5 ms·

I'll take a stab (I'm against similar laws). It's more a moral and emotive argument than a "rational" one, but many people believe that taking a human life -- a

I'll take a stab (I'm against similar laws). It's more a moral and emotive argument than a "rational" one, but many people believe that taking a human life -- apart from certain cases like self defense -- is wrong, even if it's your own. The thinking is that it's too important to be something we should decide individually (and that it should be for nature, or God, to decide). There's also the aspect that suffering sometimes just happens, and we don't usually get to decide when and how it's going to happen to us. I believe humans are inherently different from animals (a philosophical or religious debate), so I believe it is okay to put your dog down. My uncle recently died of Parkinson's and my aunt soon after of cancer. Both suffered immensely (especially my uncle), but they believed it wasn't up to them to end it. Both also had huge support from loving family and friends, the way it should be. I know it's easy to say here at a distance, but there's honour in a valiant fight to the end.

melenaboija 6y ago
Life is so important that anybody should be able to decide how to live it, and if want to live it. Mixing God in the arguments as you do, and the main reason in Spain this law was delayed, is taking freedom away from people who think different.
- benhoyt 6y ago
  There are always going to be some things that people believe we shouldn't be able to decide, even for ourselves. Someone else on the thread posted about consensual cannibalism -- most people would consider that over their line. A lot of it comes down to whether you believe we (as gotsa said) "fully own ourselves" or not. Note that religious believers don't "mix" God in their arguments, they're just speaking from their perspective. They believe that God is just there, that he made and guides everything. What you call "mixing God in" we might call "practising what we preach". It's maybe a bit like asking a Native American to stop "mixing their tribal culture into everything". That's just who they are.
  - melenaboija 6y ago
    IMHO you can practice as much as you want as long as that does not affect others, and if I know something that does not fully own me, for sure is someone else beliefs.
  - croes 6y ago
    This is all fine if it concerns themselves. But it's bonkers if it concerns others with other beliefs. Who determines that their belief that people are not allowed to decide about their own death is more important than my belief that people are not allowed to decide whether others have to suffer. Reminds me of Mother Teresa. Helping the poor but at the same time believing the sick must suffer like Christ on the cross.
  - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
    None of the responses are going to reply to your bit about consensual cannibalism, but it's an excellent point. Just because we hear a story where a person really wanted to do something or make some choice but they could not, doesn't mean that person needs the right to do that thing. Choice and rights and liberty aren't the most important things in the world. And people who take the deification of those things to the extreme that they advocate for the kind of Futurama world where everyone can just hop in a suicide booth no questions asked are pushing their beliefs on everyone else without realizing it.
  - guareber8 6y ago
    What's wrong with consensual cannibalism anyway? It's their life, I don't care if they like human meat or broccoli as long as that doesn't go above the freedoms and rights of another living being. Shit, I've gone full libertarian now.
ASalazarMX 6y ago
> but there's honour in a valiant fight to the end This is precisely why I want the option of legal suicide: a "valiant fight to the end" that lasts years of agony without acceptable quality of life is egoist. Your close relatives will be relieved when you pass away, partly because you were suffering, and partly because a very long agony could become a huge drain of time, money and emotional burden. I want to be able to choose when and how to die on my terms, legally.
- zigzag312 6y ago
  > a "valiant fight to the end" that lasts years of agony without acceptable quality of life is egoist. Your close relatives will be relieved when you pass away, partly because you were suffering, and partly because a very long agony could become a huge drain of time, money and emotional burden. This inadvertently sends a message that some life isn't worth living and that it's moral thing to end your life when you "permanently" become a burden to others. Once this way of thinking becomes dominant, it will put incredible psychological pressure on to people with poor life quality that depend on others. What is acceptable quality of life? When does it become unacceptable? You may think it is a personal choice, but it really isn't. If majority of people around you think you are being egoistic for trying to live, despite the burden you are putting on others, you aren't given much real choice anymore. Look up how big influence can peer pressure and brain washing have on people. > I want to be able to choose when and how to die on my terms, legally. It's also egoistic supporting a law because of some personal wants, despite significant bad side effects it can bring. IMO, upsides a legal suicide law brings are much lower than downsides. And even without legal suicide, person that commits suicide won't get a legal punishment. So, you still have a choice.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Perhaps rather than inadvertently sending a message, it acknowledges the reality that some life isn’t worth living. I’ve seen the agony it puts on family members when someone makes the (in their mind) rash decision to kill themself. We should work to prevent these rash decision type suicides, but many are carefully and methodically considered and if someone genuinely wishes to exit this place, why should society prevent them from having a chance to communicate that openly, to choose the time, and not leave a giant mess of brain matter that someone else has to clean up? We allow our dogs to have a better end of life experience (and I’m not suggesting that we’d make the decision in humans quite as early as we do for our beloved pets, though if we could communicate verbally with them, perhaps we should).
JetAlone 6y ago
Your uncle and aunt are right, it is not for any person to cut their own life short by destroying themselves. It sends out an anti-social message that some amount of suffering or darkness we experience does cause us to consciously choose to annihilate ourselves. It's one thing for an individual to do that and send out this message, but by codifying the act into law, it implicitly further tilts us in the direction that so much suffering should cause us to consciously choose to destroy ourselves. In aggregate, as a society, we've come to emphasize harm-reduction and a sense of fairness to the point of idolatry. They are valuable in their own right, but alone they will see us cascade into sheer darkness. The values for the sanctity and purity of life, the acceptance of authority outside ourselves, and even the difficult question of ingroup integrity will need to come back into balance.
- nimbleal 6y ago
  Quite so. The idea of a society based fundamentally on positive freedom is intrinsically oxymoronic
  - JetAlone 6y ago
    In a way. Where freedom is made fundamental instead of deriving from an even higher fundamental principle it creates a power vacuum, and encourages those who fundamentally value something else to destroy it. Kind of like how we went from almost unilaterally valuing the sanctity of life a generation or two ago (as per the parent comment's aunt and uncle, rest in peace), to here and now, publically discussing the moralilty of destroying yourself.
fggg444 6y ago
a lot of people don't believe in whichever god you are referencing.
- marshmallow_12 6y ago
  That doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
  - MisterBastahrd 6y ago
    Regardless, he doesn't matter. An omnipotent being is fully capable of coming to assert his authority anytime he wants. In the absence of that, there's no reason to consider his opinion when constructing laws for actual people to live under.
  - c-cube 6y ago
    If it exists and has opinions on assisted suicide, the onus is on it to manifest its will (and prove its existence while it's at it.) In the mean time let's legislate without considering religion.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    Well, he can always lodge a complaint with the Spanish government, if he likes. However, "a third party doesn't approve of this, maybe, but can't be bothered to object for themselves" would not generally be taken seriously as an objection to _anything_. Spain's a secular democracy and is under no obligation to defer to what some people think a putative deity thinks. As popularly depicted, he probably wouldn't be too excited about gay marriage, either, or, if you take Leviticus seriously, mixed fabrics. Should Spain ban those, too? This is a serious issue which should be carefully considered, but I'm not sure that the religious argument (certainly this rather simplistic case of "some entity might disapprove") should really have any standing.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ihumanable 6y ago
    Ok then, following that same logic I have some assertions. 1000 gods exist, they really do, they told me, you can trust me. For every position your god takes, my 1000 gods take the exact opposite position. Any rational person would think, "You can't just assert that, you have made an extraordinary claim! The burden of proof is on you to show that your extraordinary claim of personally knowing 1000 gods exists has some basis in reality." Know that that same logic applies to you and is why you are getting blasted with downvotes.
agumonkey 6y ago
I have a slight logical argument that is a bit like death penalty. Justice shouldn't kill because you never know 100% what is true, and death is final. I think going through diseases is similar.. you stay until it's over, you don't decide because you could be wrong and a year later something could have come and changed your existence. I empathize with anybody who has debilitating / terminal illnesses or is taking care of people with that.
- oleander73 6y ago
  Clearly you are not empathizing enough.
croes 6y ago
"but they believed it wasn't up to them to end it." And that doesn't change with that laws. But what about the people who believe the opposite. Without such laws they have to suffer because others decided they have to.
ihumanable 6y ago
> The thinking is that it's too important to be something we should decide individually (and that it should be for nature, or God, to decide). It's too important for us to decide, does that logic apply in the other direction as well. Many diseases and conditions would kill people rather swiftly if not for medical intervention. Medical intervention that prolongs life seems to be making a decision that the natural or supernatural ordination of when someone should die can be changed. First question then, do you think that medical intervention that prolongs life is acceptable? If your answer is yes, then the idea that the end of a life is too important for individuals to make falls away. Sure one act moves the time of death earlier and one moves it later, but both acts move the time of death. This means that the argument becomes different, that life is so important that death can only ever be moved further into the future, never closer to the present. > There's also the aspect that suffering sometimes just happens, and we don't usually get to decide when and how it's going to happen to us. I don't really understand this argument, suffering happens and people should not have any agency to end that suffering. By that logic I could come to your house and endlessly torture you and any attempt you made to stop me or free yourself, I could just say, "suffering sometime just happens, and we don't usually get to decide when and how it's going to happen to us." Would that make the torture justified? Would it make you trying to end the torture somehow in the wrong? If instead of that torture taking place at your house, it takes place in a hospital and instead of me wearing a ski-mask I wear a doctor's coat, does that somehow change the situation? I'm glad your Aunt and Uncle were able to pass with loving family and friends and die in a manner guided by their beliefs. How do you possibly justify denying that to others? Forcing them to live out the end of their lives following your beliefs and not theirs. Forcing them to die on your terms and not their own.
ska 6y ago
What is your argument for deciding this for other people? It's one thing to decide I want to suffer immensely to fulfill my own concept of "honour" but quite clearly it is something else to insist that everyone else does also. People choose to end their own lives in opposition to unavoidable suffering, so the real question is are we going to make this harder or easier for them.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
> it's too important to be something we should decide individually I've been struggling with thoughts of suicide since I was ~10 yro. The reason why I haven't done it (yet) is that I keep telling myself to take 1 day at the time - if I still want to off myself there is always more time for it tomorrow. But not a chance that I let society/religion/psychologists/science (those who consider themselves "sane" and above those of us who are like this) dictate (or guilt) me into changing my mind. It will need to be a terrible accident or a sudden sickness that actually prevents me from ending it on my terms, which brings me to the second point. Control. It is my life, my terms. Not my parents, or relatives, nor my children's, or friends, and definitely not the state/law. _I_ decide when I go and how. > so I believe it is okay to put your dog down it's the kind of people that make me hate humanity more. It might be a flippant comment that was carefully chosen to trigger those who have been let down by people, and who prefer to find true friendship in a dog/pet. But trust me if we were to go hiking and I would have the option saving my severely injured dog (who might not make it) or a stranger who I know nothing of, except that they don't like dogs: I would 12/10 save the dog. Humans are not special no matter how much art they create or books they write, in the end we're a parasitic life form that thinks it's superior (the sheer fucking arrogance in that alone). I would never kill another human but when it comes to animal cruelty or perhaps violence against my family (that includes my dogs) I would probably enjoy the act if I were inclined to do so. edit: there is a saying "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword", which to my ears always seems to be uttered by the biggest fools I know (who know nothing about death or fighting or living). The real wisdom in this phrase is not that it contains a warning but that it is a promise that you "go out with dignity". Not withering away on life support, shitting into adult diapers, in an old-peoples home where family only has time to squeeze you in every 1st Sunday of the month between 14:00-15:00. No thanks I'll rather take the knife, the cliff, the needle or the rope - all of which are more dignified ways to go. And besides if I have lived all my life by not killing other people for their cruelty to those with less power than them (even I had more), at least I should be able to off myself without getting judged by these entitled and arrogant pricks?
- pawelmurias 6y ago
  > true friendship in a dog/pet The love of a dog is bought with walks and food.
Lev1a 6y ago
> honour in a valiant fight to the end Having recently witnessed my grandfather's slow decay into ultimately death from up close (living next door), I can say with conviction that there's no "honour" in "fighting to the end". He went from having developed trouble walking to laying stiffly in bed blankly staring ahead in just a month and one ER trip + hospital stay. He then stayed in bed for just under two years only occasionally moaning or grunting quietly gradually losing the last bit of his muscle mass with the only exceptions being: - getting sponge-bathed by a visiting nurse, my uncle or my father, - getting put on the toilet chair to pee/take a dump if it didn't already wind up in his diapers while laying in the bed, - getting wheelchaired over to the table in the next room to get fed some pureed mush that was (almost always) the same as the lunch/dinner my Grandmother was having, - etc. one can get the idea > Both also had huge support from loving family and friends, the way it should be. Having the support from the family involved basically putting their lives on hold for ~2 years. They always had to be there every single day to take care of one thing or another and watching my grandma take that for granted was frankly disgusting to witness. I was roped into plenty of tasks as well but thankfully one of the things I could avoid was having to wipe my grandpa's ass or bathing him. When my grandpa finally died in his sleep one night I wasn't really sad. I was more relieved that he wouldn't have to suffer anymore - my mother and I sometimes wondered if even in his mental state (severe dementia, basically a drooling vegetable) his occasional refusal to open his mouth during feeding was the only little bit control he could exercise, even though he was then just force-fed instead by prying his mouth open enough to get the spoon in. And the thing is, my grandfather was a VERY prideful man with strict principles during his conscious life. Going by what I remember from that time, he would've despised being in that position. TL;DR: romanticizing long drawn-out physical and mental decay as some sort of "valiant fight" is just wrong and taking "huge support from family and friends" for granted during such death-spirals is frankly a disgusting attitude.
esturk 6y ago
Of course one can decide whether they should suffer or not. That's why there's a movement to legalize drugs for terminally ill patients. Your belief that people should suffer till the end of their days is actually quite disgusting. Also, just because someone takes their own life doesn't mean they lack honor. In fact, Japanese samurais has a ritual of committing suicide known as seppuku which is viewed as a very honorable thing to do in their culture.
etripe 6y ago
> that it should be for nature, or God, to decide It's not about nature deciding, is it? Or are you against vaccines, heart bypass surgery, doctor-assisted births and in vitro fertilisation, too? > and we don't usually get to decide when and how it's going to happen to us. Whether or not we usually get to decide doesn't matter. What matters is whether we get to decide. Would you politically strive to keep it illegal? If so, do you not consider that an illiberal stance, since you'd effectively be robbing people of their right to self-determination? I mean, if you're against it, the solution is simple: don't request assisted suicide - just as one might not cross-dress, smoke weed, vote or marry someone belonging to the same sex.
kbos87 6y ago
I might be stating the obvious, but want to point out the inherent assumption in your argument that your moral and emotively driven opinions should be enforced against another human being. If you want to optimize for honor in a valiant fight to the end, so be it. But who are you to enforce your morals on someone else, who is making the most personal decision one can ever make for themself?
oleander73 6y ago
TL;DR You'd want me to suffer because of your personal beliefs.

melenaboija 6y ago

Life is so important that anybody should be able to decide how to live it, and if want to live it. Mixing God in the arguments as you do, and the main reason in Spain this law was delayed, is taking freedom away from people who think different.

benhoyt 6y ago
There are always going to be some things that people believe we shouldn't be able to decide, even for ourselves. Someone else on the thread posted about consensual cannibalism -- most people would consider that over their line. A lot of it comes down to whether you believe we (as gotsa said) "fully own ourselves" or not. Note that religious believers don't "mix" God in their arguments, they're just speaking from their perspective. They believe that God is just there, that he made and guides everything. What you call "mixing God in" we might call "practising what we preach". It's maybe a bit like asking a Native American to stop "mixing their tribal culture into everything". That's just who they are.
- melenaboija 6y ago
  IMHO you can practice as much as you want as long as that does not affect others, and if I know something that does not fully own me, for sure is someone else beliefs.
- croes 6y ago
  This is all fine if it concerns themselves. But it's bonkers if it concerns others with other beliefs. Who determines that their belief that people are not allowed to decide about their own death is more important than my belief that people are not allowed to decide whether others have to suffer. Reminds me of Mother Teresa. Helping the poor but at the same time believing the sick must suffer like Christ on the cross.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  None of the responses are going to reply to your bit about consensual cannibalism, but it's an excellent point. Just because we hear a story where a person really wanted to do something or make some choice but they could not, doesn't mean that person needs the right to do that thing. Choice and rights and liberty aren't the most important things in the world. And people who take the deification of those things to the extreme that they advocate for the kind of Futurama world where everyone can just hop in a suicide booth no questions asked are pushing their beliefs on everyone else without realizing it.
- guareber8 6y ago
  What's wrong with consensual cannibalism anyway? It's their life, I don't care if they like human meat or broccoli as long as that doesn't go above the freedoms and rights of another living being. Shit, I've gone full libertarian now.

ASalazarMX 6y ago

> but there's honour in a valiant fight to the end This is precisely why I want the option of legal suicide: a "valiant fight to the end" that lasts years of agony without acceptable quality of life is egoist. Your close relatives will be relieved when you pass away, partly because you were suffering, and partly because a very long agony could become a huge drain of time, money and emotional burden. I want to be able to choose when and how to die on my terms, legally.

zigzag312 6y ago
> a "valiant fight to the end" that lasts years of agony without acceptable quality of life is egoist. Your close relatives will be relieved when you pass away, partly because you were suffering, and partly because a very long agony could become a huge drain of time, money and emotional burden. This inadvertently sends a message that some life isn't worth living and that it's moral thing to end your life when you "permanently" become a burden to others. Once this way of thinking becomes dominant, it will put incredible psychological pressure on to people with poor life quality that depend on others. What is acceptable quality of life? When does it become unacceptable? You may think it is a personal choice, but it really isn't. If majority of people around you think you are being egoistic for trying to live, despite the burden you are putting on others, you aren't given much real choice anymore. Look up how big influence can peer pressure and brain washing have on people. > I want to be able to choose when and how to die on my terms, legally. It's also egoistic supporting a law because of some personal wants, despite significant bad side effects it can bring. IMO, upsides a legal suicide law brings are much lower than downsides. And even without legal suicide, person that commits suicide won't get a legal punishment. So, you still have a choice.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Perhaps rather than inadvertently sending a message, it acknowledges the reality that some life isn’t worth living. I’ve seen the agony it puts on family members when someone makes the (in their mind) rash decision to kill themself. We should work to prevent these rash decision type suicides, but many are carefully and methodically considered and if someone genuinely wishes to exit this place, why should society prevent them from having a chance to communicate that openly, to choose the time, and not leave a giant mess of brain matter that someone else has to clean up? We allow our dogs to have a better end of life experience (and I’m not suggesting that we’d make the decision in humans quite as early as we do for our beloved pets, though if we could communicate verbally with them, perhaps we should).

JetAlone 6y ago

Your uncle and aunt are right, it is not for any person to cut their own life short by destroying themselves. It sends out an anti-social message that some amount of suffering or darkness we experience does cause us to consciously choose to annihilate ourselves. It's one thing for an individual to do that and send out this message, but by codifying the act into law, it implicitly further tilts us in the direction that so much suffering should cause us to consciously choose to destroy ourselves. In aggregate, as a society, we've come to emphasize harm-reduction and a sense of fairness to the point of idolatry. They are valuable in their own right, but alone they will see us cascade into sheer darkness. The values for the sanctity and purity of life, the acceptance of authority outside ourselves, and even the difficult question of ingroup integrity will need to come back into balance.

nimbleal 6y ago
Quite so. The idea of a society based fundamentally on positive freedom is intrinsically oxymoronic
- JetAlone 6y ago
  In a way. Where freedom is made fundamental instead of deriving from an even higher fundamental principle it creates a power vacuum, and encourages those who fundamentally value something else to destroy it. Kind of like how we went from almost unilaterally valuing the sanctity of life a generation or two ago (as per the parent comment's aunt and uncle, rest in peace), to here and now, publically discussing the moralilty of destroying yourself.

fggg444 6y ago

a lot of people don't believe in whichever god you are referencing.

marshmallow_12 6y ago
That doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
- MisterBastahrd 6y ago
  Regardless, he doesn't matter. An omnipotent being is fully capable of coming to assert his authority anytime he wants. In the absence of that, there's no reason to consider his opinion when constructing laws for actual people to live under.
- c-cube 6y ago
  If it exists and has opinions on assisted suicide, the onus is on it to manifest its will (and prove its existence while it's at it.) In the mean time let's legislate without considering religion.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  Well, he can always lodge a complaint with the Spanish government, if he likes. However, "a third party doesn't approve of this, maybe, but can't be bothered to object for themselves" would not generally be taken seriously as an objection to _anything_. Spain's a secular democracy and is under no obligation to defer to what some people think a putative deity thinks. As popularly depicted, he probably wouldn't be too excited about gay marriage, either, or, if you take Leviticus seriously, mixed fabrics. Should Spain ban those, too? This is a serious issue which should be carefully considered, but I'm not sure that the religious argument (certainly this rather simplistic case of "some entity might disapprove") should really have any standing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ihumanable 6y ago
  Ok then, following that same logic I have some assertions. 1000 gods exist, they really do, they told me, you can trust me. For every position your god takes, my 1000 gods take the exact opposite position. Any rational person would think, "You can't just assert that, you have made an extraordinary claim! The burden of proof is on you to show that your extraordinary claim of personally knowing 1000 gods exists has some basis in reality." Know that that same logic applies to you and is why you are getting blasted with downvotes.

agumonkey 6y ago

I have a slight logical argument that is a bit like death penalty. Justice shouldn't kill because you never know 100% what is true, and death is final. I think going through diseases is similar.. you stay until it's over, you don't decide because you could be wrong and a year later something could have come and changed your existence. I empathize with anybody who has debilitating / terminal illnesses or is taking care of people with that.

oleander73 6y ago
Clearly you are not empathizing enough.

croes 6y ago

"but they believed it wasn't up to them to end it." And that doesn't change with that laws. But what about the people who believe the opposite. Without such laws they have to suffer because others decided they have to.

ihumanable 6y ago

> The thinking is that it's too important to be something we should decide individually (and that it should be for nature, or God, to decide). It's too important for us to decide, does that logic apply in the other direction as well. Many diseases and conditions would kill people rather swiftly if not for medical intervention. Medical intervention that prolongs life seems to be making a decision that the natural or supernatural ordination of when someone should die can be changed. First question then, do you think that medical intervention that prolongs life is acceptable? If your answer is yes, then the idea that the end of a life is too important for individuals to make falls away. Sure one act moves the time of death earlier and one moves it later, but both acts move the time of death. This means that the argument becomes different, that life is so important that death can only ever be moved further into the future, never closer to the present. > There's also the aspect that suffering sometimes just happens, and we don't usually get to decide when and how it's going to happen to us. I don't really understand this argument, suffering happens and people should not have any agency to end that suffering. By that logic I could come to your house and endlessly torture you and any attempt you made to stop me or free yourself, I could just say, "suffering sometime just happens, and we don't usually get to decide when and how it's going to happen to us." Would that make the torture justified? Would it make you trying to end the torture somehow in the wrong? If instead of that torture taking place at your house, it takes place in a hospital and instead of me wearing a ski-mask I wear a doctor's coat, does that somehow change the situation? I'm glad your Aunt and Uncle were able to pass with loving family and friends and die in a manner guided by their beliefs. How do you possibly justify denying that to others? Forcing them to live out the end of their lives following your beliefs and not theirs. Forcing them to die on your terms and not their own.

ska 6y ago

What is your argument for deciding this for other people? It's one thing to decide I want to suffer immensely to fulfill my own concept of "honour" but quite clearly it is something else to insist that everyone else does also. People choose to end their own lives in opposition to unavoidable suffering, so the real question is are we going to make this harder or easier for them.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago

> it's too important to be something we should decide individually I've been struggling with thoughts of suicide since I was ~10 yro. The reason why I haven't done it (yet) is that I keep telling myself to take 1 day at the time - if I still want to off myself there is always more time for it tomorrow. But not a chance that I let society/religion/psychologists/science (those who consider themselves "sane" and above those of us who are like this) dictate (or guilt) me into changing my mind. It will need to be a terrible accident or a sudden sickness that actually prevents me from ending it on my terms, which brings me to the second point. Control. It is my life, my terms. Not my parents, or relatives, nor my children's, or friends, and definitely not the state/law. _I_ decide when I go and how. > so I believe it is okay to put your dog down it's the kind of people that make me hate humanity more. It might be a flippant comment that was carefully chosen to trigger those who have been let down by people, and who prefer to find true friendship in a dog/pet. But trust me if we were to go hiking and I would have the option saving my severely injured dog (who might not make it) or a stranger who I know nothing of, except that they don't like dogs: I would 12/10 save the dog. Humans are not special no matter how much art they create or books they write, in the end we're a parasitic life form that thinks it's superior (the sheer fucking arrogance in that alone). I would never kill another human but when it comes to animal cruelty or perhaps violence against my family (that includes my dogs) I would probably enjoy the act if I were inclined to do so. edit: there is a saying "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword", which to my ears always seems to be uttered by the biggest fools I know (who know nothing about death or fighting or living). The real wisdom in this phrase is not that it contains a warning but that it is a promise that you "go out with dignity". Not withering away on life support, shitting into adult diapers, in an old-peoples home where family only has time to squeeze you in every 1st Sunday of the month between 14:00-15:00. No thanks I'll rather take the knife, the cliff, the needle or the rope - all of which are more dignified ways to go. And besides if I have lived all my life by not killing other people for their cruelty to those with less power than them (even I had more), at least I should be able to off myself without getting judged by these entitled and arrogant pricks?

pawelmurias 6y ago
> true friendship in a dog/pet The love of a dog is bought with walks and food.

Lev1a 6y ago

> honour in a valiant fight to the end Having recently witnessed my grandfather's slow decay into ultimately death from up close (living next door), I can say with conviction that there's no "honour" in "fighting to the end". He went from having developed trouble walking to laying stiffly in bed blankly staring ahead in just a month and one ER trip + hospital stay. He then stayed in bed for just under two years only occasionally moaning or grunting quietly gradually losing the last bit of his muscle mass with the only exceptions being: - getting sponge-bathed by a visiting nurse, my uncle or my father, - getting put on the toilet chair to pee/take a dump if it didn't already wind up in his diapers while laying in the bed, - getting wheelchaired over to the table in the next room to get fed some pureed mush that was (almost always) the same as the lunch/dinner my Grandmother was having, - etc. one can get the idea > Both also had huge support from loving family and friends, the way it should be. Having the support from the family involved basically putting their lives on hold for ~2 years. They always had to be there every single day to take care of one thing or another and watching my grandma take that for granted was frankly disgusting to witness. I was roped into plenty of tasks as well but thankfully one of the things I could avoid was having to wipe my grandpa's ass or bathing him. When my grandpa finally died in his sleep one night I wasn't really sad. I was more relieved that he wouldn't have to suffer anymore - my mother and I sometimes wondered if even in his mental state (severe dementia, basically a drooling vegetable) his occasional refusal to open his mouth during feeding was the only little bit control he could exercise, even though he was then just force-fed instead by prying his mouth open enough to get the spoon in. And the thing is, my grandfather was a VERY prideful man with strict principles during his conscious life. Going by what I remember from that time, he would've despised being in that position. TL;DR: romanticizing long drawn-out physical and mental decay as some sort of "valiant fight" is just wrong and taking "huge support from family and friends" for granted during such death-spirals is frankly a disgusting attitude.

esturk 6y ago

Of course one can decide whether they should suffer or not. That's why there's a movement to legalize drugs for terminally ill patients. Your belief that people should suffer till the end of their days is actually quite disgusting. Also, just because someone takes their own life doesn't mean they lack honor. In fact, Japanese samurais has a ritual of committing suicide known as seppuku which is viewed as a very honorable thing to do in their culture.

etripe 6y ago

> that it should be for nature, or God, to decide It's not about nature deciding, is it? Or are you against vaccines, heart bypass surgery, doctor-assisted births and in vitro fertilisation, too? > and we don't usually get to decide when and how it's going to happen to us. Whether or not we usually get to decide doesn't matter. What matters is whether we get to decide. Would you politically strive to keep it illegal? If so, do you not consider that an illiberal stance, since you'd effectively be robbing people of their right to self-determination? I mean, if you're against it, the solution is simple: don't request assisted suicide - just as one might not cross-dress, smoke weed, vote or marry someone belonging to the same sex.

kbos87 6y ago

I might be stating the obvious, but want to point out the inherent assumption in your argument that your moral and emotively driven opinions should be enforced against another human being. If you want to optimize for honor in a valiant fight to the end, so be it. But who are you to enforce your morals on someone else, who is making the most personal decision one can ever make for themself?

oleander73 6y ago

TL;DR You'd want me to suffer because of your personal beliefs.