Why haven’t liberals applied “my body, my choice” to suicide?

[Ruffian]

21 and that's my final offer

I know suicide isn't supposed to be funny, and it's not. But I did smile at that answer.

 

[White_Room293]

No, they have not. There are a lot of kids and people here, whose personality disorders or depression stunts their cognition to a degree where only banal bullshit comes out.

I get your point but you should still be allowed to kill yourself out of impulse or any way if you please. Other people have no say in how you can live your life.

 

[I’vehadenough]

Because they want to chose for you. A fetus is trying to live, so it's ok to kill them. A person chooses not to live anymore, f*ck you, you aren't allowed to die

And if you feel suicidal, we will discredit you by saying you have mental illness, so you can't make the choice to kill yourself...that's both sides

21 and that's my final offer

Lol

 

[OnlyMercy]

Because they want to chose for you. A fetus is trying to live, so it's ok to kill them. A person chooses not to live anymore, f*ck you, you aren't allowed to die

And if you feel suicidal, we will discredit you by saying you have mental illness, so you can't make the choice to kill yourself...that's both sides

Lol

How do I like a post twice?

 

[woxihuanni]

I believe all adults are entitled to a choice of peaceful exit over a waiting period. WITHOUT any interviews whatsothefuckever. It makes my blood boil to see this even in a pro-choice setting, because nobody has authority over us to decide if our reasons are good enough. In the end, it is a philosophical and a political issue, and these issues can only be discussed on an equal footing, not when one party literally holds your escape hostage.

As well, N should be available everywhere.

If somebody is suffering from MH issues enough to want to die, well you don't need them to prove that it is true, the wish is pretty solid proof. In they are perfectly healthy and rational, then you don't get to push your opinions on them and treat them as irrational. What is the point of this convincing game?

Again, if we knew that anybody could die if they don't like the deal, society would profoundly transform. Anything that makes people less than would disappear once bullies had to face society as murderers. But the entire legal system is also fucked because of this taboo of death: I'd say damaging someone with life-changing injury should have a HIGHER sentence than murder.

 

[woxihuanni]

As though conservatives were all for it.

Yeah but they don't pretend. Straightforward fuckery is slightly less despicable than two-faced fuckery.

 

[RightToExit]

I would wager that Liberals in general don't push suicide / euthanasia because the liberal political parties don't have much to gain. At best, they people who may or may not be around long to vote for them the following season. Additionally, it would backfire in that many family / friends would blame the party for those laws being passed. Always follow the money / votes / power. Although you probably won't like where it ends up.

They want to keep you alive as long as possible to feed the system of enslavement with usury. We are just walking dollar signs. Human life to the 1% is meaningless, we're all expendable. I can't wait to CTB!

This is why I make it a point to not be useful to anyone. This way, no one has a rational incentive to keep me from being able to choose suicide.

I believe all adults are entitled to a choice of peaceful exit over a waiting period. WITHOUT any interviews whatsothefuckever. It makes my blood boil to see this even in a pro-choice setting, because nobody has authority over us to decide if our reasons are good enough. In the end, it is a philosophical and a political issue, and these issues can only be discussed on an equal footing, not when one party literally holds your escape hostage.

As well, N should be available everywhere.

If somebody is suffering from MH issues enough to want to die, well you don't need them to prove that it is true, the wish is pretty solid proof. In they are perfectly healthy and rational, then you don't get to push your opinions on them and treat them as irrational. What is the point of this convincing game?

Again, if we knew that anybody could die if they don't like the deal, society would profoundly transform. Anything that makes people less than would disappear once bullies had to face society as murderers. But the entire legal system is also fucked because of this taboo of death: I'd say damaging someone with life-changing injury should have a HIGHER sentence than murder.

I agree with all of this except for the part that bullies should have to face society as murderers. You can't consistently see suicide as a right to self-determination and then project responsibility for this decision onto other people (redefining agency of the act away from the suicidal person). Bullying is bad but it's not murder, if you choose to die, that is still your choice and your responsibility.

As though conservatives were all for it.

That's what makes it so frustrating; there is no political representation of this right at all.

 

[woxihuanni]

This is why I make it a point to not be useful to anyone. This way, no one has a rational incentive to keep me from being able to choose suicide.


I agree with all of this except for the part that bullies should have to face society as murderers. You can't consistently see suicide as a right to self-determination and then project responsibility for this decision onto other people (redefining agency of the act away from the suicidal person). Bullying is bad but it's not murder, if you choose to die, that is still your choice and your responsibility.

When I say bully, I don't mean the guy who shoves into a locker (plus, I've never seen this American way of bullying in real life, it is always more subtle). If you ruin somebody's life beyond fee fees (taking away their livelihood, bodily function, etc.), it is murder whether the victim commits suicide or not. Suicide is separate from that, it is a choice between living crumbs of your life or dying. It's just the first hides how you died in some sense, the latter stops it from being invisible.

 

[RightToExit]

When I say bully, I don't mean the guy who shoves into a locker (plus, I've never seen this American way of bullying in real life, it is always more subtle). If you ruin somebody's life beyond fee fees (taking away their livelihood, bodily function, etc.), it is murder whether the victim commits suicide or not. Suicide is separate from that, it is a choice between living crumbs of your life or dying. It's just the first hides how you died in some sense, the latter stops it from being invisible.

I don't want to be pedantic or fight with you, but I think it's important to have a word that describes the deliberate killing of another human person without their consent, and maybe that word could be "murder". People who redefine it to mean other things, even if they're bad or unjust things, should probably make very clear they're using the term metaphorically.

 

[Empty Smile]

 

[attribute-level-kale]

Because almost no one completes suicide and even less people have it even in their top 10 issues.

 

[Intelligent_Lobster]

I wonder about this often.

I don't have any answers, though

 

[Divine Trinity]

Not all liberals want to legalize euthanasia. But look at Switzerland for example. Euthanasia is already legal over here. But Exit and Dignitas, the assisted-suicide organizations who have the authority over this subject, simply don't want to apply these rules for young and healthy people. They even admit that they have a bias against young people when it comes to euthanasia. So they defined their eligibility for euthanasia in a way that excludes everyone who isn't terminally ill, disabled or suffering from severe (physical) pain. I explained it in this post:

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...ne-committed-suicide.17031/page-3#post-322468

This isn't solely a political problem, it's a medical and moral issue. Legalizing euthanasia alone won't solve this. There will still be a societal stigma around suicide. Assisted suicide organizations will remain elitist, as you can see in many European countries where euthanasia is supposed to be legal already but young people are turned down regularly. In order to make assisted suicide an option for everyone, we need to reform society and its approach on suicide completely. We need to remove the negative associations around death and suicide and accept that suicide is an option for every single person on this planet, regardless of their circumstances. We need to learn that nobody gave consent to birth, therefore we should have the right to end our life. It should be a human right and written down in the human rights convention, to make sure all nations on this planet enforce this rule. But this alone won't be enough. We should also work on better health care and improve the psychiatric system. In my opinion, we're still not doing enough to help people in need. I was let down by doctors and psychiatrists and we definitely need to have a better system in place to help the people who actually need help.

If people were willing to put that much effort into normalizing suicide why not make a better society to live in instead? I'd be fustrated to ever see suicide advocacy groups outside of terminally ill or youth with severe birth defects, at the end of the day if we really want to, a rope and support beam is all we need.

 

[RightToExit]

If people were willing to put that much effort into normalizing suicide why not make a better society to live in instead? I'd be fustrated to ever see suicide advocacy groups outside of terminally ill or youth with severe birth defects, at the end of the day if we really want to, a rope and support beam is all we need.

Inhumane suicide methods like hanging are not an acceptable substitute for humane methods.

You're also making the classic mistake of believing that a "better society" can be made with reasonable costs and then the rational suicide rate will be zero. Or that you need terminal illness or birth defects for suicide to be rational. Your first mistake is your assumption that politics can create heaven on earth that makes all lives worth living, your second mistake that there is an interpersonal standard for what a rational suicide is. Suicide is rational if the person correctly identifies it as the best way to fulfill his or her preferences. Since there is a vast variation of personal preferences, you can't look at someone and say, "You're not terminally ill or disfigured, so your suicide is irrational." They may simply have different personal preferences than you, and those differences can make their suicide rational even if it would be irrational for you to choose suicide in the exact same circumstances. In fact, suicide can be rational for a happy person and irrational for an unhappy, terminally ill and disfigured person, if they have sufficiently different personal preferences.

The Right to Exit for life itself requires suicide rights. Humane methods must be available for those who want them, otherwise it's not a human right. If you have to undergo easily preventable suffering in order to have it, it's not a right. Imagine if we said, "The right to free speech should only be for those over 55, who are either terminally ill or disfigured, or those who agree to be tortured for three hours." Would this be acceptable to you?

 

[woxihuanni]

I don't want to be pedantic or fight with you, but I think it's important to have a word that describes the deliberate killing of another human person without their consent, and maybe that word could be "murder". People who redefine it to mean other things, even if they're bad or unjust things, should probably make very clear they're using the term metaphorically.

Fair enough, I think we basically agree.

I went into that stuff because I am angry that fucking people over does not societal consequences. But hopefully soon I won't be able to be angry. It will be all quiet.

 

[Divine Trinity]

Inhumane suicide methods like hanging are not an acceptable substitute for humane methods.

You're also making the classic mistake of believing that a "better society" can be made with reasonable costs and then the rational suicide rate will be zero. Or that you need terminal illness or birth defects for suicide to be rational. Your first mistake is your assumption that politics can create heaven on earth that makes all lives worth living, your second mistake that there is an interpersonal standard for what a rational suicide is. Suicide is rational if the person correctly identifies it as the best way to fulfill his or her preferences. Since there is a vast variation of personal preferences, you can't look at someone and say, "You're not terminally ill or disfigured, so your suicide is irrational." They may simply have different personal preferences than you, and those differences can make their suicide rational even if it would be irrational for you to choose suicide in the exact same circumstances. In fact, suicide can be rational for a happy person and irrational for an unhappy, terminally ill and disfigured person, if they have sufficiently different personal preferences.

The Right to Exit for life itself requires suicide rights. Humane methods must be available for those who want them, otherwise it's not a human right. If you have to undergo easily preventable suffering in order to have it, it's not a right. Imagine if we said, "The right to free speech should only be for those over 55, who are either terminally ill or disfigured, or those who agree to be tortured for three hours." Would this be acceptable to you?

You've missed my point entirely, and "humane murder" is an oxymoron. I'm tired of hearing the "rational suicide" line on here, not that it's suprising, but definitely not convincing me, let alone people unsympathetic to the issue.

Suicide is a well studied phenomenon, with a plethora of methods to prevent it all together, it only hasn't been done because of a lack of social will. People aren't as unique and "special" as some may believe. When people's needs aren't satisfied by their community they may eventually choose to go this route, that's the bottom line. Allowing, let alone assisting, everyone who's needs aren't met kill themselves is not a rational or well-thought out solution to a systemic problem, it's not a solution at all.

I get that for some, they're unable view things this way, hence why it's considered morally reprehensible to assist with suicide. I do think the word is too broad, and seperate terms should be made by the major factors people do it.

Anomie (i suppose "mental illness" is the modern term)
Chronic Illness
Social pressure/Coercion

 

[Thatdude]

I think they should make a 25yr age minimum and a 1 year deferral process when applying, with a series of interviews etc. It should be strict for those who truly want to die, in peace and who are steadfast in the idea of exiting just not in a horrific manor.

I agree, but I would add 2 more requirements.

1. The person will have to have their will done. That away there is no confusion on what to do with their stuff.
2. The doctors must tell the person in detail what will happen with the body with whatever method is picked. And they must let the person know all the bad things that can happen if it doesn't go to plan.

I would also maybe add in there that the doctors must let the person know what happens to the body and any bad that can happen with popular methods out of the companies ability.

I think this in itself will save life's since most don't know how acrewing up this can make things much worse

 

[RightToExit]

You've missed my point entirely, and "humane murder" is an oxymoron. I'm tired of hearing the "rational suicide" line on here, not that it's suprising, but definitely not convincing me, let alone people unsympathetic to the issue.

Then we have nothing more to exchange. I do not "debate" people who redefine what murder is, to include consensual self-chosen deaths. The immoral thing about murder is that it's nonconsensual, against the will of the person. To abuse language like this is unacceptable populism.

Also I am personally self-interested in rational suicide; dismissing every thought in my head on the matter as inherently pathological out of hand is deeply offensive, especially since I'm probably more rational, educated and intelligent than most anti-suicide advocates. I consider them enemies worth harming severely. You do not get to deny me this fundamental liberty without reciprocal consequences. My user handle here is "Right To Exit" for a reason.

 

[Divine Trinity]

Then we have nothing more to exchange. I do not "debate" people who redefine what murder is, to include consensual self-chosen deaths. The immoral thing about murder is that it's nonconsensual, against the will of the person.

I'll retract the use of "murder", homocide is the more correct term. Overall, the issue of legalizing suicide (I won't get into the state-assistance bit) is that it's not a practical solution. Despite how you may feel about it, the living carry the dead's burdens, and this will easily spiral out of control during a national emergency.

Imagine if every time your phone is on the fritz or the screen cracks you tossed it in the trash to get a new one. Sure eventually it gets worn down to the point of being a hassle, but it's premature to toss it half-way through its lifespan without trying to get it repaired a few times.

You are partially incorrect about murder though. The argument about why murder is immoral was never focused on the murderer's victim, they're dead after the deed is done so who cares how they felt about it (dry-sarcasm)? It was about their family, murder deprives parent's of their property (aka children) and people of their siblings (meaning more chores). Western and Eastern philosophy generally states that our lives are not our own, who they claim owns it varies by culture and politics of the time. However, murder couldn't be a crime unless there was someone alive to seek revenge or should I say "justice".

 

[RightToExit]

I'll retract the use of "murder", homocide is the more correct term. Overall, the issue of legalizing suicide (I won't get into the state-assistance bit) is that it's not a practical solution. Despite how you may feel about it, the living carry the dead's burdens, and this will easily spiral out of control during a national emergency.

Imagine if every time your phone is on the fritz or the screen cracks you tossed it in the trash to get a new one. Sure eventually it gets worn down to the point of being a hassle, but it's premature to toss it half-way through its lifespan without trying to get it repaired a few times.

You are partially incorrect about murder though. The argument about why murder is immoral was never focused on the murderer's victim, they're dead after the deed is done so who cares how they felt about it (dry-sarcasm)? It was about their family, murder deprives parent's of their property (aka children) and people of their siblings (meaning more chores). Western and Eastern philosophy generally states that our lives are not our own, who they claim owns it varies by culture and politics of the time. However, murder couldn't be a crime unless there was someone alive to seek revenge or should I say "justice".

Murder (nonconsensual killings) deprives people of the potential of a continued life that they wanted. Generally, violating the personal preferences of other people without their consent is a hostile act. Consent marks the difference between sex and rape, labor contracts and slavery, going on a vacation and kidnapping, spending one's own money and theft, etc.

Thank you for making explicit that the suicide prohibition is about slavery (children as property, siblings exist for chores etc.) It unmasks the hostile nature of the fake-paternalists. This is why I consider them enemies. I don't actually mind "slavery" as long as it's strictly consensual, e.g. I'm fine with BDSM. I'm even fine with consensual child labor and prostitution. However, if you violate my consent then you will be my enemy, and I never fail to harm my enemies. I get to choose when and how I die, no one else gets to choose that.

As for the questions which suicides are rational; we don't have to agree on a common standard. We just have to agree on the meta-standard of consensualism. As long as suicide is self-chosen, you are free to define your own code of rationality. You just don't get to impose it on me without my consent.

 

[Divine Trinity]

Murder (nonconsensual killings) deprives people of the potential of a continued life that they wanted. Generally, violating the personal preferences of other people without their consent is a hostile act. Consent marks the difference between sex and rape, labor contracts and slavery, going on a vacation and kidnapping, spending one's own money and theft, etc.

Thank you for making explicit that the suicide prohibition is about slavery (children as property, siblings exist for chores etc.) It unmasks the hostile nature of the fake-paternalists. This is why I consider them enemies. I don't actually mind "slavery" as long as it's strictly consensual, e.g. I'm fine with BDSM. I'm even fine with consensual child labor and prostitution. However, if you violate my consent then you will be my enemy, and I never fail to harm my enemies. I get to choose when and how I die, no one else gets to choose that.

As for the questions which suicides are rational; we don't have to agree on a common standard. We just have to agree on the meta-standard of consensualism. As long as suicide is self-chosen, you are free to define your own code of rationality. You just don't get to impose it on me without my consent.

Focusing on consent relies on the assumption that people educated and self-conscious enough to make rational decisions in their, and their community's interest.

It also assumes that we are free from coersive forces that would otherwise influence our behavior. It re-enforces the blame-the-victim mantra by making it appear as if suicide is a choice not an end result.

And finally, it dismisses any sense of principles, morals, or ethics in society which allows people to perform self-destructive acts that may be preventable with outside intervention.

There are of course nuances to the dilenma of consent of the individual and the "greater good" which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Involuntary "admission" to mental wards, forced medical treatments, or guilt tripping are obviously not acceptable in a civil society.


Also, I wasn't intentionally implying that anti-homocide was/is about slavery, I was pointing out that the historical philosophical debates and conclusion that makes homocidal socially taboo and illegal was not based on individual suffering, but the communal inconvenience/harm it would bring to those of the victim's community.

 

[RightToExit]

Focusing on consent relies on the assumption that people educated and self-conscious enough to make rational decisions in their, and their community's interest.

It also assumes that we are free from coersive forces that would otherwise influence our behavior. It re-enforces the blame-the-victim mantra by making it appear as if suicide is a choice not an end result.

And finally, it dismisses any sense of principles, morals, or ethics in society which allows people to perform self-destructive acts that may be preventable with outside intervention.

There are of course nuances to the dilenma of consent of the individual and the "greater good" which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Involuntary "admission" to mental wards, forced medical treatments, or guilt tripping are obviously not acceptable in a civil society.


Also, I wasn't intentionally implying that anti-homocide was/is about slavery, I was pointing out that the historical philosophical debates and conclusion that makes homocidal socially taboo and illegal was not based on individual suffering, but the communal inconvenience/harm it would bring to those of the victim's community.

Yeah, none of those rationalizations are convincing to me. If "morality" or "ethics" demands that I live against my will, then "moralists" and "ethicists" are simply enemies worth harming. We can play stupid frame games all day long where we are all moral realists and each of us will pretend that the moral reality is on his side. But we don't need those games. At the end of the day, people use coercion to enforce these laws and norms, and of course I will use coercion against my enemies who denied me the right to choose. If you seriously believe the community or humanity in general is somehow better off denying me the right to purchase a consensual, deadly N injection at the time of my choosing, you are mistaken. Just like people who threaten me with torture, such attempts to coerce me will yield only grave disadvantages to those who try. "Moral" or "ethical" framing is completely irrelevant, as it is merely decoration covering the coercive core of your ideology.

 

[Sweet emotion]

I'm 100% with you. See, there are a few states that do the dying with dignity program but you have to have the all important cancer and have less than six months to live to do that. Well there are some physical disease in this world just as bad or if not worse than cancer and I happen to have one and it's called Complex Regional Pain Syndrome which is the highest ranking pain condition in medical history. It's actually known as the suicide disease because there are no treatments to help it and no cure. With cancer there is hope. A lot of people survive and if they don't they are put out of their misery. With CRPS you just die a little more every day. If it reaches your organs you can die from complications but that doesn't always happen. With cancer you fight to live but with crps you just want to die. 14 years of my life has been stolen from me. I'm 34 so I've suffered for more years than I have been healthy. People actually have their limbs amputated to try and get relief. And because if people that have an actual drug addiction people like me are being punished ushed by having out pain meds reduced or taken away because the FDA and the CDC are putting pressure on doctors. I think if you have an incurable disease that leaves you in severe physical and emotional pain you should be allowed to die with dignity. Even if you don't have an incurable disease and have been fighting depression for years and years. These are our lives and no one has to live them. Why do other people care so much if we don't want to live anymore? They just want to cover their own asses.

 

[allgood]

Because as usual, if it's not them suffering they'd rather sit around virtue signalling; donate to climate change go-fund-me's or something. It's not liberals in particular, just how humans cope with inconsistencies.

 

[Pykul]

Well, the whole my body my choice thing was about the legality of abortion. What's the point of worrying about the legal aspect of successful suicide?

 

[Jean4]

Actually, assisted suicide is becoming legal in some states in the USA. New Jersey passed the law on Aug 1, by a Democrat. The religious right sued on August 15, and it was put on hold.

 

[Pykul]

Actually, assisted suicide is becoming legal in some states in the USA. New Jersey passed the law on Aug 1, by a Democrat. The religious right sued on August 15, and it was put on hold.

I wasn't including assisted.

 

[Wayfaerer]

Conservatives are against suicide because jeebus and liberals are against suicide because who's going to fund their social programs? They all claim to be in favor of civil rights but only if it fulfills an ulterior motive.

 

[Ruffian]

How do I like a post twice?

Some things you really do need that laughing emoji, but I do approve of its removal.