Bourne

If your referring to a mental health detention, yes, it's an appropriate response.

Advertising

michaelr

Well thats what I am talking about, who's business is it except for the person who tries to take their own life. Thats nuts. I do not advocate suicide, but I see it as none of my or the governments business.

apatriotsmanifest.com KI7VQ.COM PH Forum Rules!

Tar, $15.00
Feathers, $27.50
Rope, $7.75
Rail, $22.60

Sending an unmistakable message to the government that We The People still own this country, PRICELESS!

Bourne

The question is can a person make a rational and informed decision when they are in such a state of mind that they are contemplating suicide. The obvious answer is no. At that point it becomes incumbent on government to protect the individual from harming themselves and to provide a behavioral health assessment to determine if the individual requires further treatment.

michaelr

Why do you say this...Could be the most responsible decision the person ever made, I dunno it is not for you or me to say.

apatriotsmanifest.com KI7VQ.COM PH Forum Rules!

Tar, $15.00
Feathers, $27.50
Rope, $7.75
Rail, $22.60

Sending an unmistakable message to the government that We The People still own this country, PRICELESS!

Bourne

Apart from the concept of physician assisted euthanasia pursuant to a terminal illness, when is suicide ever a responsible decision?

Or it could be a prelude to an unnecessary tragedy. You're right. It's not for you or I to say. It's up to a mental health professional.

Oftencold

This is why it is vitally important to pray for Democrats.

johnlocke

Really? As a non-Mormon I was taught that everything is a part of God's plan- even the parts that really suck and are fucked up. That was kinda fucked up and sucked so now I don't believe that way anymore.

This is a picture of a conservative trying to fix the economy.

Dr.Knuckles

I like Milton's argument. That God knows what we will choose, but it is still our free will of choice. Just because he sees it coming doesn't mean he made us do it.

In any society of more than one person you sacrifice your freedom. Responsible citizens debate where to draw the line betwene public and private rights. It's constantly in debate and in flux. Silly people stomp their feet, call people names and demand that they should be able to do whatever they want to do all the time and everyone else should be forced to adapt. Full freedom for "me" and everyone else forced to adapt, change their ways and get out of my way at the cost of their own freedom.

usually people realise this at 5, then understand the world fully by the time they're working full time.
others just adamently insist that the entire world's population ought to bend around their desires and sacrifice 6 billion other people's rights to serve theirs. And get angrier, angrier and angrier when it just doesn't happen. They then get convinced that only they can see the truth and everyone else is a damn fool

We call them Libertarians.

caffeine

The obvious answer is only 'no' if we've adopted the a priori assumption that it's more rational to extend your life than to shorten it. The following line of reasoning is perfectly rational:

I'm really miserable.
It's better to feel nothing than to feel great misery.
The dead feel nothing.
It's better to be dead than to feel great misery.
I'm better off dead.

It suggests a different weighting of priorities than that many people would use, and contains premises that religious people may have a problem with, but I fail to see anything inherently irrational in it. It's a perfectly sound argument, and the premises are only obviously false from the point of view of prerational value systems that prioritise the sanctity of life.

Blueneck

I had to be contrarian and say no, because I think for the most part, freedom is an illusion and because saying that made me feel freer.