Poll: Contraception, abortion, infanticide

[Oscarthecat]

The mother owns her womb, but she has given up the right to dictate that a child can reside there once she has acted in an appropriate manner to bring about this child.

In other words, the decision has ended once she decides to have sex.

Read my post a little way back on this same idea

 

[Shredderbeam]

vz71:

The mother owns her womb, but she has given up the right to dictate that a child can reside there once she has acted in an appropriate manner to bring about this child.

In other words, the decision has ended once she decides to have sex.

Why does she give up that right? We are speaking of inalienable rights here - you always own your body, you always own your house.

 

[Feste_1242]

We meet again, Shredderbeam.

What it really comes down it is - “Can this other person respect the rights of others?”. If yes, then they have rights. If no, then they do not have them.

Unborn people cannot possibly inflict harm on others, meaning they completely respect the rights of others. So tell us again, why is it ok to kill them?

The rationality of the fetus is not the main question at hand here.

Wait- really? Because that has been the basis of your argument. It seems your views are very complicated. Perhaps you could indulge us all with a simple numbered list, or present your line of logic? Like this:

1. Full-grown humans are rational beings.
2. It is wrong to kill a rational being.
3. It is wrong to kill a full-grown human.

I think this would be very instrumental in moving the discussion in a more productive direction.

I would support the mothers right to remove the fetus from her womb.

Now, here’s what I would think to be the main point. Does the fetus have a right to be in the mother’s womb, or does the mother own her own womb?

She put it there, and now it will die if she “removes” it. She has no right to do that. Look at it like this: When she had sex, she entered into a contract with her baby to rent out her uterus for as long as the baby cared to stay. Does that make sense? If not, here’s a simpler one. Say you were having surgery done, and the surgeon was just putting his gloved hand inside your body, and you decided you changed your mind and didn’t want it there. Would it be ok to shoot his hand off?

Oscarthecat’s post (#68) basically said the same thing; I simply felt compelled to second him. (Second here meaning: to expresses formal support of a motion so that it may be discussed or put to a vote.)

You could not really justify that in court, as you do not have the right to violate another’s rights.

You’re just replete with consistency here.

However, if all human life is equal, then wouldn’t the moral thing for me to do right now be to drop everything, brush up on my first aid training, and go out to Africa, helping to save lives over there?

…Yes.

My question now is if that is the ultimate moral good, why do so few people partake of it?

Right, let’s measure morality by the number of people partaking.

My instinct would urge me to save the child, as it seems to be in human nature to save children.

Hmm, yes, and do you know why that is?

1. There is no way one person to conclusively determine the rationality of another person. For example, Helen Keller was a rational human being, but she was presumed to lack rational thought until she learned to communicate with people.
2. Human beings can lose and regain their capacity for rational thought over the course of a lifetime due to illness, injury, or, arguably, inebriation. Are you saying that these individual cease to be human beings during the period of incapacitation, and then resume human status once they regain their capacity for rational thought?
3. What exactly is “bra(name removed by moderator)ower.”

:clapping:

I do not think the barrier contraception is immoral because it does not have an abortifacient effect.

That’s not why contraception is immoral. Is stealing moral because it does not have an abortifacient effect?

Now you’re just indulging in pointless conjecture. That would never happen in real life. If you want to base your morality upon fantasy, why even bother to discuss it?

How rude. Mapleoak was simply making a point with a hypothetical situation. It doesn’t matter if it “would happen in real life”. Hypothetical situations are excellent tools for discussing principles.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Feste 1242:

We meet again, Shredderbeam.
Unborn people cannot possibly inflict harm on others, meaning they completely respect the rights of others. So tell us again, why is it ok to kill them?

They do not have an inalienable right to remain in the womb of the mother. They are there by her permission, as a guest is in your home by permission.
Feste 1242:

Wait- really? Because that has been the basis of your argument. It seems your views are very complicated. Perhaps you could indulge us all with a simple numbered list, or present your line of logic? Like this:

1. Full-grown humans are rational beings.
2. It is wrong to kill a rational being.
3. It is wrong to kill a full-grown human.

I think this would be very instrumental in moving the discussion in a more productive direction.

I acknowledged that the fact that a fetus was not yet rational is irrelevant. It will become rational, as will a man who is in slumber.
Feste 1242:

She put it there, and now it will die if she “removes” it. She has no right to do that. Look at it like this: When she had sex, she entered into a contract with her baby to rent out her uterus for as long as the baby cared to stay. Does that make sense? If not, here’s a simpler one. Say you were having surgery done, and the surgeon was just putting his gloved hand inside your body, and you decided you changed your mind and didn’t want it there. Would it be ok to shoot his hand off?

Your example makes perfect sense - if sex can be understood to be a contract. If the man and the woman both agree that it is one, and sign paperwork indicating as such, then you could take sex as a contract (although self-ownership principle would hold that such a contract would be invalid, as you cannot sign away an inalienable right).

The surgeon example does not really apply, as you would give direct permission for him to put his hand inside of you.
Feste 1242:

You’re just replete with consistency here.

Rights spring from the individuals rationality (individuals without rationality are free from aggressive action since they will become rational). They are centered around the individual, and they go outwards from there. You have a right to be free. You have a right to own your own body. By assaulting, and killing, another man, you assault his inalienable rights, something that you do not have a right to do.
Feste1242:

…Yes.

I simply hate to use personal challenges in debates - but why don’t you, or others do this?
Feste1242:

Right, let’s measure morality by the number of people partaking.

I didn’t want to directly address whoever I had been quoting - it was an attempt at a veiled “Why don’t you go to Africa?” style question.
Feste 1242:

Hmm, yes, and do you know why that is?

Evolutionarily speaking, it makes perfect sense. Why save an old lady who will not reproduce, and die fairly soon? Why not go for the young child who might grow up to be a mighty hunter, and pass along his genes?

 

[Feste_1242]

They do not have an inalienable right to remain in the womb of the mother. They are there by her permission, as a guest is in your home by permission.

No, you still misunderstand. They are not guests in the house, they are residents. She agreed to let them move in permanently. This means that she cannot change her mind.

I acknowledged that the fact that a fetus was not yet rational is irrelevant. It will become rational, as will a man who is in slumber.

Fair enough. I agree. So what about your criteria for having rights, separate or rational? What *is *the criteria?

Your example makes perfect sense - if sex can be understood to be a contract. If the man and the woman both agree that it is one, and sign paperwork indicating as such, then you could take sex as a contract (although self-ownership principle would hold that such a contract would be invalid, as you cannot sign away an inalienable right).

Sex is a contract. Unless, of course, the woman is raped. I have explained this to you already, in another thread. Unfortunately that thread was pulled, so I can’t simply quote my own words. Anyway, here goes. Following my example, the contract is signed instantaneously as the baby is conceived. The only difference with rape is that the man is forcing the woman to sign. The contract is still being signed. Rape is an awful thing, but the fact remains that no matter what evil is done to a person, they can never obtain the right to take another’s innocent life. Also, you do not seem to understand that an unborn human is still a human. Meaning, of course, that a fetus is not part of a pregnant woman. It is a separate being, even though not physically separate. Recall your words on conjoined twins? You said that each has 50% ownership of the body. Why does an unborn person, who is a person physically attached to another, just as the twins, not have 50% ownership as well? You can no longer say it has no right to life because it is not rational, as you have already admitted the irrelevance of this.

The surgeon example does not really apply, as you would give direct permission for him to put his hand inside of you.

It was exactly the same as the previous example. You give the surgeon permission just as you give the baby permission.

I simply hate to use personal challenges in debates - but why don’t you, or others do this?

As do I. No offense, but your question is ridiculous. I do not do it because I haven’t the financial means or the linguistic or medical knowledge. Also, I am doing good right here, I don’t have to go to Africa to do it. People need help in America, and online too. Every person alive who is not helping people in Africa is not sinning. It is not intrinsically evil. The point of the action is to do good, and help others. If you are fulfilling that already, who cares what continent you’re on? Don’t forget, the moral act that was mentioned in the first place is not helping Africans, but helping people. It makes no difference to God where you do it.

Evolutionarily speaking, it makes perfect sense. Why save an old lady who will not reproduce, and die fairly soon? Why not go for the young child who might grow up to be a mighty hunter, and pass along his genes?

Evolutionary sense is not part of human instinct, but a conscience is. Most people would save the child, because it is in our nature to protect innocence, our gut/conscience tells us it is a good thing, and necessary to preserve.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Feste 1242:

No, you still misunderstand. They are not guests in the house, they are residents. She agreed to let them move in permanently. This means that she cannot change her mind.

She did not specifically state that they would be allowed to remain there for the full nine months. Even if she did, the contract would not be valid since you cannot contract away an inalienable right.
Feste 1242:

Fair enough. I agree. So what about your criteria for having rights, separate or rational? What *is *the criteria?

The criteria is rationality, or the future ability to gain/recover rationality.
Feste 1242:

Sex is a contract. Unless, of course, the woman is raped. I have explained this to you already, in another thread. Unfortunately that thread was pulled, so I can’t simply quote my own words. Anyway, here goes. Following my example, the contract is signed instantaneously as the baby is conceived. The only difference with rape is that the man is forcing the woman to sign. The contract is still being signed. Rape is an awful thing, but the fact remains that no matter what evil is done to a person, they can never obtain the right to take another’s innocent life. Also, you do not seem to understand that an unborn human is still a human. Meaning, of course, that a fetus is not part of a pregnant woman. It is a separate being, even though not physically separate. Recall your words on conjoined twins? You said that each has 50% ownership of the body. Why does an unborn person, who is a person physically attached to another, just as the twins, not have 50% ownership as well? You can no longer say it has no right to life because it is not rational, as you have already admitted the irrelevance of this.

If we define contract as “a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement…”, then sex is not a contract. It is an act. To agree reach an agreement or make a promise is a rational act that requires all parties to witness the complete terms, and agree to them in an objective manner (directly stating that you agree to them [furnishing your signature is one way of doing this]). Sex does not do this - it is a physical act.

The unborn baby is, as has been mentioned elsewhere, functionally separate. The mother cannot control its body, and it cannot control the mothers body. The two are linked through a single cord, through which the mother provides for the baby. Receiving sustenance from a person does not entitle you to 50% ownership of their body.
Feste 1242:

It was exactly the same as the previous example. You give the surgeon permission just as you give the baby permission.

Permission may be withdrawn.
Feste 1242:

As do I. No offense, but your question is ridiculous. I do not do it because I haven’t the financial means or the linguistic or medical knowledge. Also, I am doing good right here, I don’t have to go to Africa to do it. People need help in America, and online too. Every person alive who is not helping people in Africa is not sinning. It is not intrinsically evil. The point of the action is to do good, and help others. If you are fulfilling that already, who cares what continent you’re on? Don’t forget, the moral act that was mentioned in the first place is not helping Africans, but helping people. It makes no difference to God where you do it.

Helping people may be the moral thing to do, but who to help? Should we help Americans, or Africans? Where is the misery greater? If it became urgent, for whatever reason, that I go to Africa, it would not be very difficult to go over my French, obtain some form of EMT certification, save up enough money for a plane ticket, and contact an aid organization.
Feste 1242:

Evolutionary sense is not part of human instinct, but a conscience is. Most people would save the child, because it is in our nature to protect innocence, our gut/conscience tells us it is a good thing, and necessary to preserve.

Saving the child is an instinct that is favored by evolution. Those who have these gut feelings to save their children, even to die for them, are more likely to propagate their genes.

 

[Caesar517]

Shredderbeam:

You have admitted that an unborn child has equal rights to an adult, because the unborn child has the potential for rational thought.

You have said that an adult may not murder another adult. It seems that the right to life is more important than the right to do as you wish.

Your argument has been reduced to this: one person’s right to do as they wish trumps another person’s right to live. In light of your afterforementioned statements, this seems contradictory. :ehh:

 

[Shredderbeam]

Caesar517:

Shredderbeam:

You have admitted that an unborn child has equal rights to an adult, because the unborn child has the potential for rational thought.

You have said that an adult may not murder another adult. It seems that the right to life is more important than the right to do as you wish.

Your argument has been reduced to this: one person’s right to do as they wish trumps another person’s right to live. In light of your afterforementioned statements, this seems contradictory. :ehh:

The adult who was murdered has the right to exist where they are. The fetus does not have the right to exist in the mother’s womb without her permission.

 

[Feste_1242]

Shredderbeam:

You have admitted that an unborn child has equal rights to an adult, because the unborn child has the potential for rational thought.

You have said that an adult may not murder another adult. It seems that the right to life is more important than the right to do as you wish.

Your argument has been reduced to this: one person’s right to do as they wish trumps another person’s right to live. In light of your afterforementioned statements, this seems contradictory.

Exactly!

She did not specifically state that they would be allowed to remain there for the full nine months. Even if she did, the contract would not be valid since you cannot contract away an inalienable right.

:banghead: Yes, she did! You did not read my post carefully.

When she had sex, she entered into a contract with her baby to rent out her uterus for as long as the baby cared to stay.

It’s alienable if the woman refuses to respect others’ rights, isn’t it? Such as another human’s right to life. Hmm…

The criteria is rationality, or the future ability to gain/recover rationality.

:banghead: What about separation? Changed your mind?

If we define contract as “a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement…”, then sex is not a contract. It is an act. To agree reach an agreement or make a promise is a rational act that requires all parties to witness the complete terms, and agree to them in an objective manner (directly stating that you agree to them [furnishing your signature is one way of doing this]). Sex does not do this - it is a physical act.

:banghead: The term “contract” was part of the analogy. I repeat: by having sex, the woman is signing a metaphorical contract to allow her baby to be in her womb until it is ready to come out. Got it?

The unborn baby is, as has been mentioned elsewhere, functionally separate. The mother cannot control its body, and it cannot control the mothers body. The two are linked through a single cord, through which the mother provides for the baby. Receiving sustenance from a person does not entitle you to 50% ownership of their body.

:banghead: Let me phrase it as a question: How are conjoined twins different from a mother and her baby?

Permission may be withdrawn.

:banghead: NO IT CAN’T. The contract has already been signed! Metaphorically, of course.

Helping people may be the moral thing to do, but who to help? Should we help Americans, or Africans? Where is the misery greater? If it became urgent, for whatever reason, that I go to Africa, it would not be very difficult to go over my French, obtain some form of EMT certification, save up enough money for a plane ticket, and contact an aid organization.

:banghead: Fine, go. You asked me why I’m not in Africa, and I told you. I don’t care in what way you choose to help others.

Saving the child is an instinct that is favored by evolution. Those who have these gut feelings to save their children, even to die for them, are more likely to propagate their genes.

:banghead:

 

[Caesar517]

The adult who was murdered has the right to exist where they are. The fetus does not have the right to exist in the mother’s womb without her permission.

Can I mug someone, bring them onto my property, and legitimately kill them for trespassing?

 

[vz71]

Why does she give up that right? We are speaking of inalienable rights here - you always own your body, you always own your house.

She made the decision.
It was hers to make. No one has taken anything from her, she is getting exactly what her behavior has brought about.

 

[Oscarthecat]

The criteria is rationality, or the future ability to gain/recover rationality.

If that really is your criteria, then an unborn baby meets that criteria from the moment of conception.
Therefore, as unborn children meet your criteria, they have the same rights as all other human persons, and therefore any justification to kill them is indefensible.

Your problem is that when you think about individual freedom you are only concerned about rights, but don’t appear to be aware of responsibilities. We all enjoy the free exercise of our own rights, but our rights are limited by our responsibility to respect the rights of others. When our freedom to do something conflicts with another’s right to live, then we have a responsibility to temporarily suspend the exercise of that particular freedom.

She did not specifically state that they would be allowed to remain there for the full nine months. Even if she did, the contract would not be valid since you cannot contract away an inalienable right.

I agree that the parents did not enter into a contractual agreement with the baby. But you erroneously conclude that this means that the baby is trespassing onto someone else’s property without their consent. In reality, however, the mother and father situated that baby in the mother’s body without the baby’s expressed consent, and in such a condition that the baby lacks the ability to safely leave the mother prior to reaching full term. Therefore, they are responsible for the baby’s well-being until such time that the baby can leave the womb without harm.

If we define contract as “a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement…”, then sex is not a contract. It is an act. To agree reach an agreement or make a promise is a rational act that requires all parties to witness the complete terms, and agree to them in an objective manner (directly stating that you agree to them [furnishing your signature is one way of doing this]). Sex does not do this - it is a physical act.

It makes me sick to discuss a mother and child in these terms- but I’ll play your game because I have a moral obligation to make some effort to correct your flawed position in a way that you’ll understand.

It is generally accepted that when you cause harm to someone you have an obligation to make proper restitution to them. Such restitution may even result in the loss of property and the temporary surrender of personal freedoms, especially in such cases where the continued life and well-being of harmed party is directly dependent upon said restitution.For example, if someone is made to be unable to care for themself as a direct result of your actions, intentional or not, you have an obligation to make restitution to them by providing the means for them to recover from the condition you caused.

In this light, as the mother and father are responsible for the baby’s present condition and location, it is incumbent upon them to make proper restitution to the baby. Proper restitution requires the parents to surrender both personal property and individual freedoms which would conflict with the baby’s right to life- this would include allowing the baby to continue to reside in the mother’s womb and have full use of the umbilical cord.

The unborn baby is, as has been mentioned elsewhere, functionally separate. The mother cannot control its body, and it cannot control the mothers body. The two are linked through a single cord, through which the mother provides for the baby. Receiving sustenance from a person does not entitle you to 50% ownership of their body.

Regardless, the mother is responsible for making proper restitution to the baby even if it requires her to temporarily suspend her right to freedoms which conflict with the baby’s ability to live.

Permission may be withdrawn.

You don’t have the right to refuse permission when making proper restitution, especially when such a refusal would cause additional harm or death to the person owed restitution.

Saving the child is an instinct that is favored by evolution. Those who have these gut feelings to save their children, even to die for them, are more likely to propagate their genes.

Actually, in strictly evolutionary terms, it would make more sense for you to deliberately kill the child if it is not your own because that would reduce future competition for your own offspring. Lions, monkeys, and royalty do it all the time.

 

[vz71]

The adult who was murdered has the right to exist where they are. The fetus does not have the right to exist in the mother’s womb without her permission.

Permission was granted by the woman when sex was engaged in.

 

[mapleoak]

Well, you won’t find me doing so as murder is wrong.
However, I can already see the stage being set for that particular battle.

I know not you. I refer to those who advance the idea of “ability to communicate”.

 

[Shredderbeam]

:banghead: Yes, she did! You did not read my post carefully. It’s alienable if the woman refuses to respect others’ rights, isn’t it? Such as another human’s right to life. Hmm…

Ah, fair enough. Still, however, a contract that signs away inalienable rights is invalid without an exit clause.

:banghead: What about separation? Changed your mind?

I did change my mind on that, yes.

:banghead: The term “contract” was part of the analogy. I repeat: by having sex, the woman is signing a metaphorical contract to allow her baby to be in her womb until it is ready to come out. Got it?

No such contract was signed. For any contract to be valid, you need to hammer out the terms, and explicitly agree. To a very large portion of the human population, sex is not an alternative to signing your name.
Feste 1242:

It’s alienable if the woman refuses to respect others’ rights, isn’t it? Such as another human’s right to life. Hmm…

Rights begin at the individual, and proceed outwards. First comes self-ownership. If this is being violated, as it is in the case of a fetus being in the mother’s womb when she no longer wants it there, then you have the right to restore your body to the way you would like it.

:banghead: Let me phrase it as a question: How are conjoined twins different from a mother and her baby?

Conjoined twins share a body. The fetus inhabits the mothers body.

:banghead: NO IT CAN’T. The contract has already been signed! Metaphorically, of course.

Sex just isn’t a reasonable substitute for a signature. When signing a contract, it is very obvious that it is a contract. When you are having sex, it is not very obvious that it is a contract.

:banghead: Fine, go. You asked me why I’m not in Africa, and I told you. I don’t care in what way you choose to help others.

I’m not planning on going. I just wanted to know why you or others wouldn’t try to perform as moral of an act as possible.

Caesar:

Can I mug someone, bring them onto my property, and legitimately kill them for trespassing?

Mugging is an attack upon another’s freedom. If you want, however, you can invite them in, then tell them to get out.

vz71:

She made the decision.
It was hers to make. No one has taken anything from her, she is getting exactly what her behavior has brought about.

I say she decided not to give up that right. Or even better, that she didn’t make a decision about that right, as it was one of the last things on her mind.

Oscarthecat:

If that really is your criteria, then an unborn baby meets that criteria from the moment of conception.
Therefore, as unborn children meet your criteria, they have the same rights as all other human persons, and therefore any justification to kill them is indefensible.

It certainly does meet that criteria. However, rights proceed from the individual outwards. If the child is in my body, without my express permission, or after my withdrawal of permission, then it does not have the right to stay there. I may meekly tell it to get out, and when that is ignored, have it removed from me (if it is viable), or in the future, have it transferred to an artificial womb (which has no rights), so the child can then proceed to develop merrily.

Oscarthecat:

Your problem is that when you think about individual freedom you are only concerned about rights, but don’t appear to be aware of responsibilities. We all enjoy the free exercise of our own rights, but our rights are limited by our responsibility to respect the rights of others. When our freedom to do something conflicts with another’s right to live, then we have a responsibility to temporarily suspend the exercise of that particular freedom.

Actually, I’m glad you brought this up. Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand. I have a responsibility not to initiate acts of aggression against others.

However, I must disagree with you on one point. In certain situations, it is acceptable to defend your life with the amount of force necessary.

Oscarthecat:

I agree that the parents did not enter into a contractual agreement with the baby. But you erroneously conclude that this means that the baby is trespassing onto someone else’s property without their consent. In reality, however, the mother and father situated that baby in the mother’s body without the baby’s expressed consent, and in such a condition that the baby lacks the ability to safely leave the mother prior to reaching full term. Therefore, they are responsible for the baby’s well-being until such time that the baby can leave the womb without harm.

It does sound funny to say that the baby is trespassing, true enough. However, I would say that they still have the right to remove an unwanted guest from their bodies.

Oscarthecat:

It makes me sick to discuss a mother and child in these terms- but I’ll play your game because I have a moral obligation to make some effort to correct your flawed position in a way that you’ll understand.

It is generally accepted that when you cause harm to someone you have an obligation to make proper restitution to them. Such restitution may even result in the loss of property and the temporary surrender of personal freedoms, especially in such cases where the continued life and well-being of harmed party is directly dependent upon said restitution.For example, if someone is made to be unable to care for themself as a direct result of your actions, intentional or not, you have an obligation to make restitution to them by providing the means for them to recover from the condition you caused.

Harm to another being does not always mandate restitution. There are situations of self-defense, for example. Also, if a homeless person asks to stay in your home on a winter’s night, and you give him permission, but later change your mind, and send him into the cold to die, you are not guilty of the murder (though I would imagine you would feel awful).

If you had acted in such a way to cause them to be stripped of their ability to care for themselves, then yes, you would be responsible for them to some degree. However, since that is how they are created at conception, you have not violated their rights. Not having violated their rights, you are not responsible for them.

Oscarthecat:

Regardless, the mother is responsible for making proper restitution to the baby even if it requires her to temporarily suspend her right to freedoms which conflict with the baby’s ability to live.

I am not morally obligated to keep a homeless man in my home on a cold winter’s night.

Oscarthecat:

You don’t have the right to refuse permission when making proper restitution, especially when such a refusal would cause additional harm or death to the person owed restitution.

But there is no restitution to make, as there is none when you remove a homeless man from your home and he perishes/is injured.

Oscarthecat:

Actually, in strictly evolutionary terms, it would make more sense for you to deliberately kill the child if it is not your own because that would reduce future competition for your own offspring. Lions, monkeys, and royalty do it all the time.

Well, depending upon the species, it does vary, but in humans, the basic tendency to protect your offspring is so strong that it can override concerns for your own safety, and that of others. Obviously, this would be a great instinct to have if you wanted to guarantee the survival of your offspring.

 

[Caesar517]

If someone is on your property as a direct result of your actions (that person had absolutely nothing to do with getting there), do you believe you have the right to use lethal force to remove them if they would be able to leave on their own after a time anyway?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Caesar517:

If someone is on your property as a direct result of your actions (that person had absolutely nothing to do with getting there), do you believe you have the right to use lethal force to remove them if they would be able to leave on their own after a time anyway?

Not lethal force, no, but you certainly have the right to remove them from the premises if they refuse to/cannot leave of their own free will.

 

[Caesar517]

Not lethal force, no, but you certainly have the right to remove them from the premises if they refuse to/cannot leave of their own free will.

What if the person is not able to leave at the time and you forcing them to leave would spell their certain death?

 

[strngrnrth]

Not lethal force, no, but you certainly have the right to remove them from the premises if they refuse to/cannot leave of their own free will.

Not if it would kill them.
If a man decided he could only be happy as long as he was spreading snares all over an alleyway and a woman stepped in one and was catapulted into his garden and was injured to the point of needing life support for nine months, and one day he went out and saw her there, he would not have the right to throw her right back into the alley to die. He would have an obligation to restore her health or find someone to do so, at the very least. To kill her by throwing her into the alley without life support would be simply premeditated murder. He incurred her dependency and he must take that responsibility.

 

[SanJudas]

**“Belief cannot argue with unbelief, it can only preach to it.” **-Karl Barth

“Thou shalt not kill.”

This is a direct commandment from Our Lord. It does not make a distinction between rational/nonrational, separate/non-separate beings. No one has the right to take an innocent life.

Rational beings frequently make decisions that endanger or seriously inconvenience their own lives, without in any way advancing their own survival or that of their offspring. (Simplistic example=Fireman runs into burning building to save 90-year old woman.) The natural law engraved into our hearts by God trumps evolution.

Inalienable rights are inalienable precisely because they are given by a higher authority-God. Without God, we would not even exist. God is the Prime Mover, the Uncaused Cause. Quantum physics supports this assertion–see the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

There is a God, a Creator God. He created all of us, and everything around us, and He governs His creation with His law and His justice, and His law states, “Thou shalt not kill.”