Dobson Insists on Faith-Based Politics

James Dobson of Focus on the Family makes two main argument in a recent posting that was brought to my attention by 5280 magazine. First, the religious right didn't really lose in the last election, and second, the religious right should continue to make explicitly religious arguments to advance their faith-based politics.

As I've pointed out, the religious right got trounced in Colorado. Voters rejected McCain and his evangelical running mate, picked a United States Senator who penned a particularly eloquent defense of the separation of church and state, ousted a House member known for her faith-based views, rejected an anti-abortion candidate for state senate, and defeated the "personhood" initiative (which Dobson endorsed) by 73 to 27 percent. The religious right hardly could have taken a worse beating.

To "refute" this obvious fact, Dobson points out that voters in "California, Florida and Arizona voted to define marriage in their constitutions as the union of one man and one woman..." But that hardly proves Dobson's point. Defining marriage as heterosexual is hardly the same thing as endorsing the religious right's vicious anti-homosexual agenda. It is common to want to restrict "marriage" to heterosexual couples and still confer full legal rights to homosexual couples. In this case, many voters side with the religious right by coincidence.

Dobson simply ignores all of the other electoral outcomes.

But here is the more substantive point: Dobson calls on Christians to attempt to enforce their distinctly religious views through politics. Dobson rejects Barack Obama's stance that political policies must be based on "some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.” Dobson calls on Christians to reject the "invitation for believers to show up, but then only to be allowed to make arguments that are not based in their deepest beliefs."

And what are Dobson's priorities? "We will continue to stand up for the sanctity of human life, the sacredness of marriage and the right to have a say in the principles that will continue to guide this nation founded on biblical principles."

Banning abortion is his first priority; discriminating against homosexuals is his second. (No serious person protests Dobson's right of free speech; that's hardly the issue.) And Dobson frankly admits that both these causes are particularly religious in nature. With an agenda like that, it's no wonder that most Americans (particularly in the Interior West) have rejected the faith-based politics of Dobson and the Republican Party.

Nonbelievers Proof of God?

Christians, it seems, can use any fact whatsoever to "prove" the existence of God. In a letter to the Rocky Mountain News, Brian Stuckey argues that the existence of people who don't believe in God proves that God exists, as disbelief was "foretold in the Holy Scriptures." What a great argument! It is essentially in the form, "You disagree with me; therefore, I'm correct."

Stuckey claims:

It is true that many Americans are "shifting away" from organized religion. Many mainline churches have turned away from the traditional teachings of the church. Polls indicate that religious affiliation dropped from 90 percent in 1990 to 81 percent in 2001.

I wish he would have indicated which polls he's talking about. However, polls I've seen (see, for instance, Bowling Alone) indicate a growth in the more hard-core evangelical lines, and that is the more significant trend.

Paul was a master of the ad hominem, as Stuckey quotes:

As St. Paul wrote, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves . . . Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 3:1-7).

Again, "You disagree with me; therefore, I'm correct."

ID or Multiverse?

Dinesh D'Souza wants to have his proof and eat it, too. He writes:

If you want to know why atheists seem to have given up the scientific card, the current issue of Discover magazine provides part of the answer. The magazine has an interesting story by Tim Folger which is titled "Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator." The article begins by noting "an extraordinary fact about the universe: its basic properties are uncannily suited for life."

Science thus far has provided no good explanation for this. So, D'Souza concludes, God exists. But this is a completely unjustifiable move. The fact that we don't know something doesn't mean we can just make stuff up. Throughout much of human history, science could not explain lightning, weather, and the development of life. Before science could provide such answers, plenty of people jumped to God (or some supernatural force) as the explanation.

Things in the universe have identity, they act according to their nature, and so it is not remotely shocking that the universe is in some fundamental sense orderly. That fact that we do not yet understand aspects of this order does not imply the existence of God.

Unfortunately, as D'Souza notes, some physicists, detached from the inductive method, have also turned to making stuff up:

[M]many physicists are exploring an alternative possibility: multiple universes. This is summed up as follows: "Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse." Folger says that "short of invoking a benevolent creator" this is the best that modern science can do. For contemporary physicists, he writes, this "may well be the only viable nonreligious explanation" for our fine-tuned universe.

The appeal of multiple universes -- perhaps even an infinity of universes -- is that when there are billions and billions of possibilities, then even very unlikely outcomes are going to be realized somewhere. Consequently if there was an infinite number of universes, something like our universe is certain to appear at some point. What at first glance seems like incredible coincidence can be explained as the result of a mathematical inevitability.

I just read the same idea last night in Neal Stephenson's new novel Anathem. Yet, as D'Souza points out, "The only difficulty, as Folger makes clear, is that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any universes other than our own."

The only difficulty for D'Souza is that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God, either.

Focus Offers Obama Nightmare

Westword pointed to a document from Focus on the Family titled, "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America." I figured I'd take a peek.

The document purports to describe events that could happen. "Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate," the letter predicts. How might this happen?

Obama could select three Supreme Court justices who are "far-Left, American Civil Liberties Union-oriented judges." (Apparently the ACLU is still a scare word in some circles.) What is the harm in that? Does Focus on the Family worry about eroded economic liberties? Eroded personal liberties? After all, the purported concern of the letter is freedom.

The answer is no:

The most far-reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme Court's stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual "marriage" was a "constitutional" right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex "marriage" violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The first thing to notice is that such a ruling would in no way restrict "our freedoms" in any way, unless by "freedom" Focus on the Family means the freedom for the majority to impose controls on the minority. Such a ruling would expand the freedoms of some. My freedom is in no way restricted if my gay friends get married. This hardly raises a blip on the Scarometer.

I am not much concerned whether gay couples go the route of "marriage" or "domestic partnership." But what is interesting is that this is the top concern of Focus on the Family, even though such a ruling would have no practical significance for the day-to-day lives of most Americans.

The Court might also further violate rights of contract and free association in the name of anti-discrimination. Obviously I'm against that. However, conservatives have hardly taken a consistent position on the matter.

Government-school training on the virtues of homosexuality? I doubt it. If it were a problem, the solution is to separate school and state. But, generally, evangelicals have been more interested in capturing tax-funded schools for their own purposes, not restoring liberty in education. Those who want school prayer and the tax-funded teaching of creationism can hardly whine when their opponents want to capture the same system for their own purposes.

"There are no more Roman Catholic or evangelical Protestant adoption agencies in the United States." It's unclear to me why religious organizations should have the "freedom" to place children according to religious doctrine. Those organizations don't own the children.

Outlawing "offensive" speech from the Bible? Well, if the justices are ACLU types, we hardly need to worry about that. The irony of the evangelical movement whining about censorship is palpable. The evangelical movement poses the much more dangerous threat to free speech.

Controls on doctors? Again with the hypocrisy. Hello! Focus on the Family wants to throw doctors in prison -- or worse -- for performing abortions. I share the concern about controls on association and contract. But the religious right hardly offers a better alternative than the left.

Focus on the Family's concern with fertility treatments is especially laughable. Remember that Focus praised Amendment 48, which would outlaw most fertility treatments because they involve the destruction of fertilized eggs.

Focus on the Family then tries to argue that outlawing abortion and censoring pornography is somehow consistent with freedom. Notice that, in the same document, the same organization laments censorship of religious speech even as it advocates censorship on religious grounds.

For demographic reasons -- evangelicals tend to be more rural and suburban -- the religious right sides with gun ownership. Well, that's great. But in the general context of faith-based politics, such a right is practically meaningless, as the greatest threat to our liberty is the government.

Focus on the Family worries about Obama's foreign policy and health policy. But of course George W. Bush, the evangelical president, was a complete disaster on both fronts. (Bush did allow Health Savings Accounts, but at the cost of a massive expansion of health entitlements.)

The letter's closing paragraph states, "I still believe God is sovereign over all history, and though I don't know why he has allowed these events, it is still his purpose that will ultimately be accomplished." In other words, all of this concern expressed by Focus on the Family about freedom is merely a front. The organization doesn't fundamentally care about freedom; it cares about seeing God's alleged will imposed on earth.

Parker on GOP's 'Faustian Bargain'

Douglas Parker, who worked in the Nixon and Ford administrations, offered the following analysis of the Republican Party in a letter to the New York Times:

... The party has made a Faustian bargain by its zealous courtship of evangelicals to gain their political support. ...

Part of the price has been to give the religious right a grip on party machinery that prevents many talented Republicans of different beliefs from even seeking office. At the same time, it has fostered the advancement of some whose most conspicuous qualification is a willingness to promote the approved theology.

The net effect has been a reduced and diluted talent pool or, in the popular phrase, a “dumbing down” of the party, as well as a diversion from its historic principles.

We urgently need a reorientation in which evangelicals continue to be warmly welcomed but are not invited to impose a theocratic hegemony.

Parker's point is dead-on. For instance, look at the selection of the unqualified Sarah Palin to rouse the evangelical vote (and scare away many independents). In Colorado, in many districts if you don't swear to abolish abortion you're sunk in GOP primaries.

How can evangelicals be "warmly welcomed" by a GOP with a renewed commitment to liberty? The evangelicals must agree to keep the church out of the state in exchange for keeping the state out of the church. Of course, it would also help if evangelicals would stop moving toward "green" socialism and the monstrous welfare state.

The GOP could emerge with a forceful liberty coalition, as I outline. But it doesn't look like the part is prepared to do that, so I suspect it will continue to limp along.

You Are Not Alone

COCORE will purchase eleven Colorado billboards stating, "Don't believe in God? You are not alone," the Rocky Mountain News reports.

COCORE is "an umbrella organization of 11 groups ranging from the Boulder Heretics to the Humanists of Colorado." I wanted a bit more detail, so I looked up the organization's web page.

The Colorado Coalition of Reason consists of various groups listed at its web page. It also has a reading list that, while interesting, serves as a reminder that atheism is not a positive philosophy. Atheism means merely a lack of belief in God (and by extension a supernatural realm), which hardly implies that any of a particular atheist's positive beliefs are correct. It matters far more what you believe in.

Personhoood: Steve Van Horn Misrepresents Hsieh

Colorado just defeated Amendment 48 by 73 to 27 percent. The measure would have defined a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution, with all the rights to life, liberty, property, equality of justice, and due process of law. I worked with Diana Hsieh to help defeat it.

I've been meaning to reply to an October 27 article by Steve Van Horn that attacks an earlier piece by Hsieh. Even though the election is over, the matter is still worth addressing, as it shows the sorts of weak arguments made by the supporters of Amendment 48.

Hsieh expressly counters the argument that "human life" is sufficient for personhood:

Opponents of abortion claim that embryos and fetuses have the same right to life as babies because they are distinct, living human beings. Undoubtedly, an embryo or fetus is alive, not inert matter. It's also human--not canine or hippopotamus. Yet every distinct, living skin cell a person washes off in the shower also contains human DNA. A tumor is human tissue distinct from its host. The embryo or fetus is different: it might develop into a born baby. Yet the differences between an embryo or fetus and that born baby are vast.

Notice that Hsieh explicitly notes why an "embryo or fetus is different" from a skin cell or tumor. Yet, ignoring Hsieh's statement, Van Horn claims that what Hsieh "fails to distinguish is the difference between a distinct living cell and a unique living being."

Then Van Horn explains that an eagle's egg, like a human egg, has the capacity to develop into an adult member of the species. But so what? Van Horn points out that current law provides criminal penalties for destroying an eagle's egg. It also provides criminal penalties for gratuitously injuring an adult dog or cat, but none of those things is a person. More to the point, none of those things is contained wholly within the body of a woman, and the fact that a fertilized egg is in such a condition is why the woman (and not anyone else) has the right to get an abortion.

Next Van Horn argues that, as there are "vast" differences between a fertilized egg and a born infant, so there are "differences between an infant, a toddler, a teenager, a middle aged adult and a 98 year old." Then Van Horn argues that, as a fertilized egg is dependent on the woman, so is an infant. But in these arguments Van Horn utterly ignores the relevant distinctions. His is an exercise in absurdist rationalism.

Hsieh briefly summarizes those distinctions:

In the early stages of pregnancy, the embryo has nothing in common with an infant except its DNA. Its form is similar to the embryos of other mammals; it cannot survive outside the womb; it lacks any kind of awareness. To call that clump of cells a "person" is sheer nonsense.

Even when more developed, the fetus is not a biologically separate entity capable of independent action, like a baby. It exists as part of the woman carrying it, wholly contained within and dependent on her. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as she lives, as an extension of her body. It is not yet an individual human life; it is not yet a person.

Van Horn simply refuses to confront the substance of Hsieh's argument. Instead, he closes by equating a fertilized egg with a person and abortion with murder. The opponents of abortion go through the motions of debating the issue, but their arguments are hollow, obvious attempts to paper over the fact that their position derives not from reason but from religious faith.

GOP Not Sufficiently Evangelical?

J.C. Watts argues in an article for the Las Vegas Review Journal:

In 2006, 66 percent of the evangelical community did not vote. In 2004, 52 percent of evangelicals did not vote. In 2000, 75 percent did not vote.

I haven't seen any stats on 2008 yet, but I'm not confident that McCain attracted a large segment of that vote, for whatever reason. He certainly stood for their values and principles more strongly than Obama, but couldn't seem to close the sale.

When you consider there are approximately 66 million evangelicals -- some place it as high as 90-100 million -- GOP candidates win when this demographic votes.

Watts hardly gets to the crux of the problem. As I've reviewed, McCain selected Sarah Palin in order to secure the evangelical vote. His strategy worked to a large degree, but it carried the cost of alienating many independents, women, and nonsectarian Republicans. If selecting hard-core evangelical Palin isn't enough to secure the evangelical vote, that proves only that nothing short of an outright theocrat could do so, but such a candidate would further alienate everyone else. The GOP can win on faith-based politics in the South, but the issue is a clear loser in other regions, such as Colorado.

But the category of "evangelical" is also difficult to pin down. I don't know what sources Watts has in mind, but some fraction of every demographic doesn't vote. Also, evangelicals do not all necessarily vote the same. For example, around a third of evangelicals think abortion should remain legal. So, by appealing to some evangelicals on faith-based politics, the GOP risks losing even some evangelicals, particularly those who recognize that keeping religion out of politics also means keeping politics out of religion.

If the GOP takes Watts's advice and becomes more religious, the party will lose even worse, particularly on the coasts and in the Interior West.

48 Supporters Aim to Try Again

As I anticipated, the huge loss of Amendment 48 has not dampened the plans of the religious right. The measure would have defined a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution.

A blogger named Dani emphasizes the point. Dani is "a right-wing Christian fanatic on assignment from God to be a good helper to my husband and to train up my children with the Fear and Admonition of the Lord!" Okay, then.

Dani looks on the bright side of Amendment 48's defeat:

Even though Amendment 48 didn't pass, we still consider this a victory for the pro-life movement since over 550,000 people voted to affirm the personhood of the pre-born Child yesterday in Colorado! On only a $200,000 budget, it's hard to compete with multi-million dollar corporations like Planned Parenthood who put out deceitful attack ads packed with lies in order to defeat Amendment 48. Well, we certainly wouldn't expect godless baby-killers to be honest while promoting their agenda, now would we? The majority of people are evil, and the majority voted against personhood, but we are not giving up that easy, in fact, the battle has just begun...

Notice that Dani does not specify a single "lie" by the opposition. Certainly she could not find any such faults with the paper written by Diana Hsieh and me criticizing Amendment 48.

Dani then reproduces the media release of a new group called Personhood USA, which "plans to assist local pro-life groups in different states to put personhood amendments on their states ballot by using the petition process."

The group proudly declares that its purpose is to impose religious faith by law:

"Praise Jesus! The pro-life tide is rising in America, now is the time for the entire pro-life movement to turn the focus off from permitting murder but attempting to 'regulate' it, to pushing for the recognition of the God given right to life for all innocent persons. Persons are humans beings from the moment of fertilization." Cal Zastrow, Co-Founder of Personhood USA.

Keith Mason, "one of the Personhood Amendment organizers," said, "Personhood has changed the abortion debate. Now we are asking, 'When does human life begin?' The opposition can not and will not answer this question, but we can. And when we answer that question, we win."

Hsieh and I address the matter at length in our paper. Not a single advocate of Amendment 48 has even attempted to refute our arguments. (Wayne Laugesen has come the closest to doing so.)

Meanwhile, Mason and his crew have utterly failed to sustain an argument that personhood begins at fertilization. Notice that Mason says he can answer the question, but he refrains from doing so in the release. The "argument" at PersonhoodUSA's web page is childish equivocation.

So pony up, Mason: prove to the world that personhood begins at the moment of fertilization, taking into account the issues that Hsieh and I raise in our paper. The fact that you cannot do so indicates why Coloradans did not take your movement seriously.

See PersonhoodUSA's web page for a list of the 16 states the group plans to target in the future. The magnificent defeat of the measure in Colorado should slow down efforts elsewhere. Yet the group may still find some traction in some areas to the degree that people reject reason in favor of religious faith.

New Life, Same Old Subjectivism

Salon has published an article about the politics of New Life Church. This is the paragraph that struck me:

"I'm not going to tell you who to vote for," [Senior Pastor Brady Boyd] said. "You pray, fast and vote for whoever God tells you represents your values. We have a biblical worldview here, so vote for candidates who are going to do that -- who are going to uphold the Biblical worldview we all have." Mostly, Boyd seemed worried about Amendment 48. "If you're not interested in any other issue on the ballot please, please, go to the polls on Tuesday -- if you have not voted yet -- and vote yes for Amendment 48," he said, probably violating the terms of the church's tax-exempt status. "It's the right thing to do."

These people literally believe that a supernatural being is "telling" them how to vote. But presumably they don't hear an actual voice: "Hello, Brady, this is God. You need to vote for Candidate X this year. My will be done. Over." So what, then, is the mechanism by which God imparts his election wisdom? People just feel that God is guiding them in some particular way. That's it. A feeling. This is subjectivism masquerading as divine intervention.

But Pastor Boyd already knows that God will tell his flock to vote for candidates who share a "Biblical worldview." What is that? Presumably, it includes such beliefs that a fertilized egg is a person, that homosexuality is sinful and should be legally discouraged, that certain types of expression should be censored, and that certain types of peaceful activities should be criminally punished. Increasingly, the "Biblican worldview" seems for many to imply that the government should forcibly redistribute wealth, including for religious welfare and education, and centrally plan the economy such as to "protect" God's creation.

Boyd seems even more certain that God wants Coloradans to outlaw abortion (despite the weak Biblical support for such a position, which is in any case properly irrelevant). But Amendment 48 is not the "right thing to do;" it would, if enforced, unleash horrific injustice in this state. But that is a natural consequence of the moral subjectivism implicit in religion.

Amendment 48 and Personhood: Reply to Laugesen

Here I extend a debate over Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. I also want also to summarize the major issues, so hopefully the piece will be of interest even to those who haven't followed that debate so far.

A few days ago the Colorado Springs Gazette published an editorial endorsing Amendment 48. I wrote a reply, which Wayne Laugesen of the Gazette answered. Even though Laugesen is wrong on this issue (though I often agree with him on other matters), it has been a pleasure to debate the matter with someone who takes objections seriously and thinks though the implications of the arguments.

The Language and Intention of Amendment 48

Again, Amendment 48 would not merely define a fertilized egg as "human," "life," or even a "person." Rather, it would grant a fertilized egg the same legal rights as a born infant, the rights to life, liberty, property, equality of justice, and due process of law. Furthermore, the explicit goal of the sponsors of Amendment 48 is to outlaw all abortion, except when the woman certainly would otherwise die. That's bad enough, but the measure logically also prohibits certain forms of birth control, medical research, and fertility treatments, as Diana Hsieh and I review.

Laugesen answers that federal and state law would continue to keep abortion legal, and that the political climate is not right for such far-reaching prohibitions. However, the advocates of the measure have promised a long-term fight to overturn Roe v. Wade as well as state laws allowing abortion, and Amendment 48 would grant them a powerful weapon in that fight.

If Laugesen doesn't think Amendment 48 could eventually ban abortion, I'm at a loss to understand why he favors the measure. It's a bit odd to endorse a measure that one thinks will have consequences dramatically different than what the sponsors of the measure anticipate. As I argued previously, the problems that Laugesen seeks to address aren't even real problems, and if they were they could be addressed with delimited statutes.

The Conditions of Personhood

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of personhood? Obviously a person is alive and human (though if we were to discover intelligent life elsewhere presumably "person" would become the broader concept). But many other things are alive and human, in the sense of containing human DNA, including my kidney and every cell in my body. So those conditions are necessary but not sufficient.

A person must have the genetic code capable of creating or sustaining an independent existence. Notice that it's not true that each person has distinct DNA (and I think I've misstated this point myself), for identical twins start out as the same fertilized egg and then split apart from each other. So unique DNA is not even a necessary condition of personhood. But DNA capable of forming and sustaining a human body is necessary.

Part of the difficulty of thinking about a fertilized egg is that it is in some respects unique. It shares some similarities with with other human cells and organs, yet it has the distinctive capacity to develop into a born infant and then an adult human (in the right conditions). It is this distinctiveness that draws some to equate fertilization with personhood. Yet that is a mistake. The only options are not "living human never-person" and "living human person." A fertilized egg is a third sort of thing: it is living and human with the potential for turning into a person. But a potential is not an actual. It is ludicrous to equate a zygote, a mass of undifferentiated cells with no organs, with a born infant, and declare that both should be legally indistinguishable.

Laugesen claims that only superstition can mark the onset of personhood, if we reject the point of fertilization. This ignores the obvious, blindingly bright line: birth. Something dramatic happens at birth. No longer is the fetus completely contained within the body of the woman, completely dependent on her at the biological level for oxygen and sustenance. At birth, the fetus becomes a separate baby, able to breath with his own lungs, digest food with his own organs, and, notably, leave his mother. A born infant is still highly dependent in the sense that somebody must provide him with nutrition, warmth, etc., yet a born infant is radically independent relative to a fetus in that the born infant is a physically separate biological entity.

Personhood implies legal rights, as Amendment 48 recognizes. Yet, to have legal rights, individual rights, one must be an individual in the basic physical sense. A fetus has no such independent existence. And that matters very much. For instance, if a woman needs cancer treatment that might harm the fetus, even though the woman might not otherwise die before delivery, the woman has every right to get that treatment, even if it kills the fetus.

Laugesen is correct that the development of a fertilized egg to a late-stage fetus is a continual and gradual one, without any momentary lines of demarcation. The brain develops slowly; it does not just pop instantly into the fetus's head. However, that does not imply that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a late-stage fetus. The two are radically different. One is just a few cells, the other has all the organs that an adult person has.

It is this distinction that draws Leonard Peikoff, for instance, to a discussion that centers on early-term abortions:

The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.

We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman’s choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman’s body.

This points to two additional factors that are necessary for personhood: developed human organs and physical separateness (i.e., birth). Consider, for instance, that if a woman's body expels a living fertilized egg, we do not consider that she has given "birth" to a "child." We don't hold a funeral complete with a miniature coffin. (As Hsieh and I point out, most fertilized eggs are naturally flushed out of a woman's body; we do not consider this to be some sort of horrific tragedy, as we would if all fertilized eggs truly were people.)

Together, those conditions of personhood -- life, human DNA, developed organs, and physical separateness -- are sufficient for personhood. If something doesn't have those four characteristics, it's not a person.

Peikoff answers those who would equate a potential person with an actual one:

If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.

The entire case for granting personhood status to fertilized eggs rests on the fallacy of equating a potential with an actual.

The Meaning of "Human"

Laugesen claims, as I've heard before (and as Kristi Burton, sponsor of Amendment 48 has also claimed), that the meaning of "person" and "human" are indistinguishable. That's clearly wrong. For instance, we say that a kidney is a human organ, but we don't claim that a kidney is a person. As Hsieh and I have argued, the advocates of Amendment 48 routinely equivocate on the term "human," jumping from "containing human DNA" to personhood for no good reason. One finds this dual meaning of "human" whether one turns to the Oxford English Dictionary or Dictionary.com.

A Zygote Versus a Felon

Laugesen argues that, as we can restrict the life and liberty of a murderous felon, so we can restrict the life and liberty of a zygotic "person." However, the comparison falls apart because a zygote is not a person. If a zygote were a person, it would be quite unjust to treat a zygote as though it were guilty of first-degree murder. A murderer has willfully removed himself from civil society. Notably, to be criminally punished one must be found guilty according to "due process of law" -- a right granted to fertilized eggs by Amendment 48.

A fertilized egg is not a person. Amendment 48 is wrong in its assumptions and frightening in its implications.

Amendment 48: Laugesen Replies

Recently I replied to an editorial by Colorado Spring's Gazette that endorsed Amendment 48. Wayne Laugesen, the editorial page editor of the paper, took the time to write a detailed reply, which he graciously allowed me to reproduce below. I will respond in a subsequent post. -Ari Armstrong

Wayne Laugesen: re: "Nobody argues that any fetus is guilty of felony murder, so the comparison is bizarre."

The point is this: You seem concerned that if an egg is lawfully recognized as a "person," nobody will be allowed to kill it without landing in prison. A death row inmate is indisputably a "person." So clearly, we make lawful decisions to kill some "persons." We may lawfully kill a "person" convicted of first degree murder because the "person" is burdensome to society. We may lawfully kill a "person" who threatens our safety after breaking into our home. We may also lawfully kill a person whose life depends upon a mother's womb, because that person isn't independent and may be burdensome to the mother and society. Some may not like this fact of settled law, but it is a fact. The point is that defining a fertilized egg or a mature fetus as a "person" does not preclude someone from lawfully killing that person. If that were the case, we would not be allowed to kill in self defense or to kill murder convicts, simply because they are "persons" by any definition. Ending abortion may well be the intent of 48's authors, but their intent wouldn't make it so.

All major, high ranking definitions I can find of "person" and "human" are interchangeable.

Yes, your liver is a human element, but it does not contain all of the components of a complete person. It will never have its own brain, or its own eyes or ears, etc., and it will never be capable of reading and writing and paying taxes. The same cannot be said for a zygote, which is the beginning stage of the life of a "person," whether the zygote lives a day or continues to mature for 100 years. The life begins at that moment of conception, and it ends at the moment of death. There is not a magical event somewhere in between, convenient as that event might be. Scientifically, a human life is an exact timeline with one beginning and one end. Any theories to the contrary involve an imaginary event at a convenient point on the timeline, and that sounds like religion. Bestowing rights at an arbitrary point on the timeline of life is perfectly logical; bestowing "life" or "personhood," by contrast, involves superstition. This issue is not really about "person" or "non-person," the issue is "full rights," "no rights," or "limited rights" for some persons but not for all persons. Society does not guarantee all "persons" equal outcomes in life. Society does not protect all "persons" equally.

I think we would agree that a six-month-old fetus is a human with a brain, a mouth, a nose, arms, legs, etc. and etc. Correct? Yet society, knowing those facts, has decided to protect a woman's right to kill that "person" or "human" or "fetus" or whatever one chooses to call him or her. This has little to do with science, and much to do with the legitimate human practice of allocating rights. If we pretend it's based in a meaningful scientific distinction, we're entertaining a convenient fantasy. In truth, it's based in legitimate practical considerations and the allocation of rights.

That being the case, it's not important to pretend that a fertilized egg is something other than the first stage in the life of a "human," and therefore a "person." I don't see why it's a problem to call a person a person, and then decide which persons have rights worth protecting and at what point on the timeline of life those rights deserve a societal defense. This has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religious leaders and believers can make up the rules as they go. Therefore, any religion is free to define "life" however it chooses, or to decide who has rights and when those rights are endowed. Religions that wish to abuse women, for example, are free to define only men as "persons" and then try to impose their definitions through theocratic rule of law. But science is objective, and scientifically life begins at conception. Our laws, in a constitutional Republic as opposed a theocracy, should use scientifically objective definitions.

You agree with me that a fertilized egg is living and human. And I think we basically agree on most major points in this discussion. The main difference between our positions is the fact that you are using the word "person" to describe a being with a full slate of human rights that society must accept, while maintaining that a human with limited rights is something less than a "person." That requires you, therefore, to argue that a death row inmate is not a "person," and a predator shot by a victim is not a "person." After all, these humans do not have the same rights to live as other humans do.

I, by contrast, am using the word "person" to describe a "human" at any stage of development, acknowledging that society does not treat all "persons" equally, it cannot, it never has and it never will. Again, scientifically speaking a sprouting acorn is biologically an oak. That does not mean it's due all the protection of a giant shade tree. Likewise, I understand that society will never protect a day-old zygote the way it protects a member of Congress. If we look at this issue through a lens of reproductive politics and sociopolitical practicality, Amendment 48 is a menace. If we look at it through a lens of incorporating truthful, logical, scientific, objective definitions into law, it seems like a reasonable proposition. And I know you don't believe that it negates Roe v. Wade. I'm equally certain that you understand how Roe v. Wade has absolutely no role in Colorado's abortion laws, which exceed the minimal requirements of Roe v. Wade. Of course, all of this is completely academic as Amendment 48 has never had the slightest chance of passing because it's not politically viable here. It is, however, a good topic for discovery and discussion. I found your paper on this issue thorough and well written. -- Wayne

Barbarians Murder Girl in Somalia

What century is this, again? The Associated Press reports that Islamic militants murdered a 13-year-old girl by stoning her to death in a packed stadium. Her crime? She was raped by three men, and thus she committed adultery.

While this girl's death is particularly gruesome, plenty more share in her horror. The AP notes, "A quarter of Somali children die before age 5..."