the sanctity of life
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-03-2014, 04:47 AM
RE: the sanctity of life
(12-03-2014 04:17 AM)donotwant Wrote:  Seldon let's say I want to die. Should government give me the poison?

I believe you should have the right to purchase your own poison.

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 04:48 AM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2014 04:59 AM by donotwant.)
RE: the sanctity of life
(12-03-2014 04:47 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(12-03-2014 04:17 AM)donotwant Wrote:  Seldon let's say I want to die. Should government give me the poison?

I believe you should have the right to purchase your own poison.
I would if it's painless, quick and government is not gonna send paramedics who will fuck up the whole process.
But there is nowhere to buy the poison(because selling it is illegal) and paramedics are gonna be sent without my permission.
If I could just go to the hospital and get euthanized I would definitely go for it.

Also I think it should be free. Purchasing death seems kind of bizarre when many people in the world get shot in the head for free. But being able to purchase it is better then not having the option at all.
I earned a lot of money for items which got confiscated and money were not returned. And to earn that money I had to go to a shitty job and working when I was feeling awful. It was like a torture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 05:03 AM
RE: the sanctity of life
(12-03-2014 04:43 AM)donotwant Wrote:  
(12-03-2014 04:41 AM)Seldon Wrote:  Nah man. If you wanted to die it would be your choice. If you told me about it then I would try to convince you to stick around for a while and maybe seek some sort of support in the hope that you might change your mind and want to live. If you obliged me and went away from that still wanting to die then you can get your own poison.
Where can I buy some poison? I tried to purchase suicide weapon but government took it away from me Big Grin
See you say I have the choice but in the same time people are getting in the way.
Where is the consistency here?
As for convincing me to live I wanted to die for a decade and had a lot of conversations with doctors. Is that not enough?

I already said that nobody should intervene using force in my opinion :-P Just intervene with support, care, conversation etc. If you'd already had support for 10 years and still wanted to die then that would be your choice. You could have done it at any point but you'd stuck around for 10 years having conversations with doctors, so you'd have spent that whole time considering your decision presumably. 10 years is a big old portion of time. I'm assuming that in this hypothetical situation you're not in a cell wearing restraints so as for your weapons being taken away, there are bridges and busy railway tracks everywhere mate. If you wanted to do it and were not the subject of forceful preventative measures then you could. It would be your choice and nobody could stop you. Once you had done it then you would not know or care about it. Your decision entirely. Though in my opinion it would be a dreadful shame. This topic is all about the importance of life after all and importance is subjective to each individual. To me life is very important. To this hypothetical you, not so much. That doesn't mean that choosing to intervene is entirely selfish though. It is the opposite I think. I never used to appreciate wine until a friend of mine shared how to enjoy it properly. Again I am being flippant lol, I don't hold wine and life in equal esteem honestly haha.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Seldon's post
12-03-2014, 05:18 AM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2014 05:35 AM by donotwant.)
RE: the sanctity of life
But this is the whole point. Nowhere to buy a gun or poison because it's illegal and I'm left with painful ways to die which I dislike. It's a coercion of a sort. Live or die painfully. I want peaceful death option available and government is getting in the way of that. As for the tools being taken away they were confiscated upon transportation(it was ordered from far away).

Now about intervention. Nobody is committing suicide for fun believe me.
And if 10 years is not enough how many is 20? 30? 40? This way I can live a life of suffering and die of old age. I don't think it's the right thing to do.
It's just that you project your will to live on me. It's cool that you like living but some people don't. And I don't think it's their fault either because I don't believe in free will.

My philosophy is simple. If I want to live let me live. If I want to die let me die.
This way everybody gets what he wants and there is no unnecessary suffering or coercion. And no jumping off the bridges is not my taste. Although I have some brutal ways prepared in case I start feeling very very bad but I prefer a nice and peaceful one.

Also we live in a different worlds. You might have good time but I suffer. I get up I suffer I got o sleep. I get up I suffer I go to sleep. Everyday.
Sometimes I suffer more than usually.
Do I want to suffer? No.
But I suffer anyway.
Doesn't seem like I have much choice.

Most of the suicides I seen happen because of irreversible gradual destruction of the individual which is caused by environment, genes and events(sometimes few bad ones). If you want people to live you must remove the causes of suffering. But since the causes and solutions are not as clear today(maybe they will be in future) it's either suffering or death for some.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 05:54 AM
RE: the sanctity of life
(11-03-2014 11:54 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 02:01 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  It's my life. Nobody has any rights over it except me.



Of course, then there's another issue. We base many of our laws on the harm that certain activities bring upon another individual. You can't start hitting someone because that hurts them and they don't want to be hurt. You can't rape someone because that hurts them and they don't want to be hurt. You can't steal from someone because that hurts them and they don't want to be hurt.

If I kill myself and that hurts those who love me…? Say I have a daughter. Say I raise her until she's 18 and we have the closest of relationships. Then I kill myself. She is emotionally hurt by this. So much so that she ends up killing herself because she can't bear the pain of not having me around.

How do I, Miso, justify keeping things illegal which harm another individual, and yet advocate having complete freedom over my own existence when that may entail hurting someone close to me if I choose to end it? Where do I draw the line in deciding what sorts of harm are acceptable? Where is the line drawn that states I'm not allowed to murder someone, but I AM allowed to destroy myself and, in doing so, cause them to murder themselves?



/thinking out loud.

Our laws are generally to restrict a person from infringing on someone elses rights. Your rights end where someone else's begin. You may hit yourself , but you may not hit your daughter because she has a right not to be hit. She does not have any rights to your body and while it may hurt her to see you hit yourself she cannot stop you.
You may not take your daughters car because she has a right to possess her own car. You may take back the car she borrowed from you even though she needs it, and while it hurts her financially to have no way to drive to work she has no right to possess your car. You may not kill your daughter because she has a right to live her life. You may kill yourself, and while it may hurt her to lose you she has no right to your life.

Right. But again, where is the line drawn when my shooting her in the face and my causing her to shoot herself in the face by shooting myself have precisely the same results?

Is it that I did not literally carry out the deed myself that makes it ok? Do I have to physically put the gun to her head and pull the trigger in order for it to be an infringement upon her right to live?

If so, I have difficulty reconciling that with the fact that my actions would indirectly have the exact same outcome, even though I didn't physically do anything to her.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 05:56 AM
RE: the sanctity of life
(12-03-2014 05:54 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 11:54 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Our laws are generally to restrict a person from infringing on someone elses rights. Your rights end where someone else's begin. You may hit yourself , but you may not hit your daughter because she has a right not to be hit. She does not have any rights to your body and while it may hurt her to see you hit yourself she cannot stop you.
You may not take your daughters car because she has a right to possess her own car. You may take back the car she borrowed from you even though she needs it, and while it hurts her financially to have no way to drive to work she has no right to possess your car. You may not kill your daughter because she has a right to live her life. You may kill yourself, and while it may hurt her to lose you she has no right to your life.

Right. But again, where is the line drawn when my shooting her in the face and my causing her to shoot herself in the face by shooting myself have precisely the same results?

Is it that I did not literally carry out the deed myself that makes it ok? Do I have to physically put the gun to her head and pull the trigger in order for it to be an infringement upon her right to live?

If so, I have difficulty reconciling that with the fact that my actions would indirectly have the exact same outcome, even though I didn't physically do anything to her.
It's just like abortion. People can tell you about the consequences it will have for others but they have no right to stop you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 06:00 AM
RE: the sanctity of life
(12-03-2014 05:56 AM)donotwant Wrote:  
(12-03-2014 05:54 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Right. But again, where is the line drawn when my shooting her in the face and my causing her to shoot herself in the face by shooting myself have precisely the same results?

Is it that I did not literally carry out the deed myself that makes it ok? Do I have to physically put the gun to her head and pull the trigger in order for it to be an infringement upon her right to live?

If so, I have difficulty reconciling that with the fact that my actions would indirectly have the exact same outcome, even though I didn't physically do anything to her.
It's just like abortion. People can tell you about the consequences it will have for others but they have no right to stop you.

Abortion doesn't kill a living, reasoning, feeling human being. It aborts a fetus.

If I, through no direct action, coerce a thousand people into killing themselves, should I not be arrested?

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 06:02 AM
RE: the sanctity of life
(12-03-2014 06:00 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  
(12-03-2014 05:56 AM)donotwant Wrote:  It's just like abortion. People can tell you about the consequences it will have for others but they have no right to stop you.

Abortion doesn't kill a living, reasoning, feeling human being. It aborts a fetus.

If I, through no direct action, coerce a thousand people into killing themselves, should I not be arrested?

I can construct another dilemma. Would you torture one person for 10 years or kill a 100?
Doesn't sound that good now does it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 06:06 AM
RE: the sanctity of life
(12-03-2014 05:18 AM)donotwant Wrote:  But this is the whole point. Nowhere to buy a gun or poison because it's illegal and I'm left with painful ways to die which I dislike. It's a coercion of a sort. Live or die painfully. I want peaceful death option available and government is getting in the way of that. As for the tools being taken away they were confiscated upon transportation(it was ordered from far away).

Now about intervention. Nobody is committing suicide for fun believe me.
And if 10 years is not enough how many is 20? 30? 40? This way I can live a life of suffering and die of old age. I don't think it's the right thing to do.
It's just that you project your will to live on me. It's cool that you like living but some people don't. And I don't think it's their fault either because I don't believe in free will.

My philosophy is simple. If I want to live let me live. If I want to die let me die.
This way everybody gets what he wants and there is no unnecessary suffering or coercion. And no jumping off the bridges is not my taste. Although I have some brutal ways prepared in case I start feeling very very bad but I prefer a nice and peaceful one.

Reality is nice to some people and brutal to others. Some people can live while others can't.
I get reminded everyday that I am one of the latter.

Btw not everybody who is jumping from the bridge dies and gets transferred to the hospital without consent Big Grin

Like I said it is the individual’s decision. A year, 5, 10, 20, 30… If someone does it then they do it regardless of how long they spent seeking support or talking about it. Who knows how much time it would take before a person found value in their life. If ever. You're quite right, a person may try their whole life to find a reason to live, only to die old after finding nothing but a miserable life.

Do you think that they would they remember that miserable life?

Do you think that we take our experience with us?


Maybe we do, who knows, but as there is no evidence for it then I don't believe there is anything after death. Therefore if there is the possibility that all we will ever know is what we experience whilst we are alive then even if my life was awful I would hold out for it to change, to find value in it, because ultimately for all we know when it is gone then it is gone. Nothing. Zilch. You can't lump everyone together in the same camp either. No two minds are the same. Where one person may not respond to support, another may find a reason to live. Again like I said earlier there is no general, knee-jerk response for any individual considering suicide. I get you dude and I don't disagree with your philosophy. I you want to live, let you live. If you want to die, let you die. I just think that people who care should be free to try to convince you to want to live.

What are your thoughts on what makes us who we are and forms our decisions?

Do you think that our minds are subject to change?


I don’t believe that the government should hand out suicide jabs willy nilly because like I said before, people should have the chance to change their mind and it could be argued that a system set in place for easily accessible methods of suicide could be seen just as much of making it too accessible as having certain substances illegal is seen as restricting the options available to those that choose suicide. My argument for this is that what if the poison is illegal not only because an individual may use it on themselves, but more importantly because they may use it on someone else?

Suicide is a personal choice and people have the right to do as they wish with their lives, but why does there have to be a system in place that makes it more accessible? How much more accessible can death be? We evolve from our struggle to survive so there are ample mortal threats around us. I am not expert on death but there must be accessible, quick and relatively painless ways to die out there. I know I was flippant about bridges and railways but people have managed to do it for centuries.

Do you think that there is anything after death?

If there is nothing after death then would it matter how you died?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2014, 06:10 AM
RE: the sanctity of life
(12-03-2014 06:02 AM)donotwant Wrote:  
(12-03-2014 06:00 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Abortion doesn't kill a living, reasoning, feeling human being. It aborts a fetus.

If I, through no direct action, coerce a thousand people into killing themselves, should I not be arrested?

I can construct another dilemma. Would you torture one person for 10 years or kill a 100?
Doesn't sound that good now does it?

Neither sounds particularly acceptable. In either case, I'd say the authorities would be justified in intervening.

My question is left unanswered, however.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: