[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Right to life: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
mNo edit summary
right tooooooooooooooooooooooo lifeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Tag: Replaced
Line 1: Line 1:
The '''right to life''' is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to [[Life|live]] and, in particular, should not be killed by another human being. The concept of a right to life arises in debates on issues of [[capital punishment]], [[war]], [[abortion]], [[euthanasia]], [[justifiable homicide]], and [[public health care]].


In human history, there has not been a general acceptance of the concept of a right to life that is innate to individuals{{Citation needed|date=August 2017}} rather than granted as a privilege by those holding social and political power. The evolution of human rights as a concept took place slowly in multiple areas in many different ways, with the right to life being no exception to this trend, and the past millennium in particular has seen a large set of national and international law or legal documents (examples being the [[Magna Carta]] and the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]) codifying the general ideal into specifically worded principles.

==Capital punishment==
{{see|Capital punishment#Roman Catholic Church}}
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".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty|title=Abolish the death penalty|publisher=Amnesty International|accessdate=23 August 2010}}</ref>

The [[United Nations General Assembly]] has adopted, in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.worldcoalition.org/united-nations-resolution-moratorium-death-penalty-executions-general-assembly.html|title=117 countries vote for a global moratorium on executions|work=World Coalition Against the Death Penalty}}</ref> non-binding resolutions calling for a [[UN moratorium on the death penalty|global moratorium on executions]], with a view to eventual abolition.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24679&Cr=general&Cr1=assembly|title=moratorium on the death penalty|publisher=United Nations|date=15 November 2007|accessdate=23 August 2010}}</ref>

==Killings by Law Enforcement==
International law only allows law enforcement officers to deliberately take life ("shooting to kill") where absolutely necessary to defend themselves and others against an imminent threat to life.<ref>Jan Arno Hessbruegge, Human Rights and Personal Self-Defense In International Law, Oxford University Press (2017), pp. 90 ff.</ref>

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 actor|State actors]], and that said State actors must know and be capable of applying international standards for human rights.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training5Add1en.pdf|title=International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The right to life is for the most part an inalienable right granted to every human upon the planet, however, there are certain situations in which State actors are required to take drastic action, which can result in civilians being killed by law enforcement agents.

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<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training5Add1en.pdf|title=International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The essential tenet of the Pocket Book<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training5Add1en.pdf|title=International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> surrounding the use of lethal force is that all other means of a non-violent nature should be employed initially, followed by proportionately appropriate use of force. 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 'Permissibile circumstances for the use of firearms' section of the Pocket Book<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training5Add1en.pdf|title=International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The Pocket Book<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training5Add1en.pdf|title=International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> 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 organization|International institutions]] have outlined when and where law enforcement agents might have the availability of lethal force at their disposal. The [[International Association of Chiefs of Police]] have 'Model Policies' which incorporate various pieces of information from leading sources and constitute some of the best thinking available in the field.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.theiacp.org/Model-Policy|title=http://www.theiacp.org/Model-Policy|website=www.theiacp.org|access-date=2017-09-11}}</ref> One of these model policies states that law enforcement agents will engage in reasonable necessary force to efficiently bring a scenario to a conclusion, giving specific thought to his own and other civilians safety. 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 person|reasonable man]] method of determining how one should approach a scenario.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Alpert & Smith|first=|date=|title=How Reasonable Is the Reasonable Man: Police and Excessive Force|url=|journal=Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology|volume=Vol. 85, Issue 2|pages=p 487.|via=}}</ref> However, it has been highlighted through events such as the killing of Michael Brown by Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri,<ref>{{Cite news|url=|title=Michael Brown's Shooting and Its Immediate Aftermath in Ferguson|last=|first=|work=N.Y. TIMES |date=August 25, 2014|access-date=September 1, 2017|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=}}</ref> which resulted in public anarchy, that there is confusion surrounding the use of [[Firearm|firearms]] section provides the process through which law enforcement agents must progress through when it comes to the use of firearms. Identity as a [[law enforcement agent]], clear warning and adequate time for response, providing that time would not likely result in harm being done to the agent or his fellow civilians, must be given 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 [[Deadly force|lethal force]], the literal scenarios in which police killings have occurred are also relevant. Rosenfeld,<ref>Richard Rosenfeld, Founders Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.</ref> 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 areas rate of [[violent crime]], the size of the non[[Indigenous peoples|-indigenous population]] and the [[Socioeconomics|socioeconomic]] position of the community concerned.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Rosenfeld|first=Richard|date=|title=Ferguson and Police Use of Deadly Force|url=|journal=Missouri Law Review|volume=|pages=p. 1087|via=}}</ref> Appropriating a blanket description of how police killings can occur across the board is difficult given the vast differences in social context from state to state.

Perry, Hall and Hall<ref>Alison V. Hall, University of Texas-Arlington, Erika V. Hall, Emory University, Jamie L. Perry, Cornell University.</ref> discuss the phenomena across the [[United States|United States of America]] which became highly charged and widely documented in late 2014, referring to the use of lethal force from white police officers on unarmed black male civilians.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hall, Hall & Perry|first=|date=|title=Black and Blue: Exploring Racial Bias and Law Enforcement Killings of Unarmed Black Male Civilians|url=|journal=American Psychologist|volume=Vol. 71, No. 3, 2016|pages=pp 175–186.|via=}}</ref> There is no legal prerogative which gives law enforcement agents the ability to use lethal force based on the race of the person they are dealing with, there is only a legal prerogative to engage in lethal force if there is a reasonable fear for your life or the lives of others. However, the Propublica analysis of federal data on fatal police shootings between 2010 and 2012, showed that young black male civilians were 21 times more likely to be killed by police than young white male civilians.<ref>{{Cite news|url=|title=Deadly Force in Black and White: A ProPublica analysis of killings by police shows outsize risk for young black males,|last=Gabrielson, Sagara & Jones|first=|date=October 10, 2014|work=ProPublica|access-date=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=}}</ref> The use of lethal force from law enforcement agents in the United States created widespread feeling amongst US [[Citizenship|citizens]] that they were not being protected by the police. 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 sufficiently questionable in character for the police officer to fear for his life or the lives of his fellow civilians. Coppolo<ref>Attorney George Coppolo, Chief Attorney for the Connecticut General Assembly's Office of Legislative Research.</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Coppolo|first=George|date=|title=Use of Deadly Force by Law Enforcement Officers|url=|journal=OLR Research Report, Feb. 1, 2008.|volume=|pages=|via=}}</ref>

In [[Graham v. Connor]],<ref>Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).</ref> a [[Diabetes mellitus|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 [[Supreme court|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. In [[Tennessee v. Garner]]<ref>Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).</ref> an officer answered a burglary call, when he entered the back yard of the property in question, the officer witnessed somebody fleeing and ordered the person to stop, at which point the person began climbing the fence. The officer then proceeded to shoot the person in the back of the head. The Supreme Court held that in accordance with the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]], a law enforcement officer who is in pursuit of somebody cannot use lethal force to conclude the pursuit unless the officer has reasonable belief that the person poses a significant threat of harm to the officer or others. In the United States where the [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Second Amendment]] grants civilians the right to bear arms,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment|title=Second Amendment|last=Strasser|first=Mr. Ryan|date=2008-07-01|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en|access-date=2017-09-11}}</ref> any one person could pose a threat to a police officer's life or other civilians, as feasibly, any one person could be concealing a firearm. The Annual Police Conduct Report<ref>Independent Police Conduct Authority Annual Report, 2011-2012, New Zealand.</ref> in New Zealand found that over a decade the police had shot and killed seven people, one of whom was innocent and all cases of which the police were found to have been acting within their legal rights. New Zealand has a strict process through which any citizen wanting to legally use a firearm must go through, this creates an environment through which the standard civilian does not pose a default threat to law enforcement agent's lives or the lives of others.

The standard to which [[international law]] expects States to operate is the same across the board, lethal force must only be used by law enforcement agents when there is a real threat of harm to those law enforcement agents or other civilians. The reality is that each State is unique in what constitutes an appropriate situation for law enforcement agents to respond with lethal force due to States all around the world having their own unique environments, [[Legal system|law,]] [[Culture|cultures]] and [[population]]<nowiki/>s.

==Euthanasia==
{{main article|Euthanasia}}
The entitlement of a person to make the decision to end their own life through euthanasia is commonly called a ''right to choose'',<ref>1999, Jennifer M. Scherer, Rita James Simon, Euthanasia and the Right to Die: A Comparative View, Page 27</ref> while people who oppose the legalization of euthanasia are commonly referred to as the ''right-to-lifers''.<ref>1998, Roswitha Fischer, Lexical Change in Present-day English, page 126</ref>

==Abortion==
{{See also|Abortion debate|Pro-choice|Pro-life}}

''The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law'' guidebook (2000) listing of ''abortion'' specifies the publication use of "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life" and "abortion rights" instead of "pro-abortion" or "pro-choice", and advises avoiding the use of "abortionist" which "connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions", in favor of using a term such as "abortion doctor" or "abortion practitioner".<ref>"Abortion", The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law. Norm Goldstein, editor. Perseus Publishing, 2000. {{ISBN|0-7382-0308-4}}.</ref>

The term "right to life" is used in the [[abortion debate]] by those who wish to reduce the use of abortions<ref name=rhetoric>Solomon, Martha. [http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED151883&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED151883 "The Rhetoric of Right to Life: Beyond the Court's Decision"] Paper presented at the Southern Speech Communication Association (Atlanta, Georgia, April 4–7, 1978)</ref> and in the context of pregnancy, the term ''right to life'' was advanced by [[Pope Pius XII]] during a 1951 [[papal encyclical]]:
<blockquote>''Every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life directly from God and not from his parents, not from any society or human authority. Therefore, there is no man, no society, no human authority, no science, no “indication” at all whether it be medical, eugenic, social, economic, or moral that may offer or give a valid judicial title for a direct deliberate disposal of an innocent human life…'' --- Pope Pius XII, ''Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession'' Papal Encyclical, October 29, 1951.<ref>"Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession", 29 October 1951. Pope Pius XII.</ref></blockquote>

In 1966 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) asked Fr. James T. McHugh to begin observing trends in abortion reform within the United States.<ref>http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=GPS&userGroupName=tel_s_tsla&tabID=T002&searchId=R3&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=10&contentSet=GALE%7CA262387307&&docId=GALE|A262387307&docType=GALE&role=ITOF&docLevel=FULLTEXT "The national right to life committee: its founding, its history, and the emergence of the pro-life movement prior to Roe v. Wade". Robert N. Karrier. The Catholic Historical Review. 97.3 (July 2011): p527. From General OneFile.</ref> The National Right to Life Committee was funded in 1967 as the Right to Life League to coordinate its state campaigns under the auspices of the [[United States Conference of Catholic Bishops|National Conference of Catholic Bishops]].<ref name="christianlifeandliberty.net">http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/RTL.bmp K.M. Cassidy. "Right to Life." In Dictionary of Christianity in America, Coordinating Editor, Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1990. pp. 1017,1018.</ref><ref>"God's Own Party The Making of the Religious Right", pp. 113-116. {{ISBN|978-0-19-534084-6}}. Daniel K. Williams. Oxford University Press. 2010.</ref> To appeal to a more broad-based, nonsectarian movement, key Minnesota leaders proposed an organizational model that would separate the NRLC from the direct oversight of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and by early 1973 NRLC Director [[James T. McHugh|Fr. James T. McHugh]] and his executive assistant, Michael Taylor, proposed a different plan, facilitating the NRLC move toward its independence from the [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic Church]].

[[File:Human blastocyst.jpg|thumb|180px|The human blastocyst has a diameter of about 0.1-0.2 [[millimetre|mm]] and comprises 200-300 [[Cell (biology)|cells]] following rapid cell division.]][[Pro-life|Anti-abortion]] advocates argue that [[prenatal development|prenatal]] humans have the same fundamental "right to life" from the moment of [[Fertilisation|conception]] that humans have after their birth. Although pro-life advocates accept that women have a right to bodily autonomy, they deny that right entitles the women to violate the prenatal "right to life", by having it killed. Generally speaking, those identifying themselves as "right to life" believe [[abortion]] is morally unacceptable.

The term "right to choose" is used in the abortion debate by [[Abortion-rights movements|abortion-rights proponents]]. Many abortion rights advocates argue that [[prenatal development|prenatal]] humans are not human [[Beginning of human personhood|persons]] and do not have the same fundamental "right to life" as a mature human. Another abortion rights argument posits that whether [[prenatal development|prenatal]] humans do or do not have the same fundamental "right to life" as a mature human is irrelevant because a woman's right to [[bodily integrity]] overrides any rights that the fetus may have. Advocates of the "right to choose" may take either or both positions.

Generally speaking, those identifying themselves as "[[Abortion-rights movements|pro-choice]]" are advocates for legal elective [[abortion]]. At the same time, some advocates for legalized abortion state that they simply do not know for sure where in pregnancy life begins; then-[[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Barack Obama]] took this view in the 2008 election.<ref>{{Cite news|quote= Barack Obama Saturday said that defining when life begins is "above my pay grade".|publisher=''[[The Washington Times]]''|accessdate=January 7, 2010|title=Obama, McCain air moral, ethical views|date=August 17, 2008|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/17/obama-mccain-air-moral-ethical-views/|first=Stephen|last=Dinan}}</ref> Some biologists however, have determined that the properties of life emerge at the cellular level.<ref>Solomon, Eldra P.; Berg, Linda R.; Martin, Diana W. (2002), Biology (6th ed.), Brooks/Cole, {{ISBN|0-534-39175-3}}, LCCN 2001095366</ref> Other advocates have stated that they hold personal views against abortion but do not support putting those beliefs into law; then-[[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Joe Biden]] took this view in the 2008 election.<ref>{{Cite news|quote=Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic nominee for vice president, departed Sunday from party doctrine on abortion rights, declaring that as a Catholic, he believes life begins at conception. But the Delaware senator added that he would not impose his personal views on others, and had indeed voted against curtailing abortion rights and against criminalizing abortion.|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/us/politics/08campaign.html|publisher=''[[The New York Times]]''|title=As a Matter of Faith, Biden Says Life Begins at Conception|first=Kate|last=Phillips|date=September 7, 2008|accessdate=January 7, 2010}}</ref>

==Ethics and right to life==
{{See also|Abortion debate|Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate|Infanticide}}
Some [[Utilitarianism|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 [[ape]]s, 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.<ref name=singer>Singer, Peter. [https://books.google.com/books?id=OZOmSTWZNdcC&pg=PA143&dq=%22Peter+Singer%22+abortion&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=%22Peter%20Singer%22%20abortion&f=false ''Practical ethics''] Cambridge University Press (1993), 2nd revised ed., {{ISBN|0-521-43971-X}}</ref> Bioethicists associated with the [[Disability Rights]] and [[Disability Studies]] communities have argued that Singer's epistemology is based on ableist conceptions of disability.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Writings on an Ethical Life|first=Peter|last=Singer|chapter=An Interview|pages=319–329|isbn=1841155500}}</ref>

==Juridical statements==
*In 1444, the [[Poljica Statute]] declared a right to live "-for nothing existed forever".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Marušić|first1=Juraj|title=Sumpetarski kartular i poljička seljačka republika|date=1992|publisher=Književni Krug Split|location=Split, Croatia|isbn=86-7397-076-8|page=129|edition=1st}}</ref>
*In 1776, the [[Declaration of Independence (United States)#Principles of the United States Declaration of Independence .28complete original text with brief explanations.29|United States Declaration of Independence]] declared that "[[all men are created equal]], that they are endowed by their [[Creator deity|Creator]] with certain [[Inalienable rights|unalienable Rights]], that among these are [[Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness|Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness]]".
*In 1948, the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]], adopted by the [[United Nations General Assembly]] declared in article three:
{{cquote|Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.}}
*In 1950, the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] was adopted by the [[Council of Europe]], declaring a protected human right to life in Article 2. There are exceptions for lawful executions and self-defense, arresting a fleeing suspect, and suppressing riots and insurrections. Since then Protocol 6 of the Convention has called for nations to outlaw [[capital punishment]] except in time of war or national emergency, and at present this pertains in all countries of the Council. Protocol 13 provides for the total abolition of capital punishment, and has been implemented in most member countries of the Council.
*In 1966, the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] was adopted by the [[United Nations General Assembly]].
{{cquote|Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.|||Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights}}
*In 1982, the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] enshrined that
{{cquote|Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.|||Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms}}
*In 1989, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the [[Convention on the Rights of the Child]] (CRC).
*The [[Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany]] holds the principle of [[human dignity]] paramount, even above the right to life.
*The Catholic Church has issued a ''Charter of the Rights of the Family''<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001115_family-human-rights_en.html Pontifical Council for the Family. ''The Family and Human Rights''] Vatican website. Retrieved 2011-07-09.</ref> in which it states that the right to life is directly implied by human dignity.
*Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950, guarantees the right to life to all persons within the territory of India and states: "No person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Article 21, though couched in negative language, confers on every person the fundamental right to life and personal liberty which has become an inexhaustible source of many other rights.<ref>''Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India'' AIR 1978 SC 597</ref>

==See also==

{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-break}}
{{Col-break}}
* [[Abortion law]]
* [[Abortion law]]

Revision as of 21:59, 25 January 2018


| class="col-break " |

| class="col-break " |

| class="col-break " |


|}

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_life&oldid=822353714"