Welcome to Gaia! ::

Share your thoughts with me.

There is an unchallenged assumption that there is a "right to life". Heck, it is even in the U.S. constitution. This confusion has extended to the pro-lifers who so literally believe in this "right" that they extend it to non-sentient potential persons simply because they have human dna.

I think people may be confused between the "right to life" and the right to liberty/the right to be free from slavery, be free from being forced to do things. Even though both are listed in the U.S. constitution, I see it as one right only- freedom.

Why do I reconsider a human being's "inherent" right to life?

I look at nature for its finest example. All human beings will die, no exception. Not only do people die... but they die at any moment after they are born. There's no contract saying that you will grow old. They die in many circumstances. We can't control when, where we die, or with what method. The fact that we are mortal also points out to Modern Philosophy that we have not absolute free will, but only relative free will. The fact of death is but one example of why we can only be "creators" of our wills and destinies only up to a certain point.

Now..

Does this mean that since I believe that humans have no "right" to life, that this means I can tell people for them that they should die? That I should have power over their lives? That any other human being can tell another to die by default? No. Because this falls under liberty.

All beings have the born right to be free. This would mean a quality of life *over* a quantity of life. A life that is free is a quality of life. Most people would agree that a high quality of life is superior to overpopulation that marks a quantity of life. As you know, quantity of life just makes every single life more expendable than before as everyone is competing for limited resources, and this lowers quality of life.

Now, this freedom is tempered when it involves someone else taking away someone else's liberty- slavery, or murder, or rape, for example. Now the pro-lifers who define aborting women and their doctors as "murderers" might think that my argument fits their side. Well, that is, if they wish to twist it around. A major difference with women who abort is that the fetus is in an inherent parasitic relationship to the woman unless it is wanted. Consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to having a baby since it is well known that sex is done for pleasure and that gay/lesbian love exists. The difference between a fetus and a murdering teen/adult is that the teen/adult is sentient and has understood the ability to value personal freedom- but decides to take away someone else's freedom. The fetus has no conception of such while it is languishing in its parasitic relationship. The fetus is not even a "person", though having human dna.

Again, I have to repeat, a life of freedom DOES NOT MEAN a right to exist!

Having a life of freedom is almost hand-in-hand with having a life of happiness. For not being free, or being a slave, is very conducive for unhappiness. Who wants to be controlled? It doesn't feel natural to have your own will usurped by anyone else.

Does the fetus feel controlled by a woman's decision to abort it? Last time I've heard, not a peep from the peanut gallery.

No.. The woman IS controlled when she cannot choose her own fertility options.

Therefore, to pro-lifers, an arbitrary "right to life" that is not even a law of nature is given to a non-sentient potential person trumps a truly valuable right of freedom for a sentient woman.

And again.. "right to life" can't be exercised with organ patients on waiting lists. The Bodily Integrity argument PROVES that "right to life" does not trump someone else's freedom.

BOOYAH!!

The right to life is an awkward thing.

What confuses me is that it appears that under law our right to life is not waivable, if we can't waive it, is it still a right?

What is clear I think is that there is no inherent natural right to life that entails responsibilities on the part of others. You may have a right to life, but this does not stop bacteria from infecting you and damaging your life or a lion from eating you. Your right to life in natural not legal terms in this case would be your right to exist, not the right to continued uninterfered existence.

The thing with rights is that they have to be given, they aren't something you can just have, as most people believe that rights involve others not interfering, they will only be willing to accept the responsibility of non interference if they are part of the same social contract and have those same rights themselves.


Hmm just some thoughts I had, I may pop back later if I think of anything else.