[MHGinTN]

You wrote : "IMHO when the term "Life" was used it meant not life as in the biological sense, e.g. growing, breathing, responding to stimui, etc. Instead, it meant life as a person's/personal activities, fortune and/or manner of being. That my life belongs to me, and your life belongs to you and John Doe's life belongs to him -- not to any prince, king, czar, emperor, etc. to whom subjects, not individuals, to be moved around, dictated to, disposed of however the sovereign wished." I would disagree, and the evidence of the intention to address the unalienable right to LIFE (to be alive) is found in the Constitutionally asserted 'due process' renderings. It is first wrong for the government to deprive a person of LIFE 'without due process of law'; the other personal rights are addressed following that first wrong.

[yankeedame]

"...not to any prince, king, czar, emperor, etc. to whom subjects, not individuals, to be moved around, dictated to, disposed of however the sovereign wished." I would disagree, and the evidence of the intention to address the unalienable right to LIFE (to be alive) is found in the Constitutionally asserted 'due process' renderings....

=================

Of course, my friend, of course. But isn't "to be alive" part and parcel of (being master of) one's own life?

Also, an "unalienable right to life" is neither in the Declaration nor in the body of the Constitution, but rather it is found in the Fifth Amendment which deals with, as you said, judicial process; not a person's "right" to his own life.

Still and all, this all could be just tilting at windmills on my part. Heaven knows, I've been wrong before, and will doubtlessly stumble and land smack on my nose many more times in the future.

"Hier steheich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir."