Ramesh: Yes, I should much prefer the Jackson prosecution not have been brought. I am not clear how much discretion the prosecutors actually had, the complaint having been filed; but if they had the discretion of whether or not to prosecute, I wish they had decided not to. (1) I can’t see that Jackson is any kind of threat to public order, or to any persons. (2) I don’t believe he would harm a fly. (3) I am very strongly of the opinion that the state should butt out of parent-child affairs, unless parents are known to be grossly abusing, or permitting 3rd-party gross abuse of, their children, which I can’t see was the case here. I don’t think a parent who let his child sleep over at Neverland was being a very wise parent, but lack of wisdom in parenting is much too commonplace a thing to squander one’s indignation –let alone the state’s prosecutorial resources — on.

I don’t really understand your second question. Right-to-Lifers, in my (limited) experience, come in all sorts. Some are driven by a personal morality they have worked out for themselves, in which I assume the Golden Rule plays a part, since it is generally considered to be the starting-point for personal morality. Other Right-to-Lifers regard themselves as bound by religious authority. For those people, I assume that if the religious authority conflicts with how they would wish to be dealt with themselves — that is, with the Golden Rule — then in conscience they should defer to the religious authority and discard the Rule.

To the degree that Right-to-Lifers are more likely than the rest of us to consider themselves as bound by religious authority (which ought, it seems to me, if you consider yourself bound by it, override any mere general moral axiom like the Golden Rule), I guess I would say: Yes, Right-to-Lifers are less fond of the Golden Rule than others. That’s a broad statistical statement, though. Any particular RtL-er might hold the Golden Rule in very high esteem. Contrariwise, any particular euthanasist (?) might think the Golden Rule invalid or inapplicable. He might, for example, be a Marxist-Leninist, like the protagonist of Darkness at Noon, who believes that moral good is simply and solely what advances the historical process.

If you are asking me whether I think RtL-ers are amoral or insincere — no, of course I don’t think so. It is a very silly and childish thing to suppose that because someone disagrees with you he is driven by base motives. He may just be honestly mistaken. Or you may be!