"My Body, My Choice!": Should it Extend to Suicide?

[The New California Republic]

McFall v. Shimp goes some way towards demonstrating that it is a thing.

It may prove it as a legal principle, but it does not prove that we have some metaphysical principle of bodily sovereignty.

In the current context we are talking about it as a legal principle.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It may prove it as a legal principle, but it does not prove that we have some metaphysical principle of bodily sovereignty.

In the current context we are talking about it as a legal principle.

Then it should extend to everything that does not affect others, such as drug use, suicide, etc.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

Atheists are so fond of the burden of proof until it visits upon their pet issues...

Avoiding the question by resorting to ad hominems I see. Alright. If you want to do that, that's fine by me. But know that it's very telling.

You claim that ‘bodily sovereignty’ exists, yet you’ve done nothing to prove that it exists.

Ha. Good one. It hasn't been demonstrated at all.

Which I rejected. Because you used a Bible quote.

I don’t know what else to say but that you’ve not engaged with what was even said in the quote, so...

So does murder.

Doesn't involve bodily sovereignty being exercised, so not relevant here.

Au contraire, it is entirely relevant. You said that, even if it were illegalised, that suicide would continue to occur, and therefore we should legalise it or at least not illegalise it. This can be similarly applied to murder.

[The Free Joy State]

He's making the point that the burden of proof for whether bodily sovereignty exists is on those who wish to prove that it does exist, not on those who doubt its existence.

McFall v. Shimp goes some way towards demonstrating that it is a thing.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) also demonstrates it by stating a woman can obtain contraception without consent of her partner.

In the Republic of Ireland, Ryan v Attorney General stated "you have the right not to have your body or personhood interfered with"

The UN Declaration on Human Rights is also pretty keen on it. Article Three:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity.

Many countries are signatories to that.

Bodily integrity is currently the default position in our society. Those trying to change the default need to prove why they're not needed/factual.

But this is probably not the thread for that.

[The New California Republic]

You claim that ‘bodily sovereignty’ exists, yet you’ve done nothing to prove that it exists.

I forget that not everyone here frequents the abortion thread. But I remedied the omission earlier.

Doesn't involve bodily sovereignty being exercised, so not relevant here.

Au contraire, it is entirely relevant. You said that, even if it were illegalised, that suicide would continue to occur, and therefore we should legalise it or at least not illegalise it. This can be similarly applied to murder.

And again it isn't relevant in this context because bodily sovereignty element is missing in the latter. Chalk and cheese.

[The New California Republic]

McFall v. Shimp goes some way towards demonstrating that it is a thing.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) also demonstrates it by stating a woman can obtain contraception without consent of her partner.

In the Republic of Ireland, Ryan v Attorney General stated "you have the right not to have your body or personhood interfered with"

The UN Declaration on Human Rights is also pretty keen on it. Article Three:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity.

Many countries are signatories to that.

Bodily integrity is currently the default position in our society. Those trying to change the default need to prove why they're not needed/factual.

But this is probably not the thread for that.

Yup. It is quite a simple affair to demonstrate that it exists legally and socially.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

You claim that ‘bodily sovereignty’ exists, yet you’ve done nothing to prove that it exists.

I forget that not everyone here frequents the abortion thread. But I remedied the omission earlier.

Au contraire, it is entirely relevant. You said that, even if it were illegalised, that suicide would continue to occur, and therefore we should legalise it or at least not illegalise it. This can be similarly applied to murder.

And again it isn't relevant in this context because bodily sovereignty element is missing in the latter. Chalk and cheese.

Except what I wrote concerning suicide only had to do with how it affected others and the victim. Bodily sovereignty was address prior to that on a Bible quote and my rejection of ‘bodily sovereignty’ as a reality (and I will add, outside of legal principle, which I will safely ignore).

[United Muscovite Nations]

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) also demonstrates it by stating a woman can obtain contraception without consent of her partner.

In the Republic of Ireland, Ryan v Attorney General stated "you have the right not to have your body or personhood interfered with"

The UN Declaration on Human Rights is also pretty keen on it. Article Three:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity.

Many countries are signatories to that.

Bodily integrity is currently the default position in our society. Those trying to change the default need to prove why they're not needed/factual.

But this is probably not the thread for that.

Yup. It is quite a simple affair to demonstrate that it exists legally and socially.

Except for drug use, suicide, minors, etc.

EDIT: or, in wartime, adult males.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

Absolutely not. In fact the ideal of bodily sovereignty encompassed by ‘My Body, My Choice!’ is entirely fictitious. No one owns their own body, ‘Or know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own?’ (1 Corinthians 6:19) Moreover, making it in anyway legal is tantamount to accepting suicide as a viable solution to undefined problems, I can only see that as detrimental to family, community and society for the variety of social ills it would promote.

If I don't have a will to live, I'm ending my life. Some random god who ain't shit to me, the law, and anyone else's feelings can go fuck themselves. No one's feelings fix anything I have to go through, especially not the things that are permanent with no way to improve on.

That’s entirely up to you. But God doesn’t really care about your petulant whines, his word is absolute on the issue.

[The New California Republic]

Except what I wrote concerning suicide only had to do with how it affected others and the victim.

But again the circumstances of each are entirely different, in part due to the bodily sovereignty element. They are part and parcel of the same thing, so it's arbitrary to separate them.

Bodily sovereignty was address prior to that on a Bible quote

Which I rejected.

and my rejection of ‘bodily sovereignty’ as a reality (and I will add, outside of legal principle, which I will safely ignore).

Why ignore that it exists as a reality in legal principle? That's primarily how it has been addressed thus far in this thread...

[Fascist Soyouso]

If I don't have a will to live, I'm ending my life. Some random god who ain't shit to me, the law, and anyone else's feelings can go fuck themselves. No one's feelings fix anything I have to go through, especially not the things that are permanent with no way to improve on.

That’s entirely up to you. But God doesn’t really care about your petulant whines, his word is absolute on the issue.

Y'all and your damn passive aggression.

[The Free Joy State]

Yup. It is quite a simple affair to demonstrate that it exists legally and socially.

Except for drug use, suicide, minors, etc.

EDIT: or, in wartime, adult males.

You could make a good argument for ending the draft based on bodily sovereignty, sure.

Probably not the thread for it, though.

As for the suicide and minors, people's bodily sovereignty can only be curtailed when there's reasonable belief they don't understand the consequences and it's felt (often after a court case, except in the case of minors) to be in their long-term interests.

A teenager can have an abortion or go on the Pill, for example (at least, in my country), if she's competent to understand what she's doing. But someone cannot commit suicide, as evidence suggests they may be acting due to a condition that can be diagnosed and potentially treated.

People who wish to commit suicide may be legally allowed, depending on the country, if they are doing so -- while in sound mind -- due to terminal illness or chronic, life-limiting pain.

There isn't a hard line. It's a balance.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

Except what I wrote concerning suicide only had to do with how it affected others and the victim.

But again the circumstances of each are entirely different, in part due to the bodily sovereignty element. They are part and parcel of the same thing, so it's arbitrary to separate them.

They are separate arguments. Even if I were to accept ‘bodily sovereignty’ as a reality, I could fallback nevertheless on the second argument because even secularists restrict ‘bodily sovereignty’ when expedient, i.e. when it poses as a detriment.

Bodily sovereignty was address prior to that on a Bible quote

Which I rejected.

and my rejection of ‘bodily sovereignty’ as a reality (and I will add, outside of legal principle, which I will safely ignore).

Why ignore that it exists as a reality in legal principle? That's primarily how it has been addressed thus far in this thread...

Because if it isn’t anything beyond a legal principle, it really is meaningless. If you separate legal principle from metaphysical justification, it cannot be justifies. Though I probably butchered my point: to put it simply, it’s not the true.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

That’s entirely up to you. But God doesn’t really care about your petulant whines, his word is absolute on the issue.

Y'all and your damn passive aggression.

It’s just plain aggressive.

[The V O I D]

Personally, I am of the opinion that should someone desire to terminate the meat bag they inhabit - they ought to be able to.

Should it be encouraged? No.

Should it be necessarily impeded/halted? Depending on the circumstances: also no. If, for example, someone is going to die anyway and keeping them alive is nothing but a waste of their time, your time, our time, and everyone else's time and money and taxes while also prolonging the agonizing suffering that this hypothetical person is dying through (because they can't be called 'living' if they are actually dying, now, can they?) - well, I say you should definitely not discourage them or stop them from trying. Actually, in such cases, maybe it should even be offered as a solution.

On the other hand, a completely healthy person who should have no reason to off themselves outside of depression (which alters their capacity to make sound decisions just as much as any other mental disorder), then I say treat them for any/all disorders discovered in the process of their therapy and treatment. If they still want to off themselves after getting treated and being rebalanced, then stop interfering as if the decision is made when sound in mind and body - who the fuck are we to say no?

To be honest, I think that my opinion is the most rational (“who doesn't!?” some random person probably cries out) way to go about this whole thing. It is incredibly fucking arrogant to say we ought to interfere when someone is sound in mind and body with regards to their decisions.

Bodily sovereignty is absolute: there can be no compromises nor restrictions beyond sound mental health and, of course, one may not use their bodily sovereignty to infringe on another person's bodily sovereignty (unless the relationship is parasitic in nature, like a parasitic twin or a fetus).

Of course, if the only way to treat their mental health is to allow them to execute bodily sovereignty (in the case of an SRS and HRT for transgender people suffering from gender dysphoria) - then, by all means, let them. But otherwise, I'd say it's reasonable to ensure someone is completely mentally sound when doing something as severe as terminating their own life, certainly. Anything less severe than that, well, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else - then it doesn't actually matter how mentally sound they are, I should think.

Note: I am rather clinical, utilitarian and absolutist about these sorts of things. If the 'parasitic twin' thing seems callous, or indeed, if any of these statements seem callous - then be aware that I am aware of it. My awareness of it does not change my thoughts or opinions on the matter, either. So, please, do not attempt to appeal to emotion when addressing my points or refuting my argument - it isn't going to work, and probably will never begin to enter the way I factor things when forming my thoughts/opinions on a given topic.

[Fascist Soyouso]

Y'all and your damn passive aggression.

It’s just plain aggressive.

If that's what you call active aggression you need to step it up a notch (obviously not on the forums bc rules). Usually I get called an abomination/"tricked by t h e D e v i l" by this point when it isn't passive.

[Kernen]

In the current context we are talking about it as a legal principle.

Then it should extend to everything that does not affect others, such as drug use, suicide, etc.

Why, yes. It should.

[Kernen]

If I don't have a will to live, I'm ending my life. Some random god who ain't shit to me, the law, and anyone else's feelings can go fuck themselves. No one's feelings fix anything I have to go through, especially not the things that are permanent with no way to improve on.

That’s entirely up to you. But God doesn’t really care about your petulant whines, his word is absolute on the issue.

Except your god is either incapable or unwilling to stop us. So all we have to risk is, what? Disapproval and a punishment we were going to get anyway?

If your god doesn't care about our petulant whines, then we sure don't care about his.

[Kernen]

Except for drug use, suicide, minors, etc.

EDIT: or, in wartime, adult males.

You could make a good argument for ending the draft based on bodily sovereignty, sure.

Probably not the thread for it, though.

As for the suicide and minors, people's bodily sovereignty can only be curtailed when there's reasonable belief they don't understand the consequences and it's felt (often after a court case, except in the case of minors) to be in their long-term interests.

A teenager can have an abortion or go on the Pill, for example (at least, in my country), if she's competent to understand what she's doing. But someone cannot commit suicide, as evidence suggests they may be acting due to a condition that can be diagnosed and potentially treated.

People who wish to commit suicide may be legally allowed, depending on the country, if they are doing so -- while in sound mind -- due to terminal illness or chronic, life-limiting pain.

There isn't a hard line. It's a balance.

Unless you're incompetent, then suffering from a mental illness shouldn't disqualify you from the choice. You can still make informed decisions when depressed.

[The New California Republic]

But again the circumstances of each are entirely different, in part due to the bodily sovereignty element. They are part and parcel of the same thing, so it's arbitrary to separate them.

They are separate arguments. Even if I were to accept ‘bodily sovereignty’ as a reality, I could fallback nevertheless on the second argument because even secularists restrict ‘bodily sovereignty’ when expedient, i.e. when it poses as a detriment.

And again I have given examples whereby it is not a detriment.

Why ignore that it exists as a reality in legal principle? That's primarily how it has been addressed thus far in this thread...

Because if it isn’t anything beyond a legal principle, it really is meaningless. If you separate legal principle from metaphysical justification, it cannot be justifies. Though I probably butchered my point: to put it simply, it’s not the true.

Secular law does not need metaphysical justification.

[United Muscovite Nations]

You could make a good argument for ending the draft based on bodily sovereignty, sure.

Probably not the thread for it, though.

As for the suicide and minors, people's bodily sovereignty can only be curtailed when there's reasonable belief they don't understand the consequences and it's felt (often after a court case, except in the case of minors) to be in their long-term interests.

A teenager can have an abortion or go on the Pill, for example (at least, in my country), if she's competent to understand what she's doing. But someone cannot commit suicide, as evidence suggests they may be acting due to a condition that can be diagnosed and potentially treated.

People who wish to commit suicide may be legally allowed, depending on the country, if they are doing so -- while in sound mind -- due to terminal illness or chronic, life-limiting pain.

There isn't a hard line. It's a balance.

Unless you're incompetent, then suffering from a mental illness shouldn't disqualify you from the choice. You can still make informed decisions when depressed.

^This. We today have a nasty habit of deciding that the emotions resulting from social and personal problems are mental illness.

[Kernen]

Unless you're incompetent, then suffering from a mental illness shouldn't disqualify you from the choice. You can still make informed decisions when depressed.

^This. We today have a nasty habit of deciding that the emotions resulting from social and personal problems are mental illness.

Even if it *is* a mental illness, it isn't relevant, because the mentally ill are not automatically incompetent. If you've the power to consent to medical treatment, you've equal capacity to consent to suicide. It is very frustrating. I really hate the Forced Compassionate Care angle.

[Godular]

If I don't have a will to live, I'm ending my life. Some random god who ain't shit to me, the law, and anyone else's feelings can go fuck themselves. No one's feelings fix anything I have to go through, especially not the things that are permanent with no way to improve on.

That’s entirely up to you. But God doesn’t really care about your petulant whines, his word is absolute on the issue.

God first has to exist in order for us to give a flying fuck what he may or may not say on the matter, much less whether such is 'absolute'. I for one delight in the irony of claiming God's anything is anything more than baseless conjecture.

[United Muscovite Nations]

^This. We today have a nasty habit of deciding that the emotions resulting from social and personal problems are mental illness.

Even if it *is* a mental illness, it isn't relevant, because the mentally ill are not automatically incompetent. If you've the power to consent to medical treatment, you've equal capacity to consent to suicide. It is very frustrating. I really hate the Forced Compassionate Care angle.

My main angle is that I hate the way we treat depression. It's too medicalized instead of focused on trying to solve the causes of the depression by helping the disadvantaged. Imo it's okay to admit that a depressed person may be right that their life is sad and that it's not just chemicals in their brain.

[The New California Republic]

Unless you're incompetent, then suffering from a mental illness shouldn't disqualify you from the choice. You can still make informed decisions when depressed.

^This. We today have a nasty habit of deciding that the emotions resulting from social and personal problems are mental illness.

I think the broad stroke of the argument is suicide as option with a safety net for certain mental illnesses whereby the capacity to make such an informed decision is compromised, for example if a person is hearing voices telling them to do it etc. But you are right, depression does not de facto mean that a person is non compos mentis in regards to decision-making.