[MD] Morality, Abortion and the MoQ

[Arlo Bensinger]

[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.