Do you think Assisted Suicide is Okay?

Not at all, its harsh

 

Yes. Because its not fair to die a slow painful tragic saddening death. I think if you meet a certain criteria you should be allowed fosho.

 

If that's what you want, why not?

 

^ you're choice

 

FINALLY

"Why not?" finally placing the burden of proof where it belongs. Look at all these people who posted that their support of assisted suicide was conditional, but didn't list any reasons for why.

 

I believe we have a right to die the same way we have a right to live.

Now before people attack that belief let me say that even though I think we should be able to make the decision if we want to die or not...There are problems with this. Mental illness is a big issue today. People with illness may not be thinking logically or sensibly when they decide to take their life or have someone else do it for them. I think we should take every possible measure before we allow someone to choose to die. However in the same way that terminal illness can make your quality of life very poor, mental illness can do the same. So ultimately I believe we should try to help the person improve their quality of life first, but I think it comes down to the individuals right to choose life or death in the end.

 

"Why not murder people"?

I don't want to be murdered, and neither do you, presumably.

As for drugs, sure, why not let all drugs be legal?

If someone decides to kill themselves, why do you care? If a medical professional helps them with their consent, why do you care? Are you planning on forcibly keeping someone alive who wants to die? Does it matter how much pain this person is in?

 

"Why not murder people"

Assisted suicide is NOT murder if that's what your referring too. I wish I could find it now but there was a young lady terminally ill that could not stand herself anymore. She signed up for assisted suicide and was eventually granted she documented her life for a year before she took part in the "assisted suicide" it was a beautiful story and she loved her life and was much more content with knowing that she won't have to suffer anymore.

 

Why not?

Why not?

Why not?

Why should there be any condition? Why should the choice of living or dying be anyone else's choice except for that person's?

What exactly do you plan to accomplish by making suicide illegal? Are you going to throw the corpses in prison?

 

Isn't that person the one who decides what is in their best interest? Aren't they the one with the best knowledge & ultimate authority & final decision?

Will you attempt to deny someone the right to die?

 

Appeal to popularity fallacy

Appeal to law fallacy

Appeal to tradition fallacy

Even from the percentage that survive, about 30% go on to attempt suicide again. You are attempting to deny someone the right to die based on your outside perception.

 

Legalizing assisted suicide?

Yes, people should be free to do with their bodies as they please. It's called the right to life, ie, the right to self-ownership. You do not encumber that right by saying that people own their bodies, except in these circumstances.

So yes, assisted suicide should be legal, however whether people ought to commit suicide (via assistance or otherwise) is a separate issue, and a moral one. Too often people conflate politics and law, what the government can and should do to govern its citizens, and what individuals can and should to do live good lives. They are separate areas of analysis. The relevant questions would be:

1. Does each individual own their own body?
2. To what extent?

I think most would answer yes to the first question. It is the second question which attracts difference. Let it be known however that slavery involves the whole ownership of another individuals body (life). The more encumbrances you allow on one's ownership of their own body, the more you tend towards slavery. So how in favour of the fundamental feature of slavery are you?

 

I couldn't agree more with you.

 

Slavery is ownership, period. That's like saying enslaving poor people that have a 50% chance of dieing soon isn't slavery because you're giving them another chance at life that they would otherwise forfeit. No, it's slavery. It may be 'well-intentioned slavery', but it is still slavery, or, specifically, and act that tends towards slavery.

You are saying slavery is ok in some circumstances? I'm more hesitant than you.

 

Note that after the Declaration of Independence in 1788, America was formerly established as, for all intents and purposes, a democracy. See Tyranny of the Majority.

See the History of Slavery in America.

If your problem is murder, then allowing the legalizing assisted suicide is not legally murder, to the second part. See prohibition.

So you support Prohibition (supporting the edicts of the majority per your first point) and are against the Emancipation Proclamation (abolishing slavery)? Interesting. If that statement is a sentence that represents your views, then I will give you points for consistency, otherwise you clearly don't believe the sentences you've typed out.

Let's try another route. To what extent do people own their own bodies? You clearly think they don't own their own bodies with regards to taking their own life. Fine. In what other instances do you think people do not own their own bodies?

 

Hard Drugs yes, murder, no.

False dilemma fallacy. Just because the majority rules in a certain way, doesn't mean the rule the majority has enforced, or enacted is the incorrect one. The problem doesn't lie in the conclusion, it lies in the reasoning. So saying x should be illegal because the majority thinks it should be illegal is fallacious reasoning, see appeal to popularity. However even if the majority thinks x is illegal (think slavery), you can say that slavery should be illegal because it is wrong to allow the forcible ownership of another human being because x, y, z. You've reached the same conclusion but embarked on different lines of reasoning.

Also I don't think you understand what I mean if you think that I'm saying that by abiding by the rules of the majority makes you a 'slave'. I said that making it illegal for own to assist in suicide is a law that tends towards slavery, ie, ownership of ones body, because it disallows what one can and cannot do with their own body. That it is accepted by the majority is irrelevant, as I have argued for above (appeal to popularity). You were the one that wanted to sign up to slavery.

Please answer this question: To what extent do people own their own bodies?

 

I never said that at all? You are amalgamating politics and morality, something that I explicitly tried to guard people against in my first post. I am not defending being able to do what you want, I am defending the right to own your own body. You are arguing that laws should exist to put limitations on that right. This is an argument in the realm of politics, as it regards what governments can/ought or cannot/ought not do. This is DIFFERENT from what INDIVIDUALS should and should not do, qua, morality. Being unable to murder is a moral consideration (do not murder), which is separate from making murder illegal, a political consideration (murder is illegal). In either context, the impermissibility of murder does not restrict one's ownership of ones own body (though there is often more to be said on that in the context of abortion). So no, barring someone from murder does not make them a slave, because the the disallowance of murder does not touch the ownership of one's body. This is because murder is an act done toward another, it doesn't concern one's own body. This is different from suicide, because suicide is done to oneself, and if one owns their own body entirely, then they are free to do entirely as they wish to their own body. That also includes setting it alight, or intentionally inhaling carbon monoxide. I don't think you understand at all what an anarchist is.

You said: "So you think murder and hard drugs and all other things bad should be allowed? Otherwise you're abiding by the rules of majority and you're a "slave" right? That's pretty stupid IMO."

Note the key word OTHERWISE. Your argument is that:

EITHER murder and hard drugs... should be allowed, ELSE (read otherwise), I am a slave. That is a clear cut false dilemma fallacy. It could be the case that Murder should not be allowed, and that I am not a slave. Again, your argument is an appeal to popularity. Because X majority thinks Y therefore Y is correct. Um no? If the majority thought owning black people wasn't slavery, that does not make the ownership of black people non-slavery, which is the same structure of argument you are trying to rely on.

Your argument is a contradiction. If people own themselves entirely, with the exception of them breaking rules which attract consequences which limit their ownership, then they clearly do not own themselves entirely. They perhaps own themselves substantially, but there are exceptions that their ownership is subject to, which means they do not own themselves entirely. For example, in property law, you don't own your land entirely if it has a mortgage and lien registered against it. You own your land subject to those interests. Or slavery, the slave does not own themselves entirely, but rather their ownership is subject to their masters whims. Your statements are an utter contradiction.

 

Restrictions on what you are allowed to do with your body in the context of interacting with the external world, and what you are allowed to do to your body in the context of ownership are separate things. The line in the context we are talking about is ownership, and it has always been ownership. Though there are restriction on what you can and cannot do, this is SEPARATE to restrictions on OWNERSHIP. I'm saying there are no restrictions in the context of OWNERSHIP, not that there are no restrictions period. Murder is wholly irrelevant to ownership. Things that are relevant to ownership include abortion, euthanasia, organ sales, etc.

Then you've mischaracterized my argument entirely, and have strawmanned it. I would suggest re-read everything, starting from my reply to you wanting to sign up to slavery if its democratic edicts meant prohibition or the slavery in the past. Another hint, I have never said murder is allowed, you pulled that out of nowhere.

I didn't say consequences make us slaves? I said restrictions on our right to own our own bodies tends towards slavery. In the context we are arguing, it is implied that the consequences here are political in nature (I am not talking about the fact that you cant walk into a fire and not get burnt...). Political consequences can be unjustified. You have tried to justify them via an appeal to popularity. The burden is on you to show why the consequences are justified. Again, you have tried to discharge your burden with an appeal to popularity. You have not discharged your burden.

I didn't say you can't own it, I said that you don't fully own it entirely. Ordinarily in analysis on the legal and equitable rights, no one pays heed to the fact that the Crown (or w/e the equivalent is in the US), is entitled to property tax, land tax, etc. The starting point is looking at who has the registered instrument, or deed, and then looking at the encumbrances to the land. The owner of the land (based on registration or a deed) takes their interest SUBJECT TO those encumbrances. This is how our property law system works.

 

I said it tends towrads slavery, and slavery is about ownership. You are not talking about ownership. The line is not arbitrary, the line is drawn based on ownership, since that is what we are talking about.

You keep talking about murder when I'm talking about ownership. You can't plunge a knife into someone else because you don't own their body, or don't have their consent to. You can't just say what you want in a debate and attach it to your argument.

Again that is not what I'm saying, saying that I mean what I do not mean does not change that fact.

"I'm saying because the majority thinks so, the rules reflect that and there is no ownership or slavery in that equation"

The majority didn't think blacks were people, so therefore?

This is how the law works in must UK descendant countries, including the US. Simple rates and taxes do not encumber your land, although a build up of unpaid rates and taxes do encumber your land.

We haven't really begun arguing since you haven't really been engaging with my views, only a mischaracterization of my views. Also, fallacies are errors in logic, I will point out any errors in logic made, because fallacies often pervade the truth. I'm generally quite charitable when it come to fallacies, but when you something as blatant as: "I'm saying because the majority thinks so, the rules reflect that and there is no ownership or slavery in that equation", then that is a clear appeal to popularity. Just think what would happen if the majority did not think so?

 

After seeing some death as of recently and seeing my grandpa currently suffering I can say with confidence that I believe it should be legalized. I'm a firm believer in the right to choose about this kind of stuff, yes try and address young people with mental issues prior to allowing them to kill themselves but if someone really doesn't want to live on this earth we have no right to keep them here.