The triggered triggering of "triggered" cont.

You know that meaning is subjective, right?

If only it were a quantity.

Is it really obvious if they can't?

That doesn't seem to fit the conventional definition of "obvious" very well.

Isn't that most of us in your opinion?

There hasn't been a way of eradicating all suffering. Therefore if new life continues to be created, it is a certainty that some of those individual life forms are going to suffer as a consequence of the ongoing reproduction cycle, and that harm can be considered to be a 'cost' of any perceived benefit that has accrued. There has not been any way that is devised to make sure that only the life forms which will not suffer grievously will come into existence (i.e. never any autistics, never any psychopathic torturers, never anyone with a disability, never anyone who will suffer a mental illness); and the ones who suffer the most are, by definition, always going to be the ones who aren't enjoying the alleged benefits (if they were, they wouldn't be suffering so terribly). So it's much akin to a system of inverse progressive taxation wherein the most vulnerable pay the highest rate. And regardless of whether life is getting better (why did so many people think Trump was the solution to a better society if the future was so bright in one of the most blessed societies on Earth); anyone who is going to be harmed as collateral damage towards that end should have the right to refuse consent. Since it's impossible to do that, given that people can't consent before birth, and we cannot choose to only produce people who will never suffer significantly, then the only ethical solution would be a complete moratorium on reproduction.

Denying the right to form contracts with willing parties in order to achieve a desired goal is a method of prevention. But you're also conveniently ignoring the ways that the government aggressively prevents and deters unassisted suicide as well. I didn't consent to be born, but since I have been born and it has been made difficult for me to cease existing, then I'm going to continue using resources and infrastructure, as are all the other suffering individuals who will go on to perpetuate the cycle of suffering because of an onerous imposition that has been forced upon them.



Any assistance of someone else to die (other than an apostate who didn't want to die) would be a criminal offence in Indonesia. If they had the right to die in Indonesia, then they wouldn't have such terribly overcrowded and underfunded asylums with patients who are rotting away in there (literally) in the most desperate of conditions. Nobody's talking of 'throwing away the mentally ill', so that point isn't relevant. I'm talking about giving assistance to die for those who have requested it.

Psychopaths either relish the suffering of others, or are indifferent to it. Selfish, greedy and religious primitivists either ignore the suffering of others or downplay the severity of it, in order to justify having their philosophical/religious beliefs enshrined in law.

Also, please provide evidence of the Indonesian mental health services completing mercy killings of patients, if you are going to use that as part of your rebuttal.

Why would eradicating only some of the suffering be acceptable, if some are going to have more suffering than they are comfortable with? Why is it acceptable for even 1 person to have to suffer grievously so that 1 billion people can enjoy themselves? I haven't been the Trump 'fan'. I wanted him to win because I thought at least it would be entertaining to watch the reaction to it (and also with the tiny fraction of a hope that Trump would do something reckless which would result in the apocalypse). Also, a Trump victory was arguably a better result for liberal democracy, as it sent the message (hopefully) that complacency and running a campaign entirely on identity politics isn't acceptable from the Democratic Party. My point remains is that if human society was going so swimmingly, nobody would have seen Trump as being the best way of going from strength to strength. And if I'm allowed to easily remove myself from the cycle of harm, then I will do so without delay. As it stands, I live under a government which aggressively proscribes such acts of rebellion against the religious dogma of sanctity of human life.

There are many religious and self-aggrandising justifications for blocking assistance to die. Mostly along the lines of people who don't want to face up to the ephemerality and futility of their own existence, and therefore want to block others from having the right to come to terms with mortality. And I would agree that it might be justifiable to prevent someone from causing actual harm to themselves; but that certainly doesn't apply to an action which is intended to enable the person to escape harm and which would likely have that effect if the person was not obstructed in doing so. What you want is for the government to be able to arbitrarily define a certain type of person as being 'mentally incompetent' based on a philosophical belief that they hold; in much the same way that atheism is illegal in theocracy, or belief in communism or socialism was proscribed in the 1950s in the US.

An act against someone can only be defined as a trespass against them if either a) the person did not give informed consent to the act b) it causes the person to be harmed. Since in the case of assisted dying, it would already have been established that the person has given informed consent, the only box left to tick is to affirm that the person has not been harmed. The current state of scientific evidence concerning consciousness strongly indicates that consciousness does not continue for any significant length of time after death of the brain, therefore the person who has been helped to die has not been harmed. Therefore, we can confidently dismiss any allegation of wrongdoing on both counts that a) the person has consented to the action being taken; and b) they have not been exposed to harm (whether foreseen or unforeseen). The only grounds on which the allegation of moral wrongdoing hasn't been dismissed is that which is based in a religious belief in the sanctity of human life. But such should be a matter of private personal belief, and never anything that should be enshrined into law.