meaning of right to life

[Athena]

What does a right to life mean?

When does this right start and when does it end?

Is anyone, in any way, responsible for the life of another?

Under what conditions may one person, or a group of persons, be responsible for the life another? What are rights and duties of such a human relationship?

[carriew]

it depends on who you are, where u are, and who is your caretaker, untill you can take care of yourself.

[ihaQ]

Quote by: Athena What does a right to life mean? When does this right start and when does it end? Is anyone, in any way, responsible for the life of another? Under what conditions may one person, or a group of persons, be responsible for the life another? What are rights and duties of such a human relationship?

I personally believe the right to life is merely a privelege necessitated by civilisation and should be respected and percieved as such.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

I think we can all agree that we, as intelligent beings, choose our lives. No one "gives" them to us. There is no authority that puts them inside our minds when we are born. We don't have the right to live, to preach what we wish, etc. We choose what we want our rights to be.

As for the choosing, I think we all want each other to have a right to live. Unfortunately, this is determined by what we value in life, as since we all have different values at different levels, like life, for instance, then we cannot determine at which point the right to live is guaranteed.

[Osborn F Enready]

Athena said:
What does a right to life mean?

I say:
A right to life means you have a right to live without being put to death without a trial by jury for a crime you committed. (assuming you are a right holding responsible adult)

Athena said:
When does this right start and when does it end?

I say:
It starts when you become a self sustaining being. Once you are born, you are seperated from your mother, physically. At this time, you are the holder of human rights. When you become a responsible adult (currently deemed to be 18 to die in war, 21 to have a beer) you become self-responsible for your actions, and ignorance of the law is no longer an accepted excuse for non-compliance, you are then the holder of civil rights as enumerated in the Constitution, also including many rights NOT enumerated.

Athena said:
Is anyone, in any way, responsible for the life of another?

I say:
You are responsible for any life you create, until they become self-responsible adults according to current law. You are also SOLELY responsible for your OWN life as a responsible adult.

Athena said:
Under what conditions may one person, or a group of persons, be responsible for the life another?

I say:
By creating a life through intercourse, invetro fertilization, test-tube birthing, artificial insemination, adoption, cloning(future), or voluntary contract.

Athena said:
What are rights and duties of such a human relationship?

I say:
The rights are to oversee the full education, upbringing, nourishment, instillment of concept of the law, rights and responsibilities to the child until the child reaches the age deemed to signify adulthood in law. The responsibility is financial, moral, and all encompassing since the parent or guardian is the caretaker of that child with exception to right to life and basic human rights. At that time the child is deemed and adult, the adult is property of himself in all respects and is accountable for all actions he incurs or partakes in, according to law unless it is involuntary, in which case that adult has the right to defend himself in whatever means necessary in accordance to the level of threat.

[Prometheus]

I believe the "right to life" is just like a right to your cheesburger. If it's yours you have the right for it to not be taken. You aren't garenteed it. You have a right to your cheesburger, but you are not owed it. Just like your life - no one can take it away, but it is not garenteed that you will live. Because you have a right to it, that dosen't mean you are owed whatever it takes to sustain that life.

[Athena]

Now there were some good arguments that actually require thinking of a good response.

I did not see one answer that suggest a fertilized egg has a right to life. The closest the answers came is a matter of social agreement. Social agreement can give or deny the right to life.

Osborn takes this to social agreement level. Correct me if I am misinterpreting. In the name of social decency, there ought to be, a social agreement that anyone responsible for beginning a life is responsible for the result of what was started? Osborn, leaves room for killing the result of fertilizing an egg, until this becomes an independently, air breathing human being. This is where the social agreement is in conflict. Some insisting the right to life begins when the egg is fertilized.

The second area of disagreement is, one of responsibility. Around the world and at different times in history, people have starved to death. It is believed with modern technology this is preventable. Osborn, seems to limit this responsibility to the parents and does not put it on society, much less, an international responsibility. Question, should parents be the only people responsible for the life and well being of an evolved fertilized egg?

We are social creatures as are chimpanezes. In what ways are we different from chimps?
"Should" we be any different? Why?

Does the United States value, government by the people, of the people, for the people? Is there a social agreement of responsibility in a democracy that is different from living as a chimp in a troup of chimps? Is there a social agreement in communist countries? How about countries with dictatorships? How do people come to these social agreements?

How about this one- God, required the sacrafice of the first born to Him. Should we prove our loyalty to God, by giving Him our first born? Why?

[Prometheus]

I didn't know we were talking about abortion here. I am not taking a stance on that one here. Too many ambiguities about "life" and "humanity".

I thought we were talking about right to life meaning that someone has a right to whatever keeps them alive. ie medical care, food etc.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Prometheus I believe the "right to life" is just like a right to your cheesburger. If it's yours you have the right for it to not be taken. You aren't garenteed it. You have a right to your cheesburger, but you are not owed it. Just like your life - no one can take it away, but it is not garenteed that you will live. Because you have a right to it, that dosen't mean you are owed whatever it takes to sustain that life.

---->someone's hungry...haha.

Good points though. No one is owed anything to prevent life being taken away from you either.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Prometheus I didn't know we were talking about abortion here. I am not taking a stance on that one here. Too many ambiguities about "life" and "humanity".

How could you not know that was part of the conversation, Prometheus??? "Right to Life" is the self-ascribed name of the anti-aborition movement in the U.S.

.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 No one is owed anything to prevent life being taken away from you either.

I would disagree at taking it to that extreme though. That is one of the two purposes of government - to keep people from taking our life and tp keep people from taking our property. I do believe that in the social contract, we *are* owed protection of our lives and property. That's what the government is for. Keeping people from killing and stealing.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Prometheus I would disagree at taking it to that extreme though. That is one of the two purposes of government - to keep people from taking our life and tp keep people from taking our property. I do believe that in the social contract, we *are* owed protection of our lives and property. That's what the government is for. Keeping people from killing and stealing.

I never said anything about government. In general, people don't have to save your life if they don't want to.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Sonart How could you not know that was part of the conversation, Prometheus??? "Right to Life" is the self-ascribed name of the anti-aborition movement in the U.S.

I guess I am not familliar with the recent political rhetoric. I though they were called "pro life". When I saw "right to life" I thought of the preamble to the constitution "right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc". People often use that statement in the preamble to justify welfare and the like. I thought that is what was being refranced.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 I never said anything about government. In general, people don't have to save your life if they don't want to.

So you were refrancing the people who get arrested for not preforming CPR? I agree with you on that one. I think it is good to try to save someone, that it is the humane and moral thinkg to do, but it certainly shouldn't be required.

[Athena]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 I never said anything about government. In general, people don't have to save your life if they don't want to.

Incorrect, there is a law that makes it a crime to allow a person to die. Say if a parent neglected to feed a child and the child died, this would be classified homicide. If a person is a care giver and a person dies due to neglect, this is homicide. Even if a dog left in a car dies from heat, this is now a criminal act. Yet we do not think it criminal to deny homeless people food and shelter. I disagree with this. I agree with Genhis Khan on this one. There is no excuse for hording wealth and neglecting the needy. All religions basically say, do unto others as you would have them do to you. Humans who commit homicide by nelgect are not ready for heaven. Regardless of man made laws, I think there is a spiritual law that requires us to do unto others as we would have others do to us.

Yes, I was asking to people to think about abortion, the homeless and poor, and the dieing elderly, in this right to life question. It bothers me a lot that some people insist all possible human life be kept alive until it is born, and then they turn their backs on the living.

[Athena]

Quote by: Prometheus I guess I am not familliar with the recent political rhetoric. I though they were called "pro life". When I saw "right to life" I thought of the preamble to the constitution "right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc". People often use that statement in the preamble to justify welfare and the like. I thought that is what was being refranced.

Oh yes, I do associate the right to life with our constitution, and if people understood democracy, so would everyone. The Latin motto "E pluribus unum" was suggested by the first Great Seal committee in 1776. It means "Out of many, one." That was replaced in 1954 with "In God we trust", shifting the power of manifestation from humans to an imagined God. Now it is believed God and morals are the sole right property of Christians. The rational of democracy is no longer known.

Ideally, democracy enables the most people to make their best contribution. As long as there was a west without an establishment controlling every inch of land and all resources, and equal opportunity was freely given by nature, we could deny our moral obligation to each other. Now denying out moral obligation to each other results in the neglected and exploited being a problem to all. We can return to walled neighborhoods, and attempt to deny responsibility for what is outside the wall, but for people desiring heaven, this is not the logical way to get there. How fit for a loving and forgiving God are people who attempt to ignor the suffering of others?

Athens was the first recognized democracy, and added to this was Christian concepts, and then science and Naturalism. Democracy and Naturalism put the power of manifestion of the hands of everyone. By working together, we can manifest heaven on earth, and those who think only of themselves and feel no moral obligation to others, are not contributing to the potential of our democracy. This is a spiritual reality involving the whole world. Those who think we are no better than animals and that life has no purpose, are small minded.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Athena Oh yes, I do associate the right to life with our constitution, and if people understood democracy, so would everyone. The Latin motto "E pluribus unum" was suggested by the first Great Seal committee in 1776. It means "Out of many, one." That was replaced in 1954 with "In God we trust", shifting the power of manifestation from humans to an imagined God. Now it is believed God and morals are the sole right property of Christians. The rational of democracy is no longer known.

Very interesting, really, but I fail to see the impact. Mottos are one thing, but the "right to life" is another.

Ideally, democracy enables the most people to make their best contribution. As long as there was a west without an establishment controlling every inch of land and all resources, and equal opportunity was freely given by nature, we could deny our moral obligation to each other. Now denying out moral obligation to each other results in the neglected and exploited being a problem to all. We can return to walled neighborhoods, and attempt to deny responsibility for what is outside the wall, but for people desiring heaven, this is not the logical way to get there. How fit for a loving and forgiving God are people who attempt to ignor the suffering of others?

Firstly, we do not live in a democracy. Secondly, I never proposed that it is appropriate to ignore the suffering of others. If you knew me in a personal manner you would know that is not the case. But the government has no authority to impose such actions. They should be voluntary.

Athens was the first recognized democracy, and added to this was Christian concepts, and then science and Naturalism. Democracy and Naturalism put the power of manifestion of the hands of everyone. By working together, we can manifest heaven on earth, and those who think only of themselves and feel no moral obligation to others, are not contributing to the potential of our democracy. This is a spiritual reality involving the whole world. Those who think we are no better than animals and that life has no purpose, are small minded.

Is this a veiled insult? You people seem to think that just because I don't think certain actions should be mandatory means that I am against such actions. You can call whomever "small minded" but it is those who cannot seperate thier personal desire to help others (which I share) from public policy are truely the impared thinkers.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Prometheus So you were refrancing the people who get arrested for not preforming CPR? I agree with you on that one. I think it is good to try to save someone, that it is the humane and moral thinkg to do, but it certainly shouldn't be required.

Yeah, pretty much. Unless you were the reason he needed CPR in the first place...otherwise yeah you're right. Let me also add that I would save someone's life, I'm speaking politically.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Athena Incorrect, there is a law that makes it a crime to allow a person to die. Say if a parent neglected to feed a child and the child died, this would be classified homicide. If a person is a care giver and a person dies due to neglect, this is homicide. Even if a dog left in a car dies from heat, this is now a criminal act. Yet we do not think it criminal to deny homeless people food and shelter. I disagree with this. I agree with Genhis Khan on this one. There is no excuse for hording wealth and neglecting the needy. All religions basically say, do unto others as you would have them do to you. Humans who commit homicide by nelgect are not ready for heaven. Regardless of man made laws, I think there is a spiritual law that requires us to do unto others as we would have others do to us. Yes, I was asking to people to think about abortion, the homeless and poor, and the dieing elderly, in this right to life question. It bothers me a lot that some people insist all possible human life be kept alive until it is born, and then they turn their backs on the living.

I was more stating my opinion then what the law was...I just disagree with it. Your ending statement is what I most want to refer to. Pro-lifers are so eager to save every human life by every way possible, such as banning abortions. After forcing a family to take care of a child and spend money raising one, they are flustered as to why so much child neglect is happening. It's because you inflicted the child into society! Cause and effect my friends...sometimes we don't tie the two together.

[YourTokah]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 ---->someone's hungry...haha. Good points though. No one is owed anything to prevent life being taken away from you either.

Well, I don't think we have any "right" to life once we are old enough to fend for ourselves. Even the right to not be killed, in my opinion, is bunk. I think we'd do well with a little thinning of the gene pool. Survival of the fittest, right? If I don't want to be killed, I take measures to ensure that I will not be. If I take no measures and I Am killed, it's my own fault (as well as the fault of he that killed me).

A child, however, I believe has the right to protection of life until they are old enough to take care of themselves. I have a responsibility to precent life being taken away from my child, because I made the decision that my child and my genes should be born and grow to interact with humanity and hopefully contribute to it's evolution. Once they're adults, however, they have the right to nothing (other than the paper rights given to citizens of whatever area they live in.)