Talk:Sanctity of life

Requested page move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved Existing page (redirect with a lot of history, that won't merge easily moved to Sanctity of life/Archive).  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Inviolability → Sanctity of life — I think the title is a bit inaccurate. This article should be about the concept, which is sanctity, not inviolability, which is instead a property of the sanctity concept. True one can say that life is inviolable , but its more accurate to say that life is sacred and its this sanctity that is inviolable. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

- Relisted  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Support weakly although a more neutral phrasing would be better still. Laws, treaties, institutions, cities, customs, principles, and sacred or cherished feelings, can all be inviolable, so this is fatally ambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support as the article appears to currently be about "sanctity of life" and that's surely the more recognizable term for the topic. Propaniac (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inviolability

Are there sources that justify redirecting inviolability here? I've most often heard the term in relation to the status of a diplomat or priest, and not of an embryo. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As the most cursory Google books search will show. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Laws Related to Inviolability and Media Ethics

Suggested Porn Legality Laws - has to be a currently working sex worker or adult industry worker (after retirement, MAY NOT distribute even on internet). Those who obtained copies or downloaded WHILE working are valid unless the depicted person requests return of material. - the depicted person may request anyone 'using THEIR porn' to not use or return copies or erase and remove electronic copies in a manner that no access in private can occur. In such cases, a full refund at current value of the copy based on condition must be returned by the person - must be worth less thab 4 million at time of shooting - dead persons may not be depicted - phenotypically similar persons or lookalikes MUST have their encrypted-variant ID registered and printed on all copies - public access request can be done only by the depicted person at an equitable estimate of industry value/telecoms company bandwidth profit value - individuals will be contacted by police auditing companies to confirm assent or invaded privacy issues - accidental similaries may be requested for removal - artwork phenotypically too similar to a particular phenotype group may be vetoed based on a flat 'For' and 'Against' votes tally. Those unaware will be contacted by face recognition audits yearly. This means that if too many persons of a type are against, that type cannot be depicted in that country or will require that sales cannot be done unless the similar phenotype in buying. This is regardless of wealth or level of prominence within a single phenotype. The typical scenario would be distinct foreign phenotypes in porn being published rather than locals. - bad artwork unidentifiable phenotypically BUT still intended to depict any living or dead person is illegal unless for private use. - The previous would mean anime - specifically not intended to depict any person is mostly allowed. - Workplace distribution of porn is disallowed and considered breach of 'private use law'. - movie film players may not be depicted if that movie is not intended for (G)eneral Audiences, or rated (X). A production house c annot give permission or ignore works that contravene this rule/act. - porn may be sold and viewed openly in zoned areas, sold in enclosed packages anywhere, or in private. - private manufacture of porn for prsonal use is legal but may not be sold. - porn by dead persons may not be sold, aired or shown on tv or internet unless with the express permission of the person while alive (also applicable for movies), this allows the deceased's spirit to RIP or seek those they want to have astral sex with rather than being called away by horny persons viewing their works no end - phenotypically similar persons may not do porn if a member of an important public institution is currently in term, after the term is completed, this may be allowed - signed disclaimers and spiritual ethics course must be taken by people wishing to access porn, if the person in question appears unable to hold to ethics in simple matters (like daring to demand all kinds of special funds or writing laws that entitle themselves to tax funds that are outside of the intended spirit of the law or basic human decency) that person may not access porn with their account and may not be allowed to buy porn much like sex offenders are disallowed near playgrounds to prevent abuse of any porn stars' works to harm by proxy other persons such as ex-sex partners etc..

Other Rules - anime characters intended to spiritually link any watching persons through a proxy person may not be published, all anime characters MUST be entirely fictional

- spiritual parasitism by the depicted actual person and can cause death or energic wastage at least vausing general exhaustion for no reason etc., and is illegal

in spirit though yet to be codified in formal law - realistic 3D persons may not be depicted on any media unless clearly marked as 3d persons so as not to confound the souls/spirits of living breathing real world

flesh/blood persons (the net effect can be as serious as death or harmful obsessions) - depictions of actual persons in life, being killed or harmed in disguised proxy anime or 3d also will be illegal, unless informed consent and appropriate

compensation of the real life person is possible. Depiction of dead persons being similarly harmed, even if different but still intended, will also be illegal. - anime characters must be as disimiliar to real life persons as possible and will be a mainstay of 3D works to protect the ethreal and astral bodies of humanity - any characters muste be voiced by registered persons, that may be spliced and modulated within a group of 10 persons to ensure no imprinting occurs being

computer altered to unrecognisability. ALL voicers of characters may not be allowed to accrue wealth of beyond 4 million to ensure no imprinting occurs and to

state their position as sellers of self, no different from prostitutes - voicers may not be wealthy or powerful people current or past in the family to prevent proxy imprinting (there are many politians that intentionally depict

themselves as characters that are directly or who knows even occultly linked to themselves, sometimes from direct identity theft of other real personalities in

ebtertainemnt - i.e. Brian Eno as 'Ino' in Guilty Gear and note a Japanese actress's very laudable and spiritually correct move to REMOVE a genetic mole out of

fear of spiritual crosslinking with a very outre and warlike character). - All government functionaries must not participate or be linked to anime while currently in term to prevent swaying of voters via imprinting, this is a form of

spiritual crime (much like cult of personality preselytization via anime character proxies) that has not yet been codified into the law - producers should be required to choose non-descript voicers (to prevent imprinting) and refuse to link any game characters to politicians, or use the voices modulated or not of any persons alive without informed consent - any number of seances may be held by authenticated (i.e. brain wave recorded/neurotech monitored) psychics to determine if the star is willing. See below article :

The technology bringing Sinatra, Tupac back to life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:E68:4000:15:E4A9:26C5:9E2F:9DE2 (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Inviolability and inviability are separate concepts

The redirection of inviability to this page is not correct.

inviable inviable, adj.,
Biology: (of an organism) incapable of sustaining its own life.

So it is clear that inviable is the opposite of viable and is a biological or medical concept, whereas inviolable is a philosphical or religious concept.

inviolable inviolable, adj.
1. prohibiting violation; secure from destruction, violence, infringement, or desecration: an inviolable sanctuary; an inviolable promise.
2. incapable of being violated; incorruptible; unassailable: inviolable secrecy.

I therefore ask for the redirection to be removed. I would like to create another page treating the concept of inviability. It would seem to be a good idea to add a disambiguation message considering the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emrgnt (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

In logic section

"Wikipedia is not the place to publish your personal views on ethical quandaries wrt Hitler."

what is your problem with the question, would you kill hitler in 1939?

the question is not about hitler, it's about how concept "sanctity of life" fails on the question. Your explaination for deleting In logic section is really a misdirection. Care to explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.230.138.41 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:No original research: Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a platform for novel ideas. Its scope includes only facts and arguments that have previously been published in reliable sources.

source is pure logic. "not a platform for novel ideas." this hitler question is not novel idea. I don't claim what it would be better, since the answer examines both possible answers regarding the sanctity of life. The focus is still on sanctity of life. I'm sure we can find some other actor (gingis khan, stalin, pol pot... etc... and examine the concept on that person. But the result would be the same, since it is only a logical consequence.

If you would like to include a mention of the Hitler conundrum, this would require citing a reliable source for this interpretation and including in-text attribution to its author (as in "Such and such moral philosopher has raised the objection that killing Hitler in 1939..."<ref>Footnoted reference to reliable source</ref>) Cheers, gnu57 14:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC) again, the hitler is not important.

I have begun a WP:Request for comment on the issue, to seek input from other Wikipedia editors. Please feel free to comment below. gnu57 17:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

great, that's what i want. let people think about it, and if there's a fault, any fault, delete the question. But i want an explanation why it's wrong, not some wiki technicality "reason"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.230.138.41 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the "In Logic" section

There is a clear consensus that this article should not contain the "In Logic" section seen in this diff because it is unsourced original research.

Cunard (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article contain the "In Logic" section seen in this diff? The disputed text is Sanctity of life fails on a following question: "Would you kill Hitler in 1939?". Both possible answers (yes/no) don't respect sanctity of life. gnu57 17:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

!Votes

• Oppose This is unsourced original research. gnu57 17:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as OR per above, and I'd further suggest that this would be undue unless multiple reliable philosophy publications have analyzed this case study as a disproof of sanctity of life. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"as a disproof of sanctity of life" What's the proof FOR sanctity of life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.230.138.41 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the content is unsourced OR and is a simplistic, school-boyish rendition of a genuine and subtle moral dilemma. It isn't even grammatical English (would you HAVE killed Hitler in 1939? Unless you live in a universe where 1939 hasn't happened yet)! . Content was inserted here. Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC) … … ps it ain't even original, variations have been around for centuries! Pincrete (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

these two part of your answer go against each other.. the part of OR objection and "it ain't even original, variations have been around for centuries!" got any links to these "variations" so we can just put those links in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.230.138.41 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"is a simplistic, school-boyish rendition of a genuine and subtle moral dilemma."

There is no moral dilemma. You're still trying to answer the question. Don't. Both answers don't respect sanctity of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.230.138.41 (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Unless reliable sources have mentioned that question in regards to the sanctity of life, it's WP:OR as the others have stated. 02:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC) (somehow signature got cut off Some1 (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC))
• Oppose. Is this Goodwin's RfC or paradox? Anyway this is original research.--Hippeus (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This Page...

This page should be about sanctity of life, not about sanctity of life in Christianity. I am adding information about Sanctity of life itself, the four main religions that aren't included (now that I've added Judaism), Sanctity of Life in law across the world (it is a big thing in the US because of Roe VS Wade and lots of European euthanasia laws are controversial). Similar pages on Wikipedia are WAY longer than this: this is a main topic in ethics! JacobTheRox (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)