Your right to life is not separated from your right to defend that life.
 

What do you think?

The same right, or two different rights which infringe on each other?

I believe they are two separate rights. Call them inalianable rights if you like.

I believe that you have the right to life, but that when your life is put in danger, you have to choose if your life is more important than the person who is putting your life in danger. In effect, you must decide if your right to defend your life is more important than the other persons right to live - if it comes to a mortal struggle.

For example, acts of heroism occur every day. That is one person putting someone else's right to life above their own. Often this involves the hero not being in a position to defend their own life because they have put the needs/rights of another person above their own.

If you don't have the right to defend yourself, then you're living only at the mercy of others.

Of course you have the right to defend yourself. You also have the right to choose how you do so. You have the right to choose if you do so at all, or if you put the rights of others above your own.

My question is not whether you do or do not have the right to defend yourself. It's whether it's separate from your right to live or not.

For example, just because someone kills you doesn't mean you didn't have the right to live. It just means you're now dead.

If you had acted on your right to defend yourself, then you might not be dead, or you might still be dead.

Just because you don't achieve your desirable outcome by excercising your right/s doesn't mean you never had them.

None of that changes my answer - they are the same right. Your own personal beliefs and ethics may dictate your actions, but that's not what you asked about.

I voted true, because. If I have a right, I have the right to defend it. IMHO bb

when someone chooses to threaten your life, they implicitly put their rights above yours. self defense of your right to live by any and all means available is the only logical response. you seem to have overlooked that little item.

That's true Jim, but I didn't overlook anything. In fact, I've posted almost exactly the same scenario in another thread.

The issue is not whether either is a right. It's whether you can separate them or not.

What about pacifists who choose not to defend themselves? Are they excercising their right not to defend themselves rather than not excercising their right to life.

a pacifist that chooses not to defend their life is deciding that being a pacifist is more important than living....it's their right to defend or not.

i think you're actually discussing the decision to act on your right...your right to defend the life that is yours by rights........it's all the same right. the choice does not effect it.

So you agree they have a right to defend themself or not?

I think I know what I'm discussing. I just don't understand why it's hard for you to understand.

Do all rights to do with the person belong to the same right? What about the right to breath fresh air? Is that the same right? Just because if you don't breath you'll die doesn't mean you've decided not breathing is more important than living. It simply means you decided not to breath as is your right, and a consequence of that is dying.

they have the right to choose to defend their right...or not, yes. it's all part of the same right to live. its a right, after all...not an obligation.

Can someone take away your life?
Can someone take away your right to life?

Can someone take away your defence of your life?
Can someone take away your right to defend your life?

Two different rights that do not infringe on each other.

I don't think it really matters as long as you die only once.

So you think the statement is false Merc? If so, can you tell me why you think that?