layers embedded within the 
factors that go into a certain attitude toward abortion. Way to many variables to 
sort out where we haven't even sorted out a basic MoQ position on what is life. 
We are now also talking about attempting prevention of future acts through 
punishment of prior ones. That's punishment to one person for what another 
hasn't even done yet. Morally suspect, IMO and has little to do with the moral 
questions inherent to abortion.


> So I think "abortion", like "capital punishment", is an area that in
> and of itself is not moral or immoral, but the reasons behind it may
> lead to it being so. 

MP: Here's where we really need to have sorted out the moral values of life first. 
Answering questions akin to differentiating between murder in self defense and 
murder in revenge, or anger, etc. But more so; abortion is the killing of one 
person by the choice of *one* (or two) other(s) for the simple fact that the one 
being killed is still *alive* but has no voice to object where CP is the killing of 
one person by *society* for the fact that another has no voice because he is 
already *dead*. Morally two VERY different things as it relates to moral values 
of life.


> For example, Pirsig has stated that capital 
> punishment is immoral except in cases where it can be demonstrated
> that incarceration of the prisoner itself still threatens society,
> and Pirsig alludes to cases of treason or insurrection. 
MP: I disagree with Pirsig. You'd be hard pressed to tell me we could not 
incarcerate someone seeking to destroy society in a way that prevents him/her 
from being able to do so. Solitary confinement, for instance. Heavy sedation. 
Frontal lobotomy. Induced coma. Drastic, but not death. Just because that 
person wants to take down society does not mean that killing them is moral. 
There would have to be NO other option; that person would have to be a direct 
threat to society not stoppable by any other means than their death. I can't 
imagine a hypothetical scenario where that could be the case.


> "But if an
> established social structure is not seriously threatened by a 
> criminal, then an evolutionary morality would argue that there is no
> moral justification for killing him." (LILA)
MP: But here I agree.


> Here we see that it is not "killing a prisoner" per se that falls 
> under the moral knife, but the reasons we do such things.
MP: Generally speaking, that is the crux of the matter. The "why." The options. 
The middle way.

> Going back the idea of abortion to preserve the social life of the
> mother, one could argue that a society that condones this devalues
> human life to the point where the very fabric of society is 
> threatened. However, denying abortion in all cases may do the same
> thing. What, I suppose, should be asked (but can't be unless you are
> privy to the intimate details and particularities involved) is "why"
> a particular abortion occurs, and whether or not those reasons 
> violate the MOQ hierarchy or preserve it.
MP: And here we enter another of the "elemental" moral questions I listed that I 
think we need to examine first. The ones dealing with "choice" and who's takes 
moral superiority and why. Does society have a moral place to dictate a choice 
at all? If yes, then in what capacity, and in to what degree? What is the 
punishment for failure to abide by that societal choice? Why punish? etc. 

If the cases where abortion is moral are few, why is there no discussion that 
abortion be illegal, and only permissible under certain circumstances, as 
dictated by society, and as judged by society? Why is the default a permissive 
situation with exceptional restrictions rather that restrictive situation with 
exceptional permissions? The "why"s in this case being rhetorical moral 
questions asked, not my own. The rhetorical answer seems to me to be that a 
moral decision *has* been made, but without discussion of the morals. The 
same one you made that choice trumps life as a default. That decision (see 
tribunal discussion below) precludes debate about morals while it remains in 
force and taints all debate that does manage to happen. The debate on the 
morals is not one on neutral ground, its one where a moral presumption has 
been made without debate, and all discussions start from the morally slanted 
perspective.


> 
> Again, keeping in mind the ridiculously simplistic reduction of
> these 
> examples, I'd say (1) a woman in her thirties having consensual sex
> and decides to abort so that she doesn't have to deal with a kid,
> may 
> be very morally distinct from (2) a teenage girl who is raped by her
> uncle or (2a) a woman whose doctor determines will die as a result
> of 
> childbirth. Obviously (to restate), no real life situation is as 
> simplistic as these, but in a very broad stroke you get the idea.
MP: Yes, three examples. What about a planned pregnancy aborted due to 
severe child handicaps, like DS? What of the woman who "might" die in child 
birth? What if the one where the child "might" die? etc. Most abortions are not 
as obvious morally as the three you list. Without first addressing the moral 
questions of the primary elements (as I listed) it gets way too complicated way 
too fast.


> What would be abhorrent would be to set up a "tribunal" to make such
> a decision. Ultimately, the decision must remain the woman's.
MP: Roe v. Wade was made by just such a tribunal. Do you accept that tribunal 
decision simply because it agrees with your sentiments? IMO that tribunal 
decision has caused more harm than good on the issue by taking it out of the 
arena of democratic debate. We no longer debate the issue in law, we defend it 
before a tribunal against a tribunally dictated position. We accept countless 
decisions made for us by society without blinking an eye (seat belts anyone?) 
yet when it comes to the life of unborn children we seem perfectly happy to 
block society from having a say. Why?


> There are also related social issues that must be addressed. 
> Consider, a woman living in poverty. If we deny her the abortion 
> (valuing the life of the child), what do we then do to value that 
> child's life once its been born? 
MP: A good question to ask those that seem to think Government is there to 
help us. They tend to be the same ones that fight for abortion on demand.

> Consider a woman who chooses an 
> abortion lest she risk losing her job. If we suggest its immoral to
> do so, then isn't it equally immoral for that woman to lose her job
> because she gave birth to this child? Do we not show our value for
> human life by defending that woman's ability to keep her employment?
> Isn't it hypocritical to say "human life is sacred, but if you get
> fired for having a child that's just free-market economics"? If we
> want to minimize abortions that occur for reasons other than incest,
> rape or imminent threat to the mother's life, we have to also
> address 
> the reasons woman may make this choice. And another one of these is
> social stigma. How absurd is it that we demonize young women who
> have 
> abortions, but stigmatize those who keep the child?
MP: Societal static issues. Not necessarily fundamental moral ones. What you 
are talking about is no longer the moral issues behind abortion, but the moral 
issues within society at large about abortion. Related, but not the same. This is 
getting into the "should there be a law about abortion" type of question, not "is it 
moral to have an abortion."  China has a population problem, does that make 
abortion moral there? This is getting into another of the fundamental questions I 
listed; does society have the moral upper hand over the biological patterns that 
make it up? If so, or if not, or if sometimes... then why?

> Anyways, these are just some thoughts.
MP: And good ones, but I fear we'll be all muddled up before we know it if we 
don't first address those fundamental moral dichotomies I listed before getting 
into the complex scenarios you list. I could dream up another twenty such 
scenarios, and in each case the moral line is not clear. 

We need to first grapple with the basics, which itself could take weeks.




MP
----
"Don't believe everything you think."