Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I imagine that most of the people here who are advocating suicide for everyone have never personally had to deal with the repercussions of suicide. I have seen a teenager try to commit suicide because her boyfriend broke up with her. Should she have been allowed to die because that's what she wanted? In a high profile case in my area earlier this year, a teenager jumped to her death because she was being bullied at school. When I was a detective, I had to deal with the families of countless people who committed suicide. Many of these family members ended up slipping into depression themselves, blaming themselves for the suicide or trying to convince themselves that if they had done something differently, the person would still be alive. I remember one case in particular when a man was caught embezzling money from his employer. His wife at the time had stopped working to care for their toddler. She blamed herself for the family's financial problems, her husband's criminal conduct, and his subsequent suicide. I'm sure she still blames herself to this day, and now she's raising a child alone.
Then there's also the shock of being the person to find a loved one dead. That image and the associated thoughts of having to live with the suicide of a family member is something that will stay with them the rest of their lives. They will go through the rest of their lives thinking "what if…"
Suicide is not victimless.
She ought to have the right to make her own mistakes. If she is successful in executing this decision, she certainly will never regret it. The state should have no right intervening in that. Also, your post posits that the individual should live to be the servant of those around them. Forcing someone to stay alive against their will in order to prevent that kind of emotional trauma should not be within the remit of the government. Added to that, the person committing suicide isn't actually contravening the rights of the survivor, as the survivor has no legal or moral right to have that person in their life and to place the burden of misery on the would-be suicide.
This is a question of personal autonomy, and one that should be important to all freedom loving humans, regardless of whether or not one has ever fallen prey to a bout of suicidal ideation.
The right to commit suicide seems to be a very unpopular position to take, even in supposedly 'progressive' secular democracies. Whilst the right to die for terminally ill is gathering more support in recent years, most of us still seem to balk at the notion that physically healthy individuals should have the right to determine when they've had enough and wish to choose death instead of life.
Although suicide has been legalised in many countries, there are few, if any places in the world where the right to end ones life is legally protected. Someone who has failed to commit suicide, been intercepted in the process of preparing for suicide, or has disclosed personal information to a friend can still be detained for an unlimited amount of time (sometimes measured in years), in most countries, on the grounds of protecting them from themselves. Health authorities have even been sued by the families of suicidal individuals for allowing these patients to be released for an overnight stay at home.
Although a person who has been detained as a potential threat to himself might be able to provide rational explanations for his decision, and be able to pass through a battery of psychiatric tests without being diagnosed with a mental disorder; he is still not free to adhere to his personal philosophy. In this aspect of society, the religious right is still allowed to prevail and curtail freedom that might be distasteful to its adherents.
If you accept the notion that suicide should be forcibly prevented whenever it is possible to do so, then you accept the fact that your life does not belong to you; your body and life is property of the government.
With that said, do you believe that it is right for the government to protect us from ourselves? Do you believe in offering help to those in need or forcing it upon them? If you believe in forcing people to accept 'help', do you believe that if all these solutions fail, there is ever a time for mercy and for respecting a person's wishes?
It is not the state's job to protect us from ourselves. It is the state's job to enforce the law and to prevent the weaker and weakest among us from being oppressed and harmed by those who would prey upon them. And to protect all of us from those who break the law. It is the state's job to protect our rights and liberties. But where do rights come from? The state? Or from a transcendent moral authority (God)?
Thus, who bestows the "right" to commit suicide? On what authority? If the state gives me the "right" to commit suicide, it implies that they do not have to give me that right. Or they can revoke that right. But why? On what authority can they give or NOT give me that right? Because they own me or my body, or assert authority over it?
If the state can BESTOW the right, then it intrinsically implies that they can make it AN OBLIGATION as well on the same grounds.
We don't need the state to bestow that right. There's nothing they can do to prevent you from killing yourself anyway, short of involuntarily committing you to a mental hospital and then strapping you down to a gurney 24/7.
Last edited by Led Zeppelin; 08-16-2014 at 04:55 AM..
It is not the state's job to protect us from ourselves. It is the state's job to enforce the law and to prevent the weaker and weakest among us from being oppressed and harmed by those who would prey upon them. And to protect all of us from those who break the law. It is the state's job to protect our rights and liberties. But where do rights come from? The state? Or from a transcendent moral authority (God)?
Thus, who bestows the "right" to commit suicide? On what authority? If the state gives me the "right" to commit suicide, it implies that they do not have to give me that right. Or they can revoke that right. But why? On what authority can they NOT give me that right? Because they own me or my body, or assert authority over it?
If the state can BESTOW the right, then it intrinsically implies that they can make it AN OBLIGATION as well on the same grounds.
We don't need the state to bestow that right. There's nothing they can do to prevent you from killing yourself anyway, short of involuntarily committing you to a mental hospital and then strapping you down to a gurney 24/7.
Rights are legally defined by the state, and suicide is not one of them. There is no transcendent moral authority. The government denies you the right to commit suicide, by forcibly intervening in a suicide attempt and barring access to the means of suicide.
A right cannot also be an obligation, because a right is something that you can exercise voluntarily or choose to waive. Therefore, the lack of right to suicide prevents there from being the right to life.
If you are severely disabled and incapable of doing anything for yourself, then it is impossible for you to commit suicide, unless you can induce someone else to break the law by killing you.
Rights are legally defined by the state, and suicide is not one of them. There is no transcendent moral authority. The government denies you the right to commit suicide, by forcibly intervening in a suicide attempt and barring access to the means of suicide.
A right cannot also be an obligation, because a right is something that you can exercise voluntarily or choose to waive. Therefore, the lack of right to suicide prevents there from being the right to life.
If you are severely disabled and incapable of doing anything for yourself, then it is impossible for you to commit suicide, unless you can induce someone else to break the law by killing you.
Let me repeat myself. If the state can BESTOW rights, than it can REVOKE rights. Or it can change a RIGHT into an OBLIGATION. If rights come from the state, then they are man-made and subject to man's whims and interpretatins.
A right is what the state says it is, if rights are bestowed by the state. I'm sorry to inform you, if there is no higher standard than man, then it is all the Law of the Jungle. The lack of a right to commit suicide in NO WAY prevents someone from having the right to live. What a silly assertion. I mean, what do you do with someone who is living without a theoretical right to live? How do you determine this - on what authority? Are you asserting that if suicide is illegal, then people have no right to live? Preposterous.
The Constitution centers on man's rights coming from a transcendent moral authority. You will have to excuse the majority of the country, the world, if they do not buy your assertion that God doesn't exist. You have to come to grips with the fact that YOU don't decide this for everyone. I definitely don't want to settle for the concept that my rights are bestowed by another man. And I don't want to live in a Left Wing secular humanist run society. It would be no better and possibly worse than any theocracy, judging by history.
In America, the answer is to let THE STATES decide the issue of suicide for themselves at the ballot box.
The government does not have to GIVE you the right to commit suicide. You have that power already. What the government CAN DO is make it illegal for other people to help you commit suicide, because they can penalize those people after the act. If the government can sanction assisted suicide as it sees fit, then there is no rational limit to how far it can sanction assisted death, either as a right or an obligation. But it can't sanction death as an "obligation" without being authoritarian in nature. Neither can it control the abuse of assisted suicide if the "helper" chooses to be a murderer.
Let me repeat myself. If the state can BESTOW rights, than it can REVOKE rights. Or it can change a RIGHT into an OBLIGATION. If rights come from the state, then they are man-made and subject to man's whims and interpretatins.
A right is what the state says it is, if rights are bestowed by the state. I'm sorry to inform you, if there is no higher standard than man, then it is all the Law of the Jungle. The lack of a right to commit suicide in NO WAY prevents someone from having the right to live. What a silly assertion. I mean, what do you do with someone who is living without a theoretical right to live? How do you determine this - on what authority? Are you asserting that if suicide is illegal, then people have no right to live? Preposterous.
The Constitution centers on man's rights coming from a transcendent moral authority. You will have to excuse the majority of the country, the world, if they do not buy your assertion that God doesn't exist. You have to come to grips with the fact that YOU don't decide this for everyone. I definitely don't want to settle for the concept that my rights are bestowed by another man. And I don't want to live in a Left Wing secular humanist run society. It would be no better and possibly worse than any theocracy, judging by history.
In America, the answer is to let THE STATES decide the issue of suicide for themselves at the ballot box.
The government does not have to GIVE you the right to commit suicide. You have that power already. What the government CAN DO is make it illegal for other people to help you commit suicide, because they can penalize those people after the act. If the government can sanction assisted suicide as it sees fit, then there is no rational limit to how far it can sanction assisted death, either as a right or an obligation. But it can't sanction death as an "obligation" without being authoritarian in nature. Neither can it control the abuse of assisted suicide if the "helper" chooses to be a murderer.
I'm asserting that if one does not possess ultimate ownership of one's body, then there is no right to life, only the obligation to live. Something cannot be, at the same time, a right and an obligation. The rights of others are curtailed when it comes to allowing you to exist, but that is because the state protects its property from damage, no matter where that threat comes from.
Yes, the majority of the world's population still believes in myth. Mankind has ascribed moral authority to many Gods over history, who are no longer worshipped. Hopefully the ones that are currently in vogue will also be made extinct, but this time without being replaced by different supernatural beings. Many religious believers believe that the church and state should remain separate, and I believe that the US constitution was established to guarantee this. You can worship whichever God you wish, but should have no right to expect the government to act as [your preferred] God's Earthly custodian.
The government is required not to interfere with the individual's choice to terminate one's existence, before Being physically capable of suicide confers upon you the right to commit suicide no more than being physically capable of murder confers upon you the right to murder.
Forcing life upon its subjects as an obligation is authoritarian in nature. Allowing others to assist one another in acting lawfully (suicide is a lawful act, even if not a legally protected one) with appropriate safeguards in place would give people back ownership of their lives. If we are God's property, then let God physically intervene himself. The government has no place in asserting what it presumes to be God's will.
People should be able to take their own lives in a humane way in the most peaceful way they can if they so choose. I don't know who the government or anybody else is to essentially tell people "you can't take your own life because you're only depressed, you're not dying". People who agree with that have likely never experienced severe depression and don't know how agonizing it is to live day to day knowing one will never be happy no matter what they do or try. Don't even get me started on people with debilitating or terminal illness. Especially when one is essentially alone with no support system in the first place. Not everybody wants to fight for the rest of their life to survive. Not everyone even has it in them.
The government the least of all shouldn't have a say in the first place. They don't care about us except as a meal ticket. And the way so many people are pumping out more kids than they can afford these days anyway, who will likely grow up to be more low-wage peons for the government to exploit, it shouldn't be an issue anyway.
Although a person who has been detained as a potential threat to himself might be able to provide rational explanations for his decision, and be able to pass through a battery of psychiatric tests without being diagnosed with a mental disorder; he is still not free to adhere to his personal philosophy.
Actually, this never happens. If you are suicidal, by definition you are mentally ill. If you want to die, nobody is going to check to see if you have a rational explanation, and to be honest, you're very unlikely to be able to give one at that moment.
With that said, your life is really your own to do away with, and nobody can take that away from you -- but the catch is always that probably (no matter what you believe at the moment you hold that gun to your head) someone else is going to be devastated that you went through with it. Part of being actively suicidal is deciding that nobody cares and/or that you are more of a burden to others than you are worth. That can take years of convincing and isolating yourself, but once you've done it, you're ready to go ahead -- and you're also probably delusional, even if it's only on that one important point.
Actually, this never happens. If you are suicidal, by definition you are mentally ill. If you want to die, nobody is going to check to see if you have a rational explanation, and to be honest, you're very unlikely to be able to give one at that moment.
That's your religious indoctrination speaking. Life is too sacred and precious a gift from God for there to be a rational reason to want to end it. Even if you have a hopeless medical diagnosis or suffer from excruciating pain, you are insane for wishing it to cease. Perhaps you also think that homosexuality should still be included in the DSM.
Anyway, my point was that, as you've said, the police will not take into account whether or not you are able to provide a rational account as to why you have attempted suicide. You are the government's property, and their job is to protect it from damage. But normally, the prejudice of the mental health professionals will misguide them towards diagnosing a mental illness.
For what it's worth, the police interfered just before I was about to commit suicide (won't go into details, but it had to be a public act). They gave me an ultimatum of either facing charges of breach of the peace or I would have to agree to be incarcerated in a psychiatric unit. I had to undergo questionnaires from several nurses and doctors and not one of them actually diagnosed me with a mental illness, and I was told that I was not suffering from depression and have never been put on medication. I was imprisoned within the psychiatric unit for around 72 hours and then had to attend follow up appointments every couple of weeks. So I just made sure that I sounded a little bit more positive each time I visited.
Never think about suicide because:
-This is weakness;
- One can postpone it and do it later;
- God send you to the Earth to be strong and kind and to help other people. You aren't to disturb his plan;
- God never tests a man harder than he can bear.
What suicide has to do with religion is beyond me other than that there are religious folk who simply do not like the idea that someone may off themselves as it further proves that their divine construct is faulty, is cruel. All that moralism is to edify those who believe just enough to hang on in there until they naturally meet St. Peter or whomever.
But all that is for the religion forum.
The simple reason suicide is illegal is because anything that harms the welfare of society and of the State must be made to appear wrong and unjust, especially if committed upon oneself. Offing oneself causes one's society to come off as onerous and hurtful, uncompassionate and unfulfilling. The State doesn't want to lose a member that contributes or is available in some capacity to contribute or at least confirm that its ways are fair and just. Neither wants to come off as cruel or appear wrong and so suicide is given a set of silly moral/criminal judgments simply to pacify those no longer interested in being a part of the world in a very serious way. All these prohibitive laws (Really, as if a suicidal decision made honestly would weigh them) may be fine for the young and dramatic, but read them off to the terminal cancer patient or MS sufferer or those who can no longer enjoy life.
Then there is the concept of property, which is where this thread originated perhaps? Well, if a person genuinely wants to leave we tell them they are owned by the State and so cannot? Fascinating. Great for the young and dramatic, not so for anyone else who may or may not be suffering from a physical illness. At any rate, no one belongs to another in any way, shape or form and there are times when others simply do not or cannot suffice. Life is just life and proprietary legislation will never change the fact that some want out as the pain cannot be assuaged.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
