I will rebut all anti-suicide questions at http://www.suicide.org/don't-i-have-the-right-to-die-by-suicide.html
* "Do you have the right to devastate your family?" The way this question is worded essentially blames the suicidal victim for such grief passed on towards loved ones and others. In this progressive era, it is accepted that suicidal people are never at fault for any consequences caused, and yet this common argument against suicide continues to put these victims in pain. In any situation, either the suicide victim or their loved ones will be in pain. The suicide victim should morally have the right to recognize that situation and escape from their pain and that fact. I could also argue about how this question discriminates against what society calls "loners," but I think I've made my point.
* "Do you have the right to cause intense, almost unbearable pain for all of the loved ones that you leave behind?" Very similar to above question, thus is addressed above.
* "Do you have the right to take away any possibility that you would get better?" The way I see life is just a measure of pain versus the absence of pain. If I were to commit suicide, I believe that the absence of my consciousness results in the absence of all pain, therefore fitting my definition of perfect "happiness." Although my opinion does not apply to everyone else, my opinion should be included and accounted for. When encountering a suicidal person, how would one know if they have the same opinion as me? As society cannot just discern that information, it should be better to just give them full autonomy of their body.
* "Do you have the right to take away all of the wonderful things in life that you have yet to experience?" Very similar to above question, thus is addressed above.
* "Do you have the right to take an action that is a permanent solution to a temporary problem?" This question assumes that all pain is temporary. Again, I think that the existence of pain, no matter how trivial, is permanent problem and requires suicide as the permanent solution. With my opinion established, my answer to the 3rd question should also connect this opinion of mine to society.
* "Do you have the right to cause irreversible brain damage to yourself if your suicide is not completed?" It's true that there is always a probability, small or big, that the pain increases in an unintended way. With my answers above defending suicidal victims, I believe that people should not go through physical means to interrupt suicide attempts as the suicidal victim has already established their decision. Even if nobody knew about such attempts of a victim, I also believe that the government should provide services to help reduce the accident rate. It will never be 0%, but there's also the possibility of having a painful medical condition due to old age. Thus, there is the decision to approach inevitable death through the means of one's choice and it should not be interrupted.
* "Do you have the right to cause yourself to become disfigured if your suicide is not completed?" Very similar to above question, thus is addressed above.
* "Do you have the right to cause yourself permanent paralysis if your suicide is not completed?" Very similar to above question, thus is addressed above.
* "Do you have the right to end your life instead of focusing on ending your pain? (It is the pain that you want to end, not your life.)" This question assumes that society's definition of pain also applies to suicidal victims, which is usually false. I think I've made my point with my answers above.
* "Do you have the right to not receive treatment for the mental illness that you probably have -- the treatment that will make you better?" What's the definition of better? How about the definition of treatment? I think suicide is a better treatment to stop pain and many suicidal victims would agree with me.
* " The question should not be whether you have the right to die by suicide. But should be, What do you need to do to get better? " Very similar to above question, thus is addressed above.
I also want to address, "How about those who are caught up in the moment and aren't thinking rationally? What if they regret it when they're rational" In my defense, I believe that all suicidal people should be treated as if they were acting rationally as it is impossible to differentiate between those the question addresses and those who are rational.
BTW, I posted this as a reddit post on r/unpopularopinion, but it seems that the spam filter removed it. I just want to share my thoughts.
* "Do you have the right to devastate your family?" The way this question is worded essentially blames the suicidal victim for such grief passed on towards loved ones and others. In this progressive era, it is accepted that suicidal people are never at fault for any consequences caused, and yet this common argument against suicide continues to put these victims in pain. In any situation, either the suicide victim or their loved ones will be in pain. The suicide victim should morally have the right to recognize that situation and escape from their pain and that fact. I could also argue about how this question discriminates against what society calls "loners," but I think I've made my point.
* "Do you have the right to cause intense, almost unbearable pain for all of the loved ones that you leave behind?" Very similar to above question, thus is addressed above.
* "Do you have the right to take away any possibility that you would get better?" The way I see life is just a measure of pain versus the absence of pain. If I were to commit suicide, I believe that the absence of my consciousness results in the absence of all pain, therefore fitting my definition of perfect "happiness." Although my opinion does not apply to everyone else, my opinion should be included and accounted for. When encountering a suicidal person, how would one know if they have the same opinion as me? As society cannot just discern that information, it should be better to just give them full autonomy of their body.
* "Do you have the right to take away all of the wonderful things in life that you have yet to experience?" Very similar to above question, thus is addressed above.
* "Do you have the right to take an action that is a permanent solution to a temporary problem?" This question assumes that all pain is temporary. Again, I think that the existence of pain, no matter how trivial, is permanent problem and requires suicide as the permanent solution. With my opinion established, my answer to the 3rd question should also connect this opinion of mine to society.
* "Do you have the right to cause irreversible brain damage to yourself if your suicide is not completed?" It's true that there is always a probability, small or big, that the pain increases in an unintended way. With my answers above defending suicidal victims, I believe that people should not go through physical means to interrupt suicide attempts as the suicidal victim has already established their decision. Even if nobody knew about such attempts of a victim, I also believe that the government should provide services to help reduce the accident rate. It will never be 0%, but there's also the possibility of having a painful medical condition due to old age. Thus, there is the decision to approach inevitable death through the means of one's choice and it should not be interrupted.
* "Do you have the right to cause yourself to become disfigured if your suicide is not completed?" Very similar to above question, thus is addressed above.
* "Do you have the right to cause yourself permanent paralysis if your suicide is not completed?" Very similar to above question, thus is addressed above.
* "Do you have the right to end your life instead of focusing on ending your pain? (It is the pain that you want to end, not your life.)" This question assumes that society's definition of pain also applies to suicidal victims, which is usually false. I think I've made my point with my answers above.
* "Do you have the right to not receive treatment for the mental illness that you probably have -- the treatment that will make you better?" What's the definition of better? How about the definition of treatment? I think suicide is a better treatment to stop pain and many suicidal victims would agree with me.
* " The question should not be whether you have the right to die by suicide. But should be, What do you need to do to get better? " Very similar to above question, thus is addressed above.
I also want to address, "How about those who are caught up in the moment and aren't thinking rationally? What if they regret it when they're rational" In my defense, I believe that all suicidal people should be treated as if they were acting rationally as it is impossible to differentiate between those the question addresses and those who are rational.
BTW, I posted this as a reddit post on r/unpopularopinion, but it seems that the spam filter removed it. I just want to share my thoughts.
