I'm glad this line of thinking about the tension between abortion bans and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause is getting aired. I remain astonished that it has not been more fully developed in legal scholarship.https://nyti.ms/2HN3XnO
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @willwilkinson
There is no necessary connection btwn religion and opposition to abortion. One need only think rights are grounded in innate human dignity (a view held by many secular people, maybe even you) and know enough about modern medicine to realize that a fetus is a (tiny) human being.
7 replies 15 retweets 147 likes -
Replying to @DamonLinker
You can come up with a secular pretext for any bid to impose sectarian religious doctrine. But so what? As a matter of fact, these draconian laws are transparently grounded in a minority religious conviction and injure the liberty, dignity, and welfare of citizens who reject it.
17 replies 2 retweets 53 likes -
Replying to @willwilkinson @DamonLinker
It's interesting to reread the First Amendment as a special disability to be imposed on religious people. Whereas, you can impose your metaphysical beliefs trading under any other brand.
3 replies 8 retweets 151 likes -
Replying to @michaelbd @DamonLinker
It's not a special disability imposed on religious people. The whole point is that people don't agree about religion, so religious people in particular will be harmed if some religious views are allowed to trump the freedom live according to other views.
7 replies 2 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @willwilkinson @DamonLinker
This is just reheated Liberal League propaganda, where Mainstream Protestantism gets legal sanction and statue support, but any thought of sharing citizenship with Catholics in a meaningful way is described as a concession to sectarianism.
2 replies 3 retweets 53 likes -
"Sharing citizenship" meaning "pass laws that conform to our religious beliefs?" Because as neither a Catholic nor a Protestant, that's what that sure sounded like.
3 replies 4 retweets 18 likes -
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?
5 replies 9 retweets 112 likes -
Replying to @michaelbd @RadioFreeTom and
You do. You get to vote. But you’re assumption that living = human is highly contestible and that in utero, pre viable = post born (which elides the indisputably human, “pregnant woman”) creates the conditions for state compelled pregnancy. Which is grotesque—*unless* you
4 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
"You get to vote" concedes the very point that Greenhouse contests.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank @michaelbd and
I have t read Greenhouse. As I can’t figure out a normative alternative to voting in a political democracy, yes, you get to vote. I’ll have to read Greenhouse to see what she is up to.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.