{"title":"世俗的","authors":"A. Hughes, R. Mccutcheon","doi":"10.4324/9781003140184-45","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes the mobilization of the concept of human dignity as prohibition against torture applied to the abortion rights debate in the Claim of Non-Compliance with Fundamental Precept nº 54. I identify that the organization of the case around the principle of human dignity allowed for an agonistic conflict between Catholic and secular constitutionalisms, which was stabilized in the ruling by an interpretation of the precepts based on gender-sensitive secular humanism.","PeriodicalId":438104,"journal":{"name":"Religion in 50 Words","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Secular\",\"authors\":\"A. Hughes, R. Mccutcheon\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781003140184-45\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article analyzes the mobilization of the concept of human dignity as prohibition against torture applied to the abortion rights debate in the Claim of Non-Compliance with Fundamental Precept nº 54. I identify that the organization of the case around the principle of human dignity allowed for an agonistic conflict between Catholic and secular constitutionalisms, which was stabilized in the ruling by an interpretation of the precepts based on gender-sensitive secular humanism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":438104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Religion in 50 Words\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Religion in 50 Words\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003140184-45\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religion in 50 Words","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003140184-45","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyzes the mobilization of the concept of human dignity as prohibition against torture applied to the abortion rights debate in the Claim of Non-Compliance with Fundamental Precept nº 54. I identify that the organization of the case around the principle of human dignity allowed for an agonistic conflict between Catholic and secular constitutionalisms, which was stabilized in the ruling by an interpretation of the precepts based on gender-sensitive secular humanism.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
