"Why I don't regret my abortion"

Rationality doesn't always coincide with what our most fundamental biological instincts tell us. The ability to override instinct with rationality is probably one of the main things which makes humans different from other animals.



They are forced in the sense that they are not able to gain access to methods which ease their passing, and that if they are intercepted during or before completion of the act, they will be imprisoned against their will in most or all of the world's jurisdictions. And I would not wish to be the owner of the life of a 'vulnerable' - meaning that their options should not be restricted by what I think is best for them. If they think that life is fundamentally worth any amount of suffering, then they should have the freedom to reject suicide and continue living. To remind you, you are the one who is in favour of narrowing down the choices available; even after championing freedom of choice as one of the greatest virtues of being alive. And having the fortitude and access to means of dying is far from a trivial matter. Not having the courage to commit suicide is not an endorsement of life.



But think of all of all the disembodied souls in the ether that are, right now, missing out on the choice of whether to have chicken or steak for dinner tonight. Or whether to jump in front of a train, slit their wrists in a bathtub, or just endure decades of misery and being forced to work for someone else in order to maintain their burden of existence.

And none of what I have said is pessimistic, because it is a certainty that there will be lives which come into existence, the bearer of which deems to be an onerous burden. Terrible suffering is not a "worse case scenario", it is certain to befall many of those who will be brought into existence. Making things fairer to all would be not to take the risk with anyone's wellbeing without their consent. 



But the analogies are apt. The obligations that must be borne by the living are apt to the obligation to pay off a credit card bill that someone else has run up.



And are you honestly denying the existence of mental illness that does not respond after many different courses of treatment? Your alternative to the right to die only works by denying a wealth of clinical evidence. And I think, but am not sure, that the human brain has a greater capacity for mental suffering than any other animal.



I want them to have the choice with regards to what approach is to be taken. I don't want my, or anyone else's existential values to be imposed upon them or to limit their range of options. I don't want them to have to inflict unnecessary harm on themselves, when what they desire is to escape harm, and I want that for myself.




People who have a different philosophical outlook to yourself are not "vulnerable", and nor can they be "endangered" by giving them the right to take ownership of their life, which would include the choice not to be burdened with their life.



Everyone makes choices that they later regret, but society does not bar access to those options. But you're proposing that a decision that can never be regretted is one that should be beyond the pale? The ones that do go through with suicide are those who will never miss out on any option that is preferable to death, because they would need to be alive in order to feel deprived of those things. The ones who didn't go through with assisted suicide may feel liberated by knowing that they do at least have the option to die, which makes them more fearless in trying to tackle their problems. A prison becomes a home when you have the key; whereas a person who feels trapped is liable to spend all of their time trying to devise a means of escape and unable to enjoy the things that they may have been able to had they known that they weren't trapped.



They are told that. "Suicide is selfish" etc. Although the ones telling them that never admit that, in some cases, it never gets better.



Everyone should be entitled to seek out their own preference, and to request the assistance of a consenting third party.



People who have a different philosophical outlook to yourself are not "vulnerable" and do not need to be "protected" by having their views forcibly suppressed. I am not demanding "inflict[ing] mortal endangerment" on anyone. Being permitted to choose for oneself is not "endangerment".

I don't know what that tiny image is supposed to denote. But your thinking is as rigid and dogmatic as anything taught in a conservative church sermon.

Most "normal, mostly healthy mind" are religious and scared of death, so that isn't much of a point. And politics is not always a linear march towards justice and enlightenment. Some countries are starting to become enlightened on this issue, such as Belgium and The Netherlands, although even those still have some distance to go. In both of those countries, people with mental illness can receive assistance to die - are they run by psychopaths or supervillains?



The risks, and consequences of failure, are anything but trivial. Even reliable methods of suicide such as hanging, shooting (not available in most countries) or jumping in front of a train have failure rates. And you don't support choice, you support the government doing everything possible to prolong life at all costs. If it were feasible for the government to entirely deny the possibility of suicide through invasive measures, no doubt you would support them in doing so. Being in the position where suicide seems like the right way out is almost never desirable, because that usually means a choice between death (and overcoming one's own instincts) and an array of very undesirable alternative options. 

Not having the courage is not the same as not having firmly decided. Not having firmly decided does not indicate that there are worthwhile alternatives to dying, given that some of those reasons for not committing suicide include fear of failure, not wanting to cause emotional grief for others, fear of being caught before completion and being imprisoned in a psychiatric ward, fear of punishment after death, etc.




If there isn't such a thing as souls waiting for incarnation, then in what way does it count against anyone never to have been born?



What is considered 'sane' is subjective to the survival instinct innate to the species. It's predicated on the bias that life is always a desirable thing, and the metaphysical nonsense that those who were never born have somehow been harmed by never coming into existence.



If it's a new car, then it is a new car that must be driven over a minefield to get to where you need to go, and you have to pay for the petrol with money that you do not possess at the beginning of the trip, you have to pay for any damage you cause to anyone else's person or vehicle, and many of the drivers lack the competency to operate the vehicle.



If they understand the consequences of choosing to die and they understand and are aware of the alternatives to death, then they are competent to make the decision to die and should be supported through that decision. And we currently do not understand the psychology of other animals well enough to put them down due to mental suffering. Without verbal skills, they cannot articulate mental suffering (to the extent that such exists) and plead for help.



Under my proposals, no one person would have the right or ability to endanger any other person. Choosing, with full awareness, to avoid further harm by opting out of existence is no form of danger. It's a choice not to be in danger, because something that does not exist cannot be endangered.



People with mental illnesses are not all "vulnerable", as much as you would like to demean those people in order to justify denying them the freedom of choice. The difference in philosophy is where one person suffering from mental illness may maintain the outlook that life is always worth it, no matter what; whereas someone else suffering equally might decide that the most rational decision is to opt out and spare themselves from the likelihood of future suffering. The purpose of enlisting the assistance of a willing participant with the relevant expertise and training would be to ensure that there is no possibility of survival and that death is accomplished with minimal discomfort or pain. And the only regrettable suicide attempt, by definition, can be one that was not successful. A completed suicide can only be 'regretted' by those who are left alive and would have preferred the individual to selflessly suffer indefinitely.

What is regrettable is the fact that the people who want to die are the perpetual victims of people with atavistic mindsets such as yours. At no point during the process of choosing an assisted death would anyone be made to feel that they were being victimised or exploited by people with an outlook such as my own, and they would have the right to turn back and choose life at any point.



This is what people such as yourself would like to have done to the "mentally incompetent":

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3779978/The-horrifying-conditions-Indonesia-s-mental-health-system.html

Isn't that heartwarming and life affirming? Anything is better than non-existence, right, even if you spend your entire life being chained to the floor whilst the teeth rot in your head and you have to defecate and urinate on the floor around you? The above is also the reason why many people with mental illnesses do not seek help; because the above is the only 'help' that society can think to administer as long as people such as yourself use their own fears and existential terrors to justify denying liberties to the most unfortunate.



The lack of sanctioned access to pharmaceutical assistance is one. Another is the fact that if they are caught planning to commit suicide, or intercepted in the act, they are liable to face imprisonment in a psychiatric hospital (re-education centre) until their philosophy is in alignment with what is socially acceptable. Would you come forward for help if you were an Indonesian suffering from mental distress, but you knew that you would have to be imprisoned indefinitely in a facility such as that in the link?



I am not seeking to compromise anyone else. And you are the one with a sense of entitlement, in that you wish to impose unasked for suffering upon others for the validation of your diet-Catholic philosophical outlook.



In the system that I have proposed, someone choosing suicide for themselves would be electing for themselves only and not anyone else. Those who wished to commit suicide would have every opportunity to access help in order to assist them in living tolerably (instead of suicide), and there would be a marked reduction in suicides carried out violently and spontaneously without seeking help, as people would not be frightened to ask for help with their mental disorders. Establishing the right to assistance in dying would likely save a great many lives, which would otherwise have been hastily and violently ended, and set many on the path to recovery, whilst respecting the wishes of those afflicted with conditions that were resistant to treatment, or who simply had a different philosophical outlook.



I still don't know what the image is meant to signify.

Indeed. It's rather hypocritical of the anti abortion types that they set out to make abortion as traumatic as possible, and then use the idea that abortion is traumatic as a reason not to allow it.

Kind of like how the right sets out to destroy government services and then uses the broken services as evidence that government is inherently inefficient.

Most people, worldwide, subscribe to some form of religion. Until very recently in historical terms, the non-existence of God would have been quite unthinkable in most of the world outside of the Buddhist regions, including educated and developed so-called 'western' nations. Much like my antinatalism is unthinkable for the vast majority of people today. But once you've recognised the logic in it, it might well be impossible to go back.

And whilst the laws of Belgium and The Netherlands do not go as far as I would like, they would at least have to qualify for 'villainy' status in your books, would they not? And they don't frame the issue as bluntly as "the dead don't care", yet it is recognised that those who do choose assisted suicide will have an eternity of not being deprived of any of the joys that life might have to offer. Much like you had a virtual eternity of not feeling deprived of the things that you currently enjoy before you were born, without feeling bothered by non-existence in the slightest. Once you're gone, it will never again bother you in the slightest that you'll never go on holiday again, never love or be loved, never stop to smell the roses, etc. The only time that you can be deprived of any of these joys is whilst you are alive.

There's nothing unhealthy about wishing to die and not having gone through with it. The human race would not exist if not for a very strong primal urge to resist death. It's the same thing that all or most animal life has, regardless of the satisfaction of life. Nature does not have to be rational. Added to that, the very rational concerns about the consequences of a failed suicide, which you have ignored, along with the article I posted about the Indonesian mental health asylum.