Philosophical Detection: Rand Paul rewrites the constitution with religious legislation
Rand Paul has re-introduced his "Life at Conception Act" abolishing all abortion rights by decreeing that cells are "human persons" at conception.
The 'novel legal theory' on behalf of the anti-abortion rights agenda seeks to overthrow Roe v Wade and the lack of constitutional authority to prohibit abortions by arbitrarily asserting that cells are "persons" under 14th amendment "equal protection" of "the right to life of each born and unborn [sic] human".
He claims that his redefinition, which crushes the rights of actual human beings, "does not amend or interpret the Constitution, but simply relies on the 14th Amendment, which specifically authorizes Congress to enforce its provisions".
Paul's legislation would impose what he claims "most Americans believe and what science has long known - that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore, is entitled to legal protection". He does not cite what "science" has endorsed the claim that a cell is "entitled to legal protection" or what "science" endorses his equivocation between human persons and cells with human genes in a package-deal labeled "human life", foisted in the name of "most Americans". (A current conservative fad is to change the subject to "giraffes" and laugh at their victims.)
Moral concepts, including 'rights', apply to rational beings, i.e., human persons who must make choices, which are the facts which give rise to morality. They do not apply to cells and embryos. The notion that they do is religious mysticism attributing intrinsic characteristics as reified floating abstractions to be taken on faith. But Paul doesn't need to justify it in a world of anti-concepts and statism in which the illogic is intended to be enforced by the power of Congress out of an alleged "duty" to follow down a verbal rabbit hole (a.k.a. theocracy). Faith and force are corollaries.
Having wiped out the rights of real human persons with this change that isn't a change, Paul claims that "the right to life is guaranteed to all Americans [now meaning cells and embryos displacing actual Americans] in the Declaration of Independence[!], and it is the constitutional duty [sic] of all members of Congress to ensure this belief is upheld.
Conservatives who persistently claim to be "originalists" on the meaning of the Constitution have no qualms over changing the Constitution to impose religious duties that are not in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, and which played no philosophical or historical role in the founding of the country and our form of government. Human cells and fetuses were not discussed, let alone included under the Enlightenment "reason and the rights of man" or any discussion of constitutional authority. Entitlements to 'life' of cells at "conception" are a 19th century dogma of the Catholic Church. Perhaps they will next try to read it into the 1st Amendment under "the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
The contorted "logic" of these arguments employed in slippery political demagoguery proclaiming "constitutional duties" to violate the rights of people in the name of "the rights of all Americans" and "science" is a prime example of rationalism: It illustrates how rationalism verbally manipulates words as floating abstractions without regard for the meaning of concepts in reality, shifting meanings in passing from one end of a sentence to the other. It counts on a lack of understanding of concepts and objectivity for cognition.
The sales pitch for the "Life at Conception Act" illustrates how the verbal game, however serious and "sincere" in intention, is exploited in political maneuvers carefully crafted to manipulate people through rationalizing contradictory, religious mysticism in the name of logic and science to buttress a preconceived, religious political agenda -- taking us back to the medieval subordination of reason as a handmaiden to faith.
Most people can see through the sophistry behind the "Life at Conception Act" even if they don't see all the conceptual fallacies and grasp only that "something is fishy". It illustrates how Rand Paul's quirky arguments based on the cultural anti-conceptual mentality undermine support for his otherwise good policies, and discredit anything called "tea party" or "libertarian" in any sense of that word through a religious package-deal-coming-home-to-roost. It's an inevitable consequence of the philosophical and intellectual bankruptcy of the modern conservative movement undermining civilization and destroying the originally secular "tea party", no matter how much conservatives appeal to the rhetoric of "constitutional scholarship" and "proven traditions".
Press release: https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/pres...
Bill: http://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/...
The 'novel legal theory' on behalf of the anti-abortion rights agenda seeks to overthrow Roe v Wade and the lack of constitutional authority to prohibit abortions by arbitrarily asserting that cells are "persons" under 14th amendment "equal protection" of "the right to life of each born and unborn [sic] human".
He claims that his redefinition, which crushes the rights of actual human beings, "does not amend or interpret the Constitution, but simply relies on the 14th Amendment, which specifically authorizes Congress to enforce its provisions".
Paul's legislation would impose what he claims "most Americans believe and what science has long known - that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore, is entitled to legal protection". He does not cite what "science" has endorsed the claim that a cell is "entitled to legal protection" or what "science" endorses his equivocation between human persons and cells with human genes in a package-deal labeled "human life", foisted in the name of "most Americans". (A current conservative fad is to change the subject to "giraffes" and laugh at their victims.)
Moral concepts, including 'rights', apply to rational beings, i.e., human persons who must make choices, which are the facts which give rise to morality. They do not apply to cells and embryos. The notion that they do is religious mysticism attributing intrinsic characteristics as reified floating abstractions to be taken on faith. But Paul doesn't need to justify it in a world of anti-concepts and statism in which the illogic is intended to be enforced by the power of Congress out of an alleged "duty" to follow down a verbal rabbit hole (a.k.a. theocracy). Faith and force are corollaries.
Having wiped out the rights of real human persons with this change that isn't a change, Paul claims that "the right to life is guaranteed to all Americans [now meaning cells and embryos displacing actual Americans] in the Declaration of Independence[!], and it is the constitutional duty [sic] of all members of Congress to ensure this belief is upheld.
Conservatives who persistently claim to be "originalists" on the meaning of the Constitution have no qualms over changing the Constitution to impose religious duties that are not in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, and which played no philosophical or historical role in the founding of the country and our form of government. Human cells and fetuses were not discussed, let alone included under the Enlightenment "reason and the rights of man" or any discussion of constitutional authority. Entitlements to 'life' of cells at "conception" are a 19th century dogma of the Catholic Church. Perhaps they will next try to read it into the 1st Amendment under "the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
The contorted "logic" of these arguments employed in slippery political demagoguery proclaiming "constitutional duties" to violate the rights of people in the name of "the rights of all Americans" and "science" is a prime example of rationalism: It illustrates how rationalism verbally manipulates words as floating abstractions without regard for the meaning of concepts in reality, shifting meanings in passing from one end of a sentence to the other. It counts on a lack of understanding of concepts and objectivity for cognition.
The sales pitch for the "Life at Conception Act" illustrates how the verbal game, however serious and "sincere" in intention, is exploited in political maneuvers carefully crafted to manipulate people through rationalizing contradictory, religious mysticism in the name of logic and science to buttress a preconceived, religious political agenda -- taking us back to the medieval subordination of reason as a handmaiden to faith.
Most people can see through the sophistry behind the "Life at Conception Act" even if they don't see all the conceptual fallacies and grasp only that "something is fishy". It illustrates how Rand Paul's quirky arguments based on the cultural anti-conceptual mentality undermine support for his otherwise good policies, and discredit anything called "tea party" or "libertarian" in any sense of that word through a religious package-deal-coming-home-to-roost. It's an inevitable consequence of the philosophical and intellectual bankruptcy of the modern conservative movement undermining civilization and destroying the originally secular "tea party", no matter how much conservatives appeal to the rhetoric of "constitutional scholarship" and "proven traditions".
Press release: https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/pres...
Bill: http://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/...
Previous comments... You are currently on page 5.
"Judge and be prepared to be judged "
:-)
Do you still have rights if you are capable of reason, but don't practice it?
Do you believe the Supreme Court is infallible? Do you believe the government should manage the healthcare system also? The Supreme Court decided it could and should.
Quit being so panicky and whiney, and start thinking for yourself. If you can't answer a question, just say so. If you are an authority on the subject, you shouldn't have any problem answering simple questions.
You assumed that I was defending Ron Paul, which I wasn't and you assumed that I was anti-abortion.
There are bans on abortion to some extent in every state. Are all of the states breaking the law?
Thanks
The closest you come to this is the use of the word "choices", but even white blood cells make "choices" on what to attack so there must be specific types of choices that count.
Rand Paul thinks that cells have rights "from conception" and sees no difference between that and human rights as understood since the Enlightenment. That is why he is trying to legally redefine cells as "persons" to subvert hundreds of years of understanding with the stroke of a pen in a brief bill.
That human beings first have a right to life when born and why was explained in the initial post. You would have to read it to know that.
The "settled" legal implementation is Roe v Wade preventing bans on women's rights of abortion when they choose to not have child.
Regardless of political strategy for re-election, he seems to sincerely believe it as a consequence of the combination of not understanding the nature and source of man's rights in accordance with his nature as a rational being, and his own uncritical acceptance of conservative 'narrative' based on religious intrinsicism (as described in the initial post above).
Not understanding the nature and source of rights is dangerous in a country that depends on them. Many people have no idea where morality and rights come from, and they think in terms of "human rights" as a sloganized floating abstraction regardless of any overt religious beliefs they may hold. This makes them susceptible to the kinds of rationalistic equivocation and sophistry described in the initial post, as well as the lefts' demands for government entitlements and "protected classes" in the name of "rights".
Religious conservative strategists and lawyers cook up campaign arguments and 'novel legal theories' like the one's in Paul's press release just like the left does for its own constant stream of propaganda and strategy to manipulate people for power. The antidote is proper conceptual understanding.
Conservative demands for "state's rights" are just as bad as unlimited national government. Only individuals have rights. No government official or agency at any level under a proper system of limited government can act by "right" in choosing to inflict power.
The attempts by some conservatives to oppose Roe v Wade by claiming "state's rights" is a corrupt power struggle and a religious statist side show. And in fact, religion in government has no bounds once unleashed and would not stop at state authority; they currently invoke the anti-concept of 'state's rights' because they are currently on the defensive and trying to regroup their statism in certain states.
The dividing line betwen viable citizen and fetus protoplasm has already been settled. I cannot imagine where Rand gets this from unless he's catering to a home town crowd for re-election to Congress votes. He is a very disappointing candidate.
Please define 50%+ viable citizen.
If the father is married to the mother, should he have any say in the matter? And is he responsible for for support if the little bundle of cells survives?
I have a few more questions on the subject that have me perplexed, but crawling comes before walking.
If I had all of the answers, I wouldn't have to ask any questions, I could just sit back and pontificate on any subject.
This is the one single example that points up the need for 50 states 50 different majority viewpoints versus a choice of one forcibly applied. Personally I prefer the protection of an unborn citizen when the fetus is a 50% plus viable citizen. Some prefer murder of the infant as it's emerging from the birth canal. Some go to the other extremist view of conception.
happily the murder on demand with no other life threatening issues of mother or child involved was the viewpoint of the Court. For the rest of the nine month conception to breathe on your own period of time consult the miracle of fifty states fifty chances for one that suits your personal peculiarities.
Load more comments...