rights come with life and end with life. when one commits suicide, one is terminating one's life and terminating his rights to life at the same time! so a hero who comes to save your life is NOT violating your right to commit suicide, a NON-right. rather, he's saving your life, restoring your rights to life at the same time. a saved person cannot go to a court to sue the hero! the court will throw out the case immediately. why? if not for the hero, you'll be a dead body! one has every right to handle one's body to the very point that one's life is not endangered. thus taking drugs and putting on tattoo are valid rights! but suicide is not! thus folks who are for euthanasia should not invoke the right to finish own life as the legit argument. since i can't find a legit reason to rationalize euthanasia without great conflicts of interests, i don't support euthanasia. this is all my essay is trying to say! please focus on my logic. i know you hate my conclusion. trying to prove that taking own life is a valid right first. i'm confident you can't! http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...nt-on-Ron-Paul-s-Pro-Life-and-Anti-Euthanasia
to clarify things, to my understanding
1. RIGHTS are everything one can do to himself or his property in order to LIVE without hurting others.
2. SUICIDE is to DIE. so suicide is NOT a RIGHT. suicide is self-destruction. that's why the hero saving someone's life against will is NOT violating his rights.
3. SUICIDE is NOT a CRIME, because suicide doesn't hurt other people. CRIME by definition is hurting others. that's why in modern days we never punish a person who failed a suicide.
4. SUICIDE is the only exception among all the things you can do. all the other actions are your rights, which can't be interfered by anyone. SUICIDE is something you can do to yourself, but it can be intervened by other people! that's why suiciders will always try to do it when nobody can stop him. you don't need to worry about other people stopping you reading a book?
5. SUICIDE is to DIE. so SUICIDE will terminate you and all of your rights at the same time. your properties will be passed onto other people. your body will be buried or burned. an action that terminates all rights cannot be a right logically. someone saving your life is restoring your life and restoring your rights at the same time. so it'll be absurd for you to charge the person for any damage. because if not for him, you'd already be terminated.
6. to die is to terminate someone's life and all of his rights. so a contract agreed upon willingly between two parties with one party set to kill the other party is a VOID contract. because the split second when the contract is executed, one party's life and rights are all terminated. so breaching the contract actually restore his life and his rights, while fulfilling the contract will terminate his life and all his rights. so what's the point of fulfilling the contract? anyone is free to stop the contract from executing. stop the contract from executing is saving the party to be killed!
7. if we agree to the above points that suicide is not a right with all its consequences and a contract for one party to kill another is a VOID contract. we should not invoke the non-existent right of suicide to rationalize euthanasia. we must come up with a better logic to prove euthanasia is rational especially when euthanasia involves other people to take one's life usually with a signed agreement.
i'm NOT a lawyer. i arrived at the above conclusions based on pure logic. let's have a meaningful discussion. please do not attack me personally.
to clarify things, to my understanding
1. RIGHTS are everything one can do to himself or his property in order to LIVE without hurting others.
2. SUICIDE is to DIE. so suicide is NOT a RIGHT. suicide is self-destruction. that's why the hero saving someone's life against will is NOT violating his rights.
3. SUICIDE is NOT a CRIME, because suicide doesn't hurt other people. CRIME by definition is hurting others. that's why in modern days we never punish a person who failed a suicide.
4. SUICIDE is the only exception among all the things you can do. all the other actions are your rights, which can't be interfered by anyone. SUICIDE is something you can do to yourself, but it can be intervened by other people! that's why suiciders will always try to do it when nobody can stop him. you don't need to worry about other people stopping you reading a book?
5. SUICIDE is to DIE. so SUICIDE will terminate you and all of your rights at the same time. your properties will be passed onto other people. your body will be buried or burned. an action that terminates all rights cannot be a right logically. someone saving your life is restoring your life and restoring your rights at the same time. so it'll be absurd for you to charge the person for any damage. because if not for him, you'd already be terminated.
6. to die is to terminate someone's life and all of his rights. so a contract agreed upon willingly between two parties with one party set to kill the other party is a VOID contract. because the split second when the contract is executed, one party's life and rights are all terminated. so breaching the contract actually restore his life and his rights, while fulfilling the contract will terminate his life and all his rights. so what's the point of fulfilling the contract? anyone is free to stop the contract from executing. stop the contract from executing is saving the party to be killed!
7. if we agree to the above points that suicide is not a right with all its consequences and a contract for one party to kill another is a VOID contract. we should not invoke the non-existent right of suicide to rationalize euthanasia. we must come up with a better logic to prove euthanasia is rational especially when euthanasia involves other people to take one's life usually with a signed agreement.
i'm NOT a lawyer. i arrived at the above conclusions based on pure logic. let's have a meaningful discussion. please do not attack me personally.
Last edited:
