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 2.
Some libertarians are religious and some not, but the common thread is that the libertarian movement has always plunged into the middle of politics with no philosophical basis. It's not surprising that they so often indulge in such embarrassing spectacles based on being naively susceptible to religious arguments.
The timing with the Iowa evangelicals is probably no coincidence, but he has done this before, including trying to include it in an irrelevant 2012 flood insurance bill, where he managed to make even Harry Reid seem plausible in comparison. http://thehill.com/video/senate/23474...
Being "uncomfortable" with any late abortion is a feeling based on non-essential similarities in the continuum of development. Feelings are not a basis for rights. Focusing on those similarities drops the context of the full conditions under which it is surviving at all. The abrupt change in environment is an essential difference.
This is not a matter of a "balance" of rights. There are no rights to balance against the woman's rights. Rights do not conflict. There is much more to this than framing it as "self defense" by the woman choosing not to give birth. It requires understanding the conceptual basis for morality and rights: the facts that give rise to them and what they apply to.
Comparisons in the latest stages of development before birth is at least something to discuss, but Rand Paul's "Life at Conception" bill and its promotion criminalizing doctors and women as murderers for interfering with cells, which is what this thread is about, doesn't even get that far. It is complete mysticism at the most primitive and barbaric level.
If the current legal situation is pragmatism rather then based objectively on philosophical principle it is because today everything is, which is why we have the constant pressure group warfare on this issue and everything else. The attempt to counter Pragmatism with religion and its mystical notion of 'intrinsic rights' is only bringing the whole controversy to a lower, more primitive level of irrationalism.
A fetus, especially a 1st trimester fetus is not remotely capable of such. However there is no question of the rights of the woman carrying it. Thus the question would seem open and shut at least early in pregnancy.
For a government to simply decree rights accrue to any all fertilized eggs is an affront to actual rights.
It is a shame. On many issues I like and support Rand Paul more than any other candidate in this season. But he keeps dynamiting my respect.
Thankfully, this time, my stance and that of SCOTUS coincide. I was taking a position and I was stating facts.
I was also indicting a good portion of the population. It went like this...
"A pox on both of your extremist selfish, egotistical views."
That should have been a major tip off it wasn't personal. Apparently it was too subtle.
My position on abortion is much more complex, from the fact of knowing women who've done it for mere convenience, to experiencing the difficulty in obtaining simple sterilization procedures because of church mandates.
but then we live in a country that treats dogs better than it treats children. One of Heinleins great moral truths and never been proved wrong.
Which is not my stance but just as ridiculous a statement isntead
Just imagine a world where impregnating 12 year old are considered an acceptable rite of passage and one where the notion of women having any rights at all as to the use of their bodies is foreign concept. That would be no more acceptable but it is accepted
The dividing line is and remains protection of a citizen unable to protect themselves against being murdered. That happens when viability is reached. It's strictly a civil rights question since treating it any other way, as morals or as a medical issue have been set aside
The only question is when a viable citizen is murdered without benefit of judge, jury, defense attorney and murdered by one of it's own family members how are we any deifferent than an Islamic.
We aren't but we adopt a holier than though attitude as if we weren't EXACTLY the same and just as barbaric as if we were invoking Allah instead of Jesus.
Hypocritical sanctimonious clap trap mean nothing to a murdered child and nothing to a government who has set aside the concept of civil rights and protection from violence for a special class of it's own culture.
We treat our dogs better than we treat our children and have the guts to point fingers at Islamics? Viability means the ability to live and survive outside the womb. There is no question murder is wrong at that point. the only question in which direction and to what extent we are willing to extend that special right. After all if you wish to kill the child why not the mother? Why not the father?
And if you wish to ban the practice while it is lump of protoplasm and demand full gestation are willing to help pay for the all that folows? Even uinto age 21 an full adulthood or 23 if in a school?
Shame on you.
Who appointed you judge, jury, and executioner and what makes you difference that any other run of the mill sex deviate? Or who appointed you the giver of life and sentenced society to pay for your beliefs?
A pox on both of your extremist selfish, goTistical views.
And you bitch about soldiers learining to break things and kill. Killing is state sanctioned. Minus that sanction it is not killing but murder. There is a six month window even for legitimate pregnancies. Where a 12 or so year old child is involved shoot onsight is fine with me. That involves only animal control
Load more comments...