Can a person forfeit his or her right to life?

[Redalgo]

I reject the notion of natural rights but my stance is no person ought to be killed unless they are presenting an imminent and serious, if not deadly threat of inflicting bodily harm on another, and no non-lethal steps can reasonably be taken to avert said threat. I'm strongly opposed to capital punishment. Prisoners in custody are unarmed civilians states aren’t obliged to abuse or execute.

If some individuals are too dangerous to be set loose in society at large then isolate and secure them - reducing their personal autonomy to the extent necessary to prevent them from inflicting further harm onto others. I think there are good reasons to limit individual freedom, yet few (and even then only under specific sets of circumstances) for taking the life of a person without their consent. To answer the OP's question though... a person technically can forfeit their right to live.

[Redalgo]

No one has an inherent "right to life." The state grants it and can take it away, like with all "rights."

Ah ha.  I chose the title intentionally to see if anyone would challenge me on that assertion.  I agree that what we usually think of when discussing "rights" are merely privileges enforced by the state.  But let's discuss rights on a more philosophical or fundamental level.  If there is no concept of a right to life, can one not rationalize murder?  If a person has no right to live, why shouldn't they die?

The way I see it, all killing can be rationalized. It is neither innately good nor bad for one to live or die. All rights are privileges... but we have many of them nonetheless since establishing and then enforcing a social contract of sorts among people is conducive to the advancement of most of their respective, rational pursuits of self-interest.

It is as if everyone plays a game and "rights" are the most basic guidelines everyone is expected to abide by ito enhance the overall quality of experience for those who participate. The goals underlying the rules and their exact stipulations vary from one culture to the next, but the point is people fabricate rights for themselves and use them as tools for improving the overall qualities of their lives. They are useful adaptations in the evolution of society. Deeming rights inalienable or absolute is merely an outmoded way to shore up the legitimacy of rules when, in fact, there is no such thing as good or evil outside the mind. We've to decide upon, claim, and defend those rights we wish to enjoy unless we are willing to let everyone do anything they want however they want.

Or at least those are my initial thoughts while considering the matter. What do you think, Yelnoc?