At what stage does the foetus become a person?

[otseng]

From Murder of abortion provider George Tiller:

At what stage in gestation does the foetus become a 'full human being'?

If pressed on the issue, I would argue that it is not until a baby is able to understand some form of language with explicit lexical content that it attains the full status of personhood with all the rights due to it. But that would take far too long to explain here.

I am tending toward a detemination based on when the complex neo-cortex develops to a stage where it supports self aware consciousness.

For debate:
At what stage in gestation does the foetus become a 'full human being'?

[aerobatty]

Can it survive without its mother?

Do they give funerals to a fetus that is 21 weeks old?

Do you mean the mother specifically or any kind of outside assistance? Because if you mean any kind of assistance I don't that's a valid criteria for defining human life. Our offspring, because we are born with such large heads, take years to develop to a point of self sustenance.

If you mean the mother specifically, then you go back to the point in its development where it is viable and reasonably healthy. A 20 week old fetus can survive without the mother but with extensive medical assistance and almost certain health problems.

[otseng]

I believe that shows that it is unreasonable to consider 21 weeks an "age of viability" and for all intents and purposes 24 weeks should be used at the standard.

If you all wish to change the cutoff to 24 weeks instead, I have no problems with that. My same arguments hold whether it's 21 weeks or 24 weeks.

I don't even know it that is reasonable. A baby is considered extremely premature if born before 28 weeks. That seems a reasonable cutoff since less tan 1% of 1% of 1% of 1% of abortions would happen at this point anyway.

Well, it seems like the answer keeps changing. OK, let's bump up the date again to 28 weeks. My question still stands. Does a 28 week old baby in the womb have the same right to life as a baby just delivered?

Choosing to bring a child into a world most likely to end in a very quick death or sever disability is just as cruel as ending its life purposefully.

Ending its life purposefully at any point when it is a person is cruel.

I find it funny how people would call this the "right to life" only in humans, where if any other animal were born in such a condition the moral thing to do would be let it die or end its suffering.

Yes, if one subscribes to evolution, this would be a logical position.

You put humans on a pedestal because you believe we have a soul, I contend that we are no different than any other animal, at least until we are able to think and act of our own accord and we are aware of the concept of self.

Yes, my worldview position is that humans are different from animals. People are not on the same level as animals and are more special and have more rights than animals.

However, if it was known that I was going to be born with said illness, it is perfectly legal to euthenise before birth via abortion, and I would pray (if I believed it would do anything) that any parent given that choice would do the merciful thing.

With your argument, the time of the euthanasia should not matter, whether it is done in the womb or outside of it.

Once the baby is at a true age of viability, unless of course the child will suffer through their lives, it is the moral and legal thing to do to bring that child into the world.

Suffering should not be a factor in deciding who gets to live. If suffering is a criteria, then a significant portion of the world population should not be here.

It is on natural life support, but life support nonetheless.

Pulling the plug refers to mechanical life support, not a natural life support. Are you saying that anyone on natural life support does not have the right to live?

It would be a determining factor for me and everybody I have ever spoken to about the subject to end their own, why not that of a child that cannot choose itself. I seems reasonable to assume that if the child could choose, that is the choice it would make.

Nobody should have the right to be able to choose when to end the life of an innocent person. The logical extension of such thinking would be catastrophic.

2: an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds ; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

Actually, a baby does not fit the definition of a parasite that you gave. The definition refers to organisms of two or more kinds.

[Bio-logical]

You say that it is cruel to end a human life - ever. You say that humans have a greater right to life than animals and that we have more rights. You think that euthanasia is never acceptable, before or after birth, no matter what that person would have or how low their quality of life is. You feel that there is a difference between artificial and natural life support when in either case the one supported is unable to live without outside help to perform natural functions of their own body. You believe it is dangerous to think it is okay to end an innocent human life. This is an approximate summation of your post, forgive me if I have not done it justice but I think I covered all of your points.

I disagree with every one of these on a fundamental level. I say it is cruel to force a human to live. I work in an assisted living home where people pray every day for God to take their lives so they do not need to suffer. I think it is immoral that they are not allowed to end their own lives by human or religious law. You use the euphemism "right to life" constantly when what you mean is not that they have the right to live, but we do not have the right to take their life without their permission and after that it becomes their responsibility to live whether they would choose to or not.

We would find it cruel to force any animal to live in the way we expect humans to and we consider euthanasia the humane thing to do, but when the roles are reversed it is immoral for that person, or any person to end their life. This is a gross hypocrisy and a travesty that forces millions of humans to pray for a swift death and instead prolong their life well beyond the point which they would have it end. Would you want to live with severe mental retardation, spina bifida, or muscular dystrophy. Would you want to spend your entire life dependent on other people entirely for your normal activities of daily life. Is that "life"?

Ending lives that we do not deem normal does lead to some dangerous paths, but this is a slippery slope fallacy that allowing one thing opens the flood gates to the rest. Genocide is something that nobody finds "moral", but euthanasia is something that almost every human finds moral so long as applied in the appropriate situations to animals. All I contend is that we apply the same standard to humans. The only qualification I would put on that is I do find it immoral to kill a human, or an animal for that matter, jut because the medical procedure is too expensive. In every other case, though, it is basically the same moral choice.

As far as the definition of parasite goes, I gave the first one I found. The biological definition has nothing to do with "kinds" since that is a concept that does not exist in biology. In biology, there are 3 kinds or symbiosis (two organisms living together) the first is co-beneficial in which both sides benefit. The next is simple neutral symbiosis in which one may benefit where the other receives no harm nor benefit from the situation. The third is parasitism in which one organism grows, feeds or is sheltered at the direct expense of the other without contributing anything in return. A tapeworm is a parasite. A leach is a parasite. A fetus is, biologically speaking, far worse than either of those.


The entire point you are driving in this thread, the question you need to know, is at what point does it become unacceptable to kill a child to save the mother. The answer to that question is a point where there is a viable alternative, such as birth, in which both the infant and the mother can reasonable expect a normal life after such an event. 24 weeks, 28 weeks, or somewhere in between is the typical age that a fetus hits this level and at that point I do agree that it is wrong to kill something that has every reasonable expectation, or would if capable, of a full and independent life. We may never know an exact age, but I would say that later than 28 weeks is always too late, and as far as I am aware, so does every law on the books.

This thread was never really about that though, was it?

To answer the title question, a fetus is always a person, it is just not always the best decision to let it (or make it) live.

[Bio-logical]

Suffering should not be a factor in deciding who gets to live. If suffering is a criteria, then a significant portion of the world population should not be here.

To address this point alone, a significant portion of the world's population would choose themselves not to be here as well if they were not afraid of an eternity of suffering even worse. People say that suicide is never the answer, but they also call it a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Suicide is a solution, a rational one even in many cases. If your problem is not foreseeably temporary, death is a better alternative than dealing with some problems. Why else would so many people pray for death? They want it, they are ready for it, but they are afraid to do it to themselves. If suffering was a legal criteria and allowed biblically, a significant proportion of the population would choose to not be here.

[otseng]

This is an approximate summation of your post, forgive me if I have not done it justice but I think I covered all of your points.

It is generally correct. There are some things that do not describe me, but the main points I agree with.

I work in an assisted living home where people pray every day for God to take their lives so they do not need to suffer. I think it is immoral that they are not allowed to end their own lives by human or religious law.

The difference though is whose life is being terminated. One's own life or another's. In this context, I'm only debating about another's life being terminated.

So, taking your example, suppose a senior does not say whether he wants to live or die. He does not communicate either intention. But, his caretaker decides that he should die without the consent of the senior. This would be a violation of his basic right to life.

We would find it cruel to force any animal to live in the way we expect humans to and we consider euthanasia the humane thing to do, but when the roles are reversed it is immoral for that person, or any person to end their life.

If humans and animals are equal, I can see your logic.

As far as the definition of parasite goes, I gave the first one I found. The biological definition has nothing to do with "kinds" since that is a concept that does not exist in biology.

I guess the question is then can an organism be classified as a parasite of the same species?

The entire point you are driving in this thread, the question you need to know, is at what point does it become unacceptable to kill a child to save the mother.

My entire point is, when the mother's life is not at stake, it is wrong to kill a fetus when it is a person.

[FinalEnigma]

Suffering should not be a factor in deciding who gets to live. If suffering is a criteria, then a significant portion of the world population should not be here.

To address this point alone, a significant portion of the world's population would choose themselves not to be here as well if they were not afraid of an eternity of suffering even worse. People say that suicide is never the answer, but they also call it a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Suicide is a solution, a rational one even in many cases. If your problem is not foreseeably temporary, death is a better alternative than dealing with some problems. Why else would so many people pray for death? They want it, they are ready for it, but they are afraid to do it to themselves. If suffering was a legal criteria and allowed biblically, a significant proportion of the population would choose to not be here.

After reading you posts in this thread there is one point on which I disagree with you.
Before I go into it, may I ask if you have personal experience with suicide? I'm making no assumptions as to whether you have or not, and you need feel no obligation to answer, I merely think it would give perspective on the issue of choosing death if you have experience with the issue.

For my part, I will be candid and say that I have - my best friend committed suicide. I knew how depressed he was, and I understand why he did it. I was there when it happened - I saw it, so suicide is a very real issue for me. I also suffered chronic depression for nearly ten years, and in that way too, suicide was a real issue for me. I thought about it, a lot, and it was in my head staring at me for years like an elephant sitting in the living room. It obscured everything because, like the elephant blocking the door and keeping me isolated from the outside, suicide blocked me in my head and kept me isolated from the world.

But back to the issue I disagree with you on: By the logic of yours above, I should have killed myself. My depression started real close to fourth grade. Suicide became a real option for me by 7th grade at the latest. Suicide became no longer an option...about a year and a half ago. my depression was effectively ended(I still get depressed at times when I let myself do stupid things for a few weeks at a time, but it's happened only once in six or eight months and frequency is declining. And I know how to deal with it now, thanks in part to a couple forum members here.) about a year ago.
The reason I should have killed myself way back then was because I knew, even then, that I am different. I have Asperger's syndrome, though I didn't know it then, and it was a good part of my depression. I was basically really freaking lonely. But even before I knew I had it I knew I was different, and that that difference would never change, and that I would spend the rest of my life alone, nobody understanding me. I was mostly right. Asperger's alienates me from the vast majority of the world, and there's another peculiarity about me(That I don't want to go into) that isolates me from the rest of it, an even bigger difference that pushes me even further from everyone else.

So suicide would have been a permanent solution to a problem with no foreseeable end.

The strange thing is, I was both right and wrong. Nothing changed. I'm still who I am, everybody else is still who they are. But I found a friend or two. A couple members of this forum who understand Asperger's, and I found one person who matches the other.

So see, I was the person in best position to know about my suffering. And it remained. It's still there. I'm still lonely, I'm still hurting, but there's a conversation here and there, even just a brief few words with the right person, where I don't feel alone. And it's worth it.

What I'm getting down to is - life is life. Suicide is, most of the time, wrong. Even if there is no foreseeable end to suffering, you are doing yourself a tremendous injustice, and you are doing a great number of other people a tremendous injustice as well. Robbing the world, and those who love you, of yourself, is most of the time, inexcusable.(note I do leave exceptions for situations such as terminal illness etc.)

Making the choice to commit suicide is(most of the time) wrong, and making that choice for someone else, is even worse.





Basically this was just the most long winded way ever of saying I feel you're a bit too callous about suicide and mercy-type killings.(Which I don't mean insultingly)





PS. Sorry for the incredible longwindedness, but I'm a writer, and I haven't been writing lately, and its tending to come out in me being long winded and strange in some of my posts and e-mails lately. I really should go write about what I really want to write about, but I'm avoiding the issue because I don't want to write about it.(I'm full of those statements today.)

[Bio-logical]

may I ask if you have personal experience with suicide?

I suffered with severe depression for many years, about the same time frame you did. During that time I contemplated suicide nearly every day and I did not even have a permanent reason to do so. People say that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, but in my mind that does not address the fact that it is in fact a solution. I too am a little different than most people, I think differently - more outside the box and free from constraint than most people I meet. It has gotten me in trouble through much of my life in school, work, friends and family. The fact that I participate in this forum is part of my difference, I have a compulsion to argue - it is the one thing that made me happy during my darkest years. You can see how this could be difficult to get happier in general though.

What I can tell you is what kept me from killing myself. Although I am a relatively callous person in most aspects of my life - a cynic through and through - I am also a very compassionate and loving person for those close to me. I did not kill myself because although it would solve my problems in a way acceptable to me, it would have created many more problems for my friends and family and I choose to suffer through life with hopes of improvement for their sake.

For my part, I will be candid and say that I have - my best friend committed suicide. I knew how depressed he was, and I understand why he did it. I was there when it happened - I saw it, so suicide is a very real issue for me. I also suffered chronic depression for nearly ten years, and in that way too, suicide was a real issue for me. I thought about it, a lot, and it was in my head staring at me for years like an elephant sitting in the living room. It obscured everything because, like the elephant blocking the door and keeping me isolated from the outside, suicide blocked me in my head and kept me isolated from the world.

That is very sad and I would not wish it upon anyone.

But back to the issue I disagree with you on: By the logic of yours above, I should have killed myself. My depression started real close to fourth grade. Suicide became a real option for me by 7th grade at the latest. Suicide became no longer an option...about a year and a half ago. my depression was effectively ended(I still get depressed at times when I let myself do stupid things for a few weeks at a time, but it's happened only once in six or eight months and frequency is declining. And I know how to deal with it now, thanks in part to a couple forum members here.) about a year ago.

By my logic you should have considered suicide and if it had been the option you chose I could not fault you. It sounds life your life was not one worth living in many ways. The problem I argue against is that had you attempted suicide and failed, you would have been put under a 72 hour mental health hold and had mandatory counseling. The world at large does not consider suicide an acceptable option, I do. Had you come to me with the rational case that your life is unbearably bad, I think you should have been able to die without consequence.

One point I would like to make here is that I also believe thoughts of suicide are entirely normal in teen years and there should be a test of rationality before suicide is allowed. Many teens kill themselves over a breakup or something equally short term but I think that making your case to a tribunal shows not only a dedication to your choice but an amount of rationality going into the decision.

The reason I should have killed myself way back then was because I knew, even then, that I am different. I have Asperger's syndrome, though I didn't know it then, and it was a good part of my depression. I was basically really freaking lonely. But even before I knew I had it I knew I was different, and that that difference would never change, and that I would spend the rest of my life alone, nobody understanding me. I was mostly right. Asperger's alienates me from the vast majority of the world, and there's another peculiarity about me(That I don't want to go into) that isolates me from the rest of it, an even bigger difference that pushes me even further from everyone else.

So suicide would have been a permanent solution to a problem with no foreseeable end.

The strange thing is, I was both right and wrong. Nothing changed. I'm still who I am, everybody else is still who they are. But I found a friend or two. A couple members of this forum who understand Asperger's, and I found one person who matches the other.

I am glad that things worked out for you, but again I could not have faulted you for ending your life. Your decision would have been rational and thought through and although your interpretation of your position changed along with a few details, you should not have had any expectation of that happening and therefore expecting a life of anguish would have been a reasonable reason to end it.

So see, I was the person in best position to know about my suffering. And it remained. It's still there. I'm still lonely, I'm still hurting, but there's a conversation here and there, even just a brief few words with the right person, where I don't feel alone. And it's worth it.

I am glad that it is worth it for you. I do need to ask though, is it a life you would wish on anyone else or a life that you have reinteroreted your standards to say that it is good enough for you?

What I'm getting down to is - life is life. Suicide is, most of the time, wrong. Even if there is no foreseeable end to suffering, you are doing yourself a tremendous injustice, and you are doing a great number of other people a tremendous injustice as well. Robbing the world, and those who love you, of yourself, is most of the time, inexcusable.(note I do leave exceptions for situations such as terminal illness etc.)

Although I do tend to think along most of the same lines as you and I do take a rather optimistic stance that the human brain has a way of accepting even the worst of situations, I disagree that suicide is wrong. I do not necessarily feel it is right (i.e. required) but I do not feel it is wrong. I would not want to live a severely disabled life and I have made a pact with my family that if I am ever faced with one they are not to stop me if I choose to end my life. I would not wish a life like that on anyone, and I refuse to accept it for myself.

Making the choice to commit suicide is(most of the time) wrong, and making that choice for someone else, is even worse.

I argue that it is not wrong if the life to be lived is likely to be one that a normal person would never choose for themselves. This whole post stemmed from fetal development and abortion, in which case I feel after 28 weeks a fetus has a reasonable expectation of a normal life and it is immoral for us to take that chance from it. Before that it is an obligate parasite on its mother and if the harm it is doing to her is putting her in danger, she can choose to end its life in a completely moral way. I do not make any assertions as to when the fetus becomes human since genetically it always is human. I do assert that it is immoral to force one human to put their life (or reasonable expectation of normalcy thereof) at risk to save another life. The only logical choice in the case of mother and child is abortion or willful sacrifice on the side of the mother. At the point where the fetus can live without the mother (no longer an obligate parasite) and has a reasonable expectation to a normal life we would accept for ourselves, it then becomes immoral to deprive the child of that chance.

Basically this was just the most long winded way ever of saying I feel you're a bit too callous about suicide and mercy-type killings.(Which I don't mean insultingly)

You may be right, but I feel that most of the world is far too conservative on the topic and forces people to live in conditions they would not willfully choose.

[FinalEnigma]

may I ask if you have personal experience with suicide?

I suffered with severe depression for many years, about the same time frame you did. During that time I contemplated suicide nearly every day and I did not even have a permanent reason to do so. People say that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, but in my mind that does not address the fact that it is in fact a solution. I too am a little different than most people, I think differently - more outside the box and free from constraint than most people I meet. It has gotten me in trouble through much of my life in school, work, friends and family. The fact that I participate in this forum is part of my difference, I have a compulsion to argue - it is the one thing that made me happy during my darkest years. You can see how this could be difficult to get happier in general though.

What I can tell you is what kept me from killing myself. Although I am a relatively callous person in most aspects of my life - a cynic through and through - I am also a very compassionate and loving person for those close to me. I did not kill myself because although it would solve my problems in a way acceptable to me, it would have created many more problems for my friends and family and I choose to suffer through life with hopes of improvement for their sake.

To be honest, I am not certain what stopped me. Stubbornness or pride maybe(I will not lose at life!).
But the reason you gave is the reason why I feel that suicide is usually wrong. It causes so much needless pain. I'm also a strongly compassionate person, so that is a big thing for me.

For my part, I will be candid and say that I have - my best friend committed suicide. I knew how depressed he was, and I understand why he did it. I was there when it happened - I saw it, so suicide is a very real issue for me. I also suffered chronic depression for nearly ten years, and in that way too, suicide was a real issue for me. I thought about it, a lot, and it was in my head staring at me for years like an elephant sitting in the living room. It obscured everything because, like the elephant blocking the door and keeping me isolated from the outside, suicide blocked me in my head and kept me isolated from the world.

That is very sad and I would not wish it upon anyone.

the thing that makes it so much more sad is that it didn't have to happen. He didn't have a permanent reason - he was just depressed. he hadn't tried getting help either. The worst part was that he was married. He had a kid. She's probably about 5 or 6 now, and growing up without a father. It isn't my place to judge him, but I think it was wrong for him to do that.

But back to the issue I disagree with you on: By the logic of yours above, I should have killed myself. My depression started real close to fourth grade. Suicide became a real option for me by 7th grade at the latest. Suicide became no longer an option...about a year and a half ago. my depression was effectively ended(I still get depressed at times when I let myself do stupid things for a few weeks at a time, but it's happened only once in six or eight months and frequency is declining. And I know how to deal with it now, thanks in part to a couple forum members here.) about a year ago.

By my logic you should have considered suicide and if it had been the option you chose I could not fault you. It sounds life your life was not one worth living in many ways. The problem I argue against is that had you attempted suicide and failed, you would have been put under a 72 hour mental health hold and had mandatory counseling. The world at large does not consider suicide an acceptable option, I do. Had you come to me with the rational case that your life is unbearably bad, I think you should have been able to die without consequence.

You're right about the world's view on it. although I read once that there is a country(I don't remember what country) that has outlawed suicide, and made suicide attempts punishable by death.

One point I would like to make here is that I also believe thoughts of suicide are entirely normal in teen years and there should be a test of rationality before suicide is allowed. Many teens kill themselves over a breakup or something equally short term but I think that making your case to a tribunal shows not only a dedication to your choice but an amount of rationality going into the decision.

So you would have to apply for a suicide permit? Nobody would ever do that. The reason being if they didn't get permission, then steps would be taken to prevent them from doing it.

So see, I was the person in best position to know about my suffering. And it remained. It's still there. I'm still lonely, I'm still hurting, but there's a conversation here and there, even just a brief few words with the right person, where I don't feel alone. And it's worth it.

I am glad that it is worth it for you. I do need to ask though, is it a life you would wish on anyone else or a life that you have reinterpreted your standards to say that it is good enough for you?

As I said, the pain is still there, a bit of it. it isn't as crippling though anymore, and I know how to deal with it now. But see, after I started learning that...something did change. I found love. The person I mentioned that matched my peculiarity? it's my beloved. When I'm talking to her, or even talking about her with someone else, I don't hurt anymore. I'd never known love before, and wondered if I even could. It sounds horrible, but I don't really get that with my family, we don't get along.
Now, I can't be with my beloved yet, and we don't live near to each other. I have to wait a little longer, but knowing she's there fills the loneliness a bit.

And is it a life I would wish on another? I thought about that question a lot. In the form of "Would I ever have kids someday if it came up?" because, any kids I have stand a fair chance of having a lot of the same problems(though hopefully not the family ones). Asperger's is genetic. So is a predisposition for depression.
I've made the choice for me. I wouldn't trade in my life for somebody elses. When I said ti was worth it - that's what I meant. My life is worth it. Most of life sucks, that's just the way it is, but the little bit that doesn't suck is why we keep on living.
But I'm not ready to make that choice for other people yet. I have a lot of respect for a person's right to choose their fate, so no, I wouldn't wish my life on somebody else because I don't feel I have the right to make that choice for them.
What this amounts to in children and fetuses I'm not sure. they can't make that choice, and they certainly can't make it informed until many years into their life, which kind of defeats the purpose.

What I'm getting down to is - life is life. Suicide is, most of the time, wrong. Even if there is no foreseeable end to suffering, you are doing yourself a tremendous injustice, and you are doing a great number of other people a tremendous injustice as well. Robbing the world, and those who love you, of yourself, is most of the time, inexcusable.(note I do leave exceptions for situations such as terminal illness etc.)

Although I do tend to think along most of the same lines as you and I do take a rather optimistic stance that the human brain has a way of accepting even the worst of situations, I disagree that suicide is wrong. I do not necessarily feel it is right (i.e. required) but I do not feel it is wrong.

Is it never wrong? What about the teenager who's upset over a break-up and kills them self, and it does horrible things to their family and friends? Was that okay?

Making the choice to commit suicide is(most of the time) wrong, and making that choice for someone else, is even worse.

I argue that it is not wrong if the life to be lived is likely to be one that a normal person would never choose for themselves.

But what would a person choose for themselves? There are many people with crippling, painful illnesses that choose to live. Not because they are afraid of the bible, or the afterlife, but because of that small percent of life that doesn't suck. Even with deformities or illnesses, there are things of great beauty in life. And to me it just feels wrong to deny those things to another person.

Basically this was just the most long winded way ever of saying I feel you're a bit too callous about suicide and mercy-type killings.(Which I don't mean insultingly)

You may be right, but I feel that most of the world is far too conservative on the topic and forces people to live in conditions they would not willfully choose.

I agree with 90-95% of your position. I'm somewhere between you and the world on suicide. I understand where you are coming from too - we both lived with suicide for a long time. That makes it more commonplace for us, we are more desensitized to it. To most people who haven't been there it's frightening and repulsive, and one of those things you never talk about.

apologies to Otseng here. These few posts are only partially related to the topic at hand.

[Bio-logical]

So you would have to apply for a suicide permit? Nobody would ever do that. The reason being if they didn't get permission, then steps would be taken to prevent them from doing it.

Fair enough
I do believe that counseling should be strongly recommended and available to anybody for free, but you are right that requiring a license would be silly.

And is it a life I would wish on another? I thought about that question a lot. In the form of "Would I ever have kids someday if it came up?" because, any kids I have stand a fair chance of having a lot of the same problems(though hopefully not the family ones). Asperger's is genetic. So is a predisposition for depression.
I've made the choice for me. I wouldn't trade in my life for somebody elses. When I said ti was worth it - that's what I meant. My life is worth it. Most of life sucks, that's just the way it is, but the little bit that doesn't suck is why we keep on living.
But I'm not ready to make that choice for other people yet. I have a lot of respect for a person's right to choose their fate, so no, I wouldn't wish my life on somebody else because I don't feel I have the right to make that choice for them.
What this amounts to in children and fetuses I'm not sure. they can't make that choice, and they certainly can't make it informed until many years into their life, which kind of defeats the purpose.

The fact is that parents make every decision for their children until the children are old enough to do so including health decisions and life saving or potentially risky surgeries. It is entirely reasonable to expect parents to make this decision on behalf of their children as well.

What I'm getting down to is - life is life. Suicide is, most of the time, wrong. Even if there is no foreseeable end to suffering, you are doing yourself a tremendous injustice, and you are doing a great number of other people a tremendous injustice as well. Robbing the world, and those who love you, of yourself, is most of the time, inexcusable.(note I do leave exceptions for situations such as terminal illness etc.)

Is it never wrong? What about the teenager who's upset over a break-up and kills them self, and it does horrible things to their family and friends? Was that okay?

You lok at okay as a very subjective clause. Was it right for him/her to do that to friends and/or family? probably not. Was it right for the family to expect that person to continue living for their sake? also most likely not. If the living were to begin viewing suicide as a rational choice to solve a problem that the deceased could not live with, they might not take the death so hard. I was devastated when my grandfather died on my 13th birthday. He had lived a long and full life and was ready for death, but I was not ready for him to die and I was selfish. Was it wrong of him to die? Should he have opted into artificial life support to keep him around until I was ready? The fact is nobody is ever ready for another's death.

Some suicides are cowardly, but that doesn't make them wrong. If I had a wife and kids (I am married with no kids so far) I could never do that to them, but that is me. I cannot project myself unto other people other than to lose respect in them for the choices they make. I view such a thing as cowardly, my life is less important to me than my family's and I would give it willingly to save any one of them even if that just means staying alive in a horribly miserable existence.

But what would a person choose for themselves? There are many people with crippling, painful illnesses that choose to live. Not because they are afraid of the bible, or the afterlife, but because of that small percent of life that doesn't suck. Even with deformities or illnesses, there are things of great beauty in life. And to me it just feels wrong to deny those things to another person.

These people have come to terms with a very bad existence because they had few other alternatives. The same thing happens to those who are in POW camps and prisons.

I agree with 90-95% of your position. I'm somewhere between you and the world on suicide. I understand where you are coming from too - we both lived with suicide for a long time. That makes it more commonplace for us, we are more desensitized to it. To most people who haven't been there it's frightening and repulsive, and one of those things you never talk about.

I think that the fact that people can't talk about it is the reason it is so feared.

[FinalEnigma]

So you would have to apply for a suicide permit? Nobody would ever do that. The reason being if they didn't get permission, then steps would be taken to prevent them from doing it.

Fair enough
I do believe that counseling should be strongly recommended and available to anybody for free, but you are right that requiring a license would be silly.

And is it a life I would wish on another? I thought about that question a lot. In the form of "Would I ever have kids someday if it came up?" because, any kids I have stand a fair chance of having a lot of the same problems(though hopefully not the family ones). Asperger's is genetic. So is a predisposition for depression.
I've made the choice for me. I wouldn't trade in my life for somebody elses. When I said ti was worth it - that's what I meant. My life is worth it. Most of life sucks, that's just the way it is, but the little bit that doesn't suck is why we keep on living.
But I'm not ready to make that choice for other people yet. I have a lot of respect for a person's right to choose their fate, so no, I wouldn't wish my life on somebody else because I don't feel I have the right to make that choice for them.
What this amounts to in children and fetuses I'm not sure. they can't make that choice, and they certainly can't make it informed until many years into their life, which kind of defeats the purpose.

The fact is that parents make every decision for their children until the children are old enough to do so including health decisions and life saving or potentially risky surgeries. It is entirely reasonable to expect parents to make this decision on behalf of their children as well.

Yes, of course, and they have to. It's just a decision I don't like being made by somebody other than the affected person. I'm not sure how to deal with this in regards to a fetus yet.

What I'm getting down to is - life is life. Suicide is, most of the time, wrong. Even if there is no foreseeable end to suffering, you are doing yourself a tremendous injustice, and you are doing a great number of other people a tremendous injustice as well. Robbing the world, and those who love you, of yourself, is most of the time, inexcusable.(note I do leave exceptions for situations such as terminal illness etc.)

Is it never wrong? What about the teenager who's upset over a break-up and kills them self, and it does horrible things to their family and friends? Was that okay?

You lok at okay as a very subjective clause. Was it right for him/her to do that to friends and/or family? probably not. Was it right for the family to expect that person to continue living for their sake? also most likely not. If the living were to begin viewing suicide as a rational choice to solve a problem that the deceased could not live with, they might not take the death so hard. I was devastated when my grandfather died on my 13th birthday. He had lived a long and full life and was ready for death, but I was not ready for him to die and I was selfish. Was it wrong of him to die? Should he have opted into artificial life support to keep him around until I was ready? The fact is nobody is ever ready for another's death.

Some suicides are cowardly, but that doesn't make them wrong. If I had a wife and kids (I am married with no kids so far) I could never do that to them, but that is me. I cannot project myself unto other people other than to lose respect in them for the choices they make. I view such a thing as cowardly, my life is less important to me than my family's and I would give it willingly to save any one of them even if that just means staying alive in a horribly miserable existence.

You said that some suicide is cowardly, and I think we would both agree that sometimes it is selfish as well. Yet you do not feel that it is ever explicitly wrong.

my question at this point, is how can an act that is motivated by selfishness and cowardliness, and causes many people a great deal of suffering, not be wrong?
Most of the time society considers selfishness to be wrong in itself, and cowardice as well. yet selfishness and cowardice on a large scale causing a great deal of pain to innocent people is not wrong?

I'll agree with you some of the time - suicide isn't always wrong. But I happen to think a highschool student who kills themself over a breakup is doing a serious wrong to a lot of people.

But what would a person choose for themselves? There are many people with crippling, painful illnesses that choose to live. Not because they are afraid of the bible, or the afterlife, but because of that small percent of life that doesn't suck. Even with deformities or illnesses, there are things of great beauty in life. And to me it just feels wrong to deny those things to another person.

These people have come to terms with a very bad existence because they had few other alternatives. The same thing happens to those who are in POW camps and prisons.

Yes, and whats the rate of suicide in prison camps? its not tremendously high. The majority of people in POW camps/prison choose to live, and you can't easily have less choices than in a POW camp. I think people have a little more resistance to suicide than you express.

I agree with 90-95% of your position. I'm somewhere between you and the world on suicide. I understand where you are coming from too - we both lived with suicide for a long time. That makes it more commonplace for us, we are more desensitized to it. To most people who haven't been there it's frightening and repulsive, and one of those things you never talk about.

I think that the fact that people can't talk about it is the reason it is so feared.

Possibly, that or its a cycle. people don't talk about it because its painful, and because they don't talk about it it becomes more distant and frightening.