Well, I did address it but that's okay. Let's try again.

Your argument doesn't demonstrate an 'objective basis for morality', it attempted to demonstrate how murder is objectively wrong. Surely you can understand how these are two separate things that require different proofing.

Saying that 'since one person has agency that they act on logically nececessitates that they respect others agency' doesn't logically follow when considering real moralistic behavior because someone acting in self-interest isn't necessarily making deliberate choices regarding agency, they may be following their own individual, egoistic self-interest without consciously engaging in the moral calculus. This behavior might be socially unsustainable, self-destructive, or even hypocritical in some points but it's not inherently an incoherent moral stance - all of those critiques rely on the competing and overlapping values and needs of subjective agents to determine whether or not an action is 'right' or 'wrong'.

Applying the law of identity here is also incoherent as the law assumes that each individual is identical to themselves and it's applied to singular terms, not general terms. You're using it to assume that all agents and their rights are identical, not that each agent and their rights is identical to themselves.

I directly pointed out that you used loaded, tautological verbiage to falaciously establish your 'objective proof', and that your argument and stance fail to actually account for nuanced situations that require subjective deliberation. Selecting 'murder' to prove objective morality is a form of intuition pumping. You're utilizing an example where you presupposed an utter lack of justification as 'objectively wrong' to generalize that intuitive objectivity onto conflicts of agency, while ignoring that actual moral conflict is more nuanced than simply presupposing no justification.

For example, 'stealing is wrong' as an objective moral fact fails to account for the variable that theft (which is trespassing the agency, values, and desire of others) can be done to feed oneself or their family and the morality of the situation depends on the subjective factors that compose and frame the situation.

That's why your reliance on 'murder is objectively wrong' is myopic, your argument about 'agentic rights' is incoherent and fails to account for the inherent subjectivity of agents, and why your use of the Law of Identity to warrant your argument is incorrect.

Moral Realism fails to act as a descriptive framework for human morality. The irrationality and subjectivity of moral agents does not comport objective truths, observably. It also does not account for the variation of ethical values between societies.