Discussion Self-defense of defending one's right to die (bodily autonomy)

[TAW122]

Note: This is not a post to incite, encourage, nor endorse violence or any illegal acts. This is merely an discussion for intellectual and educational purposes.

Originally, I had this topic, idea, concept way back years ago on the SS subreddit before it got banned. This was in late 2017 or so, before this forum and before TTG (the other subreddit that came up after r/SS was banned). In that thread years ago, I recall not only reaching a narrow audience, but also had some contrary responses. What is really ironic to me is that how can someone who is trying to intervene, save someone from suicide, be considered completely legal, supported, endorsed by society, yet when in any other circumstance, be it a burglar, home invader, and/or robber, society views defending one's own place (house, dwelling, space, property, etc.) to be socially justified and even legal in some jurisdictions and state?

The irony of the situation is that when societal members, be it people in authority, civilians, and/or others who do illegal actions against a non-suicidal person, if the person defends him/herself, it is seen as justified and appropriate. However, if it is done to a suicidal person and he/she defends him/herself against intervention, he/she is seen as the bad person for standing his/her ground, defending him/herself.

For all the suicidal person knows is that someone intervening is only getting in their way, violating their civil liberties, bodily autonomy. In fact, to a non-suicidal person, this is seen as self-defense, defense of one's own property, castle-doctrine, and what not. One example is in the state of Indiana, there is a law that allows citizens to protect themselves against unlawful entry. Now of course, IANAL nor do I encourage nor endorse illegal acts, but this case example shows that if citizens (non-suicidal) ones can defend themselves against unlawful entry, including those by a public servant/authority figure.

With that said, my old thread from the now banned SS subreddit had a bunch of feeble and passive responses such as how it was wrong to defend oneself against intervention. I find it appalling that people are willing to be doormats and pushovers when it comes to standing one's own ground against mistreatment, abuse, and violation of one's bodily autonomy. Now I am not saying that people should do something illegal per se, but if in normal circumstances (non-suicidal person) where one can defend his/her own property, his/her own self from harm, then why can't suicidal people stop the people from stopping them (basically stopping pro-lifers' intervention, violation of bodily autonomy, and what not)? To me, that's rather stupid and if anything, it only makes vulnerable people even more vulnerable. I understand that some of the dissent comes from the fact that suicidal people only want to free themselves of the pain, not inflict pain on others (even in defensive situations), but since there is (almost) no one in the real world who will stand up for suicidal people and if suicidal people aren't going to standup for themselves (if they have the ability to do so), then they are just allowing society to shit on them and get away with it. Furthermore, it doesn't help our cause or make any progress towards changing society's laws and the way they view and treat suicidal people.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[glittergore]

I do agree that there is a cognitive dissonance here, but it's not one I have any hope of being resolved. The vast majority of people assume that life - in all cases except maybe a select few - is preferable towards death. If a suicidal person tries to preserve their bodily autonomy towards a person attempting to stop them, this is viewed as an irrational action. In all the other examples you listed, you're going to have a decent number of people that believe it is rational to protect themselves in those contexts. The perceived irrationality in what people see as a high-stakes scenario triumphs over any respect towards another human being's rights. In fact, I'd go so far to say that they probably think they are being respectful towards them, as they're helping to preserve their life.

 

[TAW122]

I do agree that there is a cognitive dissonance here, but it's not one I have any hope of being resolved. The vast majority of people assume that life - in all cases except maybe a select few - is preferable towards death. If a suicidal person tries to preserve their bodily autonomy towards a person attempting to stop them, this is viewed as an irrational action. In all the other examples you listed, you're going to have a decent number of people that believe it is rational to protect themselves in those contexts. The perceived irrationality in what people see as a high-stakes scenario triumphs over any respect towards another human being's rights. In fact, I'd go so far to say that they probably think they are being respectful towards them, as they're helping to preserve their life.

Good answer here and that makes sense. Another point I'd like to raise is that to the defense of the suicidal, if they are already deemed irrational and not of sound mind (due to being in crisis) then it would also be inane and contradictory to hold them accountable. This is because if suicidal people are detained, locked up against their will for just being suicidal (not of sound mind or in crisis) despite not having committed a crime in the first place, then it wouldn't make sense (logically) to lay charges let alone convict said person of defending him/herself because at that instance he/she isn't of sound mind. Because that's like cherry picking and choosing (as well as intellectual dishonesty), the law deems someone not to be mentally competent so they go through the mental health system (instead of being charged with a crime and sentenced accordingly), yet if they defend themselves it is viewed as someone having committed a crime even though they were not of sound mind (or in crisis) during the time. I don't understand nor claim to understand logically of why such an anomaly is the way it is.

Another example would be the stories of those who were adjudicated mentally defective/mentally incompetent, found not guilty by reason of insanity being charged with weapons crimes and/or lying on a government document in regards to purchase or acquisition of a firearm or what not. I can see how it plays out legally speaking, but logically speaking it's inconsistent because if someone was found to be not guilty and/or ruled mentally defective by a judge or court of law, they (by default) aren't held criminally accountable for their actions due to not being of sound mind or understanding their actions. But then (assuming they are still mentally incompetent) if they violate said law, then they are held criminally accountable and charged accordingly. The reason I raise such an example is because it's basically saying on one hand someone is mentally incompetent and then turning around to say the opposite later. It's either they are mentally incompetent or they are mentally competent, not both (contradiction).

Just fyi, illogical stuff, cognitive dissonance really bothers me because I'm such a logical person when it comes to logic, partly due to Aspergers as well but I digress.

 

[Deleted member 17949]

Good points here but it is a hollow argument in the eyes of pro life people. These people see death as a kind of ultimate bad, something that overwrites other rules and logic. Death being inherently bad for all people is a fundamental part of their world view. No matter what arguments you put forward people's own dislike of death will always make them dismiss what you're saying.