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

[AlexAmore]

Suicidal people tend not to concern themselves with the consequences of breaking suicide laws.

Outlaw suicide and only outlaws will commit suicide!

 

[judejin]

Outlaw suicide and only outlaws will commit suicide!

suicide is not a crime! suicide is not a right! suicide is pure self-destruction!

 

[Scrapmo]

suicide is pure self-destruction!

Far be it from me to deny the definition of a word.

 

[DamianTV]

suicide is not a crime! suicide is not a right! suicide is pure self-destruction!

So you claim to have the RIGHT to deny me my RIGHTS? Get a clue, thats called PERMISSION, not a RIGHT, and I dont ask for PERMISSION. No FREE MAN will ever ASK for PERMISSION.

"Rights ONLY exist in regards to an individual's interaction with others."

...

Bullshit. You've completely confused Permission, Mutual Cooperation, and Self Ownership. No. Im wrong. You havent confused them. You've perverted and twisted them so you can feel good about telling people what their business should be. So let be be one of the few to tell you what your business should be. Go back to living under bridges, as your behavior is that of a Socialist Troll. And I am NOT asking your Permission to do that. See, since you claim to have the Right to tell me my business, then you must also support the notion that I have the Right to tell you your business while not listening to you.

Go back under your bridge.

 

[judejin]

So you claim to have the RIGHT to deny me my RIGHTS? Get a clue, thats called PERMISSION, not a RIGHT, and I dont ask for PERMISSION. No FREE MAN will ever ASK for PERMISSION.



Bullshit. You've completely confused Permission, Mutual Cooperation, and Self Ownership. No. Im wrong. You havent confused them. You've perverted and twisted them so you can feel good about telling people what their business should be. So let be be one of the few to tell you what your business should be. Go back to living under bridges, as your behavior is that of a Socialist Troll. And I am NOT asking your Permission to do that. See, since you claim to have the Right to tell me my business, then you must also support the notion that I have the Right to tell you your business while not listening to you.

Go back under your bridge.

you totally don't get my logic.

i'm NOT saying that this person needs to get permission to seek suicide.

SUICIDE is NOT a RIGHT. You don't need a permission from me to do it. But when i discover you hanging there, i'll cut you loose and save you! simple as that!

"Rights ONLY exist in regards to an individual's interaction with others." -- i'm only quoting someone.

my definition of rights is
RIGHTS are everything you can do to your own body and properties without hurting other people in order to live.

since SUICIDE is to DIE, it is NOT a RIGHT. that's why anyone is free to save you. when someone saved you life, he's not violating your RIGHT. he only saved you from self-destruction.

don't accuse me of anything i never implied or said!

 

[erowe1]

If it's based on your understanding of the Bible, and not the Bible itself, then it's ultimately your beliefs, not God's. There is likely a great deal of things in the Bible you do not agree with, or more accurately, you choose to not agree with.

Pointing at the Bible to defend your choices is a copout, a trained behavior, taught by your pastors and family, to encourage acceptance into your Christian community.

Your belief system is yours. And yours alone. If you choose to use force against an innocent person, you will need to do more than point to a bible to justify it, at least in my eyes.

Is it fair to say, then, that you actually don't have any reason to believe what you do?

 

[erowe1]

The problem with this is that no one has an objective understanding of the Bible. Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, and the various 10,000+ denominations have a different understanding of it. Even secular scholars who study the bible disagree with each other. The closest thing we have to a solid understanding of the text are the orthodox and Catholic traditions which have been handed down since the beginning of the Church. And even among scholars in these traditions there are occasional disagreements. Did you know that there is not even sufficient archaeological evidence to prove that King David actually existed? (see Levine, Amy-Jill; "The Old Testament", published by The Teaching Company as part of The Great Courses series)

How is making up your own law, like the idea that you have a right to commit suicide, objective?

 

[erowe1]

suicide is not a RIGHT. but suicide is neither wrong nor illegal.

If it is not wrong, then it would have to be a right.

 

[erowe1]

That's a leap. Rights come from the basic belief that all men are created equal...specifically before the law, specifically in regards his dealings with others. Whether one believes that to be divine in origin or not is immaterial. Again...does the last man on earth have any Rights? Obviously not, as his will is inviolate.

This is illogical.

Do rights exist at all objectively? If they do, they can't just come from a subjective belief. Even if they were based on the equality of all men, it would have to be objectively true that all men are created equal, not just something someone believes. But then this equality of all men would itself be part of an objective moral law, which gets us back to what I said before. If right and wrong do not exist, then rights do not exist.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

If you have a right to something, for instance freedom and life.
Do you then not have the freedom to choose not to live ?
Where is freedom if rights are an obligation.

 

[erowe1]

If you have a right to something, for instance freedom and life.
Do you then not have the freedom to choose not to live ?
Where is freedom if rights are an obligation.

It's not that rights are obligations, but where rights exist obligations exist. When God says, "You shall not steal," that entails both an obligation not to steal and a right not to be robbed.

 

[TheTexan]

Is it fair to say, then, that you actually don't have any reason to believe what you do?

I believe people have the right to do all that which does not interfere with the rights of others. I believe this, because I have seen the tyranny that happens when this right is not respected. When people use force to control the actions of others, not because it was any of their business, but merely because they disagreed with that individual's choices, it leads to unhappiness, slavery, and occasionally death.

I have seen the state break so very often this rule that you claim there is no reason to believe. I have seen the consequences of breaking this rule. I have FELT the consequences of the state breaking this rule.

So yes, I have a reason to believe what I do.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

It's not that rights are obligations, but where rights exist obligations exist. When God says, "You shall not steal," that entails both an obligation not to steal and a right not to be robbed.

I fully agree with you.
Stealing and being robbed are situations where two parties are involved. Suicide only involves one party.

If your right to (do) something does not harm the rights of other persons, then it's clear that you have a right to do it ?

 

[klamath]

Suicide is a right. Assisted suicide is NOT.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

How is making up your own law, like the idea that you have a right to commit suicide, objective?

I didn't make it up. I observed it in human nature and recognized it. This is objective.

 

[erowe1]

If your right to (do) something does not harm the rights of other persons, then it's clear that you have a right to do it ?

Based on what?

 

[erowe1]

I didn't make it up. I observed it in human nature and recognized it. This is objective.

Your observations of human nature may tell you what is, but they don't tell you what ought to be.

And honestly, if you search your soul and ask yourself what you ought to do if one day you're one the Golden Gate Bridge and see someone about to jump off whether you should interfere, I think you will see that the answer is yes. If people here are going to appeal to common sense, and imagine that we have no recourse to special divine revelation for our morality, then they should admit that the common sense ethic, the one that's written on their hearts and that they may deliberately reject but not without a struggle, is that pro-life one.

 

[DamianTV]

you totally don't get my logic.

i'm NOT saying that this person needs to get permission to seek suicide.

SUICIDE is NOT a RIGHT. You don't need a permission from me to do it. But when i discover you hanging there, i'll cut you loose and save you! simple as that!

"Rights ONLY exist in regards to an individual's interaction with others." -- i'm only quoting someone.

my definition of rights is
RIGHTS are everything you can do to your own body and properties without hurting other people in order to live.

since SUICIDE is to DIE, it is NOT a RIGHT. that's why anyone is free to save you. when someone saved you life, he's not violating your RIGHT. he only saved you from self-destruction.

don't accuse me of anything i never implied or said!

I do get your logic. Problem is that you think we have LIMITED RIGHTS. I believe we have nearly UNLIMITED RIGHTS, the only limitation is when our Rights impose on the Rights of others around us. And I do not believe we have to be alive to have Rights. What you are saying could also be twisted so that when we die of natural causes, that WILLS would and should always have been invalidated.

As far as saving someone that is dying, thats your choice, but since it is an interaction with another person, saving a life is NOT a Right. Yes, it is expected, but it isnt a Right.

 

[TheTexan]

Your observations of human nature may tell you what is, but they don't tell you what ought to be.

And honestly, if you search your soul and ask yourself what you ought to do if one day you're one the Golden Gate Bridge and see someone about to jump off whether you should interfere, I think you will see that the answer is yes. If people here are going to appeal to common sense, and imagine that we have no recourse to special divine revelation for our morality, then they should admit that the common sense ethic, the one that's written on their hearts and that they may deliberately reject but not without a struggle, is that pro-life one.

Interfere? Or use force to stop him?

I'll try to talk him down, but I'm not going to punch him in the face and drag him back onto the bridge.

 

[otherone]

This is illogical.

Do rights exist at all objectively? If they do, they can't just come from a subjective belief. Even if they were based on the equality of all men, it would have to be objectively true that all men are created equal, not just something someone believes. But then this equality of all men would itself be part of an objective moral law, which gets us back to what I said before. If right and wrong do not exist, then rights do not exist.

I don't get your point. Do Rights exist where there are no people? Freedom is unlimited until confronted with another's Rights, or until violated. No people = no Rights.
1 person = inviolate will. 2 people (or more)= the need for boundaries. Either all men are equal or they are not. Equality = Rights, inequality = no Rights. Understand, that Rights exist ONLY in context to the law.