Life is not an inalienable right

Defense of my own arguments: Let me bring you back to my observation: "Pro must prove that it is morally acceptable to take life away or, in other words, kill." Now let's sum up the main part of the argument. My opponent's main claim is that a person's moral beliefs depend on their situation. This premise is supported by the logically comparing morals to fingerprints and claiming that everyone perceives their situation differently, therefore, in some cases they can kill morally. My main claim is that society holds a common morality. I prove this by saying that society was set up to protect peoples natural rights given to them by nature. I prove this by citing the "Morals and Criminal Law" and "The Philosophy of Law" which hold that society is held together by common morality and that this common morality is expressed through laws. Laws hold that it is immoral to kill. Thus, society holds it is immoral to kill. Therefore, members of society hold it is immoral to kill. Morals are not unique to every person. Morals are created by society. My opponents objections by stating different countries such as Britain, France, and America are all completely invalid. Why? They are completely different societies. My opponent refutes that laws and morals are connected in society. My opponents sole argument supporting this is "Laws are not based on morality they are based on a negotiable collaboration between the government and the people. This is the social contract." Here's the problem with this statement. The Social Contract relies upon natural law. Society is formed such that the government protects people according to natural law. By utilizing the Social Contract my opponent is affirming that natural law exists and therefore, the inalienable right to life exists. My opponent has neglected to explain why the government is given power, and since they brought up the social contract, I will do so. The reason for giving the government power is to go from a state of nature to a state of political order. In the state of nature, people are only limited by their own moral beliefs and their personal power. In the state of political order, people are bound by a COMMON Morality, what a central power deems to be right and wrong, aka laws. Bringing up the social contract dooms my opponents case, as they now hold the entirety of the contract to be true. My first contention cited John Locke and Francis Hutcheson. The problem with my opponents rebuttal is even through their mocking, they never proved that John Locke was wrong. Even with their jokes about chickens they never stated explicitly that individuals do not have the right to life to preserve mankind. In fact, with their satirical comments, they are affirming this thinking. (Chickens have the right to live to preserve "chicken-kind" why not man?) My opponent has never stated that all men are not equal. Therefore, all men are equal. If all men are equal then all men have equal rights. If all men have equal rights all men have an equal right to live. If all men have an equal right to live than the right to life is universal and since all men have an equal right to live, killer and victim. Then the right to life cannot be morally take away because all men are equal. Since both my opponent and I hold man's equality to be true, one person cannot morally take away a right they are both equally entitled to. As for my interpretation about the right to life, my opponent defines life as "simply the right to live." Well the right to live is the same as the right to not be killed. As if you are living you have the right to not die. And if you have the right to not be killed you are alive. My opponent claims that only, "Most people in a democracy have agreed" on this universal concept. But, they are wrong. Most people have not agreed SOCIETY has agreed on this through the Social Contract my opponent has brought up above. My opponent was the one who, by arguing with the Social Contract, brought and now agrees that natural law exists. Since, we hold this true, my opponent is agreeing that society follows a common morality, what a central power deems to be moral. This common morality is expressed through laws. Because people live in society people, therefore, agree to a common morality expressed through these laws. Since we hold this true, society holds killing is not morally correct. Therefore, it is not morally correct to kill, my opponent has not proved to the contrary.