This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive.
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)
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) 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)