the right to commit suicide is not a RIGHT! - everyone should understand this!

[Christian Liberty]

I think you should be allowed to protect somebody from themselves, a lot of times people rethink things after and end up doing fine. If they really want to, they can try again later, nobody is really stopping you unless you get caught in the act. But stopping somebody from killing themselves is not a violent act.

What I don't agree with are laws that criminalize people who try to commit suicide. It should be completely legal.

This is essentially where I stand.

 

[judejin]

for the record, i do support the following voluntary exchanges:1. prostitution. 2 sell organs. but one cannot sign a contract with a doctor to euthanize oneself. this contract is void. because this contract terminates one party's life and thus terminates all his rights to life. anyone is free to challenge it. for example, a relative who wants to keep a person in vegetarian state, but is out-voted by doctors and other relatives. this relative can take the patient and hide him in a secret place. this relative commits no crime. euthanasia basically allows a panel of doctors and relatives to decide the fate of a patient in vegetarian state. be careful about what you wish for. many patients in terminal diseases are easily swayed by doctors and relatives because the patient is both physically and mentally weak!

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I'd kill anyone trying to keep me in a vegetarian state.

 

[osan]

That is absolutely terrible! Why would you kill someone for saving your life? That's called murder.

If I decide it is time to die, do you assume I have arrived at that decision casually? If so, it is the worst assumption you could make. I will speak for nobody else, but as for myself such a decision would be serious as a heart attack. Given this, I would be in no humor for unsolicited third-party interference. I would, in fact, be hostile toward it in the extreme, which is well within the limits of my rightful claims. Therefore, given the obviously grave nature of the decision and the circumstances that almost certainly attend such somber choices, interference is rightly met with absolute intolerance and the retributions exacted would be one's just right.

Retribution in this context is not taken because someone saves the life of another per se, but because they interfered uninvited in an affair of such a gravity that no man is warranted in indulging himself in acts that amount to nothing better than the childishly self-absorbed aggrandizing of his own ego.

How do you reconcile this with your principles?

They are in perfect harmony. There is no conflict. That you see a conflict indicates misunderstanding on your part and not an error on mine.

Not only killing someone, but doing so with a vengeance and then disgracing their body in death simply because you are alive to do so because of them is just the most absurd violation of any libertarian principles I can think of.

That is because you do not understand proper human relations, which encompass the grotesquely ugly as well as the desirably beautiful. You appear to be one of those who refuse or otherwise fail to accept that which you find emotionally disagreeable. Lacking any reasoned basis for the rejection, and being driven by pure emotion, you invariably come to the wrong conclusions, universally reject that which you find "ugly", and appear to believe you are entitled to prohibit others from acting in such ways. This renders you fundamentally no different from those against whom you presume to complain.

One is either free or one is something else.

Not only that, but it's simply stupid. Who in the hell cares that much about dying that they would want to maul someone to death simply because they saved their life?

You have SO missed the point.

Do the suicidal have no empathy for those who are not suicidal?

Irrelevant to the point under discussion.

Is life that terrible that you have to do unspeakable things to someone and kill them simply because they prolonged your life?

Nonsequitur. That aside, depending on the circumstance under which the interference occurred, I am well justified in exacting a price for another's interference in my rightful decisions.

Maybe they are an asshole, but do all assholes really deserve THAT?

I never stated nor implied any such thing. Your extrapolations are running toward the wild.

If this is really what you believe, then you are the asshole, my friend.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

 

[judejin]

anti-euthanasia is based on the logic and principle that suicide is not a right and assisted suicide creates too much moral dilemmas and fundamentally alters the roles of doctors and hospitals. modern medicine has tried its best to alleviate pains. doctors and relatives and patients themselves should unite and never sway in the fight against death. do no surrender to death. this is the only logically consistent and rational action. fight till the end is exactly defending the dignity of the patient. how can we tell how much pains is too much? in reality, there are people with unimagineable disabilities living normal life although their body doesn't look dignified at all. but living is the most dignified thing to do. (excluding hostile situation, for example soldier in captive,tortured by enemy). i hope more people understand what i'm aiming at.

 

[judejin]

sorry, you won't be able to do that. even if you can do that after you wake up, you'll be commiting murder, killing people who saved your life!

 

[judejin]

i'm purely amazed by the insane answers i'm getting like "i'll kill anyone who keeps me in vegetarian state". you are not logical, dude!

 

[judejin]

you're mixing things up. you can certainly commit suicide when nobody is around, but you're not exercising a right. a right is something recognized by law and protected by law. so anyone obstructing your rights is commiting a crime against you. but suicide is something anyone can intervene! thus suicide is not a right! but you can freely commit suicide when nobody is around. hope you get my point!

 

[kcchiefs6465]

modern medicine has tried its best to alleviate pains. doctors and relatives and patients themselves should unite and never sway in the fight against death.

The DEA is locking doctors up wholesale for prescribing what they see fit, you are grossly misinformed.

Do they prescribe or administer heroin to terminally ill patients? They do not.

Doctors are afraid to prescribe oxycodone. They'll give you so many and Lord help you if you needed one more one day, you'll be going without on another. And even then they face raids and their patients left with nowhere to go. This system is about compassion? The fuck do you mean? It's a racket. Drug markets haven't ever been pushed higher.

You are saying don't give up. That's a good message. I don't give up lightly - When it is my time it is my time.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

i'm purely amazed by the insane answers i'm getting like "i'll kill anyone who keeps me in vegetarian state". you are not logical, dude!

You'll understand one day when you have tasted a bacon weaved omelet.

 

[osan]

Trying to justify accusing someone of damages for prolonging life by using some twisted form of property rights is absolutely ridiculous. Anyone who is so full of themselves that they think the person who prolonged their life deserves to be hunted down and brutally murdered like osan does, is literally insane. There is no other way to put it. You can't reasonably think you have the right to brutally murder someone simply because they extended your life a little longer.

I was very specific about the conditions under which I would exact retribution, yet you extrapolated it into a generalized position. FAIL.

If I were dying and in horrible pain and you interfered with my commission of suicide knowing the circumstance, you might pay dearly for it and I would be well within my rights to exact that payment. There, a more explicitly obvious example. Does that make my meaning more accessible to you? If you cannot comprehend "mind your own business" then you are in some very serious straits.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That is because you do not understand proper human relations, which encompass the grotesquely ugly as well as the desirably beautiful. You appear to be one of those who refuse or otherwise fail to accept that which you find emotionally disagreeable. Lacking any reasoned basis for the rejection, and being driven by pure emotion, you invariably come to the wrong conclusions, universally reject that which you find "ugly", and appear to believe you are entitled to prohibit others from acting in such ways. This renders you fundamentally no different from those against whom you presume to complain.

Killiing someone for preventing you from committing suicide is clearly non-proportional, by any standard. That's not even mentioning the torturous element of what you are suggesting, which is clearly immoral in ANY circumstance.

 

[osan]

I don't think suicide should be illegal, but I also don't believe it is wrong to personally intervene in the moment if you see someone about to do it. Doesn't mean you lock them in psych ward, doesn't mean you put them under surveillance, but to intervene in a situation you personally see happening to save someone's life can't be immoral IMO.

You have not been alive long enough to know much of which you speak on such matters. Situations are often nowhere nearing the simplicity with which you express your opinions. Saving someone's life can, under circumstances, be the highest crime imaginable and deserving of freakish punishments. There are fates far and away worse than death.

 

[Flugel89]

you don't understand my logic. only focus on my conclusion. try to understand my logic first. suicide is to negate all rights(terminate life). thus it is not a right.

We don't understand your "logic" because it's not logic at all.

You're argument equates to saying you do not have the right to die naturally.

 

[I<3Liberty]

Before people keep arguing over this topic, I did reply to the other thread the OP mentioned at the start of this thread. Here's a moral alternative...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Ron-Paul-s-Pro-Life-and-Anti-Euthanasia/page7

The alternative to euthanasia: sedation to unconsciousness and removal of life support (with proper consent from the patient.) This would allow terminally ill persons to die peacefully without the assistance of another being.

 

[osan]

Killiing someone for preventing you from committing suicide is clearly non-proportional, by any standard. That's not even mentioning the torturous element of what you are suggesting, which is clearly immoral in ANY circumstance.

The difference between persons like you and those like myself is simple: I take freedom and sovereignty seriously, which means I accept it in its wholeness, whereas you do not. You reject the non-pretty aspects of freedom and the responsibilities it requires of one. I do not. I take sovereignty seriously. You think you do, but in reality you do not. You accept only that which is minimally agreeable to you. That cannot be justified.

 

[QuickZ06]

When you step in and try to stop a suicide physically you are essentially saying you are now the owner of that persons body and know what is best for it than the person who truly owns it. Talking to the person sure, putting your hands on the owner and physically removing him or herself from whatever suicide attempt, no. Better to kill yourself than to go on the next day and take out 10 innocent people with you because someone stopped you that day before as your emotions are in a whirlwind. And let us not forget the people who go about in public wanting to get gunned down, would you really want that on someone when it could have never of happened if the inevitable would have happened in the first place?

I understand that loved ones will want to step in but it still is not their decision. I would just hope one who is contemplating suicide would realize people do care but sometimes people just blow it off or do not know until it is already to late. Some people are very good at hiding their emotions as looks can be deceiving.

This is a very tough subject as no one wants to see this happen especially to a loved one but they still do not own that persons body.

 

[judejin]

right has to be protected be law. suicide is not protected by law, anyone can intervene! if you don't understand my logic, we belong to different planets!

 

[QuickZ06]

Sometimes I wish I was on a different planet.

 

[judejin]

i'm just amazed that sane people who would never commit suicide themselves are defending the right to commit suicide as vehemently as the person who wants to jump off a building. in reality, heros do sometimes personally grab the body and save him. so you think the person saved can sue the hero? if you think so, we won't argue no more.