Comments on: Nevada Constitutional Amendment to clarify what a “person” is http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/nevada-constitutional-amendment-to-clarify-what-a-person-is/ A Catholic Social Commentary Fri, 18 May 2012 17:49:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Matthew Warner http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/nevada-constitutional-amendment-to-clarify-what-a-person-is/comment-page-1/#comment-14911 Matthew Warner Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:04:12 +0000 http://www.fallibleblogma.com/?p=2705#comment-14911 Very good thoughts, as usual, Drew. Thank you! However, the fact that ending a post-born human's life is justifiable in some cases under our law doesn't keep us from also making laws that make it illegal to intentionally and directly kill other innocent post-born human beings. We do just that. But I agree that the process will likely be incremental...just as any social justice issue ever has been. But it is through exercises like this (this Nevada Amendment) that make public and draw attention to a very simple truth that make people think and give concession on other smaller issues that often bring about that incremental change. Very good thoughts, as usual, Drew. Thank you!

However, the fact that ending a post-born human’s life is justifiable in some cases under our law doesn’t keep us from also making laws that make it illegal to intentionally and directly kill other innocent post-born human beings. We do just that.

But I agree that the process will likely be incremental…just as any social justice issue ever has been. But it is through exercises like this (this Nevada Amendment) that make public and draw attention to a very simple truth that make people think and give concession on other smaller issues that often bring about that incremental change.

]]> By: Drew http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/nevada-constitutional-amendment-to-clarify-what-a-person-is/comment-page-1/#comment-14905 Drew Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:32:39 +0000 http://www.fallibleblogma.com/?p=2705#comment-14905 The way I see it, the issue is not so much about whether the human embryo is a person or about the simple fact that a life is ended (the second point is obvious and the first should be; they are both matters of fact). The real issue concerns whether one approaches the issue from a deontological or a utilitarian perspective. Sometimes, ending a human life is morally justified (war, capital punishment, self-defense, martyrdom, etc.). So, under what circumstances is it morally justifiable to end the life of a 'separate' human being who is still in the womb? (I am alluding here to Aquinas's definition of person: "'person' implies a complete substance subsisting of itself and separate from all else." - ST IIIa Q. 16, art. 12, ad 2) If we represent the criteria by "X," then at one end of the spectrum, you have those for whom X = 0 (i.e., it is never morally acceptable), and at the other, those for whom X = 1 (i.e., it is always morally acceptable). If we draw an analogy between killings that occur before birth and those which occur afterwards, and if we already know that some killings which occur after birth are morally justifiable, would it not stand to reason that the same would be true of some that occur before birth as well? Don't get me wrong...I'm very much a pro-lifer. But I don't think that a genuine Catholic eudaemonism will get one much further than "safe, legal, & rare," with the emphasis on the third item over the other two. I therefore tend to be more in favor of incremental legislation rather than that which aims at an outright ban, but that's just my view. The way I see it, the issue is not so much about whether the human embryo is a person or about the simple fact that a life is ended (the second point is obvious and the first should be; they are both matters of fact). The real issue concerns whether one approaches the issue from a deontological or a utilitarian perspective. Sometimes, ending a human life is morally justified (war, capital punishment, self-defense, martyrdom, etc.). So, under what circumstances is it morally justifiable to end the life of a ‘separate’ human being who is still in the womb? (I am alluding here to Aquinas’s definition of person: “‘person’ implies a complete substance subsisting of itself and separate from all else.” – ST IIIa Q. 16, art. 12, ad 2) If we represent the criteria by “X,” then at one end of the spectrum, you have those for whom X = 0 (i.e., it is never morally acceptable), and at the other, those for whom X = 1 (i.e., it is always morally acceptable). If we draw an analogy between killings that occur before birth and those which occur afterwards, and if we already know that some killings which occur after birth are morally justifiable, would it not stand to reason that the same would be true of some that occur before birth as well? Don’t get me wrong…I’m very much a pro-lifer. But I don’t think that a genuine Catholic eudaemonism will get one much further than “safe, legal, & rare,” with the emphasis on the third item over the other two. I therefore tend to be more in favor of incremental legislation rather than that which aims at an outright ban, but that’s just my view.

]]> By: Matthew Warner http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/nevada-constitutional-amendment-to-clarify-what-a-person-is/comment-page-1/#comment-14896 Matthew Warner Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:56:16 +0000 http://www.fallibleblogma.com/?p=2705#comment-14896 Scott, I'm not so sure. I agree you could still have judges trying to twist things how they want. However, it would be much more difficult for them. I don't know all of the details in Nevada, but i'll bet it is similar to other states and federally. For example, right now the law grants rights to persons. And so using legal precedent they can say well we won't have a case where an unborn baby was treated as a "person"...so they can wiggle around it. But if that is now extended to all human beings. Then legal precedence is different now for the use of what is human or not. So it takes a giant step closer. But you're right, they might be able to still try to redefine what a "human being" is...but not if there are precedents already in place for it. They would be bound to those precedents. Sadly, I dont' think the amendment would pass. But it is so simple...one has to ask WHY!? And that's a good question to shed some light on. So the effort is good. Scott, I’m not so sure. I agree you could still have judges trying to twist things how they want. However, it would be much more difficult for them. I don’t know all of the details in Nevada, but i’ll bet it is similar to other states and federally. For example, right now the law grants rights to persons. And so using legal precedent they can say well we won’t have a case where an unborn baby was treated as a “person”…so they can wiggle around it. But if that is now extended to all human beings. Then legal precedence is different now for the use of what is human or not. So it takes a giant step closer.

But you’re right, they might be able to still try to redefine what a “human being” is…but not if there are precedents already in place for it. They would be bound to those precedents. Sadly, I dont’ think the amendment would pass. But it is so simple…one has to ask WHY!? And that’s a good question to shed some light on. So the effort is good.

]]> By: Scott http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/nevada-constitutional-amendment-to-clarify-what-a-person-is/comment-page-1/#comment-14881 Scott Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:21:33 +0000 http://www.fallibleblogma.com/?p=2705#comment-14881 Sadly, I don't think an amendment with that wording would help. All they need to do to get around it is redefine what a "human being" is. And since they've already managed to redefine "person," I think it's clear they'd redefine "human being" too, along with "human life" or any other phrase you could come up with. The just need the right judge to interpret "human being" in the way they want. Sadly, I don’t think an amendment with that wording would help. All they need to do to get around it is redefine what a “human being” is. And since they’ve already managed to redefine “person,” I think it’s clear they’d redefine “human being” too, along with “human life” or any other phrase you could come up with. The just need the right judge to interpret “human being” in the way they want.

]]>