The "right to life" does not refer to a right to everlasting life ...

I don’t recall insinuating that the phrase did.

... it is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live ...

Yes, it’s a belief, nothing more. Some do not share it; so what good will belief do one in those circumstances?

... particularly that a human being has the right not to be murdered by another human being.

So, an individual must never resist an attack? Someone who is ferociously beating on my child hasn’t earned a similar response from me? Is it somehow different when the state sanctions the killings, such as in wars and capital punishment?

Regarding your three statements, it appears that you have somehow inferred from my post that I have concluded that the concept of rights has no value at all. Far from it—and I thought I’d made that clear. Some killings are justified, some are not. There is such a thing as taking advantage of a person, in part or in toto—sometimes even consensually. And ownership is a concept best thought of as limited even under optimal circumstances, since when we die we don’t take anything physical with us.

Rights and values and morals can be extremely useful concepts—but many humans mistakenly think they are universally shared, and encompass far more than is possible, let alone rational.