Talk:right to life

RFD discussion

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

This seems to mean the [[right]] [[to]] [[life]]. Anything beyond that is encyclopedic. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• But sadly, if you ask those who claim to support a 'right to life,' it doesn't apply to those subject to the death penalty, or killed by bombs or guns (or anybody deemed 'the enemy') or toxic pollutants, or husbands 'disciplining' their wives, or starvation. I fact it only applies in the solitary instance of a woman wishing to abort a fetus (or even prevent a conception of one), no matter the consequences for her life. DeistCosmos (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Erm, no it really really doesn't only mean that. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It does to a great many people, right or wrong, who will tell you the phrase has no relevance to any debate other than the 'life of the fetus.' DeistCosmos (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Erm, so? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

So see dog whistle, definition three. If a term is used as a code to mean a certain thing to a certain demographic, is Wiki in some way bound to further the conspiracy and hide the meaning as truly meant? DeistCosmos (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You're actually talking about removing meanings, not adding more. I assume you haven't read right to life, as it says it also refers to the right to life in general, which it does because people use it that way, so please don't nominate it for deletion just because some people don't use it that way. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep "unborn child" sense. The unborn-child sense is virtually the only sense in use in the US. Without context, the phrase has that sense for virtually anyone in the US. It is clearly not SoP. It is because it is a misnomer or misappropriation (to some) of the term that it is not SoP. Used attributively, it means in the US "opposed to abortion under all or most circumstances." which is even more clearly not SoP.

I'm not as sure about the other sense of right to life. If it means the "right to one's own life against government action that might take it or government inaction that fails to provide basic security" or some similarly elaborate definition, then it is not really SoP. I don't think, though, that one can argue that the term is a legal one. — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) at 19:42, 13 December 2012‎.

Delete. The SOP-ness of right to life has nothing to do with who has such a right. If I say "I am the only one with a right to life." that doesn't suddenly redefine the meaning of "right to life". Similarly, if I say "Unborn children have the right to life." that doesn't change the phrase's meaning either. It only changes who I think this right applies to. --WikiTiki89 19:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If I say I'm a right-to-life group, and people understand who I'm talking about having the right to life and who I don't care about the right to life, then that's something that should be recorded in the dictionary. The phrase has taken on a specialized meaning.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep In American English, it's clear what a right-to-life group is fighting to do. An anti-war or anti-death-penalty group would never call themselves a right-to-life group, because they would be misunderstood.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 Keep the anti-abortion sense, definitely. In US usage, this has nothing to do with the death penalty, war, euthanasia, or any other issue. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Meh, keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The first and second senses (as of now) could be combined; the third is probably idiomatic; lean keep. - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

“right to life”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring TALK 23:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep both senses. Defined in legal dictionaries, quite similar to freedom of speech, which has passed RFD. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) includes the following: right in action, right of action (yes, they are two different things), right of contribution, right of entry (a property right), right of first refusal (a contract right), right of local self-government (self-explanatory), right of possession (a property right arising in landlord-tenant law), right of privacy, right of publicity (actually more of a right to prevent publicity), right of redemption (another property right), right of subrogation, right of survivorship, right of way, right to die laws, right to know acts, right to redeem (same as right of redemption), right to travel, and right to work laws. Other editions may contain "rights" not listed in the Sixth Edition. This edition does not contain "right to life" because that is a rhetorical device with no actual legal meaning. However, I would keep the rhetorical sense applied to the unborn, and delete the other senses. I would also suggest creating an appendix for the rights on this list, at least (and any others for which articles may presently exist). bd2412 T 02:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: per BD2412. Also feel the "overly encyclopaedic" is being too broadly defined Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep this one per Prosfilaes et al., even while most of the rest should be moved or deleted. DAVilla 10:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Kept.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)