Talk:Right to life

message: Could this article have a more general introduction to Right to Life before jumping into the different contexts? Alternatively could it disambiguate to different pages? 131.111.5.170 (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A more general introduction?  

message: Should this page be merged with the Consistent Life Ethic article?
*Oppose. Right to life is a legal concept, and Consistent Life Ethic concerns a movement concerning the interpretation of this right.
*Oppose. If anything, the Consistent Life Ethic should be merged with this article. The right to life is specifically enumerated in several legal documents. Consistent Life Ethic is a movement to ensure that this right is upheld. Ryan Brady 16:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: I think that Singer's theories deserve a mention on this page, however, as it is now, it might be unbalanced. We might also want to add some religious views, i.e. from Islam, Christianity (Protestant/Catholic), et cetera. And not confine ourselves only to law.
:In his writings, Singer establishes the need for morality, asserts what he thinks that morality should be, and then justifies his arguments based on the morality he established.  His arguments are logical extensions of his own moral code, but he admits that his code is subjective.  One can only agree with his conclusions if they also believe his premise for those conclusions.  In the case that you cite, Singer first writes that his moral loyalty is given to consciousness and not to our species.  Based on that morality, a fetus is less conscious than a living animal.  Thus, any argument for not killing a fetus would necessarily be an argument for not killing an animal with a consciousness greater than that stage of the fetus.  Rabbi Jeremy Rosen references Singer's non-distinction between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans in support of his assertion that "we need the discipline of Torah and written constitution to check and balance." In building logical arguments on subjective moral principles, I would argue that Singer is already an example of a religious view.  --Zephram Stark 20:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia article should not be a forum for debate.  Instead of saying that some people disagree with Singer, we should state exactly what the foundations of Singer's assertions are, as I have touched on above.  Instead of holding Singer up as an authoritative figure, we should let the logic (or illogic) of his message speak for itself.  Then we don't have to say that certain people agree or disagree with it.  I would be happy to propose a change that would concisely define Singer's view if everyone agrees to the principle of that change.  Please say Agree or Disagree with your comments below, so that we can reach a consensus about it.  (Please note that this is not a vote.)  --Zephram Stark 17:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The section under 'Opposing Viewpoints' comes across to a researcher (me) as non-objective and mostly irrelevant. The first paragraph has promise, the following two paragraphs are very amateur and do not clearly illustrate any clear point - save to somehow trying to link "Pro-choicers" (not the most literary term) with 'Zoophiles' via the use of poor and insinuative grammar.  I request the two sides of this subject agree on some improvements in this area, its the most negative opinion i've had of any controversial subject on wikipedia to date.  Clearly the 'debate' is at the very heart of this article, so care should be taken to make sure that both sides of the debate viewpoint are clear, articulate and well sourced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.44.123 (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Singer 

message: Maybe the laws of other countries regarding abortion should be featured here, not just of the United States? For example, " we create governments to secure those rights that will always be part of our nature. " Mstislava 14:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section skips 1973. ✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juridical views 

message: It is my opinion that right to life issues fall in the same category as abolition or civil rights.  The lines cross political parties, consistently energize voters and have a significant impact on the political landscape.  The catalysts are more that just abortion, but include capital punishment, stem cell research, war and even things like gun control.   On the abortion issue, since Roe v. Wade there has been significant political organization on both sides as they try to push their position forward.  The current article does not discuss this as thoroughly as it could.  Rearden9 13:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political movements 

message: This article is pretty paltry right now. The intro says that 'right to life' involves several issues. As far as I can see, the article focuses almost entirely on abortion. Furthermore, it is profoundly US-centric. I've helped this a little bit by adding mention of the UN UDHR. Let's please make this article about an inalienable human right (throughout the world), not about abortion in the US. Ryan Brady 16:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficient Information 

message: The Indian Supreme Court recently equated live-in relationships as an aspect of Right to Life:
http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/mar/23/live-in-relationship-pre-marital-sex-no-offence-sc.htm
It this worthy to be included in this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.126.115 (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live in Relationships 

message: Right to life in the Constitution is not rhetoric for pro-life. It is an undisputed source for pro-life and using "rhetoric" is inappropriate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: COncur, and here we are six years later and it's still strongly anti-right to life. CsikosLo (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Good! Then, that life can step outside at day one and become a citizen. Now, excuse me while I go mix a vial of random chemicals that can turn into DNA, then eagerly expect to see a living person pooped out of the vial.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Abortion debate rhetoric" section needs to be made neutral 

message: How is this relevant? "Some biologists" have determined that life began on Earth 3.5 billion years ago. "Some biologists" have determined the citric acid cycle is a key component of the metabolic pathway by which all aerobic organisms generate energy. "Some biologists" should not be quoted out of context.--137.224.240.42 (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Some biologists however, have determined..." 

message: I feel specific laws about abortion should not be mentioned in this article. I'm hesitant to simply remove entire sections of the page without first explaining my reasoning, but I don't think a 2017 law in Illinois expanding healthcare coverage is particularly relevant to the abstract concept of "Right to life". Wikipedia's essay on content removal uses the example of a paragraph about England in a page on English literature. I feel there's a similarly tangential relationship here. Saklad5 (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of specific abortion laws 

message: "In human history, there has not been a general acceptance of the concept of a right to life that is innate to all human beings rather than granted as a privilege by those holding social and political power."
Wow, this is a statement of colossal ignorance.  The Bible forms the moral foundation for Western Civilization.  The right to life is clearly inferred from Genesis: The story of Cain and Abel, the passage Genesis 9:6, The Commandment "Thou shalt not murder," etc. The right to life is also grounded in the opening principles of the Declaration which state that we are "...endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."  If human beings did not have an innate right to life (based on our being created in the image of God, which the Framers understood), there would be no reason to punish Cain.  There would be no reason to prohibit murder. Perhaps this sentence may be permissible if one is an atheist, but Judeo-Christian religions teach, and Western Civilization has long morally affirmed, a right to life existing independently of those who happen to hold social or political power.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpkatsa (talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The whole paragraph was added by an IP who had, in 2015, drawn multiple warnings about unsourced content and original research in articles. I have removed the paragraph; the first paragraph is a good enough lede for now. Elizium23 (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Fallacy 

message: Not much to add to the subject/headline. Surprised there is no mention at all of any of these things, even in "See also". I just came across the Jainist practise of santhara (I'm nearing the end of my first fast...), which is the practise by which the elderly fast to ritualistically purify the soul and facilitate death. Understandably controversial, but one spokesperson said: "Our constitution says that every person living in India has a right to live. If I have a right to live then I have a corresponding right not to live - that is, to die... The goal is to live a dignified life. It is my right, it is my body. It is not the property of the state." (Justice Pana Chand Jain) Incidentally, (attempted) suicide, and abetting suicide (or the attempt), is a crime in India, so "the right not to live" isn't recognised in law. (Maybe santhara is not sufficiently notable, as the estimate is only 200 santhara deaths per year in India.) Jainist info is from https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/jainism/customs/fasting_1.shtml Saegeas (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of suicide, right to death, Jainist santhara... Not relevant?