Anyone else ...
putnamd at ATLODBS1.HAYES.COM
Thu Apr 4 13:06:00 MST 1996
> So what? Do we punish people, or label them, or ignore them, because the
> "sins of the father"? Is this "right"? Is this "moral"? Aren't we still
> "morally" obligated to help our fellow man? Or, do we judge his conduct, and
> then administer- or not administer - help based on OUR human judgment of that
> Silly me. And I thought Jesus died for all of us, not just the morally right
> among us. If we are to be so absolute in our judgments of others, I sure hope
> that our definition of right and moral is in absolute alignment with the one
> who will ultimately judge us. I just cannot be that sure.
We have gone far astray from the original premise. Why should more research
money be spent on AIDS, which is preventable by moral behavior, than on a wide
assortment of other medical problems that both are not preventable and
take more lives? And why should there be more sensitivity (wearing ribbons
and such) toward mostly self inflicted AIDS victims than toward heart desease
or cancer victims, for example? This has nothing to do with right or wrong
but rather the most effective use of public funds. I say, and this is where
the discussion lost focus, that AIDS does not deserve the disproportionate
funding and attention it is getting. Both because it is preventable by proper
moral behavior and because there are too many other deseases that are effecting
more people through no fault of their own. It is getting the attention and funds
because liberals want to normalize immoral behavior such as sex outside
marriage, same gender sex, etc.
Dennis Putnam, Manager
Technical Planning and Services
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.
Opinions expressed are mine and should not be viewed as an official positon of
Hayes or its management.
"Our Founding Fathers did not create our civil liberties ... They safegarded
them." Tanya Mataksa, NRA-ILA Executive Director.
More information about the Rushtalk