Who Came Up With the Idea of the Fetus as an Individual?
Crazy things keep coming out of Texas (where I once lived decades ago) – the Texas pledge of “one state under God,” public school Bible courses, Religious Viewpoints Anti-discrimination Act and now, defining a fetus (or unborn child to some) as a “person” for purposes of the capital murder statute.
My real concern is not with the bonus for prosecutors — two convictions for one murder. That’s right. Under TX Penal Code 1.07(a)(26), an “‘Individual’ means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.”
No, my concern is that the Texas legislature routinely drinks Christian right Kool-Aid, which can be seen from above example of its definition of individual being religious-based, not science-based.
Two weeks ago on Nov. 20, a Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Jacob Eguia for capital
murder for causing the death of Ruby Elaine Garcia and her fetus during the same criminal transaction. Eguia was sentenced to life in prison, which was the only possible sentence since the State did not seek the death penalty.
Among other defenses, Eguia filed a motion to quash the indictment against him for causing the death of Garcia’s fetus because the Texas statute that defines an “unborn child” as a “person” for purposes of the capital murder statute is unconstitutional. In particular, he alleged that the definition violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution because the definition “has the effect of endorsing religion as it is based solely upon a religious belief that life begins at conception.” (Eguia also complained of a violation of Texas’ constitution – “no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship.” Tex. Const. Art I, § 6.)
In holding that the Texas law defining an “individual” did not violate either the U.S. or Texas Constitutions, the appeals court said: “A statute is not automatically rendered unconstitutional simply because it advances ideals that harmonize with religious ideals. Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 319-20 … (noting that Judeo-Christian religions’ forbiddance of stealing does not preclude state or federal legislatures from outlawing larceny).”
The appeals court also said that Eguia also “fail[ed] to demonstrate how the statute’s principal or primary effect advances religion, or how the statute fosters excessive government entanglement with religion.”
I believe that the appeals court analogy with stealing is misplaced because, unlike stealing, the notion that life begins at conception is uniquely a religious viewpoint.
However, because I am not familiar with the trial record, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on whether or not the defendant sufficiently proved of his Establishment Clause violation claim.
Instead, I’ll close by saying that in our judicial system the deck is stacked heavily against those who claim a violation of the principle of separation of church and state and that complainants probably need two, three or four times as much evidence as they think would be sufficient. What is needed is a smoking gun (so to speak) where there is a record of a religious purpose for enacting the challenged legislation.
“I believe that the appeals court analogy with stealing is misplaced because, unlike stealing, the notion that life begins at conception is uniquely a religious viewpoint.”
I would like to hear you elaborate more on why you believe “the notion that life begins at conception is uniquely a religious viewpoint.”
If you believe that life, which human life is proved by science to begin when a baby is conceived in the mother’s womb, can only be explained by religion, then how can you not believe in God, since you are, in fact, alive?
Christine says:
… human life is proved by science to begin when a baby is conceived in the mother
Christine,
As I see it, life begins at birth because prior to birth, the fetus is dependent upon the woman hosting the fetus. An alternative view is that life is continuous: “beginning unknown”-life-birth-life-birth-…-”ending unknown.”
Since the egg and the sperm are living organisms or cells prior to conception, conception certainly isn’t the beginning of life — except in certain religions.
Science is used to explain phenomenon. What is adequate “proof” is subjective. When life begins is a definitional issue. Who ever holds the power of defining the terms “life” and “begin”, holds the power of answering the question.
The notion that because “I am alive, therefore there is (or must be) a God” is not intellectually honest.
Believing in a god is not justified by mystery. The proper response to mystery is “I don’t know.” Because of our curiosity, we might also spend some effort, indeed, substantial effort, attempting to find an answer to a mystery. But if we can’t find the answer with reasonable certainty, honesty requires that we admit that we don’t know the answer rather than attribute the source to a god or gods.
Personally, I stopped believing in a god over 40 years ago when I found no credible evidence in the existence of a god or gods. Each and every day since as affirmed my belief that there is no god or gods. What tomorrow holds, tho, is a mystery today.
I would agree with Christine in part. I too am confused how defining life at conception is “uniquely religious”. It seems to me that this belief is not in opposition to atheism. Asserting that life begins at conception neither affirms or denies god and is therefore no threat to atheism.
“Instead, I
William, I appreciate your comments. And here’s how I see the same set of facts:
#1 – Theoretically, your are correct in saying that some atheist might believe that personhood begins at conception. However, in my 40+ years of being an atheist, I haven’t heard a single atheist stay that. True, I have neither asked nor heard the opinions of most atheists. On the other hand, it is also true that the only people I have heard express the view that personhood begins at conception are Christians. No doubt with 6 billion people in the world, there are probably others too.
#2 – I picked on Texas for a couple of reasons. First, I have ties to Texas so I don’t feel like I’m just spouting off about some place where I’ve never been. Second, and more importantly, Texas has become one of the worst states for state sponsored religion.
#3 – Yes, Texas has mimicked the U.S. Pledge and we both believe that the U.S. Pledge with “uG” is wrong. The point is that: (1) it is wrong, (2) it is part of a pattern of wrongs by the state of Texas and (3) once enacted, it (and the others) are used as justifications for other violations and the assertion that the U.S. is a Christian Nation (the slippery slope argument).
#4 – I am very aware of what I would call your talking point justifications for bible study in public school. What may be called “voluntary” in theory, is typically coercive in practice. Take for example, state laws requiring public schools to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Technically, it’s voluntary from a student’s perspective. In the same situation, the courts have called voluntary prayer laws coercive. I think the same applies here. Let me give a specific example. Recently, when my 6 year old son declined to the say the pledge, his substitute teacher punished him by reducing his recess time. (His regular teacher and the principal are aware that he has my permission to opt out under Virginia law not participate in the Pledge.)
#5 – state laws permitting “objective” teaching of the bible and evolution have been shown in case after case to result in the non-objective teaching of both. See, for example, the ACLU’s website on the Ector County, Texas case that you referred to. For non-objective teaching of evolution (or teaching of creationism or ID), see Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist.
(2005). The point is that OK sounding laws don’t work if they were adopted with the wrong (i.e., religious) intentions.
And Texas’s intentions were WRONG in each of the examples I cited.
#6 – The Texas Religious Viewpoints Anti-discrimination Act was intended to protect the so-called right to pray out loud in public schools and at football games with the schools blessings. What about the right not be proselytized in public schools? That’s the real issue.
Bob-
Thanks for the response. I’d like to continue the dialogue.
“Texas has become one of the worst states for state sponsored religion.”
I grew up there (in Dallas), I am moving back there soon and I agree with this statement.
In addition to being an atheist I am also a libertarian. My libertarian view requires that people must be able to express themselves in public regardless of the subject matter without government interference. If at a high school football game a kid were to express a preference in an election, say for Barack Obama as president, and the school or the district moved to punish the child for the statement saying it was inappropriate there would be an outcry. Not just from free speech advocates but also supporters of Barack Obama.
If the school were later to create a rule that students could not express their views in public at football games I for one would oppose that as government sponsored censorship. I
William, I didn’t explain how the Religious Viewpoints Anti-Discrimination Act works. If it was just a matter of free speech, I would agree with you. The situation is more complex.
Take the football game. I’m not talking about people talking politics in the crowd. What I’m talking about is a school selecting someone to make announcements over the PA system and then the selected person goes into an unauthorized prayer. The courts hold that the schools, in the situation I indicated, control the speech since use of the PA system is not a public forum.
The same is true of graduation ceremonies. The speakers (and agenda) at the graduation ceremonies are selected by the schools and the school essentially has the right to control what is said at the ceremonies.
The same is true of bulletin boards. Schools can control what is put on them, UNLESS they open them up as a designated public forum.
Bob-
I read the text of the Texas law and I would not agree entirely with the way you characterize it although I would say you were not far off. You mischaracterize the method by which the students are chosen as speakers. I’ll quote the law:
“Only those students in the highest two grade levels of the school and who hold one of the following positions of honor based on neutral criteria are eligible to use the limited public forum: student council officers, class officers of the highest grade level in the school, captains of the football team, and other students holding positions of honor as the school district may designate.”
The eligible students who are interested in being speakers supposed to submit their names to the school. Then a process described in the law goes into effect:
“The names of the volunteering student speakers shall be randomly drawn until all names have been selected, and the names shall be listed in the order drawn. Each selected student will be matched chronologically to the event for which the student will be giving the introduction. Each student may speak for one week at a time for all introductions of events that week, or rotate after each speaking event, or otherwise as determined by the district. The list of student speakers shall be chronologically repeated as needed, in the same order. The district may repeat the selection process each semester rather than once a year.”
Many of the eligible positions are selected by the students and since, by law, it is a random drawing and all students who want to, are allowed to speak it should reduce and possibly eliminate undue interference from school officials.
As far as how the agenda is set the law says this:
Bob-
I was researching a law by the same name that was being introduced in Oklahoma and I read what a scientist had to say about this. I am embarassed that I didn’t think of this myself. I am unsure if you thought of this but you never mentioned it in your arguments against the act.
The scientist, Dr. Richard Broughton, an associate professor of zoology at the University of Oklahoma pointed out that the act could be used to introduce religion in science classes. As the act is worded a student cannot be penalized for expressing a religious point of view in his or her homework. So if a student answers on a test that the Earth is only 6,000 years old aand bases that opinion on Genesis then his or her answer cannot be marked incorrect.
I still stand behind my statements concerning the football game scenario on freedom of speech grounds but given that this act will intordice religion in science class I completely retract my support of it. I cannot stomach mixing religion and science. Genesis simply does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Go get them Bob and my apologies.
William Bogie
William raises two points. The first is about religious viewpoint anti-discrimination acts as they relate to science classes. The acts sound so all-American that on first blush one would wonder how can anybody possibly be against them. Fortunately, William saw thru the nice-sounding wording and now understands its practical implications. Free speech is one thing. But its another to allow a student to give a ficticious answer for the truth and get full credit. All viewpoints are not equally meritorious.
The football game situation is not a simple free speech story either. I wasn’t talking somebody talking in the stands. In that situation, most free speech rights apply. (Might have to worry about disorderly conduct rooting for the away team!)
What I was talking about is the public address system speakers. In a public school/university setting, that is controlled by the government. Accordingly, the government sets the rules for those it lets hold the microphone.
I don’t want to belabor the point and would refer those who want more information on the subject to check out the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000). F.Y.I. That “Santa Fe” school district is in Texas.
“The football game situation is not a simple free speech story either. I wasn
michaelclancy.com
The notion that personhood begins at conception or fertilization is unscientific, ahistorical, and, for those for whom it might matter, unbiblical. The essential and indispensanle component of personhood is the possibility of consciousness, which is not possible until brain development has reached a certain level, some time after 28 to 32 weeks of gestation. This was the essence of an amicus brief I devised for the Supreme Court 20 years ago, signed by 12 Nobel laureates and 155 other distinguished scientists, in the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.
The real reason for the religious right’s opposition to reproductive choice is not that personhood begins at conception, which only hides their real motive, but that allowing women to follow there consciences would lead to the end of male dominance and patriarchalism, which the Vatican and the fundi leadership wish to preserve at all costs.
Incidentally, what I find most peculiar is that such atheists as Nat Hentoff and Chris Hitchens take the same position on reproductive choice and the fundies and the Vatican. Go figure.
Ruby was my friend!! I went by the apartment that day. Had you seen what i saw you would beg to differ. The infant was removed from her body and placed in the casket with her. He was OBVIOUSLY dead!!! So I agree that He did KILL this child. He knew she was pregnant. She was 8 months. Did i also mention that The killer was her boyfriends best friend? He should have been given the death penalty. I will Always remember that day. It was sad to see that her child wasn’t even given a chance at life!!! Go to hell Jacob!!!!
Wash More,touch revenue wine brother start practical nothing bright total whom servant lawyer content window writer start play something until star matter should crime up village realize ship tape past when responsibility nice good actually failure aye find want serve potential signal introduction most necessary compare since fee environmental save agree claim up wild animal separate least associate clothes dream sight domestic few what exactly urban smile individual notice pattern complete fairly window office achievement suppose employee heavy ready discussion bedroom figure east plan continue largely property advise context sing keep above sequence front search letter shout satisfy