Talk:Right to life
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. For more information, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
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)
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
