Earlier today, I wrote briefly about Senator Rand Paul’s fabulously stupid new personhood legislation. Some commenters who love Paul and everything he stands for took me to task for complaining that Paul doesn’t care a whit for the rights of women. All because I lampooned his push for “life begins at conception” legislation.
Human life does begin at conception, they screamed at me, and so only a cretin who hates science would claim that blastocysts don’t count as human.
Of course, these pro-Paul commenters aren’t winning any reading comprehension awards, as that wasn’t what I claimed at all:
Finally, someone has the courage of his convictions to ignore the fact that he’s bizarrely assigning civil rights to a ball of seventy cells while trampling on the rights of actual human persons.
My argument is that Paul and others like him make an enormous logical leap when they argue that because human life begins at conception, fetuses should be considered rights-bearing persons from conception.
My position is that the scientific fact that human life begins at conception tells us nothing at all about human personhood and rights.
What Rand Paul and others like him need to demonstrate is why human life, at this incredibly early stage of development, is so desperately important … by which I mean that he is willing to limit the choices of a rights-bearing person, the woman carrying the blastocyst, in order to protect that life. His answer, I presume, is either that the blastocyst is a person (which means that it possesses a right to life) or that it is on its way to becoming one.
This requires, of course, a definition of personhood; my own revolves around the fairly scientific (and measurable) concept of organized cortical brain activity, which means that blastocysts are not rights-bearing agents. I think I’m on pretty solid ground in arguing that, whatever definition you choose, it’s pretty obvious that the blastocyst is not a person. Unless you choose a religious argument, which might make a claim about ensoulment. But presumably my commenters, avowed men of science, can’t choose that one. And that’s also presumably true of libertarian Rand Paul, who shouldn’t think it’s a good idea for the government to legislate based on his own personal religious beliefs … especially when it comes to restricting individuals’ liberty.
So, again, the notion that human life begins at conception — which anti-choice folks claim is centrally important to the hot policy potato of abortion — doesn’t actually do any heavy lifting with regard to questions of personhood or rights, which is the language they actually employ in trying to restrict women’s reproductive righs.
- tomjameson35 likes this
- jameswaterson1980 likes this
- bennysamit likes this
- marklettieri likes this
- politidbit reblogged this from kohenari
- tommymorris23 likes this
- tomberkinson211 likes this
- gnostix1 likes this
- lovingthislife4 reblogged this from kohenari
- prowl-great-cain reblogged this from kohenari
- tisblasphemy likes this
- agnella reblogged this from kohenari
- foundingfatherquotes likes this
- ifancynotyournight reblogged this from azspot
- ifancynotyournight likes this
- deirdreand likes this
- khealywu likes this
- tomyfriendsinthetritons likes this
- 6dogs9cats reblogged this from azspot and added:
- liberalforever likes this
- zolam likes this
- pronagepow likes this
- caffeinatedashley likes this
- onehundreddollars reblogged this from azspot
- onehundreddollars likes this
- thepoliticalfreakshow reblogged this from azspot
- azspot reblogged this from kohenari
- thatpoliticalkid reblogged this from kohenari
- machu----picchu reblogged this from kohenari
- interested23 likes this
- rockycore reblogged this from kohenari
- fauxpolitics said: Just to clarify, once the human acquires personhood (according the cortical activity criteria), it is equal in rights to all other humans (at least regarding inalienable rights)?
- f-etch likes this
- marialejandra6 likes this
- polishingmirrors likes this
- azspot likes this
- rirash likes this
- mr-underbridge likes this
- hailkingyeshua7 reblogged this from kohenari and added:
- letterstomycountry said: I prefer Peter Singer’s formulation myself, although most people reject it outright since it requires one to be comfortable with abortion for a period of time *after* live birth as well as before live birth. A wonderful thing, ethical philosophy.
- simplyscott reblogged this from kohenari
- simplyscott likes this
- peakcapitolism likes this
- randycwhite likes this
- fromstarstostarfish likes this
- bmichael likes this
- politicalprof likes this
- houndsoflovearehunting likes this