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 6.
You now seem to admit that humans are made of cells, I think.
WilliamShipley got it pretty quickly, what is so difficult to understand?
Cells and groups of cells do not have rights. People do. Every entity is made of something. That does not mean that the pieces have rights, and it doesn't mean that the constituents of an entity or a different kind of entity with the same constituents have the same identity or character as the first kind of entity.
Are you made up of a group of cells?
I don't recall Ron Paul ever introducing anti-abortion bills in Congress either, and he may not have. But in his presidential campaign appearances and interviews over several years he certainly emphasized opposition to abortion in a confused notion of 'human rights'. If he didn't intend to do something about it politically if he could, why bring it up and emphasize it in a political campaign for high office with real powers? He may not have ever expected to be elected president at all, but he was advocating it as an issue of government policy for someone to impose. Rand Paul may not expect his latest bill to go anywhere either, just like it hasn't in the past. But he's obviously arguing for it.
This is related to Mark Levin's attempt to convince people to vote for religious conservative Ken Cuccinelli for governor of Virginia. Levin claimed that political opposition to abortion doesn't make any difference because Cuccinelli wouldn't have the power to impose it under Roe v Wade. But they obviously want to impose it and would do everything they could, incrementally or not, to do so.
With that kind of thinking you have to ask what else would they do to impose religion under the extraordinary powers of high office, just like Bush did. Overall, Cuccinelli probably would have been less destructive than the current progressive who was elected, and may have done some relative good in some other areas. But it's no argument on behalf of a candidate to demand that we ignore his goals and anti-constitutional advocacy on the grounds that he couldn't yet get away with the worst of it. It's deceptive package-dealing to promote a very bad agenda and expecting people who know better to pretend it doesn't matter. They want us to ignore it while they make inroads.
There are all kinds of interesting scientific questions about the nature of the growth (both before and after birth), but no grounds for ascribing moral rights to a potential just because cells have human genes, or by some even more mystical accounts a "soul". The "rights of the unborn beginning at conception" religionists have no concept of the objective nature of moral concepts and rights and cannot even begin to discuss the questions. They have a mystical notion of 'rights' arbitrarily assigned to cells, and not much better for real humans. Rights, like all concepts and principles, are based on objective assessment of relevant facts, not a decree of an intrinsic property apart from conceptual understanding.
Agreed that its frustrating to see side issues distract attention from much more critical concerns (often for political reasons.)
Rand Paul is much stronger than most of them on property rights, but doesn't seem to have the practical knowledge of Washington politics to do much as a leader. It's always disappointing and discouraging to see someone like that mess up with quirky arguments like the cells' rights theme.