Do human beings have the right to live?

Polaris95

Dana, humans have every right to live. However, a fetus is not worth nearly as much as an adult woman in danger of dying during a pregnancy. While perhaps some people are getting jacked up, human decency is still present in the world. You just have to know where to find it.

YeshuaBought

@Polaris95 I had to leave another site because conservatives told me I don't have the right to live.

Marcus_Antonius

Human's do have a right to live, and 'fetus' is a scientific term used by people daily to dehumanize the baby, in so that they can kill it without guilt. During non-extreme situations in which 2 consensual adults have a child through unprotected sex, the rights of the mother to choose do not supersede the rights of the 'fetus' to live. 

YeshuaBought

@Marcus_Antonius Agreed. I care from womb to tomb.

MayCaesar

According to the modern dominating interpretation of the concept of human rights on the West, only a living human being can have human rights. Corpses or pre-birth humans cannot have constitutionally guaranteed rights, as they are not categorized as individuals, and only individuals can have rights.

From this point of view, you do have the right to live - but you did not have this right before you were born. At the moment of being granted a birth certificate, you gained this right, as well as all other constitutionally guaranteed rights. When you die, at the moment the death is officially registered, you will lose all rights as an individual (you may maintain certain rights as a legal entity, however - for example, in my case, I maintain the right for bodily autonomy, particularly the right to donate my organs for scientific research and for transplantation purposes, as per my contract with the state of Indiana).

There can be many other interpretations of the concept of human rights, however. In certain interpretations, a human being can have the right to live before being born, or even before being conceived (there have been governments requiring every woman to give birth in history). 

So, the ultimate answer to your question is: it depends on how you define human rights.

Marcus_Antonius

@MayCaesar

I believe this question is entirely predicated upon an individual's subjective assessment of the worth of a fetus, and thus, at what stage the rights are held. This question is not so much how one defines human rights, as rights are absolute, for if you have a right, it therefore cannot be superseded by another right. Unfortunately to take up this view of abortion (Fundamentally regarding rights) One is unable to assess whether abortion should be legal in the case of rape: For if you grant abortion as a form of compensation, the mothers right to choose supersedes the the fetus' right to live, while if you deny the mother the right to choose, the fetus' rights supersede that of the mothers. 

It is a rather interesting topic with an uncertain and unreachable conclusion. 

YeshuaBought

@Marcus_Antonius I am talking about all people. I had conservatives and liberals both say I don't have the right to live because I don't agree with their opinion.

George_Horse

Some do not deserve the right to live. Do terrorists, pedophiles, murders and rapists deserve the right to live?

someone234

George_Horse said:

Some do not deserve the right to live. Do terrorists, pedophiles, murders and rapists deserve the right to live?

I am not a right-winger at all in general but when it comes to this I can mimic what their rebuttal will be:

The Fetus hasn't done anything to deserve being held equally deserving of death as those people.

I am aware of the hypocrisy of saying 'being human makes you entitled to live' in itself but I can see what their rebuttal would be.

Applesauce

In the U.S. no one has the right to take your life and you have a right to defend it.  So the question doesn't really make sense, in that a life can be taken in a variety of ways which does not violate one's "rights"

MayCaesar

@George_Horse

They do. However, their right to live can infringe on other people's rights to live, and when they are the cause of such a situation, the resolution of the conflict may require their termination.

I see it the following way. If a mass shooter approaches a public space with a machine gun out, then the continuation of this shooter's life will mean the end of many other people's lives - so, at this point killing the shooter is necessary to defend other people's right to live.
However, if the shooter has been disarmed and apprehended, then he/she no longer threatens anyone's right to live, hence their own right to live is sacred. However much the society dislikes him/her, the society should not play the role of an executioner.

I like the sentiment I read from a Soviet political prisoner: "How you treat the people you hate the most is the best indicator of who you are". If the society executes people it hates, then it makes it a society of executioners, and it may only be a matter of time before you are the one walking towards a guillotine.

Sonofason

You do not have a right to live.  But if you are strong, and if you have people fighting for you, it will be hard for others to take your life.  

with_all_humility

YeshuaBought said:

@Marcus_Antonius I am talking about all people. I had conservatives and liberals both say I don't have the right to live because I don't agree with their opinion.

What opinion was it that you had that conservatives say you did not have the right to live?

with_all_humility

someone234 said:

George_Horse said:

Some do not deserve the right to live. Do terrorists, pedophiles, murders and rapists deserve the right to live?

I am not a right-winger at all in general but when it comes to this I can mimic what their rebuttal will be:

The Fetus hasn't done anything to deserve being held equally deserving of death as those people.

I am aware of the hypocrisy of saying 'being human makes you entitled to live' in itself but I can see what their rebuttal would be.

In most cases where that state denies one the right to life is when you have violated another person's right to life.  Thus the ruling by SCOTUS that the death penalty only applies to crimes resulting in the death of another person.  Cases, where states have tried to execute people for rape, child molestation, and the sorts, are deemed unconstitutional.