Church and State
	CONTINUE ON

Even if we allow that secular philosophy has something to say on issues about rights and persons, could we rephrase Tribe's argument and make use of it? Justice Blackmun said in Roe that the Court could not decide about the humanity of the fetus because our experts disagree. You might argue that the court should not choose between secular philosophies any more than it should choose between religions.

But if the Court should not choose, does that mean that legislatures cannot decide between competing philosophies when making law? If not, what becomes of social legislation that chooses between hotly contested moral and philosophical views? Does it, like laws for or against abortion, become unconstitutional because it takes sides when experts differ?

Ariadne Home	Abortion Bibliography	Abortion Home