What part, exactly, is your comment replying to from the OP?
“What part, exactly, is your comment replying to from the OP?”
I prefaced my answer on the morality of suicide by first explaining the legality of suicide.
Part 1: I agree with someone else said. There should always be an option. Part 2: Killing oneself is difficul to police. I consider it a check and balance in society. If you drive someone so far into debt, they end up killing themselves, you are left with a debt yourself. Being that you can never collect. So it promotes working with your client to pay off the debt the best way possible, and pursue logical loans. .
I wouldn’t consider it immoral. No one really decides to take their life lightly and be of sound mind. No one would kill themself to screw someone over. If they can pay it off they would find some way to. A person in a very serious debt situation has a lot of very serious biological factors that are very difficult for free will to counteract. It is like finding a person immoral because they can’t speak well publically. Yes, they can take to learn better skills, but the world doesn’t stop. They will have to speak infront of people when they are not ready. You can’t just snap your fingers and become Dale Carnegie.
I disagree with your statement even from a metaphysical/theological stance, as the existence of free will it unto itself the right to sin. Sin, when scrutinized, it ultimately narrowed to disagreeing/disobeying God. Humanity has free will for the explicit purpose of being able to choose to disagree with God. The inherent ability to disagree (sin) is the singularly most fundamental and important aspect of what it is to be human. Therefore, the choice to sin (disagree) is indeed a right.
That aside, sin is a purely religious construct. As thus, it has no place is secular law. If someone were to kill themself without harming another or to escape a legitimate contract, there is no illegitimacy. To deny the right to die is to deny self ownership. That is then a form of slavery, and no thinking individual could condone that.
“I disagree with your statement even from a metaphysical/theological stance, as the existence of free will it unto itself the right to sin. Sin, when scrutinized, it ultimately narrowed to disagreeing/disobeying God. Humanity has free will for the explicit purpose of being able to choose to disagree with God. The inherent ability to disagree (sin) is the singularly most fundamental and important aspect of what it is to be human. Therefore, the choice to sin (disagree) is indeed a right.”
I don’t believe in purely free will, I believe man’s purpose is to serve God. We can make choices but ultimately we are here to serve God. We are not free, we are servants. People certainly seem to have the ability to disagree with God but I think that is mostly illusion because I believe we are all judged eventually. Because I think all men go to God someday, I cannot in good conscience simply allow them to sin. Of course they can still do it, but there is no reason the law must allow it.
“That aside, sin is a purely religious construct. As thus, it has no place is secular law.”
The law is not secular, its values are derived from religious concepts. Besides that, there’s nothing in the Constitution that separates religion from state. All the first amendment says is that the state cant pick any one religion as the state religion and that it cant stop people from practicing whatever religion they choose, it doesn’t say that religion and state must be totally separate or that the values behind laws must be totally secular.
“To deny the right to die is to deny self ownership. That is then a form of slavery, and no thinking individual could condone that.”
I do deny self ownership, I believe man is owned by God, not by himself.
After doing some more research on this, the two landmark supreme court cases banning physician assisted suicide are:
Washington v Glucksberg
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-110.ZS.html
Vacco v Quill
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=95-1858
Jack Kevorkian was also found guilty in Michigan in 1998
http://euthanasia.procon.org/sourcefiles/PeoplevKevorkian.pdf
However, in Bush v Schiavo, the Second District Court of Florida overturned Jeb Bush’s stay of the removal of the feeding tube to Schiavo and the Florida Supreme Court upheld that decision.
http://euthanasia.procon.org/sourcefiles/BushvSchiavo.pdf
The last case involving assisted suicide was in Gonzales v Oregon, where apparently the state has made physician assisted suicide legal. John Ashcroft declared that the act violated the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 but was overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court. The SCOTUS also found that the Controlled Substances Act did not give the AG the power to declare the Oregon’s law unconstitutional but its ruling was very narrow.
http://euthanasia.procon.org/sourcefiles/GonzalesvOregon.pdf
Essentially, assisted suicide, like many other hot button issues, has been left to states. There are only two states that explicitly allow it, Oregon and Washington. Utah, Wyoming and North Carolina don’t have laws explicitly prohibiting assisted suicide.
43 states have laws that explicitly deny people the right to suicide, either assisted or otherwise. My state, GA, is one of them.
Will you engage in debate ebout the existence of god or viability of religion?
“Will you engage in debate ebout the existence of god or viability of religion?”
No, it’s absolutely pointless.
EDIT: I think this website ate my post about the law regarding assisted suicide in America.
Sigh, well anyways, here’s a site with all the related cases.
http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000131#6
There are 43 states that explicitly ban physician assisted suicide and all others forms of suicide, two allow physician assisted, four are vague.
“God has entrusted me with myself.”
"No man is free who is not master of himself. "
“You are a little soul carrying around a corpse.”
~ Epictetus
Okay. People are less likely to take you seriously if you aren’t open to discuss your ideas. Its up to you though.
“People are less likely to take you seriously if you aren’t open to discuss your ideas. Its up to you though.”
I don’t really care honestly. If one chooses to deny God’s existence/will that’s their problem, not mine. If one chooses to believe they own themselves as opposed to being owned by God, I think they are committing a grave error, but they will answer to God eventually.
My purpose on this Earth is not to convince people of his existence but simply to try and execute his will.
You think god doesn’t care if people know if he exists?
“You think god doesn’t care if people know if he exists?”
I think that…that role is better served by people who are good at convincing people of God’s existence. I don’t think that’s my role.
But yes, I think he cares. I just don’t think my purpose is as preacher.
“Okay. People are less likely to take you seriously if you aren’t open to discuss your ideas. Its up to you though.”
Sieben, please, don’t provoke discussions on religeon. I understand what you mean but that’s the last thing that this forum needs and how many times have you seen a discussion on the nature of divine turn out well?
… And also I kinda want Bloom to stop clogging the thread with his empty viewpoints.
Finally you really dont want to piss off a guy whose been known to kill off almost all beings on the planet to get rid of some people who happened to be upsetting him.
!(http://scrapetv.com/News/News Pages/usa/images-3/god.jpg)
So you would abstain from actions that might convince more people of his existence… which he wants, but doesn’t want you to do because its not your job?
“So you would abstain from actions that might convince more people of his existence… which he wants, but doesn’t want you to do because its not your job?”
Yes. Because in all likelihood, you won’t be convinced, I’m not good at proselytizing. There are good rabbis out there, but I’m not one of them.
You realize that the job-cover is very specious right? To the impartial observer it looks like you don’t want to get involved in a discussion because deep down you know your ideas are really bunk. I’m not saying they are, but thats just what I have to conclude since I can’t read your mind.
“You realize that the job-cover is very specious right? To the impartial observer it looks like you don’t want to get involved in a discussion because deep down you know your ideas are really bunk. I’m not saying they are, but thats just what I have to conclude since I can’t read your mind.”
Ok fine.
I think it is reasonable if you are the OP, if you want to set the boundaries of the discussion. Most ethical debates which add in religion become wastelands. As you said, some people only have empty opinions to contribute, and really, who needs more of that?
“People certainly seem to have the ability to disagree with God but I think that is mostly illusion because I believe we are all judged eventually.”
I suppose that coincides well with your might equates right stance. Although, I never would have thought that you would simile your god to a rapist with a gun. The helpless victim ultimately has a choice whether or not to voluntarily have sex with the rapist, but in choosing not to (disagreeing), she will be disapproved (judged) of with a bullet (damnation). What a charming diety.
“The law is not secular, its values are derived from religious concepts.”
That’s a shallow observation. Modern chemistry, if not modern science itself, is derived from Alchemy; a quasi-mystical practice more than half-based on superstition. Concious Man has progressed beyond the point of superstition and produced wonderful things due to its removal. Traditional law/morality has the same mystical roots despite man having evolved beyond the need of an overlord to discern right and wrong. I cannot see how law will experience anything other than the same benefits that science did once it cast off superstition.