From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Date: 02 Jan 93 09:36:11 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>
>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 

    Not all secular reasoning is.  Some of it is simply
anti-religious reasoning masquerading as secular.  In the general
case, though, secular reasoning will have a foundation in
fact that religious reasoning never can.


>Let's take a clear look at a couple of examples of *secular* reasoning:
>
>Hillary Clinton et.al. have reasoned, secularly, that children should be
>given the same legal rights and representation as adults, including the
>right to divorce their parents.

    Can you document this?  I haven't heard anything of the sort.


>Similarly, if a 9,10,11,or 12-year old can divorce hs/her parents because
>of their maturity, then why can't those same mature individuals move in
>with a 30-year old same sex lover?  If they're mature enough to unchoose
>parents, they are certainly mature enough to choose who they want to live
>with.  The National Man-Boy Love Association would certainly support that
>reasoning.  Why can anyone, secularly, object to pedophilia if the child
>doesn't object?  Or if the "child" no longer exists, legally, because that
>child has been ruled an adult by the courts?

     There is a basic question of whether or not a child is
capable of giving informed consent for sex.  Currently we have
age of consent laws - these are terminally flawed, in that not
all children happen to mature at the same rate.  But they're
the best method we have right now.  Besides NAMBLA, I haven't
seen anyone clamoring for the repeal of those laws.
      So, basically, please document where you've seen this
line of "secular reasoning".


>Why is incest wrong, by secular reasoning?  With so many diverse forms of
>birth control, including genetic testing and legal abortion, it's not like
>biological reasons could possibly hold water anymore.  As long as both
>parties agree, where's the harm?

    Where is the harm?  Can you demonstrate that there is any harm
at all if both parties agree?


>Secular reasoning has found that no human being exists at conception, that
>women have the right to do with that non-viable tissue what they want,
>unilaterally, because men have no right to interfere.  Fine.  Then secular
>reasoning also makes it clear that men are not and can never be parents,
>since they never create children.

     I fail to see how you derive this conclusion from your premise.
Can you trace your train of logic?


>  At most, men supply only raw material -
>it is the woman who chooses to manufacture a child.

    No, the woman chooses to carry the fetus to term, but she
still can't "manufacture" that child without a man somewhere in
the process.


>  If a woman can decide
>to have an abortion for purely personal economic reasons, then her decision
>to have a child must also be based on purely personal economic reasons,

     Nope.  You did it again - your conclusion doesn't follow.
If a woman can decide to have an abortion for purely personal
economic reasons, then her decision to have a child _can_ also
be based on purely personal economic reasons.  Not "must".


> and
>there is no secularly logical way she can coerce an involuntary tax out 
>of the man for a decision she makes unilaterally about her own economic 
>future.

    I'm tending to agree with you on this one.  Paternity laws
need revamping badly.


>  According to secular reasoning, genetic comparisons are pointless,
>since a man's twin bears the same genetic relationship to the child, yet
>isn't legally bound to support the child manufactured via the use of his
>brother's sperm.

    I don't follow the point of this one at all.


>  Currently, anonymous sperm donors can NEVER be legally
>held for child support - what difference does knowing the sperm donor's 
>name make?  It's not like he gets any more choice, or makes a child.

    The reasoning is "by consenting to have sex (presumably) without
birth control, the man is consenting to support a child if one results
from that sexual act."  In the sperm donor case, there is no such
implicit contract.


>Do you think this reasoning is crazy?  It's coming to court in New York
>this very month.  And Karen DeCrow, former president of NOW, is on
>record as supporting this reasoning.

    Supporting which reasoning?  What you've written above is
muddled enough as to be almost unfollowable.


>What about infibulation, the practice of mutilating female genitalia
>that is common in Africa?  Secularly speaking, we have no right to 
>condemn another culture's practices.  As long as their society finds 
>it acceptable, how can we western Europeans dare to impose OUR moral
>inhibitions on a functioning society?

    Why should we impose "our" morals on another society?  Why
should we impose "our" morals on individuals within our society?


>That's what secular reasoning gets you.  Sorry, but I don't see how
>secular reasoning is superior to religiously based reasoning.

    I'm not sure that you understand reasoning, period.


>You know, this society complains to high heaven about drunk drivers.
>We say they are suffering from an illness (alcoholism) but we punish
>them if they dare to be ill in the wrong place.

    That's an interesting way of putting it.  I look at it as follows:
A person can choose to drink - the can drink as much as they want,
and as often as they want.  When they decide to get behind the
wheel of a car, then they put _my_ life at risk by their actions.
That's where I draw the line.


>  How many people have
>gone to jail for having the flu while driving?  What if they vomited
>and hit someone, whay aren't they jailed for DWI (driving while 
>influenzaed)?

     That's very clever.  If you can produce research that
indicates that drivers with influenza are significantly more likely
to endanger other drivers, I'll support your drive to have a
ban enacted into law.
     See, this is where secular reasoning gets you.  You actually
have to show _reasons_ for your opinions.


>  Then why don't we jail the AIDS infected for condemning other
>people to death by being ill in the wrong place (while have sex)? 

    Umm... This is happening right now.  People are being tried
for knowingly spreading AIDS.


>Especially now that the AZT-resistant strains are obviously being spread
>by precisely these people?  According to secular reasoning, a drunk driver
>and a sexually active AIDS carrier are no different.

    This doesn't follow either.  A drunk driver is endangering others,
with no consent on their part.  The AIDS carrier is endangering others
also, if he or she is sexually active.  If the AIDS carrier does
so with full knowledge of his or her condition, and does not inform
his or her sexual partner, then I think you could make a good case
that they should be tried.


>  So, Evelyn, when
>are you going to support they jailing of AIDS-infected sexually active
>individuals?

      Sigh.  No logic involved here.  It all involves consent.


>  How about ANYONE with VD?  Follow your thrice-blessed
>secular logic.   

     Let me suggest that you don't understand logic - it requires
more than projecting your own delusions onto the ideas of others.

				-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.