Thanks for your reply! I found it enlightening. I really enjoyed reading
Because they are IMPLICIT they can be surrendered by our EXPLICIT misbehavior (thieves surrender their right to property, kidnappers surrender their right to liberty, murderers surrender their right to life), but they are otherwise inalienable.
That passage is worded perfectly. What I meant my post to be about, however, is the correctness of the two phrases, and I can see your commentary touches on it.
Going off what you said, that rights are inherent, would you agree the US constitution guarantees those rights, leaving those rights still to the theorhetical field, concepts to be taught and carried out by the individual and how he has done so thus far -- on his own and in defense? If the constitution does guarantee those rights, and I think it does, I think the phrase expressing that relationship, except the happiness dilemma I mentioned in my reply to bytejockey below, is constitutional gaurantees. Even though I slept on this dilemma, still I'm without its answer.
As to Jefferson's reference to a Creator, I think it's correct because this reference places the concept right-to-life in the mental plane, where argument socially about the creation of all life is infinite, meaning that nothing external to the individual can remove what the individual determines about life's creation. This infinite arguing, or incapability of external threat removal, returns focus on the argument that all along determining life is within the individual -- because if this refocus wasn't performed, life creation would be subject to society determination (an impossibility without total tyranny) and could lead to the death of innocent life, a life who had no say in whether he wants to live. So, if the determination of life creation is individualistic, it follows all aspects of life are individualistic, that is, life is interaction on the individual level, from one individual to another individual (voluntarily, therefore mutually).
Had Jefferson not written endowed by their Creator, there would have been room for either an insertion into the constitution that states or laws up to today that state life creation determination is a man-to-man event, that is, a person saying whether a life (read: an adult) is equal his or who is on her way to becoming equal his, say, a yet-born human, is at his mercy. Assuming life on Earth wasn't tyrannical when the proposed person judging was born, his judging would defy his creation, his birth and his existence. As today stands, I assume every human who has lived, is living and is about to be created and born is in the condition individuality, without external threat.
That life creation determination is individualistic does place on the human the need for him to think and to think before he acts. Because of that thinking, each human should be happy about Jefferson's phrase regardless if he or she believes in a high being; at least the person's mother acted individualistically, giving birth to her child. On the Creator front, if there is no high being, there isn't one, but if there is a high being, there is one, one whose judgements I think are on the individual's acts, all of them, including his and her acts concerning life creation.
School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me
Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton