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 4.
A fetus does not have a right to support by another person and the fetus' right to life, which it does not have is not violated by an abortion.
Rand's argument misunderstands rights and is not science.
When I was in law school taking a course on constitutional law I finally ran into a string of supreme ct. decisions I agreed with. They were all written in the 1920 and 1930s before the court was packed by Roosevelt. My Professor explained that both Liberal and Conservative justices and scholars had repudiated these decisions and their approach to interpreted the constitution.
I'm thinking of the enactment and the later cancellation of prohibition, for example.
The hoped for dumping of Obamacare (Harry Reid's happily harped "It's the law of the land") would be another.
.
Human consciousness begins before birth, only limited by the environment. A fetus reacts, not always with simple reflex, to stimuli that it can detect, so a simplistic determination of what constitutes life by a declaration of departing the womb is as insufficient and lacking in intelligence as declaring a fertilized egg human.
The abortion without limits crowd includes such unsavory characters as the British feminist who declared a woman should have the right to terminate her child's life up to a year after birth. Her argument was that the mother had the right to decide if that child's quality of life was too degraded, and should be mercifully ended. Do you find that argument specious, or worthy of consideration?
We often hear that American child survival rates rank very low among industrialized countries. However, closer inspection reveals that countries like France do not count a child's death before a year of life, because they know that most serious birth problems happen in that first year. The U.S. counts the death of any born alive fetus in its statistics. Do we hold life more dear than our cohorts in other countries?
There have been rational attempts to reach a common understanding of the point at which a developing human life deserves the chance to survive. Limits on late term abortion, denial of abortion beyond the point that a fetus is likely to feel pain, abortion when the risk to the mother's life is at stake, are an effort to find a rational ground without a complete disregard for morality. I tend to think those who make these efforts at sanity over ideology are on the most credible ground.
While I wish I had time to read every book put out here by Gulchers, there simply isn't enough time.
There's also the philosophical part: When is "personhood" obtained? Those who argue that life begins at conception take the safest course by saying that even though they aren't sure, they'd rather give the benefit of the doubt than risk engaging in murder. Those who argue that life isn't really life until it is "personhood" struggle to draw a line of objective measure. If one argues that it involves self-sufficiency, then personhood doesn't happen until late childhood at best. If it revolves around fitness for life, then one brings in eugenics and the subjectivity of the rulers.
I will admit my own thoughts on this are somewhat confused. I clearly am uncomfortable with killing an infant a week before it is ready to be born. On the other side of the equation it seems to be absurd to be protecting the cluster of cells against the will of the woman.
Is it true that the creature has no right to life or is it simply that we believe that it does but that right is inferior to the right of an individual woman to control her own body? We do allow situations, such as self-defense, where one individual's rights supersede another's.
The current legal situation is based in pragmatism rather than philosophy
.
His premise is: When a "person" is declared to not have rights, then he/she becomes a commodity.
I propose that "life" begins at being sentient which science has found to be about 12-weeks gestation. That is plenty of time for the potential mother to decide her future.
Incidentally, the RU 486 pill is correct for such measures as it was designed for and all forms of contraception are morally correct.
2. I like Paul for a lot of other reasons, so, I still support him, because I don't see a better option.
A baby born before expected does not mean that before anyone was born it had rights for a similar time frame, or the expectant mother loses her rights to her own body for some time period. Nor does it mean that the baby doesn't have rights until the time it was expected to be born.
Whatever new technologies imagined to avoid carrying to term have nothing to do with the rights of the woman to her own body and do not give rights to the unborn. It is still a potential, not an actual, human being, regardless of additional means to actualize the potential. Such technologies might or might not become routine recommended practice for all kinds of reasons. The woman has a right to decide what procedures to subject herself to and whether or not she does not want the child at all versus having an unknown child out there someplace who was adopted.
But those considerations can at least be discussed in rational terms. They are not relevant to the demands for the "Life at Conception Act" with it's mystical cell's rights (or the ongoing religious attacks on contraception).
A lack of understanding of why a newborn baby must be born to have a right to life, and why before that is only a potential human being literally parasitically dependent on an expectant mother with rights as a human being, is not an argument for "cell's rights". Arguing from "continuity" to the absurd conclusion of "cell rights" is just as logically fallacious as Zeno's paradoxes. It is a reductio ad absurdum refuting a false premise. The religionists want us to invert the logic and believe the absurdity instead of rejecting the rationalistic fallacious reasoning.
Insofar as the main issue of the thread is concerned and after seeing the results which brought partial birth abortion done to less than double digits and then required other medical conditions to ensure the life of the mother I'll support the SCOTUS finding of viability brings citizen status and protections the approximate dividing line in the third trimester but it takes competent medical authority. This was covered half a year ago in great detail and is available in the archives. No one except those with the unprotected citizens rights viewpoint came away happy but half a loaf etc.... is all you are oging to get. The rest, on eith side, is for diehards and fanatics and the fifty separate jurisdictions.
Our current legal situation is based roughly around the age when the organism can live independently but that's a hazy and moving target. I corresponded with a woman who had been born prior to the commonly used current date and while she had some health issues she was certainly a rational human being.
The other problem we face is that protecting this 'life' imposes a rather strong burden upon a woman who is most definitely a human being with rights. It's one thing to say you can't kill 'it' another to say you must carry it.
If we could imagine technology that would remove those 'cells' at whatever point they were and grow them independently with minimal inconvenience to the mother, I wonder how that would affect our philosophical decisions?
In other words are we talking philosophy or pragmatism.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
The problem is, that there is a continuum in existence between a clump of cells and an adult human being. At some point, which you really are avoiding specifying, this 'thing' acquires the right to life.
Rand makes the distinction between the rights of a child and those of an adult, with the child having the minimal right to life. Obviously at some point this right comes into existence. When is this?
Load more comments...