flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) (08/22/84)
Ah, the joys of iconoclasm! It seems that many of those who get labeled "secular humanists" or who tend to take what are called "liberal" positions on social issues are now supporting the Indiana law to override religious objections to medical care for children. Could these be the same people who I so often hear (on or off the net) railing against "imposing morality", who now ask the government to interfere in the moral decisions of these parents? It would seem that whether "imposing morality" is wrong, all depends on whose ox is getting gored! Don't get me wrong: I support the Indiana legislation too. Three cheers for imposing morality, as long as it's the right one! (Or, failing that, a good one!) And now, would it be too much to ask my fellow agnostics (that's right, fellow) and the adherents of liberal religions, etc., to give up a stupid slogan, now that I've caught you in the act of hypocrisy? "The ideas you love to hate" Recycled for your aggravation by --The aspiring iconoclast, Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/23/84)
It is impossible to seperate morality from law. Whether a law is
effective in upholding a particular moral concept depends upon whether
a consensus exists for that moral. Where the consensus does exist,
e.g. prohibition of murder, thievery, refusing necessary medical
treatment for a child, then a law can be effectively enforced. Where
no such consensus exists, e.g prohibition of abortion, alcohol,
refusing necessary medical treatment for a brain-dead patient, the law
will serve only as an obstacle, not a barrier.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david