R ick
writes:
To answer Paul's question about Roe and the abortion liberty, I
don't believe the Constitution even remotely speaks to a liberty to kill a child
in the womb. So certainly Roe should be reversed and the issue left to
the democratic branches.
Am I
correct in interpreting this as support for the position that Posner took
in DeShaney (and that the Court presumably ratified), i.e., that there is no
constitutional right to be protected against murder, so that one could
justifiably rewrite Rick's sentence "I don't believe the Constitution even
remotely speaks to a liberty to kill anyone you don't like," so that unless
the state acts to criminalize such murder, the Constitution on its own is
neutral (as it was, say, to whether human beings could be held as slaves)?
Or is Rick saying that the Constitution can't "remotely [be interpreted to
include] a liberty to kill a child in the womb, any more than it can be
interpreted to justify state indifference to whether its citizens are wantonly
murdering one another"?
sandy
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
