By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 25 March 2011
Edit Thread
sapphi_snake said:
richardhutnik said:

Society has laws against people killing people.  Why is it then suddenly appropriate for someone to kill a human, when that human is themselves?  You won't see me arguing full-blown dogmatically as an absolute against a case of someone ending up killing themselves, but I will argue that it is more important for society to work to motivate and enable people to live, and work to give people hope.  To then, allow suicide to creep in for any reason, and say, "Well that is ok..." rather than come up ways to instill hope, is a cheap copout in a set of values that comes from the inability to meet essential needs on the part of a person.  It is a resignation that YOU SUCK, and then try to justify it by claiming, "People have a right to choose..."  In short, they choose to pick something that works against a core value of humanity, that being to survive and prosper.  Where in suicide is suriving and prospering?

Those who advocate for suicide, should also admit they are pathetically weak in the face of reality and are getting pwned by things they can't handle.

Because people have a right to do what they want with their own bodies, as long as they don't harm others?

And what basis do you have for saying that "don't harm others" is a criterion for anything?  Why not allow people to harm others, if that is their will, and they have the capability to get away with it?  Who are you to say this is so?  I go to abortion, it is argued that a woman has a right to her own body, so she can do an abortion, when the unborn is not her, and doing what she wants with her own body, she ends up terminating a set of DNA code that is not her.  So, where does "don't harm others" even factor into this, if your entire basis of doing for making decisions is based up on "doing what you want"?  In the case of arguing for abortion being an option, have the life of someone being adversely impacted is said to be the main criterion.  It is said that a woman didn't ask, in the case of rape and incest, for the child, and she would be adversely impacted.  So, thus, she has every right to terminate the pregnancy, because she may not be able to become all she can be.

So, then, let's take this further.  When you tax people to do welfare, you adversely impact them.  You prevent them from being all that they could be.  So, why bother to have welfare when it means less good things for them?  Why should they be asked to pay to keep others alive, that they didn't choose to help or directly impact?  Who are YOU to tell them they should give to support people who won't take care of themselves, and very likely can be losers who got on drugs?  Who are YOU to do this?  It isn't like the rich are killing anyone directly, unless they get weapons and hunt.  But you adversely impact them by demanding they pay taxes coersively.

So there you go, why not just drop the pretenses of "so long as no one is harmed", because every action and lack of action, impacts others.  And this goes to suicide also.  Unless you want to argue the preseveration and improving of the quality of life is a standard that is very high on one's list, and humans will collectively work towards this end, then you end up having the enshrining of one's own will, and whatever it wants, so long as it has the resources to act, above everything else.  So, just go and say, "Because someone wants to kill someone, why should we interfere with this?"  And as part of this, why bother institutionalizing anyone either?  Who are you to tell that anyone is insane?