Humans Have an Inalienable Right to Death

First to adress the issue of the definition of a human right. He says that by my definition, we should not be able to drive, however this is not true. The purpose of suicide is to die, the purpose of driving is to accomplish your daily tasks. So while there is a risk of dying when you drive, you are not disrespecting humanity, you simply may be exposed to an accident. Once again we cannot prefer the motivations argument for my same argument as before, which my opponent does not address. Motivations are specific to the individual, whereas humanity is consistant. We cant say that everyone has the right to death when we use a different criterion for that right for every individual person. Next, my opponent so graciously points out that i use more than my own opinion in order to construct my arguments. The fact that i actually have merits behind what i say makes my arguments more acceptable, rather that the sole opinion of a random username on debate.org. He then states that i use an inappropriate definition of the categorical imperative. While kant did believe in our own actions and the sanctity of the individual, he also respected humanity and believed that it is wrong to disrespect it by taking your own life. Kant states this, but for more information you can refer to Micheal Sandel's book JUSTICE. He then mentions that the individual has no responsibilities to the rest of humanity, but then states that society has a role to protect the individual. If man has no obligation to fellow man, then you cannot mention society because in a world where man has no part in governing another, there is no society. We are degraded to a state of nature and anarchy. My opponent then attacks my "classic" example of the family responsibility. However he ignores the rest of the example. He says that it is the individuals decision to enter into the responsibility of a family and that he can leave those whenever he choses, however he fails to address the harms occurring to those left abandoned. While we are debating whether or not it is a right to commit suicide, there are inalienable rights that have already been stated by our founding fathers. Among those are liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If i am a wife that has chosen to pursue happiness with a family, and i am abandoned, the decisions of another are in fact affecting me. Dont let my opponent tell you that each individual man has no responsibility to anybody else, for with that he eliminates government as well as the family. He then states that this is stripping what is most important to humanity, which is false. Life is required to have humanity. If we have no life then humanity does not exist. Use Kants Categorical imperative to decide this debate. My opponent has stated an opinion and chosen to ignore my interpretation of the imperative, which i share with harvard professor micheal sandel. The choice comes down to whether or not man has any outside obligations, or if we are free to do as we chose, a question which history has answered many times with the institutions of families and governments. The choice is simple, take history, Sandel, and Kant over the opinion of my opponent.