Normal adult humans are clear cut examples of beings that have a right to life. Trees do not have a right to life. Chimpanizees might or might not have such a right. Human embryos also may or may not have such a right. How is one to decide?
2007-12-10 02:58:08 · 9 answers · asked by Gerald P 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Right to life comes from the life.
Life begets life is the biological tenet given by a noted biologist.
2007-12-13 12:29:45 · answer #1 · answered by Ishan26 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hello:
I apologize right off, but I will have to begin by answering your question with a question, but it is only to further my own discussion of the problem.
What is it that gives adult humans their clear cut right to life? Whatever your answer is (even if it is that adult humans actually do not have said right) will clearly be shaded by your view of the world and life. I will try and bring up a few different examples of logic.
God made us and he made us special: We are made to master and dominate the world by God in his image. Trees are there to burn and build things, minerals and oil are there to be made use of. Animals are food and nothing more. This view once also believed that women are less than men and generally the same folks that can believe this can also believe that other humans (by extension of the thought that they are not fully human for whatever reason) are not entitled to the same rights they are. Clearly not everyone that believes the core of these beliefs will go all the way to saying that a segment of humanity is not really fully human (or not super human), however it is an extension of this logic. Personally this one does not sit well with me in that if God created us and created this world for us that living in harmony with the world...to live with it is better than raping it for resources. However it is impossible to really know God and to really know what God wants (I understand faith, but by definition the "leap of faith" is also a leap in logic. I do not say this either with disdain or with disrespect, but it is a logical fact). How much honor can we do to The Lords creation if we and dumping **** into the oceans when there is an alternative? Is the fact that we are willing to do what is cheap and easy instead of putting in effort disdainful to God?
Life itself is sacred: This is to say that life is the one shot at life that a being will get and that outside of life there is nothing but non existance. If this is so then how can it be moral to deny anything the chance to experience life instead of nothing? How much more important can it be to continue a life that has a chance to exist than it would be to give another a chance at existance? Is the level of experience related to the morality of the decision (is murder worse (or how much worse) than cutting down a tree? How much worse is roasting sunflower seeds than abortion)?
The way to decide a question like this is through morality and unfortunately there is not ultimate morality (and if there is it is so far impossible to know it with certainty). This is to say that a person can be sure an action is right in their gut, but not logically in their brain.
Personally I believe that life is unique and to deny anything the ability to experience this is wrong. It is necessary to consume some food and so killing animals and plants is thus far a necessity and really is a part of life...I do not think we can separate ourselves from this. However we can be smart about it. On top of this there is also the question of the quality of life. How far is it necessary to go to ensure quality of life for humans or anyone?
All in all my answer is: The fact that life is the only chance to exist is the reason why ALL life has a right to live to a certain degree. Perhaps a better question is what gives one being the right to end the life of another? There are good reason for this one: if it wants to end your life, if you need (I mean need) to eat it. Both of these are I need to this or I will not exist. Would one human have the right to hunt down and eat another one...if that was the only option then I give it a very strong probably.
So the need to continue existing gives someone the right to end the life of another being, however every being has a right to life. After this it becomes a slippery slope with respected to what is necessary and what is comfortable.
I hope this helps
Rev Phil
2007-12-10 04:15:59 · answer #2 · answered by Rev Phil 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since none of us has created a living thing, none of us has the right to decide its right of existence.
In addition, trees are vital to our survival. The greenery supplies the oxygen we need so desperately to breathe and live. Trees provide lumber for building in so many areas of the industry. The bark is used for paper. Think of the uses. They are limitless!
You once were a human embryo! Nuff said!
2007-12-10 03:10:29 · answer #3 · answered by SANCHA 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The right to life includes:
Adult humans if they haven't harmed anyone.
Humans at their embryonic stage if they haven't harmed anyone.
Our rights come from God and are supposed to be insured by the govenment, the Constitution and other laws. Roe vs. Wade, however, is a disgrace and is contrary to the God-given right to enter into the world.
Laws are enacted according to the goodness or evil that exists in the hearts of people.
2007-12-10 03:10:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Life is a gift, not a right. There is a huge difference.
This alone changes the entire set of questions that might be pursued.
2007-12-10 05:02:03 · answer #5 · answered by d2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Briefly, there are no rights, only duties. We may or may not have duties to preserve the survival or prevent the destruction of other parts of our environment, including people.
2007-12-10 03:16:03 · answer #6 · answered by grayure 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only in one's conscience and decision........for those who perform and victims of abortion.......who gives these fetuses right to live, only those who has the conscience to give them the right to live.......and even while a mother delivering a child and both are in dangerous condition.........the hsuband is asked to decide whom to save and givce the right to live.......only what their conscience is what they follow.......and for euthenesia patients.........3 of them can decide for mercy killing, and give the right to live, the patient himself if willed, the family and the doctor....all work with their consacience and the reson to cut of life..........
2007-12-10 03:04:20 · answer #7 · answered by E@rthGoddess 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"Right to life" as opposed to "Left to life"?
Mostly depends on what your perception of the definition of LIFE is????
Seems to me, BEING or EXISTING creates "life"....
And if it IS, then it ought to BE, no matter what.
2007-12-10 03:03:36 · answer #8 · answered by wildflower 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The one to decide is our creator... God
It is not up to us to decide.
2007-12-10 03:39:49 · answer #9 · answered by shannon 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋