Given my previous post demonstrating that one's "inalienable" right to life can be given or taken away based on God's whim, how in the world can you claim rights are inalienable?
There is no basis to say their preference for your suppression is not equal to your preference for your freedom except a form of utilitarian argument (which makes the right not “inalienable” but conditional).
Well, one might return to my syllogism above which you still have not addressed.
Well, regarding your syllogism, once again . . . why should I care whether or not you are equal to me, or that I don’t want to be hurt, if I want what you have and can get away with taking it?
Regarding your inalienable right to life, you are confusing the term. The right is inalienable except for God (obviously we all die).
I’m less sure of the following but: I think also that the collection of words is what is important “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” . . . this is freedom from an arbitrary government ruled by men with no limit on its power. Also, realize this grounding of rights in God was done in a political document and as a political act. We are not looking at Biblical theology here but the Founder’s explanation of their right of rebellion. The grounding of rights in God rings true but to raise the phrase to the level of scripture does not.