Terri Schivo and Pope John Paul II

I am grateful that the pope did not linger for months or years, but the recent debate brings into sharp focus one of John Paul II's points.

He argued for the broadest possible definition of a person. Certain "bioethisits" claim the opposite, that "having awareness is an essential criterion for personhood", etc. The pope and I both contend that this narrowing of definitions fails to protect fetuses, babies, those with Alzheimer's and others. Some "bioethisits" narrow protection further, requiring rationality, the capacity to experience desire or the ability to value one's own existence. These restricted definitions of personhood limit the protection of the weakest among us, and expand the number of humans who can be killed for some benefit (organs harvested, stem cells, etc.).

John Paul II said it was wrong. I agree. The best conservatives (as opposed to those on some religious crusade) want to avoid allowing the court to make determinations that err on the side of non-personhood. Having been there recently with my grandmother, I am glad we did what we did, but am conflicted that we didn't hasten the process along. Should these things really be in our own hands? If we are going to accept responsibility for ending a life, should we not at least allow easing suffering with an injection; instead of torturing them with weeks of dehydration? These are hard choices, related to the human condition, the constitution be damned.

Ultimately we humans have to decide what type of world we want to live in. The debate over Terri Schivo and the law focuses so strongly on the basic definitions of life, happiness and the law that without precise definitions rational debate gets mired in the fine shades of meaning. "Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" sounds great, but what exactly do those words mean?