Venting Anyone else think that forcing someone to live is inherently immoral?

[Zenova_]

If someone does not want to die, people agree and help them try to live. If someone does not want to live, they are treated like subhumans. Other people deciding for them what is best.

In my opinion, making someone live when they would rather die should be seen to be just as deplorable as murder. If you would not force someone to die, why force them to live?

And for what? People always think they know what's best for a suicidal person. "A permanent solution to temporary problems" is bullshit. Therapists think they know everything. They think your problems are just temporary and you'll be fine eventually if you just don't kill yourself.

I fucking despise when I see a new therapist and they say "Well I'm glad your attempt wasn't successful." Who are you to determine if I deserve to live or not? You obviously don't think you have the authority to decide if I die. You've known me for mere minutes and already you assume that deep down I'm a good person who deserves to live and you're so glad I'm alive.

You don't know me. What if I was a murderer? What if you told a rapist that you were glad they were alive? People are selfish for trying to keep others alive and I'm tired of pretending they're not.

People only want to keep others alive because they think it's some morally superior position to take. Why don't you channel that energy into making sure people don't get to this point in the first place? Theres a reason we focus on vaccines before we focus on cures.

 

[CarbonBased]

You'll be surprised how common this view is on this forum..
Also, I always found "a permanent solution to a temporary problem" thing kinda weird. Outside of this context, what's wrong with solving a problem permanently? What if that problem turns out not to be temporary after all? I really think they should stop using that one

 

[TAW122]

Yeah, that's the ongoing and continuous contention that we pro-choicers (on here and even outside of SaSu) have when it comes to dealing with forced-lifers (pro-lifers) in general. I don't think things will ever improve until such an attitude across society at large (on a macro level) changes, but of course that is easier said than done.

 

[jaysthreecents]

You don't have any authority or power in choosing to be born. A gift that you cannot return is now a burden. Fair compensation for every life created is assisted suicide, at the discretion of the individual. The current environment of having people resort to more drastic methods is detrimental. It's unethical to discredit someone's decision to continue living. Robbing someone of that agency is immoral, as well as preventing them from having access to a safe means to end their life. The consequences are greater now, and change would allow people to re-evaluate what it means to "want to live".

The issue is we infect this harsh truth with our innate Will to Live. Something you didn't choose, all living things possess this. So how can you say you truly "choose to live"? This is where critical thought is imperative. You cannot rely on intuition or instinct.

We are biased towards living because of our biology. But humanity has proven that we strive to escape our limitations. Reflection that leads to a decision that death is preferable to life, is no different in that regard. I consider it a consequence of being capable, but without a proper understanding of how to use the tools at hand.

The view of death as a negative state is often driven by biological adaptations and emotional attachment. The irony is that people willingly wish death upon people they consider "less than human", now using that perceived negativity as a weapon. There is no such thing as right or wrong, positive or negative, that is just another construct of the mind. A result of our dualistic mind interpreting the physical world.

The weakness of our consciousness is the freedom to imagine beyond reality. We have become so detached from the tangible properties of life, and injected our sense of morality, superiority and righteousness, because who will stop us? The hubris of humanity knows no bounds.

 

[DeadnDusted]

Also, I always found "a permanent solution to a temporary problem" thing kinda weird. Outside of this context, what's wrong with solving a problem permanently? What if that problem turns out not to be temporary after all? I really think they should stop using that one

Afaik it started as a quote from Robin Williams (who ironically killed himself). And people present it as this argument or something lol. I doubt many even think it through

 

[Flowerpup]

Anyone else think that forcing someone to live is inherently immoral?
Absolutely Yes, but i also think that making someone have the authority and job to kill a person EVEN with their consent is also be immoral. Perhaps with a 2 way agreement like offer your body to a cannibal if they assist kind of deal. Honestly a human-less way seem to be a better way to do things but i wonder what morality questions come from it.

That being said, every unasked comment is an unwanted opnion and every judgement comes from their lived experiences. We forged our morality from our teachings and experiences. AND from my experience every therapist i have met talked from their own life experiences, hence why i believe "try several therapists until you find someone you can trust" really just becomes "find a like minded person that studied therapy".


as for "a permanent solution to a temporary problem"... is completely disregard to a person struggle. The reason hardly comes from a temporary or transient problem and there's usually a lot of pain for a period of time. Simply is because they would rather tell you "pain is fleeting", "hang in there" than acknowledge the root, cause or even the signals that the situation has existed for quite a while now.

 

[jaysthreecents]

Anyone else think that forcing someone to live is inherently immoral?
Absolutely Yes, but i also think that making someone have the authority and job to kill a person EVEN with their consent is also be immoral. Perhaps with a 2 way agreement like offer your body to a cannibal if they assist kind of deal. Honestly a human-less way seem to be a better way to do things but i wonder what morality questions come from it.

Assisted suicide is quite similar to "murder with permission", so most people advocate for Voluntary, Self-Administered methods. But we often justify murder when someone "deserves it". If someone wants something and we can give it to them, why don't they deserve it? It seems immoral to withhold an opportunity for a person, based on disregarding that individual's personal beliefs. The Right to Die should have as much support as the Right to Live; they are 2 sides of the same coin. But our bias convinces us that Life is the superior option.

Not sure how cannibalism justifies murder, seems like it would be more about maximizing resources lol

That being said, every unasked comment is an unwanted opnion

can you elaborate on this? Seems presumptuous to say all future comments are unwanted opinions.

emotions>beliefs>morality is usually how I look at it.

The issue is that there's no tangible reason someone can extract from a person that ultimately denotes eligibility for voluntary euthanasia. A person who wants to die, has to prove it isn't included in the list of reasons people consider dismiss-able. This is because we have an biological bias towards survival, often willing to make great sacrifices to achieve it. This is a test that is designed to coerce you into continuing to live, by providing enough obstacles so that forcing your own death is too much of a hassle. In a way, we don't truly have a choice. We are biologically and systemically driven towards persistence, against our best interests.


Human consciousness is an evolutionary mistake. We are too aware for our own good, and refuse to address it, because indulging in the illusion of our manufactured world is too enticing.

 

[Flowerpup]

I mean on the idea that one person is consenting to be ended and other is accepting to commit that. Cannibalism is just the quickest reason I could though. But organ donating, experimenting with science, etc. Works. My point was consent

I agree with the right to die should be available but my problem with assisted suicide (euthanacia) is that harming someone takes a toll and i feel is just as immoral to ask people to assist in that way. In the long run is ought to change somwthing within a person. The conditions exist merely so that people running the show feel merciful and better about themselves rather than feeling like they are killing.

Which takes me to the eligibility portion. I dont care for the debate of pro choice or pro life. Because that only exists for people without money, power or influence. If i rich person decides to die one way or another they can make that happen. Fines and rules only apply for the majority. what ever they choose to make the eligibility process will be as arbitrary as anything. I wonder if the eligibility really has any humanitarian basis or anything to do on the desire to survive of nosey people looking to dictate your choice.

On the second part, I meant that whatever you do or think is not necesary to explain to anyone, and if someone butts it and comment about it with out you asking for it... its a unwanted opinion. Nothing more.

Do you feel coerced to live? Or that death is too much of a hassle?
I dont particularly have any feelings towards that because I have little desire to be alive, and never fought to survive so I have no comments on that.

Conciusness is the mistake? I would argue the subconscious is what drives a harder desire to survive and search for a purpose or meaning in life. But thats deeprooted in life not just humanity. even pests look to reproduce and survive as a species. Conciusness is what let us overwrite that desire

Looking foward for your answer.

 

[FuneralCry]

Yes, it is, to me forcing humans to suffer in this terrible, torturous existence is a crime that only ever causes way more harm and torture, there's just so much evil in anti-suicide, all that these people want is to make it so others are tortured in this existence for as long as possible.
It truly is so horrible and cruel how humans impose this existence I just always saw as a mistake at all and do all they can to force others to be burdened with this existence of torturous suffering where there is no limit as to how much agony one can feel, making painless death inaccessible is such a terrible, horrible crime, it truly is the most horrific prison world where the suffering and torture of existing is seen as to force and prolong no matter what.

 

[jaysthreecents]

I mean on the idea that one person is consenting to be ended and other is accepting to commit that. Cannibalism is just the quickest reason I could though. But organ donating, experimenting with science, etc. Works. My point was consent

I agree with the right to die should be available but my problem with assisted suicide (euthanacia) is that harming someone takes a toll and i feel is just as immoral to ask people to assist in that way. In the long run is ought to change somwthing within a person. The conditions exist merely so that people running the show feel merciful and better about themselves rather than feeling like they are killing.

Which takes me to the eligibility portion. I dont care for the debate of pro choice or pro life. Because that only exists for people without money, power or influence. If i rich person decides to die one way or another they can make that happen. Fines and rules only apply for the majority. what ever they choose to make the eligibility process will be as arbitrary as anything. I wonder if the eligibility really has any humanitarian basis or anything to do on the desire to survive of nosey people looking to dictate your choice.

On the second part, I meant that whatever you do or think is not necesary to explain to anyone, and if someone butts it and comment about it with out you asking for it... its a unwanted opinion. Nothing more.

Do you feel coerced to live? Or that death is too much of a hassle?
I dont particularly have any feelings towards that because I have little desire to be alive, and never fought to survive so I have no comments on that.

Conciusness is the mistake? I would argue the subconscious is what drives a harder desire to survive and search for a purpose or meaning in life. But thats deeprooted in life not just humanity. even pests look to reproduce and survive as a species. Conciusness is what let us overwrite that desire

Looking foward for your answer.

If people volunteer to be nurses who administer euthanasia, it's sort of included in the job description that they havea moral stance that this is the "right thing to do". Once again, all parties here are consenting. There's no need to imagine their experience of morality, because it's irrelevant to you. It's THEIR choice, your opinion is invalid in that regard.

Sure, taking a live can be emotionally tormenting. But many sacrifices are difficult. And when you analyze the situation from a larger scale (ignoring individuality) the basic property is that you are forced into life, and are often coerced into continuing to live. This is a huge bias towards living. This inherently puts anyone who prefers to die, at a disadvantage. How is this a fair choice, if when the opportunities and assistance towards life and death are imbalanced?

This is no different than 600 years ago where we would burn witches at the stake. It's our lack of understanding that drives our confidence. We have this desire to control life, and rationalize it in 1000 ways. That's why the individual should have authority on this choice. Providing a safe, accessible means will prevent the traumas associated with someone failing an attempt, or using any of the various methods, ranging from horrific to scary. I would argue that forcing a person to find someone to CTB in a violent manner, more immoral since you not only gave the suicidal person reason to follow through with that method, but also create a situation where anyone could find them, since the environment and process is not controlled.

Eligibility will always have a criteria, that's baked into the definition. The point is to make that criteria achievable by any person who consciously determines they want to die. Something simple like restricting to age of 18, and joining a waitlist could be minimal barriers that restrict children and episodic attempts. The game of trying to justify why a person chooses to die, which determines how you help them, is the biggest mistake we can make. Humans never gave consent to birth, and now they are being held against an imaginary standard in order to receive assistance with a peaceful death. Yet we can all agree that helping a woman safely give birth on her terms is "the right thing to do". It's the constant condescending mentality of people who have power over others. You're getting too political, when the answer is beyond that landscape.

Everyone has different desires. Your assumption that an opinion is universally unwanted just because you don't want it, is poor mentalization. Lack of perspective.

I personally find the innate Will to Live is quite strong. Overcoming this biological urge is no different than resisting hunger. You willpower is finite, biology will eventually win. In all fields where humans struggle alone, we help them. This situation falls under the same pretense. The issue is people color it based on their moral beliefs of the value of life, and the value of death.

Subconscious is simple the background programing of your mind. The awareness that comes from consciousness is what allows us to ponder and question life. The more "automatic" functions of a pure subconscious being would be akin to how we view animals that behave solely on their instincts and DNA. Their is no capacity for questioning, no desire to understand the unknown. No void to fill.

Consciousness is simply your awareness and an observatory mechanism. Your concept of "overwriting desire" is simply a series of calculations made in your subconscious, influenced by your consciousness, and observed by your consciousness. The illusion of "control" shows how intricate our species is.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." For centuries humanity has fabricated stories to explain life, to defeat the fear of the unknown. Our arrogance comes from the notion that we have "figured it out" when history has shown, nearly every era had that belief, and nearly ever era after that was able to disprove a myriad of assumptions.

The question is, what assumptions do we have today, that we will view as foolish as "burning witches at the stake"? Remember that Homo Sapiens have existed for about 300,000 years. We are so focused on our own lifetime, we often forget the scale of existence, and lose sight of how much we are simply a product of our time and environment. Once we let go of that, we can more easily step into the future. Those who hold onto the present or past, prevent progress.

 

[Flowerpup]

It's THEIR choice, your opinion is invalid in that regard.

you answer it yourself.

Sure, taking a live can be emotionally tormenting. But many sacrifices are difficult. And when you analyze the situation from a larger scale (ignoring individuality) the basic property is that you are forced into life, and are often coerced into continuing to live.

I would argue that forcing a person to find someone to CTB in a violent manner, more immoral since you not only gave the suicidal person reason to follow through with that method, but also create a situation where anyone could find them, since the environment and process is not controlled.

Your/my/anyone's opinion does not matter to a third party. Analyze ,argue all you want, but you are not changing the mind of the person that controls the eligibility.
Euthanasia is an "aid" or "service" provided by the government or by a private organization that abides by the law of the government. IF we could disregard politics and laws... everything is available... go for it. buy any substance, or hire someone to aid you and pay it with your organs or whatever you need to do. just archive it outside of law.

More times than not its easier to see how entitlement affects ones opinion. "This should be available to me, because i want it" then try to rationalize it with whatever fits their idea and then act like they have it all figure it out. Pirating software and games i my biggest gripe with this..." I cant accept that bigger, better looking games are jumping in prices" so i will pirate it and emulate it like i have been doing for decades already.... some things are a luxury and cost work to do them. YES companies are greedy and want to make 8 figures per release, buy parts for cheap in places with forced labor and pseudo-slavery, keeping the price high to make more money but the mentality that "I" deserve it because "I" want it, its also wrong.
Lets move it to euthanasia, people that want to die are bias towards that it should be easier to access, yes is immoral to tie someone into a bed, and force them to keep alive with medical procedures but we have some agency on our time, choosing to argue in this forum, trying to find like minded people. I know i am bias, i don't want a greater good nor doing the right or good thing. If offered to be euthanized but i am forcing a person who also want it to not being able to, ill take it. But i am not so blind to not see that i could just CTB right now, with a power tool from a toolbox. i have just choose a different method and place, so when the time is right ill leave in silence.

You are centering on the conscious of each individual and talking about something greater yet what bounds whether or not a method of CTB is available, or not, is usually money or laws. its easier to die than it is to live, at any point something can end you. Its just people have preference over how to die, pain, duration. But life its the same.... you have only some limited choice that mostly are determined by the place of birth. Desiring to be a billionaire with limitless options in life will not change the fact that you were not born in a family with generational wealth.

as for the conscious vs unconscious part is just argumentative trash. Neither side is has solid proof that one overrides the other. one can do something consciously against their desires or even if its hurts or go a against their beliefs just as simple as you can lose your train of though and doing a habit so ingrain in your brain that has become second nature. I think we have our own ideas regarding that so ill just skip that part. (I meant also whatever argument i could throw at you about the contrary. I just don't find the topic that interesting to reply)

Those who hold onto the present or past, prevent progress.

Forget your past and walk directly into the same mistakes that your ancestors made, signals of a government turning authoritarian or fascist, plague killing more people due to misinformation, "cold wars" in international trade taxes and tariffs. Historical events repeat, plagues, wars, propaganda... and all of the signs are there...
Even systematic hate tactics are all the same, it was never about the water fountains. It was just a excuse to hold their beliefs.

Your assumption that an opinion is universally unwanted just because you don't want it

a comment is for the receiver to decide whether they ask for it or not. putting something in a forum or public platform is recognizing that you are ready to receive questioning and comments on your opinion. My comment was localized on how to live a life or your own experience of pain, no one has the right to minimize, patronize or dictate it. IF i am the receiver of said, its my choice, i don't care for anyone comment,like your said It's "THEIR choice, your opinion is invalid in that regard."

if you want to keep this conversation without bothering anyone in the thread send me a dm. i am not against it

 

[jaysthreecents]

I think I stumbled in the wrong forum, what are these tangents?