Reply
Wed 18 Jan, 2006 08:03 am
The latest hot potato the right will try and use to establish themselves as "the moral ones". But how about this?
If I, healthy and with years (hopefully) left to live, decide for my own reasons to end my life, I don't think there's any doubt that's suicide.
But if I'm terminal and suffering and going to die no matter what, or if my life is virtually over because of something so debilitating I will never really live, only exist, is that suicide or just catching an early eternal shuttle?
Discuss, voice your thoughts, promote your agenda, use this as a springboard to snipe and pick a fight or as an opportunity to do the Superior dance. Whatever, but what's your opinion?
I think, If its your life and you want to end it for whatever reason you should be 'allowed' to do so.
I have heard in some places if you try to committ suicide but fail and are caught, its a crime, and the punishment is death!!
Is it then considered worse because when, how, where you die has been completely taken out of your hands and into anothers.
Move to Oregon, Bear, they'll off ya legally . . . well, we're waiting . . .
There was a story of a canniball advertising for a person to be eaten.
One guy willingly replied, they met up, the canniball ate him.
Now the canniball is being arrested for something like murder.
I dont get it, it was all consentual!
material girl wrote:There was a story of a canniball advertising for a person to be eaten.
One guy willingly replied, they met up, the canniball ate him.
Now the canniball is being arrested for something like murder.
I dont get it, it was all consentual!
I had a similar experience with a stripper but no one got arrested. I dated her for a year off and on....
I dont see all the hub-bub about suicide.
Its your life, its your body.. who the hell has the right to tell you that you cant kill yourself if you want to?
Why does that subject even belong in the law books?
it just blows my f-kn mind..
shewolfnm wrote:I dont see all the hub-bub about suicide.
Its your life, its your body.. who the hell has the right to tell you that you cant kill yourself if you want to?
Why does that subject even belong in the law books?
it just blows my f-kn mind..
Only thing I can think of is Insurance fraud cases that may arise, as well as lost income from taxes and what-not.
Also it provides a method for people to kill others and get away with it.
It also offends the religiously minded, who think their imaginary friend owns everybody . . .
Questioner wrote:shewolfnm wrote:I dont see all the hub-bub about suicide.
Its your life, its your body.. who the hell has the right to tell you that you cant kill yourself if you want to?
Why does that subject even belong in the law books?
it just blows my f-kn mind..
Only thing I can think of is Insurance fraud cases that may arise, as well as lost income from taxes and what-not.
Also it provides a method for people to kill others and get away with it.
Pretty extreme thing to do just for insurance, youve either got to be really brave or really drunk.
How do you mean its a method for people to kill others and get away with it?
shewolfnm wrote:I dont see all the hub-bub about suicide.
Its your life, its your body.. who the hell has the right to tell you that you cant kill yourself if you want to?
Why does that subject even belong in the law books?
it just blows my f-kn mind..
Very nicely said.If you want to run for President, id vote for you.
Blue wrote
Quote: If I, healthy and with years (hopefully) left to live, decide for my own reasons to end my life, I don't think there's any doubt that's suicide.
But if I'm terminal and suffering and going to die no matter what, or if my life is virtually over because of something so debilitating I will never really live, only exist, is that suicide or just catching an early eternal shuttle?
There is a world of difference between the two. I am all for assisted suicide or euthanasia. In fact IMO it is an act of mercy. Whereas, the suicide of a healthy person IMO should never be condoned.
material girl wrote:How do you mean its a method for people to kill others and get away with it?
Well, if you've got a man's family or something he cares about in a position of potential harm, you can make him kill himself and almost be above suspicion. Loopholes would quickly be found to abuse such a law.
Questioner, are you saying the Oregon law is open to such abuse?
The way it is currently written, I rather doubt it. The Death with Dignity Act specifies that suicide is legal only with a Physician's assistance. The concerns i've mentioned were more in response to the statement that was made about why the subject of suicide even belongs in the law books.
If there were no laws or restrictions placed upon it at all I could easily see the situation I've outlined occurring, which may speak more of my own character than anything else.
I see what you're saying and I agree.
I think the Oregon law is very well crafted and very well monitored. As it should be.
Questioner wrote:material girl wrote:How do you mean its a method for people to kill others and get away with it?
Well, if you've got a man's family or something he cares about in a position of potential harm, you can make him kill himself and almost be above suspicion. Loopholes would quickly be found to abuse such a law.
I see no reason why you couldn't do this now. If the facts of such a scenario are discovered, a prosecution would result unless there are laws saying that it's ok to force someone to kill themselves, which isn't likely.
FreeDuck wrote:Questioner wrote:material girl wrote:How do you mean its a method for people to kill others and get away with it?
Well, if you've got a man's family or something he cares about in a position of potential harm, you can make him kill himself and almost be above suspicion. Loopholes would quickly be found to abuse such a law.
I see no reason why you couldn't do this now. If the facts of such a scenario are discovered, a prosecution would result unless there are laws saying that it's ok to force someone to kill themselves, which isn't likely.
If such a thing were discovered today, the event would be explored as a crime scene rather than being dismissed as a suicide and forgotten. I used that one scenario as an example, but laxes across the board could occur as a result of the loss of such laws.
In response to the religious issues, put simply: if I made the choice to not follow that particular religion, I should be able to exercise this choice to 100% extent, instead of only 30% because those around me and those who govern me made a contrary choice and chose to follow god.
So much for freedom of choice - you've gotta let me practice it too!
hmmm interesting point pragmatic.
It seems religious tolerence is limited by how much your religion offends the religion with most political power.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace