Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
The right to bear arms is clear and articulate. The Constitutionality of abortion is not. I should have stated that it's application requires interpretation... never said anything about interpretations should be"based on personal whim, political orientation, views of 'social justice'".
|
You said "I think the public hanging of child rapists and murderers would be Constitutionally acceptable and not conflict with the restriction of "cruel and unusual punishment". Others may disagree and perceive it as unconstitutional." This implies a Constitutional lack of clarity because it promotes "interpretation" based on personal opinion. Actually, the right to bear arms, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the "right" to an abortion should not require wrenching, conflicting, "interpretation."
There is no restriction in the Constitution on the types of "arms" that a citizen has a right to bear.
Since there is no definition of what is cruel or unusual in the Constitution, such punishments are left to be determined by the people and their legislators in accordence with normative standards and practices.
There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. Again, this "right" should be reserved to State legislatures bringing the matter up to a vote of their citizens. There is, of course, a matter of a human right to life. Apparently, it is difficult to determine whether a human is alive, or even human, until it is separated from the umbilical cord. Even then, living, viable newborns that result from failed late term abortions are discarded into trash heaps, apparently not considered human or alive.
Threaded Mode