One adjective is abolishable. Which just means something is able to be abolished.
Another is abolitionidt which means in favor of abolishing.
For his own sake, no. What he did blatantly put himself in danger and finally was placed under interrogation, etc & so forth.
For the sake of science, yes. What he did, and the consequences thereof, would have publicised his struggle, especially during the age of Enlightenment. Although what he did might also have momentarily pushed people away from science in fear of the consequences of facing the church due to the harsh punishment that he was subjected to. His persistence was, in the end only healthy for the development of science in later years.
The Enlightenment appears as a need to deny the divine right of the king, so the first option offered is excluded. As such, it propagated science, democracy, social justice, a democratic government, against the absolute and ecclesiastical dogma, which includes the secularist attitude and the understanding of the world on the basis of it. By advocating a democratic government that is overthrown by the majority if it is not for the benefit of the people, it means examining and confirming the natural rights that people possess. The Enlightenment does not adopt anything without questioning, examining and scientific approach, which excludes the fourth option, while it is very much concerned with the examination of authority, since the emphasis is on the law of nature, the natural law of the authority is always examined.
The correct options are B. C. and E.
They suggest the king's control extends over nature itsself
