infernovia wrote:The OP only included those things as a reply to those who would say preservation of life is more important: If someone says we don't have the right to die because we have to preserve life, then the OP is asking where you could possibly draw the line. If we can't kill ourselves, does that mean we can't smoke or eat unhealthy food?
Ugh, "can't" makes the whole thing so muddled. If we force us to not kill ourselves, shouldn't we also force us to not eat unhealthy food? etc.
Basically, this goes back to what I was talking about earlier. There is no way to preserve life, in the sense that life is the exchange of energy, conflict.
Any preservation will lead to a sort of stagnation (ie, boredon). It is a good thing that we all do not build nuclear shelters and have ourselves frozen using cryonics. At some level, we realize that complete preservation, complete security, complete paranoia, complete denial of all harmful things (not of its existence, but in the sense of protection) is ultimately not life-affirming. At some level, we understand that there is no reason to slave over our physical survival. So in this sense, death and all harmful things are needed.
"Can't" in the sense that one is legally prohibited from doing so, or one's options are legally limited. People have already made it clear that there are plenty of ways in which the law makes it difficult or even impossible for some people to end their own lives when they choose.
Yes, we all understand it is not a good idea, and in fact, impossible to prevent people from dying, regardless of their activities. That's exactly why the OP included those other "vices" - to demonstrate that there is not a legitimate distinction between the freedom to kill yourself slowly over time and the freedom to kill yourself directly when you choose.
infernovia wrote:jakovasaur wrote:That's just a side argument though. The point of the right to die debate is clearly about euthanasia and the right to commit suicide directly.
Given the treatment of old people and their insane amount of medication and necessities, I can say that there would be a certain time where I would feel like a dead man walking. Maybe the solution would be not to go to doctors? But arthritis and shit like that sucks, just have enough pain killers?
I am always impressed by those who fight against abortion, saying "what if you were that fetus?" My usual response is, I would have been dead. Its pretty much the simplest answer I can think of.
The problem is, there is just too many that have learned to be weak nowadays. I haven't dealt with depressed kids and I don't really know how to turn them into non-death seeking people or what their actual problem is, or what a society that would accept euthanasia/eugenics would do. I also wonder if it is more of a modern thing, that is depression even out of security and material satisfaction.
Edit: Just to be clear, I don't really care for depressional suicide. I don't really think that there is much to gain from the physical act of eliminating your body, usually a function only used for those things rotten and used. But, I do find a necessity, and I don't really care much for the progress in medicine in sustaining the life without vitality.
And, once again, you've managed to barely address the legal issue, instead talking about your own personal thoughts on suicide and what I can only assume is your take on "modern culture" or something. Do you or do you not think that euthanasia should be legally permitted and protected? Do you think that the right to end one's own life should be preserved, and if so, in what circumstances?