SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Solon who wrote (7096)3/1/2001 11:39:10 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
I would say that if the harm is only emotion killing youself might be a wrong thing to do but would not violate any one elses rights.

So I guess we can continue with an incomplete understanding. Your example shows that your idea of "harm" is grounded in a physical sense of injury, and apparently in a very direct and immediate relationship to the actions of the person killing him/her self.

Yes that is the sense that I was using the word "harm".

The problem I have with the concept of a "right to die" is not that I really disagree with the concept but the practical concepts of it. I think someone does have a right to kill themsevles but most people who desire to kill themselves are acting irrationally under often temperary emotional distress and if they are prevented from killing themselves they are often glad for the action that prevented their death.

In most cases when I believe in a right in abstract I will normally have no problem with the idea of applying it in practice but here my thoughts are some what inconsistant because I think most people who attempt suicide should have this attempt prevented.

On many issues I have strong opinions. On others (like the death penalty) I seem to be permenantly on the fence. On the "right to die" I seem to be bisected by the fence. My position lacks a certain rational clarity. I think one thing but feel another.

Tim