This article will be permanently flagged as inappropriate and made unaccessible to everyone. Are you certain this article is inappropriate? Excessive Violence Sexual Content Political / Social
Email Address:
Article Id: WHEBN0000468580 Reproduction Date:
The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not to be killed by another human being. The concept of a right to life is central to debates on the issues of capital punishment, war, abortion, euthanasia, and justifiable homicide.
Abolitionists believe capital punishment is a violation of the right to life. Abolitionists believe that capital punishment is the worst violation of human rights, because the right to life is the most important, and capital punishment violates it without necessity and inflicts to the condemned a psychological torture.
The entitlement of a person to make the decision to end their own life through euthanasia is commonly called a right to choose,[1] while people who oppose the legalization of euthanasia are commonly referred to as the right-to-lifers.[2]
The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law guidebook (2000) listing of abortion specifies the publication use of "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life" and "abortion rights" instead of "pro-abortion" or "pro-choice", and advises avoiding the use of "abortionist" which "connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions", in favor of using a term such as "abortion doctor" or "abortion practitioner".[3]
Every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life directly from God and not from his parents, not from any society or human authority. Therefore, there is no man, no society, no human authority, no science, no “indication” at all whether it be medical, eugenic, social, economic, or moral that may offer or give a valid judicial title for a direct deliberate disposal of an innocent human life… --- Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession Papal Encyclical, October 29, 1951.[5]
In 1966 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) asked Fr. James T. McHugh to begin observing trends in abortion reform within the United States.[6] The National Right to Life Committee was funded in 1967 as the Right to Life League to coordinate its state campaigns under the auspices of the Fr. James T. McHugh and his executive assistant, Michael Taylor, proposed a different plan, facilitating the NRLC move toward its independence from the Roman Catholic Church.
The term "right to choose" is a rhetorical device used in the abortion debate by abortion-rights proponents. Many abortion rights advocates argue that prenatal humans are or are not human persons and do not have the same fundamental "right to life" as a mature human. Another abortion rights argument posits that it is irrelevant whether prenatal humans do or do not have the same fundamental "right to life" as a mature human because a woman's right to Bodily integrity overrides any potential rights that the fetus may or may not have. Advocates of the "right to choose" may take either or both positions.
Generally speaking, those identifying themselves as "pro-choice" are advocates for legal elective abortion. At the same time, some advocates for legalized abortion state that they simply do not know for sure where in pregnancy life begins; then-Senator Barack Obama took this view in the 2008 election.[9] Some biologists however, have determined that the properties of life emerge at the cellular level.[10] Other advocates have stated that they hold personal views against abortion but do not support putting those beliefs into law; then-Senator Joe Biden took this view in the 2008 election.[11]
Some utilitarian ethicists argue that the "right to life", where it exists, depends on conditions other than membership of the human species. The philosopher Peter Singer is a notable proponent of this argument. For Singer, the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one's future. This extends the concept to non-human animals, such as other apes, but since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack this, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be "justified" (but are not obligatory) in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of a disabled infant whose life would be one of suffering, or if its parents didn't wish to raise it and no one desired to adopt it.[12]
United Nations, Genocide, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations General Assembly, World War II
Reproductive rights, One-child policy, Birth control, Abortion law, Human rights
Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, European Union
Human rights, Freedom of speech, Internet, Identity theft, Advertising
Pregnancy, Embryology, Gastrulation, Spinal cord, Adolescence
Euthanasia, Mexico, Aguascalientes, Michoacán, Mexico City
Bbc, Assisted suicide, Capital punishment, Netherlands, Oregon
Human rights, John Locke, Slavery, Privacy, Civil and political rights