The Misunderstanding About A Right To Life

Far too many people misunderstand either deliberately or through ignorance, the discussion of a right to life.

The different aspects of that discussion are important.  There is a right to life via organic means.  This refers to "natural" childbirth and natural causes of death.

There is the issue of the State or another person forcing a birth or death upon an individual.  This is a real thing, consider "test tube" babies done without consenting biological sources that have been done in labs around the world.  Also consider state sanctioned capitol punishment.

Now, in the case of rape, there is usually no "considered" consent on either part.  The victim has not consented and the perpetrator has likely not even taken it into consideration to be considered as "consent" to actually "making a baby".  There are are the odd cases but even with intent to cause pregnancy, there is still no consent by the victim.

Obviously the "baby" to be resulting from said unconsented act cannot consent or not on its own behalf.

Among the rights recognized in the founding documents is the Right to life (, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness, among others).  This considered right is as much that others (chief among those being the State or government) do NOT have a right to involuntarily terminate one's life as much as an individual DOES have the right to have their life endure or end at their own determination.

However, there are NO guarantees or right to any quality of life of duration of life as pertains to natural or organic means.  This is to say, there is nothing to rightfully ensure that one lives forever, stays "healthy", or is exempt from the naturally terminal results of accidents, poor decisions, or I teraction with the world in general.

Life is itself inherently risky.  By choosing to not terminate or own life, we accept the risks of being alive.

Take for example this Covid19 coronavirus pandemic.  People are making the incorrect statement that if one even possibly might be sick or carrying the irus while being unknowingly asymptomatic that he or she is somehow responsible for passing it on to others who may or may not experience none, some, or extreme symptoms.

This is wrong morally, ethically, and factually.  Unknowing carriers of ANY virii, bacteria, etc... include everyone.  There are so many virii, etc... that people and animals carry and transfer unknowingly that it cannot be prevented or even known in the vast majority of cases.  The carrying of virii and bacteria, etc... is part of the everyday risk of life because it is so common as to be "normal".

Now, a person does not have the right or the moral or ethical position to knowingly and intentionally pass on diseases, virii, bacteria, etc... to others without making serious effort to mitigate, eliminate, or otherwise prevent transmission.that is tantamount to causing physical harm or even manslaughter, if not outright murder.

But to say that simply because someone may or may not be in contact or carrying a virus that generally is noted to have a largely high non-lethal or even troublesome symptoms, is not an intrusion upon or violation of another's right to life.  Its part of the common risk of living.