It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domes

I value a persons natural and human rights. The social contract according to John Locke and Robert Grant states that all people have inalienable human rights. John Locke theorized that all people have inalienable rights which cannot be changed. Robert Grant came to the exact same conclusion a couple hundred years later ("these rights are unalienable--that is, they cannot be taken away or even abridged"). These "social contracts" hold that a persons natural rights are inalienable and can never be taken away in any circumstance. I must object to my opponents definition of human rights as negotiable benefits. If it is a benefit and is negotiable how is it a right? It is not. This is the definition of a privilege. A right is something which can not be negotiated. A right is concrete. Therefore, a more fitting definition of human rights is as follows: "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being." Inalienable fundamental are the rights stated by the United Nations especially the ones of Article 3. (http://www.un.org...) Contention 1: Everybody has the basic right to live; no matter their actions. In 1948, the United Nations wrote a document, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 3, of this document, is as follows, "[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." These rights are universal, limitless and applied to everybody, whether the person is murderer or the victim. Or even a wife beater, or the wife. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." There is no compromising in this regard. So here is question presented, is it morally permissible for one person to take away an inalienable right of another person? No it is not. Furthermore, Robert Grant asserts that, "these rights are unalienable--that is, they cannot be taken away or even abridged." So even Pros own source supports my claim, no person can morally take away another person's inalienable rights which includes the right to life. You cannot take away a person's right to live. Contention 2: The government is the protector of natural rights not individuals. According to Robert Grant, a person is "entitled to the enforcement of these rights by the government against offending members of that society." What Mr. Grant says here is clear, a society's government is the protector of natural rights. Not individuals. This is why there are laws within society. Therefore, it cannot be morally permissible to kill in any circumstance. Contention 3: Using violence to stop violence logically does not make sense. This entire resolution is based upon using violence to solve violence. This resolution uses the single thing which it wants to prevent to try and prevent what it wants to prevent. This is circular reasoning and therefore is null and void. All morale law must abide to the laws of logic. If logically the resolution is null, then morally it must be null to. Crossex: 1) Are wife beaters people? If you answer yes to this question, then they have the right to life and therefore, it is morally unacceptable to kill them. If you answer no, then what other species are they? 2) Does the social contract protect peoples' rights? If yes, then how can you logically argue that a persons basic rights can be taken away? If no, then your entire argument is invalid because it is based upon the social contract protecting one persons rights but, not another. 3) Is the world just? If yes, then why are there people in parts of the world struggling to survive, do they not get what is due to them? If no, then you cannot value justice because there is no justice in the world. 4) Your subpoint B states that "battered women are constantly waiting for the next attack" if they are constantly waiting for the next attack how does killing a person change this reality it's still part of their permanent psyche, as explained by Dehart? 5) What psychological/physiological problems arise from killing a person and how would this affect someone throughout their life? 6) How is subpoint A even relevant? Explaining that not killing a person only incites greater anger does not make it morally permissible to kill a person. 7) If rights can be taken away, as explained in your first contention, how are they rights? 8) If you value justice how is killing a man equal to assault? Under your logic, shouldn't a wife beater be beaten not killed? 9) If I attack another person does that mark me for death because I violated the "social contract"? 10) Can you provide an exact plan of how a women should kill their husband? 11) You cited Robert Grant several times, and in specific his Humanist article (or book) in 2000, and in this Robert Grant asserts that "these rights are unalienable--that is, they cannot be taken away or even abridged." How can you utilize Grant's logic and then state that for some people these rights can be taken away? 12) Do members of society have a moral obligation to kill a killer? If yes, then how can the Catholic Church morally oppose the death penalty?