When it it "suicide" - little dark but lets travel this road

Bassomatic

Bassomatic

HOW DO I KNOW YOU'RE NOT MAKAROV
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Sorry for the morbid topic, but oddly I find this is a wonderful place to find a literal, diverse open minded group of people to talk with.

I find when I'm in the dumps, thinking helps a lot and sadly a few family members passed away, so I guess the whole mortality thing is running in my mind. Forgive the blog post, I just wanted a bit of a preface I'm not an emo kid over all depressed or a risk to myself or in bad health.

So, I was thinking, it's clearly a question I'm asking that has no "right" reply but more just where you stand. We all know how awful cancer is, and it's cures are almost as bad. We all know part of being alive, we will die. That's not a debate. But we have programs like hospice, some nations allow a taking of life under terminal conditions (varying from place to place). That's my question.

If you choose to not fight a .0001% chance of life, is that still same as losing a job and blasting yourself? Sure the reasons and direness are different and we both know the post results will be different, one you get a new job and life goes on the other, your body was shredded your health will never be good etc and depending only extend a short time in poor quality.

Personally, I don't think any adult has to go on, if you can prove you are mentally well and you feel depression, a loss, health etc. I strongly disagree with your choice over something as trivial in the big picture as a break up to self terminate, but I stand for a right of it.

So while I think it's always suicide, I don't try to judge anyone be it 86 and Alzheimer's is setting in and you don't want to be a zombie or 22 and PTSD is just tearing you apart.

Is it always selfish to end your life? If not at what point is it "ok" in your eyes? At what point is it surrender vs self destructive. I mean if you don't take a med you very well may die, and I understand that's different than an active rope tying in action but in moral. How many cases do we hear you have to stop sugar, booze or you will die and people don't stop, it's a slower acting active destruction, than saying no thanks to a treatment.

I know there's no wrong way to view this, but I guess right now I think it would be oddly calming if some people can chime in with how they feel about where the line is, if they see one.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Feels
Reactions: Rokko, Traditional Tet, Nekromantik and 3 others
I'm against the notion of committing suicide under most circumstances. Most of the time, there is something worth living for when life gives you a tough time. That being said, when nothing is left, I wouldn't blame anyone for ending it all. I support euthanasia as well if the person is terminally ill and in serious pain.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: MeatRokket08, Traditional Tet, Sargent PoopyFace and 3 others
Cricket said:
It's more selfish to keep someone alive in pain because you'll "miss them"
Click to expand...
For sure, but at what point do we have to go on if unhappy/healthy to live for other people?

I've known a few people who still wound up taking their own life but the last few months of their life were even more hurting because they didn't end it to prevent pain of loved ones, whom they grew to hate as it prolonged suffering akin to not pulling the plug on a coma victim.

Sorry I'm a debbie downer on this topic.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Ti-99/4A and Y2K Baby
Cricket said:
It's more of a Western thing to view suicide as selfish or wrong. Other cultures have varying opinions on it, including support for the decision in certain circumstances.
Click to expand...
Why are the Eastie boys so much better than white "my life is so importies"?
 
Cricket said:
It's the ideal of individualism and the belief that everyone is "special" in western culture. Whereas in some other places the contribution of the individual to society and the health of the collective is considered the priority.
Click to expand...
OK, thanks for repeating what I said, just less intelligently.
 
A person has the right to choose of their own life as they please, point blank period. And once you die, you don't regret it. Also you seem like you need a friendly pat in the back, you ok?

Cricket said:
It's the ideal of individualism and the belief that everyone is "special" in western culture. Whereas in some other places the contribution of the individual to society and the health of the collective is considered the priority.
Click to expand...
Yeah! It works so well in Japan. Everyone is so happy and filled with honor, unlike us scummy depressed individualists
 
  • Dislike
  • Like
Reactions: Daughter of Cernunnos and Traditional Tet
Somsnosa said:
Yeah! It works so well in Japan. Everyone is so happy and filled with honor, unlike us scummy depressed individualists
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty cool they literally have an entire forest just for committing suicide in it.

Good job Japan! Great society you have going on there.
 
  • Feels
  • Winner
Reactions: Daughter of Cernunnos, Traditional Tet, Nekromantik and 2 others
1864897514651 said:
Hell no. We are not doing this crap again. Do we seriously not remember less than a hundred years ago when we first blurred the lines between free will and moral obligation? The bastard fucking Nazi Party used this propaganda to murder AT LEAST 100,000 human beings with Aktion T4. Including at least 5,000 children. LIVING CHILDREN.

When you start saying that people can execute their free will to end their own God-given lives, you initiate a stance that suicide can NOT ONLY become a false moral obligation, but that it is imperative to 'euthanize' (I prefer the term murder) certain people whether they want to die or not. Let us look at the Aktion T4 propaganda from just Wikipedia.

"Several reasons for the programme have been offered, including eugenics, compassion, reducing suffering, racial hygiene, cost effectiveness and pressure on the welfare budget."
​
Bolding and underlining are my own. We are seeing the same propaganda today by woefully stupid people. They call it 'mercy'. I have already defined Mercy, which is a Constituent of God's Perfect Love for us. Mercy is suffering in forgiveness. To forgive someone is to pardon someone for the burdens that they have placed upon you while choosing to suffer under those burdens for the greater good of God. Yeah, sometimes men are burdens because of physical or mental ailments. You do not get to murder them just because they have. Period, full stop.

This should not even be a discussion. This is the same propaganda that the Nazi Party used to rise to power and kill millions.

This is sorrowful—so very fucking sorrowful.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about making people end a life, that's an entire new can of worms. As you listed and I agree it's a crazy slippery slope.

I was talking about people whom are of able mind to choose to do it vs round 4 of chemo or face losing limbs or mind etc.

In my question, the ending of the life would be "free will" only in that regard.

The at what point do we pull the plug or stop helping should be it's own thread and I'm sure it won't be any more cheery than this one lol.

With your thoughts I am leaning towards, you feel a terminally ill person should not opt for hospice even, am I incorrect?
 
It's literally the biggest commitment a person can make in their lives. As pussy as this sounds, I do think its a case by case basis. If a person loses their spouse and kids in a taumatic event, and it leaves a huge mental scar that they never recover from, can they try and seek support from friends and family and start again? If your mind deteriorates to the point where you need others to do everything for you, do you stay alive so you don't be remembered by people who know you as a person who chose to end their own lives? There's just no easy answer.

Unless you kill yourself because your husbando died. In which case fuck you.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Bassomatic
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back