[tpaine]

Poorly expressed, but 'given away' means taken. -- You, -- and the Bush/Ashcroft 'justice dept' want to take away the people of Oregons right to end their lives in dignity, with the assistence of a doctor. -- That is the point here.

------------------------------

-- Which you then attempted to refute with the dictionary line, now abandoned in your last post. - You now admit an inalienable right can be delegated, - ie, - partially 'given away'.

Therefore, -- we, [the people] never 'gave away' the unalienable right to end our lives as per the Oregon law, nor did we delegate the power in the constitution to the justice dept to 'regulate' that right.

Get it? -- [I won't hold my breath]

Delegating is not "giving away." There is no "unalienable right to end" one's life.

Quibble about words if you like, but your religious opinion on our right to life, or on our right to end it, is not a proper basis for constitutional law. -- Exactly my original point, never refuted.

The dictionary definition of unalienable was an (apparently vain) attempt to draw your attention to the meaning of unalienable. You have apparently resolved to take refuge in asserting that delegating is the same as giving away. Perhaps you are serious.

You are beating a dead, pedantic, horse. Shifting the argument to word meanings is an empty rhetorical ploy.

[davidjquackenbush]

I will take your continued refusal to explain how you read the Declaration teaching on unalienable rights to mean that you wish this conversation to end.

I will end my part by reminding you that without a coherent account of the source of our rights, we can't very well defend them.