It means we get to vote and make our arguments too, just as other people trading under the name “secularists” “liberals” “feminists’ and “egalitarians” do. All of them have metaphysical commitments. Why should theirs be privileged?
-
-
Replying to @michaelbd @RadioFreeTom and
Exactly. A normative proposition like "don't kill" doesn't become invalid just because it is supported by religious traditions. Greenhouse's view of the Establishment Clause doesn't get more respect in legal scholarship because it has no basis in the Establishment Clause.
4 replies 9 retweets 97 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @michaelbd and
Beginning from "don't kill" is already prejudicing the answer in the direction you want. Your opponents don't see it as killing, and saying it in this way just ensures that you look like you're trying to bring your religious belief that it *is* killing through the side door.
12 replies 2 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @RadioFreeTom @michaelbd and
1. If you don't have laws against killing humans, you don't have a government. 2. If you have laws against killing people, those laws need to decide who is human or you don't have a law. 3. Must the definition of who is human exclude any definition used by a religion?
9 replies 5 retweets 91 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @michaelbd and
Every time you start from "this is killing humans," you've ended the discussion. That means no abortion, never, no exceptions. There's no debate. I respect that consistency, but I don't agree with it.
8 replies 3 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @RadioFreeTom @baseballcrank and
This is basically "America should be pre-2019 Ireland," and that, to me, is a religious proposition.
5 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @RadioFreeTom @michaelbd and
I would argue that "America should not be pre-2019 Ireland" is no more or less a religious proposition. But my question remains unanswered: can we have laws about killing humans & not define in law who the humans are that the law applies to?
6 replies 2 retweets 41 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @michaelbd and
I think it's unanswerable and that we will have two choices: draw an arbitrary line (the status quo since Roe) or say: No abortions, ever. I think the latter does more harm than good.
10 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @RadioFreeTom @michaelbd and
So the definition is legitimate only if it is arbitrary? Again, we're not discussing what is the *right* definition but whether one definition is legitimate & another is not. You're conceding here the necessity of having a legal definition.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @michaelbd and
Of course I am. I'm objecting to you end-running that by saying "we need to agree that this is killing." You moved the goalposts from one of the field to the other. Are you saying there are times when it's *not* killing?
2 replies 2 retweets 5 likes
If you're not taking the Greenhouse position, then we are wasting our time arguing this in this thread.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.