Legal and philosophical argument for contraception and abortion, please help refute

[jochoa]

Throwing in my opinion here, but discussions of an afterlife are discussions that tend to be full of heresy and a lack of knowledge. I’ve personally have never been dead before, and I’ve never talked to any one that has been dead before. There is a significant epidemiological barrier there.

Understandable. In order to gain consideration of the afterlife, let’s first begin with: do you know God Exists?

 

[tonyrey]

Throwing in my opinion here, but discussions of an afterlife are discussions that tend to be full of heresy and a lack of knowledge.

“tend” implies “not always”!

I’ve personally have never been dead before, and I’ve never talked to any one that has been dead before.

Is **everything **you believe based on your own experience?

There is a significant epidemiological barrier there.

Epidemiology is the study of health-events, health-characteristics or health-determinant patterns in a population!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

“tend” implies “not always”!

Indeed, that’s intentional. As I don’t want to state that there’s absolutely no one that has knowledge on such things.

Is **everything **you believe based on your own experience?

I’m actually talking about knowledge and information that I don’t have, not the information that I do have.

Epidemiology is the study of health-events, health-characteristics or health-determinant patterns in a population!

Yeah, typed that from a phone. “Epistemological” wasn’t in the phones vocabulary so it automatically “corrected” the word for me.

 

[jochoa]

Throwing in my opinion here, but discussions of an afterlife are discussions that tend to be full of heresy and a lack of knowledge. I’ve personally have never been dead before, and I’ve never talked to any one that has been dead before. There is a significant epidemiological barrier there.

Thank you very much for joining the conversation. I look forward to learning from you, and I hope you learn as much from me, as I learn from you. Please consider the following:
In order to begin discussion that an afterlife exists, we must first validate that Jesus Christ is the One and Only God. Currently the best method I know of to establish this quickly and easily is to request that you read some of the following discussion regarding the 2/3 rule found here → forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=623264 and to link you the website where you can find more information → thegospelofcreation.com/
Please note that this 2/3 rule does not dive deep into what exactly is Jesus Christ’s Love, however it does reveal an amazing alignment of historical/biblical/creation with a simple mathematical ratio. And in light of this alignment, validates beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus Christ is God, and Catholicism is His Church.

If you accept this as a validation of the Absolute Truth that Jesus Christ is God and Catholicism is His Church, perhaps we can discuss and learn further possibilities as to what Heaven will be like.
If you are unable to accept this because you do not understand something about Jesus Christ’s Love or the Sacraments of His Church, please let me know, and I will gladly share how much he loves you. And how much he wants you to be with him, so that together you and we may enjoy the experience of unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy. And what he did to show you how sorry he was that all of creation had to be this complicated in order to ensure that you would freely choose to always be patient and kind, even in the face of unjust impatience and unkindness and meanness.

Regarding never been dead: the concept is to try to expand your perspective. Your energy can be drained, “dead tired;” your relationships can terminate, “dead to me;” your spirit can be dead: if you do not believe in spirit, your spirit is dead to you. If you terminate the relationship between you and God, you are dead to God because God cannot cease to exist.

Thoughts?

 

[tonyrey]

“tend” implies “not always”!

That’s good news!

Is **everything **

*you believe based on your own experience?

I’m actually talking about knowledge and information that I don’t have, not the information that I do have.

I know. Is **everything **you believe based **solely **on your own experience?

Epidemiology is the study of health-events, health-characteristics or health-determinant patterns in a population!

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8720097#post8720097

Yeah, typed that from a phone. “Epistemological” wasn’t in the phones vocabulary so it automatically “corrected” the word for me.
Good for you - in more senses than one.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

                    I know. Is **everything **you believe based **solely **on your own experience?

It is usually connected to my experiences some how. I’m not sure if that is the same as “based on” my own experience. I think I can say it isn’t solely based on my own experiences (I won’t elaborate here, but in another recent thread I made detailed my view on thinking within a community of social beings). Information from vicarious experiences and observations that I treat as (provisionally) true is typically going to be implicitly checked for consistency with prior experience or other things treated as (provisionally) true. If there is something that is totally disconnected from personal experience it I could hold onto the information and even go through reasoning exercises with it without ever having really thought it to be true or false (or one can also go through reasoning exercises even though s/he considers something false. Suspension of disbelief is sometimes necessary to enjoy a movie).

The stuff that happens after death (or inside black holes) is among those things that are totally disconnected from my experiences. Those that I know to have experienced death have never stopped by to tell me about their experiences beyond it. That’s part of why I tried to say there are problems of epistemology here before my phone did me the favor of modifying my words.

 

[GEddie]

I think for this conversation, we should treat the afterlife as a digression.

It is biological life, in a human soma, wherein we exercise all our rights. Furthermore, it is biological human life that we stand to lose, and therefore have to protect via rights.

Persons in an afterlife neither hold nor need rights in the human civil society.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Candide_West]

Please consider the following points:
If you are unwilling to discuss an afterlife, you are operating under limited reasoning.*Without consideration of the natural laws of love (which naturally extends itself to the afterlife), all morals are subjective to those who claim authority, which is why under your limited reasoning it makes sense that: no inalienable right to earthly life can exist.

So you are saying that the only sense in which you can provide a justification for an inalienable right to life is a right to an afterlife? If so then that’s fair enough, but as I’ve said, what I’m asking about here is if an inalienable right to life (as in human life, here on earth) is justified.*

Having an inalienable right to an afterlife is rather off the point.*

*Please take care not to confuse having an inalienable right to afterlife with an infinite afterlife. This is the same err you are making when considering an inalienable right to earthly life and an infinite earthly life. The right is inalienable because the authority which granted it will not take it away. The life can end because of lack of resources. In the afterlife, the length of life will depend on motivational resources.

Apologies, I was obviously not clear enough. As I understand the concept of after life in Christian beliefs, the afterlife is believed to be eternal. Hence why I referred to an infinite afterlife. I have not confused an inalienable right to life with infinite life on earth, clearly that would be rather silly. Everyone must die eventually.

*If the right to kill is not an option to you, then refrain from using it in discussion. And recognize that if you will not kill human life, you are granting an inalienable right to life. Recognize that you have the option to kill whomever you please, but you will not, and therefore grant an inalienable right to life in the lives you assume authority over.

Thoughts?

I’m confused, I have never referred to the right to kill, but you have done so on three occasions. Now you are asking me to stop using it in the discussion?*

Also, as we’ve discussed previously there is a major difference between “granting” someone an inalienable right to life, and just not killing them. (remember we discussed that otherwise even the most heinous genocidal maniacs and mass murderers have granted an “inalienable right to life” for virtually everyone because they hardly killed anyone compared to the population of the planet).

 

[Candide_West]

“tend” implies “not always”!

Is **everything **you believe based on your own experience?

Epidemiology is the study of health-events, health-characteristics or health-determinant patterns in a population!

Hey TR,

Good to see you’re still around. You have any further thoughts on my question? Just looking to clarify if I should continue to await a response or assume you’ve retired from our conversation.

Thanks

 

[jochoa]

So you are saying that the only sense in which you can provide a justification for an inalienable right to life is a right to an afterlife? If so then that’s fair enough, but as I’ve said, what I’m asking about here is if an inalienable right to life (as in human life, here on earth) is justified.

You stated you were willing to begin with any set of givens, and I presented truths that demonstrate an inalienable right to life. So an inalienable right to life is justifiable, but you are wanting to limit your reasoning now that it has been justified. And as long as you limit your reasoning, unfortunately you will not be able to see the Truth.

Having an inalienable right to an afterlife is rather off the point.

The discussion is there a legal and philosophical argument for an inalienable right to life. And since we all live under the All-Loving Jesus Christ, his law states an inalienable right to life is granted.
And philosophically it is justified without the need for consideration of the after life in that, in efforts to generate unbreakable peace and limitless happiness in a society, we must, both individually and communally, want and strive to be perfectly patient and kind. Not granting an inalienable right to human life, destroys our level of kindness and patience as mankind, and limits the peace and happiness of the society.

Apologies, I was obviously not clear enough. As I understand the concept of after life in Christian beliefs, the afterlife is believed to be eternal. Hence why I referred to an infinite afterlife. I have not confused an inalienable right to life with infinite life on earth, clearly that would be rather silly. Everyone must die eventually.

You are correct in that everyone must die in earthly living. And you are correct in that Heaven and Hell is eternal, but not everyone lives forever in the after life. If you like to gain a better understanding of the Universal Christian Truths, work on growing in oneness with the Holy Spirit through the Sacraments of the Catholic Faith, by trying to master the obedience, simplicity, and gentleness of the Virgin Mother of God, the obedience and service of the Saints and Martyrs, and by embracing the Cross of perfect patience and kindness in the face of unjust impatience and meanness.

I’m confused, I have never referred to the right to kill, but you have done so on three occasions. Now you are asking me to stop using it in the discussion?

Then why do you speak of, “going on a killing rampage…,” and there is no inalienable right to life? If you will never kill the lives of the people you have been given authority over, then you have granted an inalienable right to life. And seeing in the least that you have been given authority over yourself, and you will never kill yourself, then you have granted yourself an inalienable right to life.

Also, as we’ve discussed previously there is a major difference between “granting” someone an inalienable right to life, and just not killing them. (remember we discussed that otherwise even the most heinous genocidal maniacs and mass murderers have granted an “inalienable right to life” for virtually everyone because they hardly killed anyone compared to the population of the planet).

You are correct, however, please consider the following:
The question becomes how many perspectives will you take into consideration?
If a mass murderer is only willing to consider his/her perspective and grant an inalienable right to earthly life for his/herself, recognize their level of morality is really low.
Therefore, if a person is willing to include consideration of the embryo and grant an inalienable right to earthly life to all human lives conceived, recognize their level of morality is far greater.
And if a person is willing to include consideration of every human perspective to the point of being “unconditionally” patient and kind in the face of unjust hatred, recognize his/her level of morality is outstanding.

The next question becomes, what level of morality will you subject yourself to?

Thank you very much once again for excellent perspective and patience with me. I have learned vast amounts from your considerations, and I look forward to learning more from you. I only hope that you are learning as much from me, as I am from you.

Thoughts?

 

[Candide_West]

Hello,

Firstly Merry Christmas and best wishes for the new year.

You stated you were willing to begin with any set of givens, and I presented truths that demonstrate an inalienable right to life.

Ok, I have no problem with the givens that you put forwards, I even said “Ok, they sound like a fair set of assumptions for a Christian starting point.” My problem is not the assumptions you started from but the conclusion you reached. As you said yourself “Based on the Christian/Catholic “assumptions” an inalienable right to after life is justified.”

You are trying to justify an inalienable right to an afterlife. Whether you have succeeded in doing so or not is unrelated to my question of whether “an inalienable right to life is justified for humans”. I am of course refering to humans as in people living here on earth, as GEddie said so eloquently “Persons in an afterlife neither hold nor need rights in the human civil society.”

The discussion is there a legal and philosophical argument for an inalienable right to life. And since we all live under the All-Loving Jesus Christ, his law states an inalienable right to life is granted.

Great, so where does this law state that an inalienable right to life is granted? What did Jesus actually say which means “all human beings have an inalienable right to life”.

And philosophically it is justified without the need for consideration of the after life in that, in efforts to generate unbreakable peace and limitless happiness in a society, we must, both individually and communally, want and strive to be perfectly patient and kind. Not granting an inalienable right to human life, destroys our level of kindness and patience as mankind, and limits the peace and happiness of the society.

Again, above you have said that humans can choose to grant or withold an “inalienable” right to life. But if humans can grant or withhold it, then it is NOT inalienable.

You are correct in that everyone must die in earthly living. And you are correct in that Heaven and Hell is eternal, but not everyone lives forever in the after life…

Interesting, this seems contrary to what I was taught back in my Christian days. What do you believe happens to you when you reach the end of your afterlife then? Also is this an official Catholic belief?

Then why do you speak of, “going on a killing rampage…,” and there is no inalienable right to life?

I was giving an example to show why humans having an inalienable right to life makes a big difference to morality, but humans having an inalienable right to an afterlife does not. Perhaps a more detailed explanation would help.

Lets say for the moment that there is only one rule in morality (just for the sake of this example) - “humans have an inalienable right to life”. Now, if I go out tomorrow and kill someone, I have violated that persons right to life and therefore my action is immoral. Agreed?

Now again lets say for the moment that there is only one rule in morality - “humans have an inalienable right to an afterlife”. Now, if I go out tomorrow and kill someone, I have not in any way affected that persons right to an afterlife, so my action is not immoral. Agreed?

Hopefully that makes my point clear, if humans have an inalienable right to life, then I think that euthanasia, abortion, war, suicide and capital punishment must all, in all circumstances be immoral. On the other hand whether humans have or do not have an inalienable right to an afterlife makes absolutely no impact on whether any of these things are immoral. Clear?

If you will never kill the lives of the people you have been given authority over, then you have granted an inalienable right to life. And seeing in the least that you have been given authority over yourself, and you will never kill yourself, then you have granted yourself an inalienable right to life.

Not so, at the moment I do not believe I have an inalienable right to life. Also I have not killed myself.

You are correct, however, please consider the following:
The question becomes how many perspectives will you take into consideration?
If a mass murderer is only willing to consider his/her perspective and grant an inalienable right to earthly life for his/herself, recognize their level of morality is really low.
Therefore, if a person is willing to include consideration of the embryo and grant an inalienable right to earthly life to all human lives conceived, recognize their level of morality is far greater.
And if a person is willing to include consideration of every human perspective to the point of being “unconditionally” patient and kind in the face of unjust hatred, recognize his/her level of morality is outstanding.

The next question becomes, what level of morality will you subject yourself to?

I’m not quite clear what you are aiming at here Jochoa, you seem to be saying that if you consider more points of view then you are more moral no matter what your actual actions are.

So, if a murderer thinks about the perspectives of loads of different people on his actions before deciding to kill innocent people then he’s morally superior to the fireman who just thinks from his own perspective before dashing into a burning building to save peoples lives.

I think perhaps I’ve misunderstood you here, but I’m not sure what else the above could be taken to mean.

Thank you very much once again for excellent perspective and patience with me. I have learned vast amounts from your considerations, and I look forward to learning more from you. I only hope that you are learning as much from me, as I am from you.

Thoughts?

No worries, its an interesting topic.

 

[jochoa]

Firstly Merry Christmas and best wishes for the new year.

 

[Candide_West]

Jochoa, Firstly apologies for the long delay before getting back to you and secondly happy new year.

Thank you very much! Merry Christmas to you as well! What a great person to celebrate! I hope the season treated you well.

Please consider the following points:

1. The afterlife is an inalienable right to life for humans.

I know you believe that, it’s not something that interests me particularly. I percieve no impact this could have on my life.

1. In response to “persons in an afterlife neither hold nor need rights in the human civil society”: If we believe Jesus Christ wants others to freely choose to love him, then surely the Kingdom of Heaven is a free willed society, and to ensure order is followed given free-willed beings, rights or some system of passing judgement must exist.

Again you are writing about conditions which may or may not pertain in a realm which may or may not exist (you believe in heaven, clearly i do not). This is from my point of view not relevant.

1. If your intent is to limit the justification to earthly human life, then state: Is an inalienable right to earthly human life justified?

In truth i thought i had been quite specific about this already. Yes, i am talking about a right to life for humans, as i said “I am of course refering to humans as in people living here on earth” and “what I’m asking about here is if an inalienable right to life (as in human life, here on earth)” and “a right to life then we generally mean a right to live as humans” etc.

But yes, to be clear I am looking for a justification for an inalienable right to life for humans living on earth.

And the answer is still yes…

Great, so please provide this justification.

Two in particular would be: John 5:29 ESV And come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.
Acts 24:15 Having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.

Ok, but these quotes both relate to afterlife or ressurection and as far as I can tell have nothing to do with rights, let alone an inalienable right to life. As I said you seem to be trying to justify something which I’m not arguing against, indeed am not really interested in discussing.

Try to recognize the difference between an inalienable life and an inalienable right. All rights are granted by an authority, therefore we must seek to understand the will of the governing authority.

Yes, clearly there is a difference between an inalienable life and an inalienable right.

Please consider the Universal Truth of the Use of Energy: The use of energy is fully dependent on the quality of motivation. Every action of a person is the combination of the desires of energy, the quality of motivation, the achievement of energy. Therefore if the motivation to will ever ceases to exist, then the will terminates. In regards to alignment with the Catholic/Universal Faith, I have presented these concepts to my priest and before this forum community and am awaiting further guidance. From my experience with growing closer in oneness with the Holy Spirit, these understandings seem well aligned with the belief in the afterlife.

Interesting, so for clarity, you believe that neither heaven nor hell is eternal?

Do you recognize that the instance prior to killing another person, the killer has, in the least, assumed authority over the other person’s life and in doing so has empowered him/herself as the grantor of rights? Therefore, if the authoritative “killer” grants an inalienable right to life, s/he cannot kill the person.

Not really, no. You seem to be saying that if someone kills someone then they automatically had authority over that persons life. And again in the final sentence above you have said that the person can grant or withhold a right to life. Again, this means it is NOT inalienable.

Also, you didn’t actually answer the question. Am I to assume that you agree that if people have an inalienable right to life then killing a person is immoral?

If you limit reasoning to this one rule of afterlife, you can justify anything. So agreed, but if we want to recognize the truth, we should strive to not limit reasoning.

Great, so you get the point, an inalienable right to life for humans is of major importance, but an inalienable right to an afterlife is not.

Remember, when granting rights, consider the perspective of the authority. If you are not willing to consider the afterlife, then there is no objective morality. Therefore, essentially no morality exists because it can be changed from moment to moment. If you are willing to consider the afterlife, we must consider the Creator, which leads to trying to learn the objective morality of the Creator.

Well that depends a lot on what you mean by the term “objective”. Personally I disagree, but I’d prefer to avoid going down this particular rabbithole as I fear it would take us a long way from the subject at hand.

All in all I suspect this conversation has gotten as far as it is likely to. If you were able to provide a justification for an inalienable right to life for humans then I suspect you would have done so by now. I’ll hang around a little longer if you have anything further, but I’m holding out less and less hope for progress here.

 

[tonyrey]

Hey TR,

Good to see you’re still around. You have any further thoughts on my question? Just looking to clarify if I should continue to await a response or assume you’ve retired from our conversation.

Thanks

I realised we were going nowhere very fast! Happy New Year…

 

[jochoa]

I know you believe that, it’s not something that interests me particularly. I percieve no impact this could have on my life.

Please note, the inalienable right to the afterlife for humans is 100% Truth, not a belief. I respect that it does not interest you, therefore, if you are ever interested in living in the Kingdom of Unbreakable Peace and Limitless Happiness for all who will subject themselves to the rules, please let me know and I will gladly do all that I can to help you get on the path to get there.

Again you are writing about conditions which may or may not pertain in a realm which may or may not exist (you believe in heaven, clearly i do not). This is from my point of view not relevant.

I have one question which I believe might help me understand your perspective, please consider: If you do not know whether or not Heaven or the all-loving Jesus Christ exists, why do you choose to have faith in nothing?

Great, so please provide this justification.

Here is the justification in simpler terms: I am the authority of my children. I will always let them live and will never terminate their life. Therefore, as their earthly authority, I have granted them an inalienable right to life. Therefore, three instances of inalienable rights to life are justified, therefore an inalienable right to life is justified.

Ok, but these quotes both relate to afterlife or ressurection and as far as I can tell have nothing to do with rights, let alone an inalienable right to life. As I said you seem to be trying to justify something which I’m not arguing against, indeed am not really interested in discussing.

This declaration is showing your operation under circular/limited reasoning.

Interesting, so for clarity, you believe that neither heaven nor hell is eternal?

Heaven and Hell are eternal. But since you do not want to understand further details about this concept, I will wait for you to be interested in understanding the Truth of Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.

Not really, no. You seem to be saying that if someone kills someone then they automatically had authority over that persons life.

If someone forces another person to stop living, s/he controlled the other person. When someone controls another person, they are acting as their authority. Therefore, if someone forcefully kills another person, s/he is acting as the authority over the other person’s life. and s/he is withholding a right to life, and granting him/herself a right to kill.

And again in the final sentence above you have said that the person can grant or withhold a right to life. Again, this means it is NOT inalienable.

The determination of inalienability comes after the right has been granted. If the authority is unsure whether or not they will grant or withhold or remove the right, then the right is not yet inalienable. However, the instance the authority grants and declares it will not remove the right, at that point it can then be said the right is inalienable.

Also, you didn’t actually answer the question. Am I to assume that you agree that if people have an inalienable right to life then killing a person is immoral?

This is an incorrect analysis. Please consider: If an authority or acting authority grants an inalienable right to life, they will not kill the person/people they have granted the right. Therefore there would be no killing. In other words: in any instance of killing, the killer (acting authority) withheld a right to life, therefore there was never an inalienable right to life from the perspective of the acting authority.

Great, so you get the point, an inalienable right to life for humans is of major importance, but an inalienable right to an afterlife is not.

My friend, if you are wanting to limit reasoning, I must bid you farewell in your quests to understand life. For with limited reasoning, one can never know the Truth.

Well that depends a lot on what you mean by the term “objective”. Personally I disagree, but I’d prefer to avoid going down this particular rabbithole as I fear it would take us a long way from the subject at hand.

What do you mean by “rabbithole”? I have never heard that. And by objective morality I mean: The morality required to have a society with unbreakable peace and limitless happiness.

All in all I suspect this conversation has gotten as far as it is likely to. If you were able to provide a justification for an inalienable right to life for humans then I suspect you would have done so by now. I’ll hang around a little longer if you have anything further, but I’m holding out less and less hope for progress here.

My friend, it has been a pleasure and challenge discussing with you. I wonder, have you perceived any developments in my responses to you? Either way, I am tremendously appreciative of all the time, consideration, and challenging questions of yours. I know my reasoning and understandings have developed greatly throughout the course of our discussion. I apologize if I have not been effective in communicating these developments.

Thoughts?

 

[Candide_West]

Please note, the inalienable right to the afterlife for humans is 100% Truth, not a belief. …

Yes, I know that you believe that. Again, obviously I and many other people disagree.

*I have one question which I believe might help me understand your perspective, please consider: If you do not know whether or not Heaven or the all-loving Jesus Christ exists, why do you choose to have faith in nothing?

We’ve been over this already Jochoa, I don’t have “faith in nothing”. I believe the things I believe in based on the evidence.

*Here is the justification in simpler terms: I am the authority of my children. I will always let them live and will never terminate their life. Therefore, as their earthly authority, I have granted them an inalienable right to life. Therefore, three instances of inalienable rights to life are justified, therefore an inalienable right to life is justified.

Again, you have said above that you have granted an inalienable right. But if you can grant or withold it, then it is not inalienable.

*This declaration is showing your operation under circular/limited reasoning.

Well, I guess you can call it limited reasoning, in that I’ll only accept answers for my question which actually answer my question. At the moment it seems like our conversation is going like this:…

Me: “What’s 2x2?”

Jochoa: “Paris is the capital of France”.

Me: "That doesn’t answer the question.

Jochoa: “You’re operating under circular/limited reasoning”.

To be clear, the only limit I’m applying to answers you can provide is that they have to answer the question I asked. Telling me that you believe humans have a right to an afterlife doesn’t answer the question.

*Heaven and Hell are eternal. But since you do not want to understand further details about this concept, I will wait for you to be interested in understanding the Truth of Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.

Ok.

*If someone forces another person to stop living, s/he controlled the other person. When someone controls another person, they are acting as their authority. Therefore, if someone forcefully kills another person, s/he is acting as the authority over the other person’s life. and s/he is withholding a right to life, and granting him/herself a right to kill.

Again, if a persons “inalienable” right to life can be withheld. Then that right is NOT inalienable. You seem to be trying to justify why it’s a nice thing for people to do to grant each other rights. I’m fine with that, I’m not even questioning that. I’m asking for a justification for an INALIENABLE right to life. That means, by definition, that it cannot be granted or withheld by anyone.

*The determination of inalienability comes after the right has been granted. If the authority is unsure whether or not they will grant or withhold or remove the right, then the right is not yet inalienable. However, the instance the authority grants and declares it will not remove the right, at that point it can then be said the right is inalienable.

Again if someone can grant or withhold the right then it is NOT inalienable.*

*This is an incorrect analysis. Please consider: If an authority or acting authority grants an inalienable right to life, they will not kill the person/people they have granted the right. Therefore there would be no killing. In other words: in any instance of killing, the killer (acting authority) withheld a right to life, therefore there was never an inalienable right to life from the perspective of the acting authority.

Once again you have referred to a killer withholding a right to life. If a person can withhold it then it is not inalienable.*

*My friend, if you are wanting to limit reasoning, I must bid you farewell in your quests to understand life. For with limited reasoning, one can never know the Truth.

I think I’ve been pretty clear on my “limit” here. I’ll only accept answers which actually answer the question I asked. Talking about rights to an afterlife is all well and good, but does not answer the question.

*What do you mean by “rabbithole”? I have never heard that. And by objective morality I mean: The morality required to have a society with unbreakable peace and limitless happiness.

By rabbithole I just mean a complicated string of conversation in which it is very easy to get lost a long way from the topic at hand.*

*My friend, it has been a pleasure and challenge discussing with you. I wonder, have you perceived any developments in my responses to you? Either way, I am tremendously appreciative of all the time, consideration, and challenging questions of yours. I know my reasoning and understandings have developed greatly throughout the course of our discussion. I apologize if I have not been effective in communicating these developments.

Thoughts?

No worries as always. As I said we seem to be reaching an impasse. Your answers seem to fall into two neat groups at this point:

1). Justifying a right to an afterlife - which doesn’t answer the question.

2). Justifying why you think people should grant instead of withhold a right to life - if people can make such a choice then (by definition) the right is NOT inalienable.

 

[Candide_West]

I realised we were going nowhere very fast! Happy New Year…

Indeed, however I’ve seen a lot of posts on here from you so had high hopes that you’d be able to provide an answer. Especially as you seemed so confident about the topic.*

Never mind, thanks for replying anyway and happy new year to you too.*