The Right to Life is a Negative Right

RebuttalAs PRO has brought in new sources in his closing, I will also do the same.R1) PRO has dropped the fact that he has brought out a false trichotomy, that of 1) Life, 2) Death through Action, and 3) Death through Inaction. This trichotomy leads PRO to the erroneous conclusion that the right to life is a negative right, when in reality it is a negative AND a positive right.I believe in the natural duality of life and death. If your right to life is violated, it doesn't matter how you died, i.e it doesn't matter if you died via action or inaction...what matters is that you're dead, and you shouldn't be. Again, this is consistent with the definition proffered in round #1:"The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not to be unjustly killed by another human being."...because death caused by inaction (i.e. negligence) is also killing. R2) PRO states, without any sources, and without any corroboration, that "Negligent homicide is caused by an action that is conducted in a negligent manner." This is simply wrong. Negligence is the "failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances", i.e. the failure to act. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). There are many, many cases of negligent homicide where it is through INACTION that the charge is levied:- A mother leaves her infants in her SUV with the heater running, and forgets about the kids while she has sex and smokes pot - she did not act to save her kids, and so she was charged with negligent homicide. (http://www.therepublic.com...)- In the military, it is clear in the UCMJ "That the act or failure to act of the accused which caused the death" constitutes negligent homicide. (http://usmilitary.about.com...)PRO is simply incorrect in his baseless assertion otherwise.R3) PRO stated a case of a mother charged with what he calls "felony neglect" in the death of her son caused by her inaction, thinking that it's different from negligent homicide. PRO is just playing meaningless semantics games. Negligent homicide can either be a felony or a misdemeanor. This is clear in my sourced definition of "negligent homicide" provided in the prior round. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...)R4) PRO breached civility with a personal attack: "This is a pathetic game of semantics, and my opponent is losing because of the definition that he set for himself."This debate has only one parameter for scoring, CONDUCT. CON has breached civility with this baseless and unwarranted attack against my person and an insulting mischaracterization of my arguments. I ask for conduct for PRO's incivility.As it is, I do think I have won this debate.ConclusionWhile my opponent's opening rounds were clear and concise, he has since replaced them with mockery and ridicule. This debate was not a troll debate, and I do not appreciate my opponent segwaying into of all things his favorite pizza toppings. Had PRO thought his case untenable, he could have gracefully conceded, and thus this debate would not have been scored. As it is, I ask that conduct be scored against my opponent.Most of PRO's arguments do not hold water:1) PRO is using a false trichotomy, that of 1) Life, 2) Death through Action, and 3) Death through Inaction. It is this false trichotomy that leads him to think that the right to life is only a negative right.In reality, the right to life is a negative AND a positive right, because it doesn't matter how your right to life is violated...all that matters is that it is violated if you die. This places the right to life in the proper and natural duality of life and death.2) PRO obfuscates and confuses the definition of simple words like "negligence". Negligence does not involve action. If one's right to life can be violated through negligence, then the right to life cannot be a negative right. Why? As defined in round #1, a negative right is "a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group," meaning that PRO thinks that inaction upholds the right to life. However, through negligence, we actually see that the right to life as stated in round #1 is clearly violated through inaction, as negligence can easily result in one "be[ing] unjustly killed by another human being." Recall that negligent homicide involves killing, i.e. killing through inaction.Therefore, the right to life is not a negative right...it is a negative AND a positive right. PRO's position is untenable, as he does not accept the right to life being a positive right, that one must act to prevent negligent homicide. All evidence brought forth in this debate has proven him wrong.3) Negligence is immoral - using the most pertinent example, it's impossible to consider willfully negligent parents as "morally" allowing their baby to die.If negligence is immoral, then framing the right to life as a negative right is immoral. It becomes a false statement - the right to life is a moral principle, but when put into the framework of negative rights, no longer is a moral principle.PRO has not challenged this conclusion from my prior round, and so the conclusion stands.The resolution is negated - the right to life is NOT a negative right - it is a negative AND a positive right. I thank everyone for reading this debate, and remind voters that the only category for scoring is conduct, and PRO did indeed breach civility in this debate by lobbing a personal attack and by ending on a trolling note.I also remind PRO that he agreed upon accepting this debate to simply state "This round left blank" in his final round.