Monday, April 1, 2013
Buck/Roe
What do you think about Lombardo's assertion that you can not be both against Buck v. Bell based on the belief government should not interfere with an individual's body while at the same time being against Roe v. Wade? Does this quandary hold water? Is he speaking from a strictly judicial standpoint, or does moral perspective allow for this apparent contradiction?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To me, the difference lies in whose choice is at stake: the government's or the citizen's. I see his point; however, I believe that it is different to legislate/rule for the government's right to exercise control over its citizens' bodies than it is to legislate/rule for the citizens' right to control over their own bodies. Lombardo's juxtaposition of Skinner, Buck, and Loving was interesting because of the way in which government functioned in each case. To me, Roe is different because it seems to reject the key element that the other three share. Other thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on Roe. As to the larger picture, it's quite illuminating how Lombardi connects Buck with Skinner, Loving, and Roe. It's easy to see these cases as existing in their own world, but clearly (and increasingly obviously) they are connected. It does make you wonder about the myriad of precedents which may have gone differently if Buck was decided differently.
ReplyDelete