Right to die.

[jakovasaur]

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.

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?

[infernovia]

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.

With one, you are affirming the value of life, in the other one you are destroying it. This is the only difference between the two, and why one excites us and the other is our expression of disgust, pity. The religious fanatics of life also destroy, which also creates our disgust even though they believe in life's rule over everything.

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?

I think that the preservation of life should stop happening, and that is the primary reason that anybody even speaks of the "right to die." If science stopped researching ways to preserve the human body from death (of old age specially, but also in cryonics), which we know it will go on because of people's fear, I think the whole thing wouldn't even be a problem. So the question we are left with now is, what do you do to stop becoming a rotten carcass?

Euthanasia and such are pretty pointless I feel. I think they are just aesthetically pleasing, and if they are so afraid of pain, thats what will happen. It should be provided in a way that does not give financial advantage to anyone actually administrating them. Euthanasia also immediately eliminates life insurance or w/e.

The only problem (and I don't even know how much of it is even a problem) is teens. If Euthanasia is used primarily as a way of cowardice, then it will reinforce their desire to eliminate themselves as trash. If suicide is seen as a way of feeding back life, that is a noble act, then I feel that they would not kill themselves (it is a way to enjoy life). However, I think this whole concept of rights and everything will be detrimental to the act of euthanasia and will find itself with even more paranoia. Which will destroy any enjoyable part of it, if it had one.

Other concerns: Capital Punishment and Jail etc. With death being so controlled in society, I feel that sentences will have to shift focus.

[Maduyn]

The only problem (and I don't even know how much of it is even a problem) is teens. If Euthanasia is used primarily as a way of cowardice, then it will reinforce their desire to eliminate themselves as trash. If suicide is seen as a way of feeding back life, that is a noble act, then I feel that they would not kill themselves (it is a way to enjoy life). However, I think this whole concept of rights and everything will be detrimental to the act of euthanasia and will find itself with even more paranoia. Which will destroy any enjoyable part of it, if it had one.

Other concerns: Capital Punishment and Jail etc. With death being so controlled in society, I feel that sentences will have to shift focus.

You must be of voting age to commit suicide in my mind and I think people should be able to choose death over life in prison if they wish.

[pizzazz]

Helping a terminal patient actively suicide shouldn't be allowed. Allowing them to refuse treatment that would extend that life should be. Maybe that's a silly distinction to make, but I think it's important.

A healthy person that suicides? Not much can be done about that anyway so it's a moot point. We'd have to outlaw guns, then knives, then cars, then tall places... you get the idea.

True. There should be a consistent way for courts to handle people who want to die, because invariably someone who doesn't want a loved one to die will claim said loved one is not mentally capable of deciding to die. Obviously there's going to be some judgment involved, but it would be nice if there were a consistent method to handle these cases.

I want to add that I find it odd that we prevent criminals from offing themselves during an arrest so that we can fry them up later. I suppose if it was me, I'd try to save their life too, so I can understand it.

Aside from the fact that very very very few criminals are ever executed, suspected criminals are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (at least in the US and I think most other Western democracies as well). Cops don't want to kill anyone.

[Oregonaut]

Along this line of thought, at what point can we consider punishing someone who is suffering for attempting to end that suffering?

You (1) commit (imprison) them, or (2) charge them money for providing services that they did not ask for or desire.

1. This isn't simply a linguisitic technicality. If an otherwise sane and rational person is attempting to jump off a building in the middle of a city, and is prevented from doing so, they can be taken to a hospital and placed in restraints for violating the law (not attempting suicide, as that has been taken off of most if not all states as a crime, but for criminal trespass, mischief, or attempted assault (F=(9.8 m/s/s)*190 lbs greatly exceeds the crushing force necessary to kill a human)).

2. An ambulance ride is not inexpensive, an emergency room visit is also not inexpensive, and considering financial troubles are typical when nearing end-of-life medical care, an already stretched thin person may have even greater urges to give up by having "the system" attempt to intervene.

This isn't carte blanche for people to use the excuse of "I'm poor, toss it all I'm going sky-diving without a parachute" to commit suicide and have us do nothing. Engaging someone in conversation, helping them through a rough patch, enabling them to have some attachment to life, these are all great things and worthy goals. I've talked someone down before. I've walked into a room and seen someone bleeding from the wrists. I've also seen my grandmother suffering at the end of a long fight with lung cancer, with palliative care doing nothing for her and the doctors telling us that there is no hope for a recovery. Why shouldn't she have the right to say that she doesn't want to bankrupt her estate, and continue to be a drain on her family? Yes, we should fight to help people want to live. But we should also respect a sane, introspective wish to die.

I come from one of a few states that have a variation of the "Death with dignity" law on the books, which was voted on twice (thank you Ashcroft) and each time won passage by a not-inconsiderable majority. So my view is probably skewed on the matter. However, I truly think this isn't one of those matters that can be thought through in a purely logical manner. Logically, wanting to self-terminate is counter to the natural impulse of self-preservation. We have hunger pains because we need caloric energy to drive our body. We feel fear and panic when we are faced with a situation where our ability to breathe is impaired or removed. Our natural instinct is to huddle together if cold, or spread out if hot. (I realize all of that is a fancy way to say that yes, we respond to stimulus, but there is a point in here.) All of this makes logical sense. I'm certain that someone who is rational, and still wishes to get off the giant hamster wheel, will feel some fear as they take the action that grants them their wish. But, that is an emotional component that you cannot remove. There should be fear, mixed with relief, mixed with hope that your actions are for the best. If you believe in an afterlife, you can hope that your actions are judged through the lens of sacrifice, rather than selfishness. A member of the Armed Forces throwing himself on a grenade to save their comrades is committing suicide, since they expect to die through their actions. We call it heroism, and sacrifice, but it is a form of self-killing. When my grandmother wanted to end her life, she was thinking that there was no reason that we should pay $10,000 a month, for the next 8 to 10 months, just to keep her pain-free. She didn't require a lot of machinery to keep her alive, most of it was just to make life tolerable. As much as I would miss my grandmother, I understood her fervor in wanting to not be a catalyst for my parents to delcare bankruptcy just so she could cling to a listless body that wouldn't allow her to do crossword puzzles anymore.

Again, I recognize my own bias here. My experiences, and all of the courses I have taken (in the military, here at the VA) on how to spot and help people who are "ideating", form the basis of my opinion. I can see people being afraid of mass suicides if their local government green-lights a Death with Dignity law, but if the law is written so that it protects the right-to-self, as well as the concept of community, I think that it would be a net positive.

[Kingsley]

In an ideal world, we would each of us have the choice we wanted. No one would be able to impose life or death upon us. But this is far from an ideal world. For starters, we are all programmed to think of ourselves as "useful" or "not useful", among other descriptors. When I am no longer "useful" I would prefer to walk into the sunset and be done with it all. But who is to define "useful"? And what will be the criteria? We should not be able to play God for others, but can we play God for ourselves?

Kingsley

[Nem]

Any attempt to express usefulness as an absolute is doomed to failure: How useful something is changes depending on the context it occurs within, (including the intentions of the agents.)

[ronpaul]

I posted an reply - it dissapeared after minutes, so don't blame me for repetitions pls

You don't need government to kill yourself. We cannot prohibit suicide, however we should avoid institutionalising it, as institutions are prone to human imperfections.

[Oregonaut]

I posted an reply - it dissapeared after minutes, so don't blame me for repetitions pls

You don't need government to kill yourself. We cannot prohibit suicide, however we should avoid institutionalising it, as institutions are prone to human imperfections.

But we need regulations to prohibit companies from punishing people for choosing free-will. If you commit suicide there are insurance companies who will not pay out. Regulations saying that the state recognizes a right to die, and that commercially punishing them (by not allowing benefits that were paid for) is considered a form of discrimination.

[ronpaul]

I posted an reply - it dissapeared after minutes, so don't blame me for repetitions pls

You don't need government to kill yourself. We cannot prohibit suicide, however we should avoid institutionalising it, as institutions are prone to human imperfections.

But we need regulations to prohibit companies from punishing people for choosing free-will. If you commit suicide there are insurance companies who will not pay out. Regulations saying that the state recognizes a right to die, and that commercially punishing them (by not allowing benefits that were paid for) is considered a form of discrimination.

I believe in free contract. If you have agreed with insurance company that your suicide makes your policy void, then that's the deal. and government shouldn't interfere with contracts.

[Kulantan]

I think those who are left behind without answers or being able to say their good byes would have something to say about this.

Plus, suicide can also be a messy business. I know both Police Officers and Fire Marshall’s who have both had to clean up after one of these suicide episodes and they’ve both been traumatised for life – I think it’s all a little bit selfish really.

Both of these statements are predicated on the idea of people only doing suicide badly. Just as it is possible to support free speech without thinking that standing in the street spewing obscenity is a good idea, it is possible to support the right to a self determined death without supporting doing it badly.
These problems that you talk about might well be alleviated if people had an accepted legal means of ending their lives in a dignified and humane manner, rather than any talk of suicide being a cause for sectioning.
A question for you; do you support assisted dying groups (for example Dignity in Dying) who try to help ameliorate these problems via campaigning for suicide and voluntary euthanasia to be socially accepted and legal? If not, why?

[Griffin]

Heisenberg, you seem to have a pretty consistent problem, that being you are unaware of a) what words mean, and b) what the law is.

Pedophiles are criminals by definition.

This is untrue.

Do you have the right to deny medical treatment? Yes. Do you have the right to murder someone? No. Does a license to practice medicine give you a get-out-of-jail-free card for #2? No.

Its not murder if its legal. The fact that we already HAVE situations where killing people is not murder.

So, when a suffering person is killed, you don't believe their murderer should be punished? Should we only prosecute murderers of happy people? That would be a logical conclusion if preventing suffering is more valuable than human life.

We should only prosecute murder when it is murder. If it is legal to euthanize people upon request, then said euthanization is NOT murder.

Your argument seems to be that ending suffering and "self-ownership" is more valuable than the preservation of human life. It's a circular argument since "self-ownership" means "a right to kill oneself." So your argument amounts to "I have a right to kill myself because I have a right to kill myself." At least it's concise.

This statement doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you meant something other than what you wrote? Because there is no circle there...

And then all the other posts where you simply claim THINGS ARE TRUE THINGS ARE TRUE without bothering to support them.

Anyways, moving on -
I think people should have the right to commit suicide. I don't think they should have the right to just throw themselves off of buildings or in front of trains - because these acts are harmful to others and relatively expensive and traumatizing to clean up after.
I think there should be legal outlets for those who wish to die, where failure will not result in them being committed.

I think those who are left behind without answers or being able to say their good byes would have something to say about this.

And frankly, those who argue that people have an obligation to continue living so they don't hurt those that care about them? Guess what - deal. People like you, who believe that others have to live their lives the way you want (or at all) just to keep you happy? That is exactly the kind of pressure that drives some people to off themselves, and makes a portion of those who don't miserable. Other people are not yours, they do not belong to you, and if you weren't so intent on making their problems about you, maybe you'd have the opportunity to say goodbye, get your say in, get your answers, and then live with the goddamn consequences. You don't own them, or their life.

I'm sorry for that outburst, its just... I have been close to suicide before, and obviously selfish comments like that played in a huge part in encouraging the attempt. There are plenty of good arguments against suicide, but the whole "Your life is not your own, you owe it to others" is one I personally find appalling.

[Iceman]

I firmly believe in Suicide as a viable option.

I do not believe in Euthanasia.

I think if you want to kill yourself you have that right, but getting someone else to kill you should not be a right.

In order for suicide to truly be suicide, I think the person must commit the act themselves, because its the only way I believe they truly mean it. It's much easier to let someone else kill you than it is to do it yourself.

I think it's ok to bring someone the things needed to do it, but not commit the act. There's very few instances I can think of where someone is actually so incapacitated that there's nothing at all they can do to commit the act themselves.

[Oregonaut]

I firmly believe in Suicide as a viable option.

I do not believe in Euthanasia.

I think if you want to kill yourself you have that right, but getting someone else to kill you should not be a right.

In order for suicide to truly be suicide, I think the person must commit the act themselves, because its the only way I believe they truly mean it. It's much easier to let someone else kill you than it is to do it yourself.

I think it's ok to bring someone the things needed to do it, but not commit the act. There's very few instances I can think of where someone is actually so incapacitated that there's nothing at all they can do to commit the act themselves.

You do realize that in Oregon's Death with Dignity law, the doctor prescribes the medication, but does not administer it, right?

So they are bringing them the medication by prescribing it, but they are not allowed to administer it, unless the person is so physically frail that they can't self-administer. Like, for example, a late-stage cancer victim who is lying on a bed unable to even lift her head up. Or a stroke victim who can talk slurred words, and make their intent clear, but has no interest in continuing to get rotated like a bunch of bloody tires by a nurse who is trying to prevent weeping bed sores.

Also, euthanasia.

We allow doctors to "pull the plug" on terminally ill patients who have the properly signed forms. That is called euthanasia.

Euthanasia is openly accepted, by the dictionary, as mercy. Mercy, is a good thing.

[Iceman]

You do realize that in Oregon's Death with Dignity law, the doctor prescribes the medication, but does not administer it, right?

No, Why would I know the euthanasia law in Oregon? That sounds exactly like what I mean though, yes.

Euthanasia is openly accepted, by the dictionary, as mercy. Mercy, is a good thing.

While I think we agree, this is a non-sense argument. Euthanasia is good because its a synonym for something good? That's pretty silly.

People committ Honour killings, and honour is good, so it must be fine too? Can't say It's good because the dictionary says so

[Oregonaut]

You do realize that in Oregon's Death with Dignity law, the doctor prescribes the medication, but does not administer it, right?

No, Why would I know the euthanasia law in Oregon? That sounds exactly like what I mean though, yes.

Euthanasia is openly accepted, by the dictionary, as mercy. Mercy, is a good thing.

While I think we agree, this is a non-sense argument. Euthanasia is good because its a synonym for something good? That's pretty silly.

People committ Honour killings, and honour is good, so it must be fine too? Can't say It's good because the dictionary says so

Because I would assume that you would assess all information available before forming an opinion.

Honor killings are a different creature entirely, raping and killing a young girl for kissing a boy before marriage is an atrocity. But shooting a horse with three broken legs and a snapped spinal column is considered mercy. Mercy and honor are not the same thing. So your declaration that my argument is nonsense is nonsense.

[Iceman]

Because I would assume that you would assess all information available before forming an opinion.

How would the way a small US State does their law impact my moral opinion on the topic? It's neat to know someone already does it that way, but it wouldn't add anything to my opinion, except verify that apparently some state thought of it too.

[/quote]Honor killings are a different creature entirely, raping and killing a young girl for kissing a boy before marriage is an atrocity. But shooting a horse with three broken legs and a snapped spinal column is considered mercy. Mercy and honor are not the same thing. So your declaration that my argument is nonsense is nonsense.[/quote]

That wasn't your argument. You said Euthanasia is Defined As Mercy, and Mercy is good, therefore Euthanasia is good...that's moronic.

It doesn't matter is Honour killings are different...by your line of logic all the matters is the word 'Honour'

Euthanasia is openly accepted, by the dictionary, as mercy. Mercy, is a good thing.

[Oregonaut]

Because I would assume that you would assess all information available before forming an opinion.

How would the way a small US State does their law impact my moral opinion on the topic? It's neat to know someone already does it that way, but it wouldn't add anything to my opinion, except verify that apparently some state thought of it too.

Honor killings are a different creature entirely, raping and killing a young girl for kissing a boy before marriage is an atrocity. But shooting a horse with three broken legs and a snapped spinal column is considered mercy. Mercy and honor are not the same thing. So your declaration that my argument is nonsense is nonsense.

That wasn't your argument. You said Euthanasia is Defined As Mercy, and Mercy is good, therefore Euthanasia is good...that's moronic.

It doesn't matter is Honour killings are different...by your line of logic all the matters is the word 'Honour'

Euthanasia is openly accepted, by the dictionary, as mercy. Mercy, is a good thing.

Oregon is not a small state, it is, in fact, one of the largest in area.

It actually does matter that honor killings are different. The motivations are entirely different.

Euthanasia: "I see suffering, the suffering creature wishes to die. The suffering creature has a sound mind, and wishes to no longer exist. The suffering creature cannot perform the necessary act to carry out their will. I will assist them in carrying out their will."

Honor Killing: "You kissed Bob from the neighboring tribe. You are no longer clean. You must be killed to restore our honor."

Those are very different motivators.

[Iceman]

Your argument had nothing whatsoever to do with motivations...that might have been a cogent thought but it wasn't your statement.

Your argument was Euthanasia is good because it's defined in the dictionary as Mercy and Mercy is good. That makes no sense.

And did you really think I was referring to Oregon's landmass when calling it a small state?
And did you come up with a reason why them doing something in line with my own opinion would have changed my opinion?

Overall I do think it makes sense to allow people to do whatever they themselves do, but it should not be done by anyone else as long as the person is still capable of doing it themselves in anyway, including something as simple as swallowing themselves instead of an injection.

To address what some other people have said, I don't think the emotional impact you make on anyone else should enter into it...simply because it really doesn't enter into it in anything else. People do tons of things that harm each other horribly, ie..leaving your spouse, but it's something they just have to deal with. That's Life.

[Oregonaut]

Your argument had nothing whatsoever to do with motivations...that might have been a cogent thought but it wasn't your statement.

Your argument was Euthanasia is good because it's defined in the dictionary as Mercy and Mercy is good. That makes no sense.

And did you really think I was referring to Oregon's landmass when calling it a small state?
And did you come up with a reason why them doing something in line with my own opinion would have changed my opinion?

Overall I do think it makes sense to allow people to do whatever they themselves do, but it should not be done by anyone else as long as the person is still capable of doing it themselves in anyway, including something as simple as swallowing themselves instead of an injection.

To address what some other people have said, I don't think the emotional impact you make on anyone else should enter into it...simply because it really doesn't enter into it in anything else. People do tons of things that harm each other horribly, ie..leaving your spouse, but it's something they just have to deal with. That's Life.

Name one situation where showing mercy makes you a bad person.

I've already named one where someone doing something for honor is a bad thing.

You are arguing the content of a word being synonymous with mercy with the definition of your term.

You are arguing apples and oranges, and calling me names. I'm failing to see how I'm supposed to take you seriously.

[Iceman]

You could try making sense.

I could look at a mentally challenged person and take 'mercy' and kill them.

You don't seem to get the basic argument against your horrible construction of an idea. You're saying because Euthanasia is DEFINED as Mercy, it must be good...WHO DEFINED IT that way dummy? God?

[Oregonaut]

You could try making sense.

I could look at a mentally challenged person and take 'mercy' and kill them.

You don't seem to get the basic argument against your horrible construction of an idea. You're saying because Euthanasia is DEFINED as Mercy, it must be good...WHO DEFINED IT that way dummy? God?

Since your entire plan seems to be devloving this into a schoolyard taunting match, I'll simply refrain from answering you until you change your tone.

[GardenGoblin]

You fail to realize that murder is a crime committed not only against the murdered but also those who rely on the murdered. When a person commits suiscide they infringe on the rights of those to whom they have outstanding obligations (family, friends, creditors, etc.). How is it less damaging for a child to grow up without a mother/father because their parent committed suicide, than if someone had shot their parent?

My sister committed suicide less than a month ago. It hurts like hell, and she left a lot behind. Had I been there, I would have tried to talk her out of it and get her help if she wasn't in her right mind.

But if she was in her right mind, and wanted to die anyway, I am not her master, and she was not my slave. The ultimate right to her life belonged to her.

Because here is the simple truth:

If tomorrow my husband and son were killed in a car accident, I would probably end my life. I would not consider it worth living without them. If tomorrow I were in a car accident and paralyzed from the neck down, I would want my life to end, I would no longer consider it worth living and I would not want to be that level of burden on my loved ones, I love them far to much. My living will states that if I cannot be restored to a certain level of functionality I prefer to be untreated and allowed to die.

I wish this right for myself. Therefore, how can I deny it to others? There is no magic drug that can make me want to live under those conditions. The best you could do would be to drug me out of my mind, which would essentially make you my torturer and master.

So, when a suffering person is killed, you don't believe their murderer should be punished? Should we only prosecute murderers of happy people? That would be a logical conclusion if preventing suffering is more valuable than human life.

If a person consents to sex, it is sex. If they do not, it is rape. If a person consents to a spanking, it is S&M. If they do not, it is assault. If a person consents to die, it is assisted suicide. If they do not, it is murder.

They key word isn't suffering, it is consent.

I watched my great grandmother lay on her bed, in twisting agony that could not be eased for it was as much in her mind as in her body. I watched as she forgot all her loved once, even her own identity. I watched her beg god to just take her already.

There was no cure, no way to improve her situation, nothing that could fix her in anyway. Would you really condemn me had I granted her desire by giving her an overdose of a painkiller and held her hand while she slipped away?

Please don't call being committed "imprisonment". There is a significant difference.

Not always. The significant difference is supposed to be 'being committed is for their own good', but that is not always the case.

You could try making sense.

I could look at a mentally challenged person and take 'mercy' and kill them.

Consent.

[Hedonic Treader]

Consent.

As much as I dislike the idea of non-consensual interventions in my own life, I cannot overlook the fundamental flaws of a primarily consent-based ethical framework. The main problem is straightforward: Life itself is non-consensual.

Originally, our ancestors procreated as a result of their instinctual sexual behaviors. Now, having kids is a deliberate decision, sometimes a lifestyle choice. And it's always non-consensual with regards to the kids, and it always contains stressful and quite unpleasant experience modes for them.

Sure, it may be well-intentioned, and under the (valid?) assumption that life is generally a good thing rather than a bad thing, one could say it's for the kid's own good. Then again, this same argument could be repeated almost word-by-word to prohibit suicide.

[Oregonaut]

Consent.

As much as I dislike the idea of non-consensual interventions in my own life, I cannot overlook the fundamental flaws of a primarily consent-based ethical framework. The main problem is straightforward: Life itself is non-consensual.

Originally, our ancestors procreated as a result of their instinctual sexual behaviors. Now, having kids is a deliberate decision, sometimes a lifestyle choice. And it's always non-consensual with regards to the kids, and it always contains stressful and quite unpleasant experience modes for them.

Sure, it may be well-intentioned, and under the (valid?) assumption that life is generally a good thing rather than a bad thing, one could say it's for the kid's own good. Then again, this same argument could be repeated almost word-by-word to prohibit suicide.

Except that we are adults, and are fully capable of making our own decisions. There is a massive difference in the judgement making process when you are eight and when you are eighty. You can't compare the two.

[morriswalters]

The importance of consent should not be dismissed. The ability to make the decision at all is a function of self awareness. The ability to give consent recognizes that fact. I only find the presence of outsiders in the act to be problematic. Anything which removes the choice from the person at the focus, is dangerous. There is adequate evidence of what is possible when that happens.

[Hedonic Treader]

Except that we are adults, and are fully capable of making our own decisions. There is a massive difference in the judgement making process when you are eight and when you are eighty. You can't compare the two.

In fact, I talked about zero year olds: The very foundation of every person's life is a non-consensual act that imposes unpleasantness on him/her. Once we accept this because the existence of their future selves is seen as a good enough reason to justify it, we have to ask why this should not be the case with suicide.

Even an 80 year old can spawn future selves, some of which may consider their existence to be a good thing. At the very least, you can't rule that out, unless you're talking about a terminally ill patient in the last periods of their life.

Anything which removes the choice from the person at the focus, is dangerous.

Childbirth removes the choice from the person at the focus, the person who is forced into existence without consent.

[morriswalters]

Anything which removes the choice from the person at the focus, is dangerous.

Childbirth removes the choice from the person at the focus, the person who is forced into existence without consent.

The ability to give consent implies self awareness. I argue that a baby is incomplete and not fully aware. However the salient point is that reproduction stems from a biological imperative and when looked at as a species you reproduce or die, suicide as it were. Choosing to end your life is a choice, good, bad, or indifferent. It implies that we can place a value on what our lives are worth to us and act on it.

[smw543]

Consent.

As much as I dislike the idea of non-consensual interventions in my own life, I cannot overlook the fundamental flaws of a primarily consent-based ethical framework. The main problem is straightforward: Life itself is non-consensual.

Originally, our ancestors procreated as a result of their instinctual sexual behaviors. Now, having kids is a deliberate decision, sometimes a lifestyle choice. And it's always non-consensual with regards to the kids, and it always contains stressful and quite unpleasant experience modes for them.

Sure, it may be well-intentioned, and under the (valid?) assumption that life is generally a good thing rather than a bad thing, one could say it's for the kid's own good. Then again, this same argument could be repeated almost word-by-word to prohibit suicide.

This argument is a total non sequitur. You didn't consent to life, therefore you can't consent to death? I guess people with GID shouldn't be allowed to get sex reassignment surgery, seeing as they never consented to their genders.

[Hedonic Treader]

This argument is a total non sequitur. You didn't consent to life, therefore you can't consent to death?

If you're mentally competent, you can. But the question is, does it matter? Either it is morally permissible to force people to live without their consent, or it is not.

If it is, the ability to consent to death doesn't matter, because it is morally permissible to force them to live, consent or no.

If it isn't, then childbirth is a moral crime, since not-yet-existing people can't give consent to their being brought into existence.

[morriswalters]

This argument is a total non sequitur. You didn't consent to life, therefore you can't consent to death?

If you're mentally competent, you can. But the question is, does it matter? Either it is morally permissible to force people to live without their consent, or it is not.

If it is, the ability to consent to death doesn't matter, because it is morally permissible to force them to live, consent or no.

If it isn't, then childbirth is a moral crime, since not-yet-existing people can't give consent to their being brought into existence.

Apples and oranges. Children will have the ability to consent once they have reached the age where they understand the question. The moral right or wrong happens in my head, what others believe is unimportant. You can use duress to force me to live but it is my judgment, and mine alone in this matter, that is important. The question for me is how society can protect it's interests while giving me the freedom to protect mine.

[Hedonic Treader]

Apples and oranges. Children will have the ability to consent once they have reached the age where they understand the question.

Yes, and until then, they have to undergo numerous negative experiences and they are exposed to certain types of risk that can - and in a certain percentage of cases do - force severe suffering on them. And all in the hope that in the future, their life may be worth it.

How is this morally different from thwarting the suicidal death wish of an adult in the hope that in the future, their life may be worth it again?

[GardenGoblin]

If it is, the ability to consent to death doesn't matter, because it is morally permissible to force them to live, consent or no.

If it isn't, then childbirth is a moral crime, since not-yet-existing people can't give consent to their being brought into existence.

I am not sure where you are finding these infants that are capable of consent. They will someday be, usually, but they are not at the time of their birth.

It isn't a question of 'can you consent to life', it is a question of 'when is the option available?'

Let us use sex as an example. You are capable of consenting to sex (I presume), but you were not always. There was a time in your existence when you were considered to immature and ignorant to be allowed to consent to this basic human action. Once you gained the necessary age and knowledge, the restriction went away, and you were allowed to have sex with any willing partner you chose.

A person incapable of consent naturally cannot give consent.

You have leaped straight into a strawman argument, since we are only discussing people within their right minds and capable of consent. A person who is very drunk or impaired due to a reaction with a medication should be prevented from leaping off a bridge.

[morriswalters]

Yes, and until then, they have to undergo numerous negative experiences and they are exposed to certain types of risk that can - and in a certain percentage of cases do - force severe suffering on them. And all in the hope that in the future, their life may be worth it.

How is this morally different from thwarting the suicidal death wish of an adult in the hope that in the future, their life may be worth it again?

I'm assuming this is the core of your argument. Children pay the price for being human. That toll is exerted by biology. And until you pay it you can't get into this game. Again it's about consent and choice. The ability to make a choice doesn't mean you will make the best choice just that you make a choice. The role of society is to regulate the choice, to protect those who make choices for ephemeral reasons, who may, if given time, make different choices.

[Hedonic Treader]

I am not sure where you are finding these infants that are capable of consent. They will someday be, usually, but they are not at the time of their birth.

Exactly. They cannot consent to their own birth. Nevertheless, we force it onto them in a greater good rationale. And this breaks the very idea of a purely consent-based morality.

The default stance in such a morality would be, "If they can't consent, it is not morally permissible to force life onto them." The default stance is not "They can't consent, so let's do as we wish with them." This becomes clear in your example about sex. If we accept the premise that preteens and young teenagers don't have the ability to consent to sex (*), then the default stance is not "They can't consent, so allow adults to do with them as they please", but "They can't consent, so it is not morally permissible to have sex with them."

(*) I'm actually not sure this is always true, depending on whether one takes sexual consent to be an intellectually sophisticated thing, or a relatively basic question of human communication in a physical situation. I think it's quite plausible that older preteens and certainly teenagers have the necessary communication abilities for the second type of consent.

Another way to look at it would be an approach that isn't based on consent, but rather on well-being as an ethical value. If we assume that coming into life is generally a good thing (improving well-being), then the lack of consent doesn't make childbirth a moral crime. In a strictly consent-based morality, this would not be a valid argument.

You have leaped straight into a strawman argument, since we are only discussing people within their right minds and capable of consent. A person who is very drunk or impaired due to a reaction with a medication should be prevented from leaping off a bridge.

And again, the question is, why should consent matter? One answer is that consent intrinsically matters. But I think I've just shown that such a morality is incompatible with life itself.

Another answer is that consent is an indicator for well-being. The main diffence between spanking-as-assault and spanking-as-consensual-SM would then not be the consent itself, but the difference in the subjective value of both experiences - one is probably very unpleasant while the other is presumably pleasant (or else no one would consent to it).

And then the question is not whether a person consents to death, but whether that decision is actually the right decision to foster that person's well-being. Maybe they are temporarily depressed, or they don't see potential solutions to problems that could actually be solved, or there are pain treatments they've never tried but that acually could work, etc.

Children pay the price for being human. That toll is exerted by biology. And until you pay it you can't get into this game.

Again: They don't consent to get into this game. And within a consent-based moral framework, you can't force them to.

[morriswalters]

Apples and oranges, but I suppose you won't be satisfied any other way. Assuming the egg and sperm form the two parts which will make a human, the sperm certainly consents and will die trying to get to the egg. It's arguable that the egg consents also, since it drives the host body to prepare for the little wiggly's to come. And then waits there, fat and fecund, taking only the best. Sex is about reproduction, with pleasure as a motivating tool. There is more biology in the act then rationality. reductio ad absurdum

The ability to give informed consent about anything assumes a priori knowledge. Children aren't presumed to be prepared to make those decisions because they lack the knowledge or experience to make those decisions. Adults are presumed to have that knowledge therefore, and adult should know better while a child can't know better.

Society regulates the consent, to make sure that Jack doesn't jump off the bridge because Jill dumped him. That is an ephemeral decision, one that given time Jack probably would make on his own. However if Jack comes to the decision after a period of time to reflect, that this is indeed what he want's to do I'm not sure that a purpose is served by stopping him. I'm not prepared to give up the ability to make the choice, or to give it to you to make for me.

[GardenGoblin]

And again, the question is, why should consent matter? One answer is that consent intrinsically matters. But I think I've just shown that such a morality is incompatible with life itself.

I raise poultry. I treat my birds well, and when they get to a certain age/size, I kill them quickly and painlessly.

How many years should I spend in prison for murder?

I think I've just shown that your stance is irrational and illogical.

But here is another reason: How do you plan on determining whether or not a child consented to being born prior to the actual implantation into the uterus? I am stating here and now that every creature ever born consented to the act of birth. How do you intend to prove me wrong?

[Hedonic Treader]

Assuming the egg and sperm form the two parts which will make a human, the sperm certainly consents and will die trying to get to the egg. It's arguable that the egg consents also, since it drives the host body to prepare for the little wiggly's to come

But here is another reason: How do you plan on determining whether or not a child consented to being born prior to the actual implantation into the uterus? I am stating here and now that every creature ever born consented to the act of birth. How do you intend to prove me wrong?

Erm... you guys do know that consent actually requires sentient awareness of one's surroundings, right?

No offense, but this discussion is gaining a weird angle, and I'd like to prevent us from wasting our lifetime on misunderstandings. I'm out for now.

[GardenGoblin]

Assuming the egg and sperm form the two parts which will make a human, the sperm certainly consents and will die trying to get to the egg. It's arguable that the egg consents also, since it drives the host body to prepare for the little wiggly's to come

But here is another reason: How do you plan on determining whether or not a child consented to being born prior to the actual implantation into the uterus? I am stating here and now that every creature ever born consented to the act of birth. How do you intend to prove me wrong?

Erm... you guys do know that consent actually requires sentient awareness of one's surroundings, right?

Why, yes, we do. We were sort of wondering if you did, being that your reasoning for not having the right to die is that we did not consent to birth. It was somewhere between a strawman and a non sequitor.

By the time a child is capable of consent, it can consent to die if it so chooses. Thus the 'consent to life' argument is rendered irrelevant.

[Maduyn]

To use an analogy to explain the essence of the ability to consent to life issue.

Imagine a baby as a Golem from Discworld in the fact that until it owns itself it has no consciousness.

This is to say that until a baby is capable of taking responsiblity for its actions it is nothing more than a tool owned by its parents.

We do not need the hammers consent to use it but once that hammer can choose not to strike the nail then we must let it decide for itself what it wants to do.