Your run-on and ungrammatical sentences are very hard to follow. Apparently you seem to be saying that you are pro-life, but you want someone to be able to kill you if you want to die but can’t do it yourself.
You mock wagglebee for being pro-life and pro-death penalty (I think that’s what you’re saying) and yet you claim that you are pro-life and pro-death penalty.
Your thinking seems disordered.
For the record, it is obvious that executions for capital crimes is not incongruous with the right to life. One forfeits that right to life when he deprives someone else of their life.
Here’s a less incongruent finish. I don’t mock them, I wonder what they mean when they say “INALIENABLE” with such dramatic finality as in even you can’t choose, which by extension, no one can choose, but god. Then have no pangs of conscience with the death penalty. How is the leap made. The argument for your life being forfeit in the death penalty is squashed by absolutely unforfeitable, since wagglebee was kind enough to link the Websters definition of it. I am Pro-life for abortion, the unborn child has no choice. I do. I am pro death penalty. I don’t believe i the absolutes of “inalienable” rights. I think it’s a misunderstanding on the word on their part. Like if you understood the symbol “3” to be what we all understood to be “4” your math is going to look very weird to us. You’re not wrong. We just have some problems with definitions, that make us seem disjointed.