I feel it depends upon the definition of the right to exist. I don't believe anyone has the responsibilty to deny a persons life. Yet we know that life is being created every second somewhere in the world and we do damn little to "help" it exist. We as the rich,wealthy, educated debate. The poor, starved and uneducated don't. Why?
I remember Tekla's table from another post showing the causes of death in the USA. Most of it from life style diseases. So we have a right to life put many take that right away by conciously, drinking alcohol, smoking, over eating, not doing any excercise, suiciding. If there is a right there is a responsibilty, that many do not take.
Childhood mortality in Australia (excluding the Aboriginal Population) is less than 1% in the first 12 months. Taking African stats overall CHM is around 20%, most due to RSV and Diarrhoea. Both largely preventable. So if people have a right to life, is the right different for different people.
In the Australian Aboriginal population the CHM is not as bad as in Africa but nowhere near as good as in the non-aboriginal population. Australians believe in equal rights, but maybe not in all of them. I'm an Australian and happy to use my country as an example.
I would be interested in the USA stats for native Indian and for Mexican CHM.
So what is the right to life? You have the right to be born, but to survive? Well that's a different story.
What are the rights for the innocent in war? The Geneva Convention had rights for all sorts of things that are ignored, modified or changed to suit a particular Govn't.
What is a right?
Cindy J