Talk:Right to life

A more general introduction?
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)

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)
 * Oppose. While initially, I considered considering the notion, the lede does a wonderful job of doing precisely what was requested. This is an encyclopedia, not a debate site, so the basic facts are given, links given to side topics and arguments of noteworthy documentation. I'll happily discuss my own views in a debate forum, but this isn't such a place, so basic facts, further information on the entire topic are appropriate. IHO, this is entirely proper, basic information, as the subject ranges from capital punishment to abortion, which is a hot button topic and prone to causing edit wars and stupidity.Wzrd1 (talk)

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)
 * 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)

The whole article reads as it is taking the feeling of leftists into account and that makes it deviate from truth, the article doesn't need to be neutral the article needs to speak truth, life begins at the conception this is the moment when a new DNA is created the ovum doesn't share the same DNA as the mother anymore and becomes his own indivitual.
 * 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)

"Some biologists however, have determined..."
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)

Unnecessary sentence.
"Various individuals who identify with pro-life views may disagree on which areas this principle applies, including such issues previously listed." This is unnecessary. It also true of "various individuals who identify with" any of the other previously listed issues as well. Why single out pro-life as the only group that disagrees on the application of the Right?

Relevance of specific abortion laws
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)

Opening Fallacy
"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)
 * 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)

No mention of suicide, right to death, Jainist santhara... Not relevant?
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)

animal rights
The edit today that includes Peter Singer's view that animals have a right to life is given far too much prominence. The edit acknowledges that it's a minority view. perhaps it deserves a small section, but there is no reason for it to be in the lead. commie (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * A 2020 survey of 1812 published English-language philosophers found that 48% said it was permissible to eat animals in ordinary circumstances, while 45% said it was not.
 * https://dailynous.com/2021/11/01/what-philosophers-believe-results-from-the-2020-philpapers-survey/
 * When I said "minority view" I meant among the general public, but I'd argue it definitely warrants mention here.
 * Peter isn't the only one to argue this, but the article as it is only mentions him. I will somewhat rewrite this. Koopinator (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Koopinator I still think it's given undue weight in the lead: three of the ten lines. commie (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)