Talk:Right to life

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)
• Oppose. The Right To Life movement in the US has largely focused on fetuses. The Consistent Life Ethic goes to the root of the matter, and advocates repect for all human life.Pustelnik (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter Singer

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)

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)

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)

Juridical views

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)

The section skips 1973. ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Political movements

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)

Insufficient Information

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)

Good to know that unpopular information will be censored and deleted on a whim. Good ol' wiki. You can't deny the abortion aspects of the Right to Life movement mention in this article. MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan Brady. I'm French and here there is absolutely no debate on abortion. Well, there is no debate about death penalty either, but if you were to speak about the right to life, it would certainly refer to the abolition of death penalty, not to abortion. In fact the French language article on right to life reflect this, and presents other ideas (euthanasia or right to death, right to life as a right to have all necessary needs fulfilled, etc.). Aesma (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Live in Relationships

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)

"Abortion debate rhetoric" section needs to be made neutral

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)