Sunday, October 30, 2005
Disturbing - But Not In The Way You Might Think
This headline really is disturbing
But by the same token, the first thought that ran through my mind when I read it, was "Of course they aren't." They aren't "things" either, but they aren't "persons." The helplessness of thier state makes them, in a functional sense, property of some sort. So too children and individuals like Teri Schiavo.
The question is not one of "personhood" but rather "person value." Do we and should we value embryoes and children and people like Teri the same as we value less helpless individuals? That's the key question. Now, of course, I think we should, but how does a society answer such a question?
Courts, for sure are not the place to find the answer. While we all deride the tendency of court to "make law," they do try, to some extent, to place their decisions within the framework of existing law. Thus they invent "rights" because "rights" is concept that is within the exisring framework of law, when what is needed is a whole new category. Thus in situations like this, where a new category is called for, they are going to be loathe to do that, and will instead try and classify it somehow in existing categories.
Ask yourself this, why do courts end up "making law." In part because we ask them to decide on things which aren't in the law. They should, of course, punt on such questions, but sometimes, the society has to have them answered, and the correct place to answer the question, in legislation, seems intractable. On issues closely dividied, elected officials want to punt, because any answer will honk off too many voters. However, it really takes legislation to posit new categories.
You know what I think? I think we have to grow up in this country. What I mean by that is that we have to gain some respect for the process and come to understand that the process will not always produce the result we want, but that it is a far cry better than having stuff like this imposed on us.
But by the same token, the first thought that ran through my mind when I read it, was "Of course they aren't." They aren't "things" either, but they aren't "persons." The helplessness of thier state makes them, in a functional sense, property of some sort. So too children and individuals like Teri Schiavo.
The question is not one of "personhood" but rather "person value." Do we and should we value embryoes and children and people like Teri the same as we value less helpless individuals? That's the key question. Now, of course, I think we should, but how does a society answer such a question?
Courts, for sure are not the place to find the answer. While we all deride the tendency of court to "make law," they do try, to some extent, to place their decisions within the framework of existing law. Thus they invent "rights" because "rights" is concept that is within the exisring framework of law, when what is needed is a whole new category. Thus in situations like this, where a new category is called for, they are going to be loathe to do that, and will instead try and classify it somehow in existing categories.
Ask yourself this, why do courts end up "making law." In part because we ask them to decide on things which aren't in the law. They should, of course, punt on such questions, but sometimes, the society has to have them answered, and the correct place to answer the question, in legislation, seems intractable. On issues closely dividied, elected officials want to punt, because any answer will honk off too many voters. However, it really takes legislation to posit new categories.
You know what I think? I think we have to grow up in this country. What I mean by that is that we have to gain some respect for the process and come to understand that the process will not always produce the result we want, but that it is a far cry better than having stuff like this imposed on us.
