The News-Letter also argues that we need abortion on demand to maintain the legality of killing preborn children conceived in the horrible circumstances of rape or incest. But why should we punish the innocent preborn child for the crimes of the father? Abortion cannot undo the trauma of rape; it compounds the injustice of rape with the injustice of killing an innocent life.
Abortion poses serious health risks to women as well. Over women have been killed in clinical abortions, on average Horrifying abortion clinics like those of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who butchered infants born alive and killed women in botched abortions, are not freak outliers but the norm in too many places. Only a year and a half ago, year-old Maria Santiago died after an abortion in a shoddy Baltimore clinic with a broken defibrillator right in our backyard, a block from the Homewood campus.
Women who have died from or been harmed by abortion deserve to have their stories heard, too. The notion that women must kill their own offspring in order to be successful or empowered is profoundly insulting. Women facing crisis pregnancies deserve better than abortion. They deserve the real support, compassion and resources that over 2, life-affirming pregnancy centers, like Pregnancy Center North here in Baltimore, work hard every day to provide for free.
- Au Natural: Ruminations on Nature.
- Article 2: Right to life | Equality and Human Rights Commission!
- Animals Have As Much Right To Live As Human Beings!
- A New Beginning With Every Sunrise.
Howard Atwood Kelly, co-founder of the Johns Hopkins Hospital and father of modern gynecology, proposed these resolutions, which were accepted unanimously with applause: "Resolved, that we today Furthermore, be it resolved It is a fundamental right which governs all other existing rights. In its absence, all other fundamental rights have no reason to exist.
For children, the right to life is the chance to be able to live and have the possibility to grow, to develop and become adults. The right to life is an inherent right for each and every person. From his or her birth, the individual is considered a living being who must be protected. Thus, from birth, all children have the right to have their life protected. Legal abortion rights advocates in the United States often cite a ruling from the U. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade U.
Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament books of the Bible mention whether life begins at birth or conception, though the Jewish Law and Talmud indicate that a fetus is of value  . Abortion rights advocates will often cite Genesis to argue that human life begins at birth: "And the Lord God made man from the dust of the earth, breathing into him the breath of life: and man became a living soul.
Generally speaking, those identifying themselves as "pro-choice" are advocates for legal abortion rights. At the same time, some advocates for legalized abortion state that they simply do not know for sure where in pregnancy life begins; then- US Senator Barack Obama took this view in the US presidential election.
Right to life | Australian Human Rights Commission
In September , Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed HB40, a bill that expanded taxpayer-subsidized abortions for women who used either Medicaid or state employee insurance for their healthcare. Abortion was already covered in cases of rape , incest and when there was a threat to the health and life of the mother. The law expanded the Medicaid coverage beyond those limited cases. They based their numbers on Medicaid figures from the late s, which was the last time Illinois had unrestricted Medicaid-funded abortions.
Some 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 a disabled infant whose life would be one of suffering, or if its parents didn't wish to raise it and no one desired to adopt it.
- My Off-Season with the Denver Broncos: Building a Championship Team (While Nobodys Watching);
- Mortality and Causes of Death in 20th-Century Ukraine (Demographic Research Monographs)?
- Girlfriends 2.0.
- Why is there no right to live where you please?.
Opponents of capital punishment argue that it is a violation of the right to life, while its supporters argue that the death penalty is not a violation of the right to life because the right to life should apply with deference to a sense of justice. The opponents believe that capital punishment is the worst violation of human rights , because the right to life is the most important, and capital punishment violates it without necessity and inflicts to the condemned a psychological torture.
Human rights activists oppose the death penalty, calling it "cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment", and Amnesty International considers it to be "the ultimate, irreversible denial of Human Rights". The United Nations General Assembly has adopted, in , , , , , and  non-binding resolutions calling for a global moratorium on executions , with a view to eventual abolition.
The International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement has created a system whereby it is recognised that international human rights law is binding upon all state actors, and that said state actors must know and be capable of applying international standards for human rights. Appropriate occasions for killings by law enforcement are strictly outlined by the International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement. Any lethal action taken by law enforcement agents must be taken following a certain set of rules that have been set out in the ' Use of Force ' section of the Pocket Book on Human Rights for the Police.
Proportionately appropriate use of force can, and will in some circumstances, refer to lethal force if a law enforcement agent genuinely believes that ending the life of one civilian would result in the preservation of his life, or the lives of his fellow civilians, as is outlined in the 'Permissable Circumstances for the Use of Firearms ' section of the Pocket Book . The Pocket Book  also outlines in the 'Accountability for the Use of Force and Firearms' section that there are stringent measures of accountability in place to maintain integrity within state law enforcement agencies as regards their right to the use of lethal force.
International institutions have outlined when and where law enforcement agents might have the availability of lethal force at their disposal.
Will to Live Project
The International Association of Chiefs of Police have 'Model Policies' which incorporate various pieces of information from leading sources. Law enforcement officers are given the prerogative to engage in department-approved methods to safely bring a conclusion to a scenario and are also given the ability to use issued equipment to resolve issues in scenarios where they are required to protect themselves or others from damage, to bring resistant individuals under control, or to safely conclude unlawful incidents. There is no mention as to what "reasonably necessary" should be interpreted as meaning, but there is reference made to the reasonable man method of determining how one should approach a scenario.
The 'Procedure for the Use of Firearms' section provides the process through which law enforcement agents must progress when using firearms. It states that they must identify themselves as a law enforcement agent , issue a clear warning, and give an adequate amount of time for response providing that time would not likely result in harm being done to the agent or other civilians before deadly force can be used within the bounds of international law.
While the Pocket Book on Human Rights for the Police outlines the academic circumstances under which law enforcement agents may use lethal force, the literal scenarios in which police killings have occurred are also relevant. Rosenfeld  states that there is considerable literature that gives reason to believe that social conditions also have a part to play in how law enforcement killings can occur. Rosenfeld states that there are numerous studies that have been conducted which link law enforcement agents' use of lethal force to the area's rate of violent crime , the size of the non -indigenous population and the socioeconomic position of the community concerned.
Perry, Hall and Hall  discuss the phenomena across the United States of America which became highly charged and widely documented in late , referring to the use of lethal force from white police officers on unarmed black male civilians. However, the Propublica analysis of federal data on fatal police shootings between and , showed that young black male civilians were 21 times more likely to be killed by police than young white male civilians.
The justice system mostly found that these agents acted within the boundaries of the law because the actions of the people who were shot were judged to be sufficiently questionable in character for the police officer to fear for their own life or the lives of others. Coppolo  investigated Connecticut law and reported that the use of lethal force must be followed by a report that determines whether the law enforcement agent's lethal force was proportionately necessary in the circumstances.
Coppolo also stated that a reasonable lethal response must only be made when there is a reasonable belief that the facts you have been presented with could realistically result in a risk of death or grievous bodily harm.
Keep me updated
In Graham v. Connor ,  a diabetic who was suffering from a blood-sugar episode was detained by an officer who witnessed circumstances that made him suspicious of Graham, the detaining of Graham resulted in multiple injuries to Graham, who then proceeded to sue the police for use of excessive force. The US Supreme Court did not find a diabetic episode in of itself to be potentially threatening to a law enforcement agent. The Supreme Court did find that the totality of circumstances must be considered at the time of the incident when judging the officer rather than considering the incident with carefully considered hindsight, which in the case of Graham's episode it was decided that the diabetic induced behavior on the face of it could be considered threatening to a law enforcement agent or other civilians.
This makes it difficult to ascertain what constitutes a fair description of a valid scenario in which a law enforcement agent might use lethal force.