The teachings of John Paul II and the paradoxes of the right to life in the International Human Rights discourse-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

The teachings of John Paul II and the paradoxes of the right to life in the International Human Rights discourse

Published:2023-12-29 Issue:27 Volume: Page:88-106
ISSN:2719-8405
Container-title:Chrześcijaństwo-Świat-Polityka
language:
Short-container-title:Ch-S-P

Author:

Lafferriere Jorge Nicolás

Abstract

The right to life has a unique and outstanding importance in the International Human Rights Law. However, at the same time, this right suffers from new threats and contradictions. In this paper, I will address these paradoxes, concerning the moment, in which the legal protection of the human being begins; the tendency to accommodate the beginning of life to biotechnological interests; the manipulation of language, as well as the relativization of the right to life and the pretensions of justifying abortion and euthanasia as a requirement of the right to life. I will offer an assessment of these paradoxes in the light of the Magisterium of John Paul II, and I will end with four signs of hope and commitment at the beginning of the 21st century in relation to the protection of the right to life.

Publisher

Uniwersytet Kardynala Stefana Wyszynskiego

Reference31 articles.

1. Benedict XVI (2007). “Address to the participants in the General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life”, Clementine Hall, 24 February, https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070224_academy-life.html.

2. Boyd, PA, Devigan C, Khoshnood B, Loane M, Garne E, Dolk H, and the EUROCAT working group (2008). “Survey of prenatal screening policies in Europe for structural malformations and chromosome anomalies, and their impact on detection and termination rates for neural tube defects and Down’s syndrome”, BJOG; 115; pp. 689-696, DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01700.x.

3. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2012). “Concluding observations on the initial periodic report of Hungary, adopted by the Committee at its eighth session (17-28 September 2012)”, 22 October, CRPD/C/HUN/CO/1, https://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhsmg8z0DXeL2x2%2fDmZ9jKJskZ6Y9eRc83PT5FhFy95TQZkyGQot9vWZBNEf0eAwM4AH0py5P0KQ9jmr6ZHdZ17dnUAKIzS4Qpi81YhvnXxVrA.

4. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2013). “Concluding observations on the initial report of Austria, adopted by the Committee at its tenth session (2–13 September 2013)”, 30 September, CRPD/C/AUT/CO/1, https://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhsnzSGolKOaUX8SsM2PfxU7s9lOchc%2bi0vJdc3TEt6JuQH6d6LwuOqunaiCbf0Z0e%2b%2fWMb4CH5VprCrZY%2bNACxgG%2b3FQ4iHroX8O6TU68Yogo.

5. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2017a), “Comments on the draft General Comment No 36 of the Human Rights Committee on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/CRPD.docx.