> Dana wrote: > not at all, I agree with you (mostly) as to adults. Ms Schiavo was a > ward of the state and that made her a different matter. >
I agree, and I also agree that, as a matter of life and death, an impartial review is warranted. However, that review was granted was the ruling was in favor of Mr. Schiavo. The problem was people who, because they disagree with the decision, attempt to discredit the process. > In the exchange that follows this post, is it you or Sam saying that > inappropriate = morally unacceptable? > Mr. Minutia, of course! Sam doesn't understand that for the gov't to protect the private rights of adults, it must define "adult". His broader point, which he is having trouble articulating but I agree with, is that the principle of protection of personal liberties, colloquially referred to as The Golden Rule, is a social and legal "moral". Where we part ways is that he feels that since the gov't is protecting The Golden Rule, which is technically a moral, it should also protect all manner of other arbitrary morals (apparently as defined by him). I argue that in extending gov't protection beyond The Golden Rule, the gov't violates that rule, therefore no other morals are ... morally protectable. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:183799 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
