We should have kritarchy because disputes are inevitable and should be settled and resolved with sound principles. Furthermore, on the principle that a strong person should not exploit a weak person or dispense with him (a group of weak persons) without any consent from the latter, a dispute should be created with the strong person by a judge appointing himself or someone else to act in and on the behalf of the weak party. The strong party may or may not elect to act in and on his own behalf by himself. If he does not, he may hire a counsel to represent him, or ask the judge to appoint one.
The relevance of kritarchy to the abortion debate becomes obvious. As soon as a woman becomes pregnant and it becomes obvious to a judge that the embryo (fetus, baby) in question is in danger of being aborted, the judge may then and there create a dispute by appointing an agent to act in and on the embryo's behalf.
In most cases the judge (or a panel of judges) probably will rule in the favor of the embryo. However, in some cases it may be that the judge will rule for the mother; for example, doctors think she will die unless the embryo is terminated early.
The relevance of kritarchy to the abortion debate becomes obvious. As soon as a woman becomes pregnant and it becomes obvious to a judge that the embryo (fetus, baby) in question is in danger of being aborted, the judge may then and there create a dispute by appointing an agent to act in and on the embryo's behalf.
In most cases the judge (or a panel of judges) probably will rule in the favor of the embryo. However, in some cases it may be that the judge will rule for the mother; for example, doctors think she will die unless the embryo is terminated early.
Comment