moral suicide?

"Suicide: The act of killing one self intentionally; in law, the act of self-destruction by a person sound in mind, and thus capable of measuring his or her moral responsibility; legal suicide."

"By way of extention, destruction of one's moral, social, political, or business life, by one's own act; ruin of one's plans or interests, because of one's own neglect, or action."

"Moral and justified suicide, whether by one individual, or in mass, puts in place an immediate stop to exploitation/enslavement, unto those individuals who exhist only to exploit, and enslave an other or a mass of individuals. If the slave/prisoner sucessfully escapes, then their physical body, mind, tender wholly spirit of sacred emotions, and soul, their true intent and purpose, deeply rooted in Godly, and Juste values, can no longer be distorted and exploited for the criminal mindset of an inhueman criminal, and his or her filthy, immoral, and perverse setonistic agenda."

"Deeply immoral suicide, hence: Murder by suicide:"

"To directly, and/or indirectly hurt, mar, haze, abuse, degrade, impoverish and destroy another individual, in such a way, as to get that individual, to appear to fall on their own sword, when in fact, those who had worked so long and hard pretending to be sympathetic, and to be helpful, were simply lying in wait, for that individual, to take his final leave, in order that they could finish their immoral, pre-planned criminal plot, of vicious plunder, rampage, and murder, for their very devastating and destructive mission, to annihilate, and further destroy, every sacred soul, who will not conform with, and obey, their occultic, poisonous criminal gaming and mafioso rules."

I hope this is helpful,
Sincerely, Wholly Polterguist

"I am sorry GeeGee, however, I have no idea, as to what you mean by self-determination, and how it applies to moral suicide. Please explain."

I Thank you,
Wholly Polterguist

The OP is totally unclear, as is the elaboration.  One can select one topical issue, however--the morality of doctor-assisted suicide.  

I believe that every individual has the right to make that choice in cases where doctors concur that continuation of life in dignity and without suffering is impossible.  The government has no right to interfere with that choice, although it does have a right to regulate the conditions under which it is made.  It is certainly not the right of others to interfere because it offends their religious opinions about what God wants.

Given the potential for abuse--e.g. beneficiaries of wills causing involuntary "suicides" and premature deaths of people with treatable conditions--I see no way that the government can avoid regulating such a thing.  Society should guarantee the right to die with dignity and in as much comfort as possible, but it should not invite abuse.  This issue has no simple answer.  I think that the Oregon law is a model that other states should emulate.

"You speak, of the right to die, with dignity. I counteract that comment, with the absolute un alienable right to live,  perfect/not-corrupted,
health, dignity, self-respect, true intelligence, on-par morality, decent prosperity, correct justice, pure safety, loving kindness and genuine peace. I say, if an individual, has not these essential elements, which are essential, to sustaining virtue, strength, honor, dignity, morality, and righteousness, than he or she, is in essense, already dead, and is waiting, and hoping from the release from the body/vessel, which has been holding him or her captive, in order that he or she, may be once again, reunited with his, or her wholly family, and to live once again, in happiness."

Moste Sincerely,
Wholly Polterguist

Disagreeable, with you, I am...Anti.

In answer to your earlier question, Polter....It will have to wait!! :D

I want to see where Rag and Cop are going.  Maybe that eventual road we can meet on.

Peace.

Ah, I was thinking of euthanasia. I am in favor of both, however. I think it is more important that euthanasia become legal because people who are physically incapable of medicating themselves have no way to legally end their pain. I think the Oregon law is mostly useless, because anyone who can swallow a bottle of pills can do so easily enough on their own without the help of a doctor. It is a good first step, but there is a long way to go.

I also think the six month thing is a silly requirement, because there are plenty of debilitating illnesses where the person might want to die but is capable of living in pain for years.

Ragnar, I don't think that any law is perfect.  I know that I would assist a terminally ill loved one who was in deep pain to commit suicide.  My wife feels the same about me.  But neither of us ever want to face that dilemma, and it would take great courage to go through such an experience.  The problem is that people who face such dilemmas really have no choice.  

Do you believe that suicidal people should be dissuaded from committing suicide?  Physically restrained, in fact?  I do.  Depression is treatable, and people who survive such periods are often glad that they did.  Death is too permanent an option.  So it is not something that individuals or society can treat lightly.

What I do oppose quite strongly (and I know you agree) is the current law that permits and encourages medical authorities to torture and humiliate terminal patients.  We should have better options at the end of life.