Article Text
Abstract
Some of the objections to life-extension stem from a concern with overpopulation. I will show that whether or not the overpopulation threat is realistic, arguments from overpopulation cannot ethically demand halting the quest for, nor access to, life-extension. The reason for this is that we have a right to life, which entitles us not to have meaningful life denied to us against our will and which does not allow discrimination solely on the grounds of age. If the threat of overpopulation creates a rights conflict between the right to come into existence, the right to reproduce, the right to more opportunities and space (if, indeed, these rights can be successfully defended), and the right to life, the latter ought to be given precedence.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Positive rights, negative rights and health care
- Why the human rights act matters to doctors
- Human rights and bioethics
- A qualified endorsement of embryonic stem cell research, based on two widely shared beliefs about the brain-diseased patients such research might benefit
- Inconsistency arguments still do not matter
- Within the limits of the defensible: a response to Simkulet’s argument against the pro-life view on the basis of spontaneous abortion
- Abortion and Ectogenesis: Moral Compromise
- Human rights and ethical considerations for a tobacco-free generation
- Human rights and HIV: rhetoric or determinants?
- Critical notice—Defending life: a moral and legal case against abortion choice by Francis J Beckwith