More a slogan than a precisely defined term. Hobbes argued that each human being has a fundamental duty of self-preservation, and hence a natural right to do whatever conduces to it. In Hobbes's social contract, however, rational individuals hand over all their rights to the person or body they nominate as their sovereign, all of whose actions they are thereby deemed to authorize. Hobbes's absolutism has just one exception: that, as the purpose of signing the social contract was to preserve oneself, the Sovereign cannot order a subject to kill him- or herself. Locke described civil society as an association for the ‘mutual Preservation of their Lives, Liberties, and Properties’, and this assertion is the ancestor of the claim in the American Declaration of Independence that: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.’
Despite this high backing, the right to life is not an absolute right. Both Britain and America have had provision for capital punishment: Britain until 1967, and many US states to the present day. Attempts to have capital punishment declared unconstitutional have failed. Both countries have had provision for military conscription. Hobbes recognized that his political theory did not grant a right to life guaranteed by discussing the biblical story of Uriah the Hittite, whom King David sent to the wars in the (correct) expectation that Uriah would be killed, as David was having an affair with Uriah's wife. Hobbes insisted that David had not violated Uriah's rights, which makes it hard to see what rights Uriah had.
The right to life is also used as a slogan in contemporary argument about abortion (see also pro-life) and euthanasia. ‘Right to Life’ is shorthand for the views of those militantly opposed to abortion, especially in the United States, because they argue that the foetus has an unconditional right to life. Those who favour euthanasia argue that if one has a right to one's life, one has a right to choose to end it. One might expect an association between opposing abortion and favouring euthanasia. However, the association tends the other way, partly because militant anti-abortionists are often Christian fundamentalists, who are among those who think that the taking of the life of an unborn foetus and of someone who wishes to die are equally forbidden.

Right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being. The concept of a right to life is central to debates on the issues of euthanasia, capital punishment, abortion, self defense and war.[citation needed]
|
Contents
|
| “ | Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. | ” |
| “ | Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. | ” |
|
—Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights |
||
| “ | Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. | ” |
|
—Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms |
||
The term "right to life" is a rhetorical device used in the abortion debate by pro-life proponents.[2] Pro-life advocates argue that prenatal humans are human persons and have the same fundamental "right to life" as humans have after birth. Generally speaking, those identifying themselves as "right-to-life" believe abortion is impermissible.
The term "right to choice" is a rhetorical device used in the abortion debate by abortion-rights proponents. Abortion rights advocates argue that prenatal humans are not human persons and do not have the same fundamental "right to life" as humans after birth. The distinction is that a human becomes a person and is given rights after birth. Generally speaking, those identifying themselves as "right-to-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.[3] 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.[4]
Many 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 severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.[5]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)