If someone were to commit suicide, wouldn't those close to that someone be harmed?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Not physically. But suicide is not illegal and therefore irrelevant. Even if it were illegal, what are they going to do, arrest the person for committing suicide?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's not irrelevant because the post talks about debating whether or not something //should// be legal or illegal. Thus, the topic of suicide can be debated about since people can argue whether or not it //should// be legal or illegal. People don't get arrested if they're already dead, but some suicide attempts fail, right? So, these people usually get put in some room. //Attempting// something illegal also has consequences.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So they should be punished for hating their life?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

They don't get //punished//. They're put in a room for treatment. And they're not put in a room because they're hating their life. They're put in a room because they tried to kill themselves. People have the right to Life, but they don't have the right to take that Life away. Obviously, treatment is needed. Trying to harm yourself isn't healthy behavior.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

When something is against the law and somebody is caught doing that that something, they are punished. Whether it's a fine or jail time or put in a room, it's still a punishment. No matter how selfish it is, it is a right of someone to treat their own body how they want even if it means they wish to commit suicide. Of course people should be persuaded not to; people should definitely be helped if they seek it. But to say that somebody doesn't have a //right// to take their own life is just ignorant. You can't dictate what people do with their own bodies. That's what the post is about.. you shouldn't force somebody to treat their own body with respect just as much as you shouldn't harm them yourself.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Then, I go back to the my original point. It is selfish because they usually end up harming those around them. Perhaps treatment will help them. Perhaps they'll later be glad that something made them get treatment at a time where they weren't thinking very logically.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And that's where things get fuzzy.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Then, I go back to the my original point. It is selfish because they usually end up harming those around them. They leave loved ones scarred for life wondering what they could've done. Perhaps treatment will help them. Perhaps they'll later be glad that someone made them get treatment at a time where they weren't thinking very logically.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I disagree because this implies that if it does harm someone else it should be illegal and there is always some schmuck (like me - and probably you based on what I have seen of your wit and wisdom) that can connive some way in which even the most private thing can "harm" someone else. You rule needs to be broader. A lot of stuff should be legal that isn't.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If a person did some idiotic thing, for example driving without headlights on a dark road with no one else around. It should still be illegal, laws like that are meant for your safety and everyone around you. You're not exploring all the possibilities of an individual's idiocy.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No law should be to protect an individual from himself. Self-harm should never be a crime. If a person is driving on a dark road, sans headlights, and there really isn't anyone else around, why would you care? The worst possible outcome is that the driver's stupidity gets him/her killed. Why shouldn't people have the freedom to harm themselves through their own stupidity and ignorance? Laws to protect us from ourselves are an excellent platform for a tyrannical government. If protecting us from ourselves is justification for passing laws like the seat belt mandate, what laws //can't// they pass to protect us from ourselves? The speed limit on highways is now 40 MPH because a lot of people can't handle 65 and end up getting hurt. A 1:00 am curfew because it's dangerous to be out past that. Alcohol and tobacco are now illegal because we can't use them responsibly. The possibilities are endless once you open that Pandora's box.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Slippery slope fallacy: It's not like anarchy is going to work. With driving, there are other people on the road. A seemingly empty highway may have someone. Not only is the individual at risk, others on the road are at risk too. Same thing with drunk driving.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm not suggesting anarchy (although the concept does interest me). I'm saying that laws to protect us from ourselves are wrong. Of course drunk driving should be a punishable offense; one can't ensure that there aren't going to be any other cars or pedestrians around while he/she drives home drunk. Why should it be illegal for me to drive, alone, on an otherwise empty road without my headlights on?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

As a I said before, a seemingly empty road might have vehicles on it. These boys were drag racing because the road looked empty and they ended up hitting a car. Your eye can only see so far. There's no guarantee that the road is empty.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I completely agree. What liberty do you really have when someone can restrict what you do to your own body? If we value freedom, this is where it starts. As others have argued, once you start harming others your rights need to be curtailed, but I would argue that the harm needs to be a direct result of the action. It cannot be something like "because it will lead to further moral decline... blah, blah, blah".

by Anonymous 11 years ago