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.

WOAH!!!

I have 3 questions for you:

What is reality?  Who determines what reality is?  Who are we as humans to determine that reality is something that we can spell out (i.e. are humans prone to error in their views on reality)?

Also, please don't tell me I'm pathetically weak in the face of reality, or that I'm getting pwned by things I can't handle (especially #2, since it is in no way whatsoever true).  I can't even imagine what you would have to say about me if you heard other things that I believe, because they are so against what humans are apparently "supposed" to believe.

If you are incapable of providing someone hope and getting them out of a situation where the feel it is better to off themselves, you are weak.  This is a statement of reality.  Anyhow, no one said human beings are particularly strong and not weak.  The "they" here refers to humanity, and its inability to instill hope and help people when things are really bad, due to their limitations.  Supporting suicide is being pwned by the nature of things, because you CAN'T offer people any other option, so you feel killing them is acceptable alternative, because saying alive is see as cruel and pitiful.

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?

Well, you're completely misinterpreting what I'm saying.  I'm not saying that I can't offer people other options, nor that I am unable to.  If they indicate that they want my help, I would be more than willing to help them get out of their current situation.  What I'm saying is I'm not going to decide FOR THEM that they want my help.  If I see somebody in a very tough situation, I'm even willing to ask them if they want help, but if they say no, I'm not going to decide for them that they are wrong and help them anyways.

Philosophically speaking, it's the best criteria to assure that society works properly, and that people can coexist, while being able to enjoy their individuality.

Regarding abortion, it's a tricky issue, which I will not discuss.. yet.

Regarding welfare, society won't work unless it's stable. It's important for all people to be well of on some level, else you have things like bloody revolutions, drugs, violence etc. And weren't you on welfare? Why are you so harsh to people who are in unfortunate situations?

Regarding your final paragraph, that's not true. Some actions simply affect the individual, not the group. It's just that some people like to make other people's business their own. The preservation and improvement of the quality of life is important, obviously. Letting people kill eahcother would destroy society. And it's a psychiatrist's job to decide which people are mentally ill and should be kept from society, else they may cause harm to others.

The problem with your argument is that you assume that the person who wants to commit suicide desires so because of rational thought, which is almost never the case. Minds are dynamic, which means that we are always changing our way of thinking. Theoretically, when you commit suicide, your are violating the rights of your future self, if you wanna get down to that.

This sense of self-entitlement is absolutely erroneous. "Violating the rights of your future self"? Such a statement is absurd. What about independence? Freedom of choice? What about your rights right then and there?

Honestly, most humans aren't even rational anyway. Look at all the conspiracy theories and apocalypse fears that have carried on for centuries. Suddenly humans have to be logical about suicide? What about hookers, why is it illegal for someone to spend money and have sex with one? What about marijuana? Why are there so many ridiculous pedophile charges from something as small as a five year old hugging a teacher? What about grade school drug policies and how 'no-tolerance' has essentially failed in adequately assessing blame among students?

When have humans EVER been rational? Why does it matter to YOU if someone you don't know simply doesn't want to live anymore? One of the biggest problems, on the non-suicide spectrum, is that you'll call all arguments for it crazy and not really listen to what we have to say. One of the posters calling pro-suiciders weak and other childish comments proves this already.