It should be obvious to a non-Christian that people are suffering everywhere. People with deformities, mental illnesses, handicaps, unattractive features, speech problems, and a host of other offensive or debilitating traits are being locked in hospitals, and some are turning to violent crime and suicide.

If, for one reason or another, whether it be a self-conscious awareness of an offending trait, a compassion for others, or even just an unbearable torment, one would rather choose not to live, why not give him/her the option of leaving the world painlessly? The heartbroken, for instance: if there is such agony in being single and lonely, then why should one be made to endure it?

I have grown to suspect that the common argument that individual's lives are precious and sanctified is nothing but hogwash, a lie intended to cover up the true motivation of doctors, psychiatrists, and other providers of health care services, as well as that of the more sadistic among the American public, which includes the desire to dominate, humiliate, defeat, manipulate, and make a mockery of a suffering citizen. The forbidding of voluntary euthanasia, in this case, is merely a way to master-whip people into getting them to do what you want, justified by no moral pretense to the 'sanctity of life' but rather an instrument of pure greed, a new form of slavery.

I am therefore issuing a challenge: name the one soundest objection to voluntary euthanasia. If our life isn't precious to us, why can't we end it?

Scott H wrote:
I have grown to suspect that the common argument that individual's lives are precious and sanctified is nothing but hogwash, a lie intended to cover up the true motivation of doctors, psychiatrists, and other providers of health care services, as well as that of the more sadistic among the American public, which includes the desire to dominate, humiliate, defeat, manipulate, and make a mockery of a suffering citizen.

i would hope not. at the furthest, it may be some attempt to keep collecting money but even then that seems depraved and unlikely.

The forbidding of voluntary euthanasia, in this case, is merely a way to master-whip people into getting them to do what you want, justified by no moral pretense to the 'sanctity of life' but rather an instrument of pure greed, a new form of slavery.

I am therefore issuing a challenge: name the one soundest objection to voluntary euthanasia. If our life isn't precious to us, why can't we end it?

well, i think we have a problem with just allowing people to off themselves on momentary impulses because of suffering. we realize that we may be able to hold out and find a cure or what not, some way of making things better to allow them to continue living without the pain. in cases where there is extreme suffering and no chance of recovery or elimination of suffering, i would agree that euthanasia should be an option available to the individual suffering.

however, it could also be argued that suicide creates a burden for the rest of the community as well.

What's wrong with it? It's not legal in many countries.

wunksta wrote:

Scott H wrote:
I have grown to suspect that the common argument that individual's lives are precious and sanctified is nothing but hogwash, a lie intended to cover up the true motivation of doctors, psychiatrists, and other providers of health care services, as well as that of the more sadistic among the American public, which includes the desire to dominate, humiliate, defeat, manipulate, and make a mockery of a suffering citizen.

i would hope not. at the furthest, it may be some attempt to keep collecting money but even then that seems depraved and unlikely.

It is common in the practice of Machiavellianism (the name given to the deceptive strategies companies use to take your money) to hide one's selfish, monopolizing interior under the guise of a friendly, promising, and loving exterior in order to manipulate for personal gain. This may be just how these doctors operate: they tell you there's a God who will whisk you away to Heaven if you do all the right things, "but you need to stay alive."

Really, if they won't even let you end your own life, how much do they care about you?

I am therefore issuing a challenge: name the one soundest objection to voluntary euthanasia. If our life isn't precious to us, why can't we end it?

well, i think we have a problem with just allowing people to off themselves on momentary impulses because of suffering. we realize that we may be able to hold out and find a cure or what not, some way of making things better to allow them to continue living without the pain. in cases where there is extreme suffering and no chance of recovery or elimination of suffering, i would agree that euthanasia should be an option available to the individual suffering.

To prevent suicide on impulse, we could require a waiting period -- anywhere from one month to three years -- before the sufferer is allowed to be euthanized.

A common and misguided objection to voluntary euthanasia is that because the sufferer has a chance of recovery, it is unwise for the sufferer to forego it in the act of suicide. In truth, however, we must perform what is called a cost-benefit analysis in deciding the wisdom of leaving the world. This involves taking into account every possibility -- not just the one in which the sufferer recovers -- and the expected reward of both actions, based on these possibilities.

Sure, the sufferer might recover, but then again, you might win after paying $1000 for a lottery ticket. It may be decided by the sufferer that his or her life prospects are so grim that it simply would not be worth risking a long trial of anguish in the hope of eventual recovery. This anguish is what we want to avoid.

however, it could also be argued that suicide creates a burden for the rest of the community as well.

How so?

In order to solve the problem of the consumption of unpaid resources by the sufferer before suicide, we may, at the very least, require the payment of all outstanding debts to society before suicide is even allowed. This could be accomplished through community service. Alternatively, we could allow children to work on fun and educational projects in school that benefit society indirectly, to ease the conscience of the citizen who grows up consuming resources only to awaken into an adult life of heartbreak, boredom, and drudgery. Third, we can take measures to ensure that our economy doesn't suffer as a result of the occasional consumption of resources by one who doesn't realize that his or her life ultimately isn't worth living. This could involve activities as simple as showing compassion and making life more enjoyable for others. Finally, through voluntary euthanasia we may relieve ourselves of the burden of the genetic disability that accompanies much sorrow already. As the happier and more fit choose to remain alive, our economy might even take a boost forward.

Tbickle wrote:What's wrong with it? It's not legal in many countries.

This is an instance of the Bandwagon Fallacy (unless, of course, you are supporting it!).

Scott H wrote:
It is common in the practice of Machiavellianism (the name given to the deceptive strategies companies use to take your money) to hide one's selfish, monopolizing interior under the guise of a friendly, promising, and loving exterior in order to manipulate for personal gain. This may be just how these doctors operate: they tell you there's a God who will whisk you away to Heaven if you do all the right things, "but you need to stay alive."

Really, if they won't even let you end your own life, how much do they care about you?

while i dont disagree with anything else you said, i cant really accept this. there are fundamental mores and morals that develop in societies and one of those is being against suicide. whether or not its justified does not mean that those who oppose it are suddenly out to torture those who wish it by making them remain alive.

its just a really distorted view of humans and society. i believe that most people are trying to help and that there is no sinister plot going on. what basis do you have to accuse them of such duplicitous and insidious behavior?

wunksta wrote:

Scott H wrote:
It is common in the practice of Machiavellianism (the name given to the deceptive strategies companies use to take your money) to hide one's selfish, monopolizing interior under the guise of a friendly, promising, and loving exterior in order to manipulate for personal gain. This may be just how these doctors operate: they tell you there's a God who will whisk you away to Heaven if you do all the right things, "but you need to stay alive."

Really, if they won't even let you end your own life, how much do they care about you?

while i dont disagree with anything else you said, i cant really accept this. there are fundamental mores and morals that develop in societies and one of those is being against suicide.

Why do you think the forbiddance of suicide to those who would rather opt for it is a fundamental more of society?

whether or not its justified does not mean that those who oppose it are suddenly out to torture those who wish it by making them remain alive.

Not everyone who opposes euthanasia is consciously and deliberately out to victimize the suffering, but a number of them are. Some of them even make a festival out of it.

its just a really distorted view of humans and society. i believe that most people are trying to help and that there is no sinister plot going on. what basis do you have to accuse them of such duplicitous and insidious behavior?

Machiavellianism itself is written all over the market. People try to tell you that competition is what creates low prices. The herd buys into this maxim and follows it blindly. If you've ever been to a mental hospital, it gets even worse. Psychiatrists treat you like garbage even if you know tensor calculus.

I have stated before that it is my suspicion (in fact, my strong suspicion) that euthanasia is simply being denied so that the government can beat every hard-earned nickle out of the tortured and desperate.

Scott H wrote:

Why do you think the forbiddance of suicide to those who would rather opt for it is a fundamental more of society?

because it seems to be prevalent in other societies as a social taboo. only in extreme circumstances is it even considered

Not everyone who opposes euthanasia is consciously and deliberately out to victimize the suffering, but a number of them are. Some of them even make a festival out of it.

and what is your basis for that claim?

Machiavellianism itself is written all over the market. People try to tell you that competition is what creates low prices. The herd buys into this maxim and follows it blindly. If you've ever been to a mental hospital, it gets even worse. Psychiatrists treat you like garbage even if you know tensor calculus.

I have stated before that it is my suspicion (in fact, my strong suspicion) that euthanasia is simply being denied so that the government can beat every hard-earned nickle out of the tortured and desperate.

that seems pretty kneejerk

Scott H wrote:

I have stated before that it is my suspicion (in fact, my strong suspicion) that euthanasia is simply being denied so that the government can beat every hard-earned nickle out of the tortured and desperate.

Wow, that is an extremely cynical worldview.

As to the topic: should individuals who have minor children be allowed to kill themselves?

Scott H wrote:It should be obvious to a non-Christian that people are suffering everywhere. People with deformities, mental illnesses, handicaps, unattractive features, speech problems, and a host of other offensive or debilitating traits are being locked in hospitals, and some are turning to violent crime and suicide.

If, for one reason or another, whether it be a self-conscious awareness of an offending trait, a compassion for others, or even just an unbearable torment, one would rather choose not to live, why not give him/her the option of leaving the world painlessly? The heartbroken, for instance: if there is such agony in being single and lonely, then why should one be made to endure it?

I want to play devil's advocate here...

Heartbreak heals with time, as anyone who has suffered it for sufficent time, will know. Most of us have to suffer the heartbreak associated with the death of a loved one, or a broken relationship, for example. At such moments, life doesn't seem to be worth living... but the pain heals or lessens, with time.

What you advocate would undoubtedly increase the suicide rate by a very significant proportion, especially if the 'establishment' made it [medically] easy for them to do so.

The problem I had with your OP, is that it didn't differentiate between short-term pain and long-term pain, nor differentiate between the old and the young. Certainly, there is an arguable case for euthanasia where one is on death's door, suffering, pointlessly. But you never made that point. For you, it seems that ANYONE should have the right to end their lives, regardless of the circumstances. But that's a crazy notion, devoid of experience and wisdom.

You seriously need to amend your OP to give it any credibility.

I have grown to suspect that the common argument that individual's lives are precious and sanctified is nothing but hogwash, a lie intended to cover up the true motivation of doctors, psychiatrists, and other providers of health care services, as well as that of the more sadistic among the American public, which includes the desire to dominate, humiliate, defeat, manipulate, and make a mockery of a suffering citizen.

A particular suffering doesn't necessarily have to endure until death. That is the point that your OP failed to recognise, since most suffering is short-lived and subject to reassessment. At the time of intense suffering, we are so emotionally distraught that if there were a systematic means to just walk down the road and 'end it all', during those moments, then the suicide rate would probably become so high that it became the most significant cause of death.
I speak from experience, since there have been several times in my life when, for a brief time, I would have gladly walked to the 'depot' handing-out end-it-all pills.

The forbidding of voluntary euthanasia, in this case, is merely a way to master-whip people into getting them to do what you want, justified by no moral pretense to the 'sanctity of life' but rather an instrument of pure greed, a new form of slavery.

Bollocks. No nasty regime has EVER had any interest in sustaining and transforming the lives of rebels. They would rather that they just die, and be gone. Conform or fuck off, is the basis of any conquistador. Actually, if getting the 'serfs' to do your will is your goal, then it won't do you no good to piss them off to the point of euphanasia, since there wouldn't be any serfs left.

I am therefore issuing a challenge: name the one soundest objection to voluntary euthanasia. If our life isn't precious to us, why can't we end it?

There's a thousand untold factors at-stake, not lease of which is whether the individual concerned is 'compus mentis'.

This gibbering nonsense again. Scott H, how about you stat explaining the evils of sexual selection to us again

Mononoke wrote:This gibbering nonsense again. Scott H, how about you stat explaining the evils of sexual selection to us again

So, we meet again. What brings your worthless ad hominems to my thread?

If you'll remember our discussion on RichardDawkins.net, I never said once that sexual selection is evil. I merely said that when you live around uncaring, stupid sadists, sexual selection can contribute to evil. In reality, however, a society can be perfectly compassionate and still accept sexual selection.

wunksta wrote:

Scott H wrote:

Why do you think the forbiddance of suicide to those who would rather opt for it is a fundamental more of society?

because it seems to be prevalent in other societies as a social taboo. only in extreme circumstances is it even considered

Again, that is a Bandwagon Fallacy. Why should we go along with the cruelty of others? Isn't that what happens in gangs?

Not everyone who opposes euthanasia is consciously and deliberately out to victimize the suffering, but a number of them are. Some of them even make a festival out of it.

and what is your basis for that claim?

You see it everywhere: in jails, in slaughterhouses, in the streets, in hospitals, on news reports of children who kill themselves after being bullied, in online games, on T-shirts, on the Jerry Springer show, on America's Dumbest Criminals, and on the internet. And let's not forget our very own religion, Christianity, whose very concepts of Hyeeeaven and Hyeeeeell make use of a torture festival.

They're out there everywhere, and they're called sadists. Our clue that there are sadists in the medical community is that they won't grant us euthanasia. Why shouldn't we be allowed to decide?

Brasky wrote:As to the topic: should individuals who have minor children be allowed to kill themselves?

Excellent question. In my view, it really depends on how children would react to the idea of voluntary euthanasia. While you're growing up, life feels much different from when you have attained full maturity. With a supporting atmosphere, children may accept the idea of voluntary euthanasia as a solution to even their own suffering. Key word: may.

If they don't like the idea, then we can at least tentatively forbid parents to euthanize themselves without consent of their families, providing euthanasia instead to those who are left alone, heartbroken and desolate. At the same time, we may encourage citizens to accept the responsibilities of parenthood (staying alive for your children) before they choose to have children, thereby placing the responsibility to suffer if needed on the prospective parent, rather than the baby, as is done today.

jamest wrote:I want to play devil's advocate here...

Heartbreak heals with time, as anyone who has suffered it for sufficent time, will know. Most of us have to suffer the heartbreak associated with the death of a loved one, or a broken relationship, for example. At such moments, life doesn't seem to be worth living... but the pain heals or lessens, with time.

Unqualified statement and partial red herring. When you say, "Heartbreak heals with time," you could mean either that it always does or that it sometimes does. Compare "Apples grow from trees" to "Dogs are playing outside." The first is universal, the second is particular.

I say partial red herring because the particular pains we suffer and their relevance to our way of life really are important to a discussion of voluntary euthanasia; however, one fact alone (in our case, that heartbreak occasionally heals with time) is not sufficient to prove that the act is unwise. As I pointed out to Wunksta, in performing a cost-benefit analysis of the wisdom of the act of voluntary euthanasia, we must take into account every possibility, not just the possibility of recovery, and decide whether waiting for recovery is worth the risk.

To challenge this fact is to challenge the very basis of the probability theory we use today.

What you advocate would undoubtedly increase the suicide rate by a very significant proportion, especially if the 'establishment' made it [medically] easy for them to do so.

You bring up up a very important point. If suicide were legalized and made painless, there is a chance that suicide rates would climb and that our population would diminish. Two points need to be addressed here:

1. What would be the consequences of a decreased population count as a partial result of the legalization of voluntary euthanasia, if any, and

2. If there were a problem, why couldn't we control the population decrease by limiting, in desperate times, the number of people who can receive it?

The problem I had with your OP, is that it didn't differentiate between short-term pain and long-term pain, nor differentiate between the old and the young.

Of course I've differentiated them, even if I suggest that voluntary euthanasia may be used for what would ultimately be short-term pain as well as long-term pain. To accuse me of identifying two concepts because they have something in common would be to accuse me of committing the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.

Certainly, there is an arguable case for euthanasia where one is on death's door, suffering, pointlessly. But you never made that point. For you, it seems that ANYONE should have the right to end their lives, regardless of the circumstances. But that's a crazy notion, devoid of experience and wisdom.

But that is not (yet) what I'm claiming. Brasky brought up an important point of his own: the feasibility of euthanasia for parents of children.

You seriously need to amend your OP to give it any credibility.

Bare assertion.

A particular suffering doesn't necessarily have to endure until death. That is the point that your OP failed to recognise,

I did not fail to recognize the possibility that one may eventually recover; in fact, I just acknowledged it in a statement I made to Wunksta:

Scott H wrote:Sure, the sufferer might recover, but then again, you might win after paying $1000 for a lottery ticket.

Moving on:

since most suffering is short-lived and subject to reassessment. At the time of intense suffering, we are so emotionally distraught that if there were a systematic means to just walk down the road and 'end it all', during those moments, then the suicide rate would probably become so high that it became the most significant cause of death.

First, I have already responded to this objection in my reply to Wunksta:

Scott H wrote:To prevent suicide on impulse, we could require a waiting period -- anywhere from one month to three years -- before the sufferer is allowed to be euthanized.

Second, you suggest that if voluntary euthanasia were provided without the waiting period, it would likely become the most significant cause of death. Even so, what would be wrong with that? We all die eventually; 'death' doesn't have to be something that glares at us with malicious intent.

If 'instant' euthanasia created too much emotional distress for families and loved ones, we could at least provide a waiting period.

I speak from experience, since there have been several times in my life when, for a brief time, I would have gladly walked to the 'depot' handing-out end-it-all pills.

If you have recovered and no longer feel depressed, then I'm happy for you.

For others among us, however, we may choose to take a chance and end our lives, even if we would have recovered, for the simple fact that we might not recover. It would be an instance of the Fallacy of Retrospective Determinism to say that what does happen (e.g., eventual recovery) was bound to happen all along and that we should have known it.

The forbidding of voluntary euthanasia, in this case, is merely a way to master-whip people into getting them to do what you want, justified by no moral pretense to the 'sanctity of life' but rather an instrument of pure greed, a new form of slavery.

Bollocks. No nasty regime has EVER had any interest in sustaining and transforming the lives of rebels. They would rather that they just die, and be gone.

Of course ours does. It's called jail.

Not only in jails, but in hospitals where innocents are trapped, humiliated, and force-fed with tubes, people everywhere are denied the right to end their own lives.

Actually, if getting the 'serfs' to do your will is your goal,

And it isn't -- that would be a straw man.

then it won't do you no good to piss them off to the point of euphanasia, since there wouldn't be any serfs left.

I'm not out to enslave anyone. I just want everyone to be happy.

I am therefore issuing a challenge: name the one soundest objection to voluntary euthanasia. If our life isn't precious to us, why can't we end it?

There's a thousand untold factors at-stake, not lease of which is whether the individual concerned is 'compus mentis'.

Not 'compos mentis' or sound of mind? What's wrong? Do you want to be able to laugh at the stupid people?

Seriously, though: the case in which the individual requesting euthanasia has a mental disorder is at least open for debate alongside the case in which the requesting individual is simply a sound, competent adult who is suffering and wants to end his or her life.

In the former case, there are several facts we need to consider, including that one who has a mental disorder is himself (or herself) naturally prone to suffering and that ending his or her life upon request, with a possible waiting period, might actually be a wise choice, and also that all possibilities must be considered in the decision to provide euthanasia, not just the one in which said mentally incompetent person would somehow learn to enjoy life. The basis for these decisions lies in the theories of probability and reward expectation, which themselves lie at the heart of the concept of a cost-benefit analysis, not through 'faith that one will recover' or a 'sanctity on life' or any of the other tools used to keep people alive and torture them.

Scott H wrote:Why shouldn't we be allowed to decide?

We are allowed to decide. The choice that is presently barred to us in this context is having the state assist us in making that particular choice.

What I think you're looking for, as ever, is a way to assign responsibility to those whom you consider to be torturers. You are proposing that legalisation of voluntary euthanasia assigns proper responsibility to them. There is a class of people whom you do not want to see happy, and those are people who get their kicks from torturing others.

I don't think the denouement would be that of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, where there's some minor character to sing "All are punishéd".

If suicide were legalized and made painless, there is a chance that suicide rates would climb and that our population would diminish.

I'm not sure what you mean by "painless". Self-inflicted suicide is often not successful because the potential suicide is ambivalent. One particular pain preliminary to suicide is contemplation of all the reasons that one wants to end one's life.

Scott H wrote:

Mononoke wrote:This gibbering nonsense again. Scott H, how about you stat explaining the evils of sexual selection to us again

So, we meet again. What brings your worthless ad hominems to my thread?

Too much!

The Dawktor wrote:This place stinks of Ad Homophobia!

Cito di Pense wrote:

Scott H wrote:Why shouldn't we be allowed to decide?

We are allowed to decide. The choice that is presently barred to us in this context is having the state assist us in making that particular choice.

What do you mean? Are you referring to more gruesome methods of suicide?

What I think you're looking for, as ever, is a way to assign responsibility to those whom you consider to be torturers. You are proposing that legalisation of voluntary euthanasia assigns proper responsibility to them.

'Assign responsibility' here could mean either to scapegoat the torturers, which I am not doing, to assign them responsibility not to torture, or to assign them responsibility to help end the lives of those who are made to suffer. Can you elaborate?

There is a class of people whom you do not want to see happy, and those are people who get their kicks from torturing others.

You say I 'want' to see them unhappy; however, 'want' is a complex concept. I may want to see them suffer on the condition that they inflict suffering first, and at the same time, I may want to see them happy on the condition that they show sympathy for the suffering. It all depends on what they do. In the end, I don't want them to torture in the first place. I just want everyone to be happy.

If suicide were legalized and made painless, there is a chance that suicide rates would climb and that our population would diminish.

I'm not sure what you mean by "painless". Self-inflicted suicide is often not successful because the potential suicide is ambivalent. One particular pain preliminary to suicide is contemplation of all the reasons that one wants to end one's life.

When I say 'painless,' I'm just comparing euthanasia by pill to other, more grotesque and unreliable ways of ending one's life, such as hanging, purchase of firearms, drowning, exhaust fumes, overdose, and gasoline -- all of which have the potential to cause excruciating pain to the victim of torture, not to mention involuntary hospitalization.

Scott H wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Scott H wrote:Why shouldn't we be allowed to decide?

We are allowed to decide. The choice that is presently barred to us in this context is having the state assist us in making that particular choice.

What do you mean? Are you referring to more gruesome methods of suicide?

I'm not sure how the degree of "gruesomeness" is related to these issues. Death is gruesome to some people, perhaps many. How is that then anyone else's problem? How much effort can we expend trying to make life less gruesome for some people? What we may be getting at here is the "gruesomeness" of taking complete responsibility for one's own demise. There are existential issues involved, and I have more to say about "responsibility".

What I think you're looking for, as ever, is a way to assign responsibility to those whom you consider to be torturers. You are proposing that legalisation of voluntary euthanasia assigns proper responsibility to them.

'Assign responsibility' here could mean either to scapegoat the torturers, which I am not doing, to assign them responsibility not to torture, or to assign them responsibility to help end the lives of those who are made to suffer. Can you elaborate?

No need to. I think you have that part of the business sorted out pretty well, if you can elaborate as to how "responsibility" functions in your philosophy, or if it is a phantom, when you get right down to it. This may have to do with "causality".

There is a class of people whom you do not want to see happy, and those are people who get their kicks from torturing others.

You say I 'want' to see them unhappy; however, 'want' is a complex concept. I may want to see them suffer on the condition that they inflict suffering first, and at the same time, I may want to see them happy on the condition that they show sympathy for the suffering. It all depends on what they do. In the end, I don't want them to torture in the first place. I just want everyone to be happy.

I'm not sure that "wanting something conditionally" even makes a lot of sense. In one way it does, like hedging one's bet. I think we should strive to express honestly what we want, without regard for whether or not we can get it.

I think the statement "I just want everyone to be happy" can be shown to be aporetic. Anyway, "wanting" something (though not without its costs) is still pretty cheap. It might be interesting to explore this with you, if we can agree on what "happy" means. Me, I want everybody to have a convertible, a lake house, and a puppy. This would not make everyone "happy" because some people think that fulfillment can only be recognised in relation to deficiency.

If suicide were legalized and made painless, there is a chance that suicide rates would climb and that our population would diminish.

I'm not sure what you mean by "painless". Self-inflicted suicide is often not successful because the potential suicide is ambivalent. One particular pain preliminary to suicide is contemplation of all the reasons that one wants to end one's life.

When I say 'painless,' I'm just comparing euthanasia by pill to other, more grotesque and unreliable ways of ending one's life, such as hanging, purchase of firearms, drowning, exhaust fumes, overdose, and gasoline -- all of which have the potential to cause excruciating pain to the victim of torture, not to mention involuntary hospitalization.

Well, there we are again, dealing with "gruesome" and "grotesque" problem. This needs to be explored. Would you like to talk about it? Having a horror of something may be a sign of health or illness, at least in some schools of psychoanalysis. (Parenthetically, I might as well regard psychoanalysis as another species of religion. More about that, later, if need be.)

It could be that "painless" and "routine" voluntary euthanasia would take down many more generally happy people than perennially unhappy people. I think everybody gets the yen to top themselves from time to time, and that many unhappy people don't really want to kill themselves because they find it "fun" to try to make happy people miserable with their woe. I think that most people who really want to kill themselves find some way of making it happen.

I don't see why people who supposedly want to commit suicide by themselves really care about it being legal or not, unless you're a moron who can't even kill yourself properly. Unless of course, what you really want is to pass the blame onto others. If some one wants kill themselves stop complaining about it and just go fucking do it in some corner.

Mononoke wrote:I don't see why people who supposedly want to commit suicide by themselves really care about it being legal or not, unless you're a moron who can't even kill yourself properly. Unless of course, what you really want is to pass the blame onto others. If some one wants kill themselves stop complaining about it and just go fucking do it in some corner.

I'm pro-choice on this issue, by the way. He he.

Scott H wrote:

wunksta wrote:

Scott H wrote:

Why do you think the forbiddance of suicide to those who would rather opt for it is a fundamental more of society?

because it seems to be prevalent in other societies as a social taboo. only in extreme circumstances is it even considered

Again, that is a Bandwagon Fallacy. Why should we go along with the cruelty of others? Isn't that what happens in gangs?

you seemed to have distorted the question you asked and the answer i gave. you asked why i thought the forbiddance of suicide was a fundamental more of society, and i provided my answer.

Not everyone who opposes euthanasia is consciously and deliberately out to victimize the suffering, but a number of them are. Some of them even make a festival out of it.

and what is your basis for that claim?

You see it everywhere: in jails, in slaughterhouses, in the streets, in hospitals, on news reports of children who kill themselves after being bullied, in online games, on T-shirts, on the Jerry Springer show, on America's Dumbest Criminals, and on the internet. And let's not forget our very own religion, Christianity, whose very concepts of Hyeeeaven and Hyeeeeell make use of a torture festival.

They're out there everywhere, and they're called sadists. Our clue that there are sadists in the medical community is that they won't grant us euthanasia. Why shouldn't we be allowed to decide?

so youre opinion is that as soon as we pass a legal ability for euthanasia to occur, all the medical doctors and nurses suddenly ARENT sadists any more?

that seems like a ridiculous assertion

I feel that if a person wishes to end their life, that is their decision. I don't feel it makes much sense to classify such an individual who decides to as a criminal (as suicide and euthanasia are currently illegal to my knowledge in America and most places?). I'm not saying any government or authority should support it, but rather be neutral in it.

Also, if they choose to voluntarily accept euthanasia, it shouldn't be any other individual (ie: family member, medical professional) doing it unless they are personally comfortable in doing so, IMO. That said, why not give the patient who wishes to do so a remote with a button or something that they push themselves which results in the eugenic medicine or what have you to enter into their system.

Just my thoughts and current conclusions on the topic. I can't think of anything wrong with voluntary euthanasia, and am equally open to hear any arguments against it as well.

JWG

Mononoke wrote:I don't see why people who supposedly want to commit suicide by themselves really care about it being legal or not, unless you're a moron who can't even kill yourself properly. Unless of course, what you really want is to pass the blame onto others. If some one wants kill themselves stop complaining about it and just go fucking do it in some corner.

I think the apparent answer is killing oneself may be more painful and less successful than a method devised by a professional.

There is something about the phrase, "fucking do it in some corner" that is quite harsh and seemingly unsympathetic. I find it difficult to comprehend having no sympathy for those who feel so unhappy that they are contemplating and/or desiring suicide.

What of the individuals who would encourage others to kill themselves?

If you find no value to your life, why not give it to someone else, volunteer as an aid worker.

Build houses, treat the sick, do something good with your life if you're still physically capable of using it.