"Why I don't regret my abortion"

They're not mutually exclusive, it is simply that people who enjoy their lives typically lack reasons for ending their life. But it's not unheard of for someone to resolve to commit suicide when they reach their 80th birthday; not because they aren't enjoying life but because they don't want to experience the degradations of extreme old age. Or an antinatalist might be happy with their own life, but not want to tacitly support the endeavour of perpetuating the species by remaining alive.



It's an imposition of the parents' values and what they deem to be worth the risks. And in cases where children are born with severe disabilities which causes them to be in constant pain and have no chance of independence, then that is a very serious penalty that the child will have to pay for their parents' selfishness. Or anyone else who just happens not to share the mindset that life is always worth the risks.



If the possibility of experiencing joy is the only thing that matters, and the risks for the child are irrelevant, then you should be condemning childless adults for refusing to bestow that 'gift' upon a new life. Moreover, it is normally not acceptable to unilaterally gamble on someone else's behalf just because in your subjective view, the potential rewards are worth it. For example, suppose someone else was able to steal your banking details and had the ability to clear out your bank account of all funds without seeking permission. They intend to make a gamble with the money that they have stolen, but if they win, they intend to pay you back a little more than what they stole to begin with. Is that a fair and reasonable proposition?




And there would not be any problem with the fact that there was no preference and no ability to act on a preference. Nobody thinks of the universe's state before the existence of sentient life as being a grand tragedy because of all of the life forms that are missing out on life. But plenty of people who are alive now lament their circumstances and having been brought into existence.



If that were the case, there would be no botched suicide attempts in which the attempter leaves themselves with serious injuries. There would probably be some 'cry for help' attempts where some teenager swallows a handful of pills, but there would be nobody inflicting serious violent harm on themselves and surviving. I know many suicidal people and there are many who are searching for that foolproof, painless and easily accessible method of suicide that allude to. Usually, suicide attempts end up messy and there is often collateral damage to the lives of others. One such tragic example:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3149218/Van-driver-swerved-avoid-Clarke-Carlisle-dead.html

That's one death that would likely have been avoided with state assisted suicide. And such a system would likely save many suicidal people, who would be able to get access to psychiatric assistance without fear of being imprisoned against their will, and incentivised to receive help by the fact that there is a pathway to end their suffering, one way or another.



There is plenty of evidence of examples where a golden opportunity transpires to have been concealing a trapdoor underneath. With assisted suicide, there is no evidence of any trapdoor lurking on the other side of death. There is no evidence that anyone who has completed that act can rue the decision.



The universe before sentient life was a place without joy or satisfaction. And there was no problem with that, and nobody thinks of that time of being a time of great tragedy. Those who are not predisposed to irrepressible optimism should also have the right to have their philosophy validated.

And a sociopath is someone who sees grievous suffering and thinks "That's absolutely terrible and could have happened to anyone. We must listen to these people and work with them to provide help and relief". Whereas the paragons of morality such as yourself see the same suffering, and think "oh well, it's not happening to me, so I think it's just best if we ignore these people and conceal them and their suffering so it doesn't put me on a downer".



A rational person knows that the good times may come to an end, and they're not going to miss any of the good things when they're dead in any case. Most people are strikingly irrational with regards to all issues surrounding death. And unfortunately, that irrationality doesn't just affect them, it bleeds into politics and causes needless suffering.



The argument in the main is that everyone should be the owner of their life and not be forced to live it against their consent. Or be forced to covertly inflict terrible harm on themselves and take high stakes risks if they want to stop living it.




Why not, though? Based on your reasoning, the ones who choose not to bear kids are letting the side down and are derelict in their obligation to bring good into the world. To endow beings with choice that would never otherwise have existed to behold that choice. If everyone had the attitude of 'it's too much of a burden for my lifestyle', then the species would go extinct and there would be nobody left to enjoy having a choice. And the odds are only "incredibly favourable" if you set the bar extremely low. Someone who spends their entire life working 16 hour shifts in a sweatshop just to survive, but doesn't choose suicide (and perhaps even that is merely because they sincerely believe that they will be tortured eternally for doing so), is not "incredibly favourable" and nor do those people have much in the way of choice. The "unacceptable gamble" is the fact that, no matter what the odds, the gamble is taken on behalf of someone who cannot consent and the losers in that gamble (whatever their proportion of the whole) have a very heavy price to pay that you probably would not want to pay if it faced you.



They're being plunged from a neutral state into a profoundly negative state. Kind of like if I stole your credit cards and ran up a massive debt, except in the game of life, there is no obligation on any external agency to cancel those debts. It's basically like issuing people with a credit card that they don't need with a very high credit limit and holding them fully responsible for the debts when someone defrauds them.



Because a) the "real blast" is only a solution to a problem that would have needed to be brought into being in order to be solved; b) the ones who hate the party with every fibre of their existence are the ones who end up having to pay the largest share of the bill.



Many mentally ill people have very little confidence in, and are downright fearful of the psychiatric system, and for very good reason. The NHS over here has been sued successfully for being negligent in their duty to safeguard the "right to life" of people with severe refractive depression who have been released and committed suicide. Many people are terrified of sentencing themselves to life imprisonment and a life sentence of being tortured by their mental illness with no possibility of any form of escape (suicide or a successful treatment and release into the general population) if they approach their psychiatrist and admit to having experienced suicidal ideation. If they realised that seeking help could be a win/win proposition, they are more likely to seek help. If assisted dying was offered only at the conclusion of a mandatory consultation and treatment period, then there would be the chance to treat the condition and cure the suffering without the need for suicide, and owing to the inbuilt survival instinct likely only the most hopeless cases would go on to choose suicide. If our pets are in terrible suffering that cannot be treated, we have them put down without their getting any say in the matter. Only a religious mindset holds that humans must not have the unquestioned right to an end to their suffering, and must indeed be obligated by law to bear their suffering indefinitely.



My solution ensures that the vast majority of those who can be cured are cured. Your non-solution means that people are afraid to seek treatment and that people resign themselves to an ugly and violent suicide (likely traumatising others in the process) as the only option. You've offered no last resort for those who have tried every form of treatment that their mental health professionals can offer and still feel relentlessly rotten.



Well, you are in favour of curtailing personal freedom of choice for the many for the 'protection' of the few (protection in this context meaning that their wishes are not respected by society).



There's no evidence of that, and no rational basis to interpret a requested peaceful death as a condemnation. And those without the option to discuss assisted suicide with a mental health professional are those who will end up giving in to their self harm impulses. Those who know that they can start down the pathway that I have described will hold out and will be required to seek treatment.



The fact that most value their lives highly does not mean that we should be telling people that their lives are too valuable to be terminated and must therefore be borne as a burden.



It isn't a deprived state, and that is the only relevant point to make.



People's philosophies deserve validation in the sense that they should be free to invest their wellbeing in their own philosophy, just as long as they aren't endangering those who want nothing to do with that philosophy. I validate the right of Christians and Muslims to invest their wellbeing in their faith as long as it isn't imposed upon me. That doesn't mean that I have any respect for those philosophies; it means that I value freedom of thought and individual liberty. It means that I shouldn't have the power to prescribe my world view on them because I think that they are deluded. This is a philosophy that 'free thinkers' are supposed to value. And whilst you may be an atheist, you are certainly no free thinker.