Life is not an inalienable right

I accept the definitions presented by my opponent and I would like to put in my own observation. All I have to do is show that people's morals are subjective enough to environmental, physical and societal changes that it becomes morally acceptable for some people to kill in some situations. Let's look at morals in a basic way, just to clarify where my point is going. Someone has morals based on their perception of what is "right" and what is "wrong" in the world around us. Morals are like fingerprints in that no two people have identical sets of morals. This is due to the fact that everyone is subjected to a different group of experiences in life and everyone reacts to these experiences in different ways. So because morals are unique to every individual for this debate, as my opponent has laid it out, all I have to do is prove that one person's morals are subjective enough for them to believe they have the right to take away a life. Just because the vast majority have a different perception of the situation and therefore their morals hold that they believe they would NOT have the right to take a life does not make life an inalienable right. I will look at a few cases. A mother is watching her child die in agony and decides that it is morally better for for her to kill her child so that it does not suffer any more than allow this suffering to happen until the child's inevitable death. Let's look at a real life case. "Carol Carr, 63, was charged today with two counts of malice murder in the death of her two adult sons. Authorities in Georgia said she fatally shot them over the weekend with a small-caliber handgun in the nursing home where they were receiving care for a debilitating disease. She could face additional charges and is currently in custody in the Spalding County Jail... Huntington's disease had left her two sons, Andy Byron Scott, 41, and Michael Randy Scott, 42, helpless — they were unable to walk, feed themselves or even think clearly." [1] After watching her mother and her husband die from the disease she could not face seeing her sons go through the same thing. The emotional strain (physical change), the fact her sons could no longer communicate (societal change), and the fact that her sons were living in poor conditions (environmental change) made this women believe that it was morally acceptable to kill the sons she had raised and nursed. A dictator of a country is told rebels are planning a protest against his reign. In his position (societal) he believes that this is an attack on his countries national security and orders them to be killed. He believes he is protecting his country by upholding his stance in power. A very recent example of this is Yemen. "On Saturday, government forces attacked unarmed demonstrators camped in Sanaa's "Change Square" and the headquarters of defected soldiers. Troops loyal to Saleh launched the attack a little after midnight, opening fire with mortars and guns. Reports indicate that at least 18 people were killed and 54 injured in the assault." To the vast majority this would be an immoral act but (presumably) he believes that his actions can be justified and therefore his actions are morally correct. Another study I will look at in this round will be murders committed by those who are mentally ill. This may seem like a controversial topic to bring up but I want to use it simply to show how the moral compass is affected by "physical changes". A woman suffers from a psychological problem that means she first of all harms herself or fakes illness' in order to gain attention and care. When this method of attention seeking fails she then turns to harming children and attempting to "save" them to gain attention and credit. She believes due to her mental illness that it is morally right to kill innocent children so that she gains the attention she craves. This is her perception of "right" and "wrong". Most people would say that this situation is "wrong" but due to the "physical" change she perceives it as being "right" and therefore it is morally acceptable to kill. As a case study I will look at the life of Beverley Allitt who was convicted on May 23, 1993. She was given "13 life sentences for murder and attempted murder". I would encourage my opponent and anyone else reading this debate to read her full story on reference 3 but I will summarise it here. Feelings of rejection in her early teens led Allitt to begin harming herself and wearing bandages to fake injuries. She is recorded to have used "a hammer and glass" to cause herself harm. When Doctors became aware of her actions she felt compelled to try a new approach. She tried to become a nurse but repeated failures in exams made it difficult. When she got a temporary job in England's Grantham and Kesteven Hospital in Lincolnshire she was determined to "prove" herself. She did this by inducing a cardiac arrest in the children she cared for then alerting other medical staff and attempt to save the child's life. In her mind it was perfectly acceptable to kill these defenceless children in her care to gain a heroism status and gain attention. In prison she continued to find ways to harm herself. She was suffering from Munchausen by Proxy syndrome and according to experts consulted during her trial she could not be cured. Before I conclude this round I want to look at cases where people give up their own lives as this also proves that life is not an inalienable right and shows the subjective nature of human morals around which this debate is centred. A life can be given away in two main ways: suicide and self sacrifice. People are usually driven to suicide due to their belief that they are better off dead than alive as a result of dramatic physical, environmental and societal changes. The effects of these changes are that their moral views are altered to the point they now believe that it is morally acceptable to take their own life. Self sacrifice works in a similar way only those who sacrifice their lives are lead to believe that someone else's life is of a higher value than theirs making it morally acceptable to save the other person at the cost of their own life. While a persons unique morals can be altered to the point that they believe it is "right" to give up their own life or take another, life cannot be an inalienable right. I look forward to my opponents reply. [1] http://abcnews.go.com... [2] http://wireshire.com... [3] http://www.trutv.com...