Difference between revisions of "Age"

From Suicide Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Added the amount of ramparts for euthanasia and the so-called perfectness of nature and life)
Line 13: Line 13:
 
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 15px 0">“It does not matter how long you live, but how well you do it.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.</div>
 
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold; margin: 15px 0">“It does not matter how long you live, but how well you do it.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.</div>
  
It would be hypocritical to design the universe around one’s self definition of the right time to die, because everybody has their own definitions hence expectations. Age alone does not preclude one from standing as a suicide candidate. Suicide in children is okay no matter what’s the cause, but the cause is not okay—no matter how accepted it is. The reason anti-choicers oppose suicide in children is the fear that it might happen to their personal property, their own children that they treat as possessions—rather than having them exclusive but shared within the collectivity, to eradicate unlucky hurt upbringings and dilute fate. Because anti-choicers don’t accept their incapability in resolving what causes the suicide, they crusade against anyone who sees that, currently, some of the causes of suicide in children are not going to be resolved. The right of suicide is taken from the victim, since anti-choicers’ mindset is that the risk factors ''can'' be mitigated or ''will'' be irrelevant in an unforeseeable future for the victim. The crux of problem is that accepting an exit for the victim correlates with laziness in working towards mitigating the risk factors. Thus, the (band-aid) strategy is to stagnate the present choice by extending the time frame for the victim. This extending slows down the time for the troubled child until it stops at suicide. In other words, the guardians of morality and ethic, anti-choicers, wish to control the flow of time only to slow it down, and prevent it from being stopped. The irony is that the human body expires within 100 years, so why not waltz to the end of life at a rapid pace?
+
It would be hypocritical to design the universe around one’s self definition of the right time to die, because everybody has their own definitions hence expectations. Age alone does not preclude one from standing as a suicide candidate. Suicide in children is okay no matter what’s the cause, but the cause is not okay—no matter how accepted it is. The reason anti-choicers oppose suicide in children is the fear that it might happen to their personal property, their own children that they treat as possessions—rather than having them exclusive but shared within the collectivity, to eradicate unlucky hurt upbringings and dilute fate. Because anti-choicers don’t accept their incapability in resolving what causes the suicide, they crusade against anyone who sees that, currently, some of the causes of suicide in children are not going to be resolved. The right of suicide is taken from the victim, since anti-choicers’ mindset is that the risk factors ''can'' be mitigated or ''will'' be irrelevant in an unforeseeable future for the victim. The crux of problem is that accepting an exit for the victim correlates with laziness in working towards mitigating the risk factors. Thus, the (band-aid) strategy is to stagnate the present choice by extending the time frame for the victim. There are far more people who wish to stick around and even recover such that doctors and medical professionals would almost always have a steady supply of patients that wish to try their new cures or treatments. This extending of time slows down the time for the troubled child until it stops at suicide. In other words, the guardians of morality and ethic, anti-choicers, wish to control the flow of time only to slow it down, and prevent it from being stopped. The irony is that the human body expires within 100 years, so why not waltz to the end of life at a rapid pace?
  
 
The difference between suicide of a physically-healthy individual and a terminally-ill patient is that the solution for the former seems near but far away for the latter. There are children who nonetheless commit suicide every year for various reasons that could have been prevented. So euthanasia industry was created to draw a line between what the society accepts good of an excuse to give up. Euthanasia industry guards the public’s feelings from getting hurt, in return for the public’s sympathy.
 
The difference between suicide of a physically-healthy individual and a terminally-ill patient is that the solution for the former seems near but far away for the latter. There are children who nonetheless commit suicide every year for various reasons that could have been prevented. So euthanasia industry was created to draw a line between what the society accepts good of an excuse to give up. Euthanasia industry guards the public’s feelings from getting hurt, in return for the public’s sympathy.
Line 23: Line 23:
 
Responsible parents let children make age-appropriate decisions—namely, self-determining one’s own destiny. Some children may need assistant in doing so, similar to adults who use assisted-suicide service. Take assisted suicide, for example, in dementia patients—a somewhat-accepted type of murder. At early stages of the disease, the adult with persona #1, applies for the service of a hitman from euthanasia industry, because he or she refuses the body to be bequeathed to persona #2 (who is weaker due to the disease). When the disease progresses over the body, persona #1, the euthanasia applicant, leaves and persona #2, the newcomer, arrives. The hitman—based on the wish of persona #1—kills the body, and persona #2 will be left with no vessel. Sometimes, persona #2 disagrees with the choice of persona #1. Essentially, persona #2 does not make the choice; he or she succumbs to the choice of persona #1: death. The choice was made by persona #1 who neither had the will to commit suicide nor did want the next persona be the heir of the body. This type of euthanasia results from a sense of ownership and entitlement towards the body, giving humans the dispensation to juice life out of the body and throw away its pulp. Likewise, children whose persona has not fully shaped have the same rights that dementia patients have: to be euthanized before arrival of the next persona.
 
Responsible parents let children make age-appropriate decisions—namely, self-determining one’s own destiny. Some children may need assistant in doing so, similar to adults who use assisted-suicide service. Take assisted suicide, for example, in dementia patients—a somewhat-accepted type of murder. At early stages of the disease, the adult with persona #1, applies for the service of a hitman from euthanasia industry, because he or she refuses the body to be bequeathed to persona #2 (who is weaker due to the disease). When the disease progresses over the body, persona #1, the euthanasia applicant, leaves and persona #2, the newcomer, arrives. The hitman—based on the wish of persona #1—kills the body, and persona #2 will be left with no vessel. Sometimes, persona #2 disagrees with the choice of persona #1. Essentially, persona #2 does not make the choice; he or she succumbs to the choice of persona #1: death. The choice was made by persona #1 who neither had the will to commit suicide nor did want the next persona be the heir of the body. This type of euthanasia results from a sense of ownership and entitlement towards the body, giving humans the dispensation to juice life out of the body and throw away its pulp. Likewise, children whose persona has not fully shaped have the same rights that dementia patients have: to be euthanized before arrival of the next persona.
  
In sum, euthanasia is fettered by rules and regulations, glossing over one’s desire to leave. Systematic discrimination in euthanasia is due to gerontocracy and disableism. Anybody ''can'' kill oneself, except physically-impaired individuals. For physically-impaired individuals, there should be safeguards to ensure access to assisted suicide or euthanasia. For everyone else, however, a way to make killing oneself easier is glorifying and destigmatizing suicide, which requires changing cultural and social norms.
+
In sum, euthanasia is fettered by rules and regulations, glossing over one’s desire to leave. Systematic discrimination in euthanasia is due to gerontocracy and disableism. Anybody ''can'' kill oneself, except physically-impaired individuals. For physically-impaired individuals, there should be safeguards to ensure access to assisted suicide or euthanasia. For everyone else, however, a way to make killing oneself easier is glorifying and destigmatizing suicide, which requires changing cultural and social norms. Indeed, accessing to assisted suicide or euthanasia compels checks, procedures, screenings, or ramparts—as much as becoming pregnant or giving birth compels checks, procedures, screenings, or ramparts.
  
 
== Arguments ==
 
== Arguments ==
Line 45: Line 45:
 
=== Brain development ===
 
=== Brain development ===
  
The second counter argument is the development of brain till age 25—on average. Waiting till age 25 was feigned as an excuse so that the mental health system has enough time to find out the troubled child and help him or her in time so that the life path of the individual be altered at an early age (before it gets too late). The idea sounds very noble and promising, but it doesn’t clarify how the individual will be helped during young ages. Children who want to commit suicide or have mental health issues can ask for mental help at anytime, so what does this waiting period offer them? This waiting period expires the individual in mental health system and have the window of opportunity closed, so his or her suicide can be less tragic for everyone else involved. At the end of the waiting period, the cost of possible treatments outweighs the possible benefits, owing to never ending patient flow. To illustrate the matter of age in suicide, think of the senior citizens who commit suicide in nursing homes or retirement communities. You don’t hear about them, let alone read about them, because their usefulness for the society is over, so there’s no need to prevent them from committing suicide.
+
The second counter argument is the development of brain till age 25—on average. Waiting till age 25 was feigned as an excuse so that the mental health system has enough time to find out the troubled child and help him or her in time so that the life path of the individual be altered at an early age (before it gets too late). The idea sounds very noble and promising, but it doesn’t clarify how the individual will be helped during young ages. Children who want to commit suicide or have mental health issues can ask for mental help at anytime, so what does this waiting period offer them? This waiting period expires the individual in mental health system and have the window of opportunity closed, so his or her suicide can be less tragic for everyone else involved. At the end of the waiting period, the cost of possible treatments outweighs the possible benefits, owing to never ending patient flow. To illustrate the matter of age in suicide, think of the severely-ill patients or the senior citizens who commit suicide in nursing homes or retirement communities. You don’t hear about them, let alone read about them, because their usefulness for the society is over, so there’s no need to prevent them from committing suicide. You only hear the stories of the people who have recovered or learned how to tolerate and cope with their reality. It’s similar to nature. We like to say how nature is perfect in the sense that everything works, but that’s simply because we only have access to the species that managed to adapt and survive. There were a lot of creatures that went extinct because of their “inferior” bodies, but we don’t talk about them.
  
 
Undeveloped brains have rights to makes decisions that will affect the life of everybody. With undeveloped brains, young adults can have driving license, vote, marry, use birth control pills, become parents, or enroll in army (in most countries). Each of these rights can positively or negatively affect the life of others. For example, voting of an irresponsible 21-year-old adult can change the life of a 17-year-old teenager. Or careless driving of a 19-year-old adult can take the life of a 10-year-old child.
 
Undeveloped brains have rights to makes decisions that will affect the life of everybody. With undeveloped brains, young adults can have driving license, vote, marry, use birth control pills, become parents, or enroll in army (in most countries). Each of these rights can positively or negatively affect the life of others. For example, voting of an irresponsible 21-year-old adult can change the life of a 17-year-old teenager. Or careless driving of a 19-year-old adult can take the life of a 10-year-old child.

Revision as of 06:45, 27 July 2020

“Then God said, ‘Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.’”

― Genesis 22:2

Every day many children die—not in a cinematic sceneries, of course. One of the leading causes of death in children is suicide. Despite being a personal choice, suicide, particularly in children, has been a provocative and tragic topic. The tragic part of suicide in children is the conflicting rewards of mental frameworks.

From an early age, children are expected to grow inside predetermined belief systems and mental frameworks. Mental frameworks mold the personas of children. A child whose persona hasn’t felt safe and secure (owing to either nature or nurture) doesn’t attach to a framework hence withers outside. As a result, the child physically or mentally ostracizes oneself, because of inability in problem solving (as if some pieces are missing), meanwhile wishes for reunion, to regain emotional bonding (and find the missing pieces). Others expect the child to conform into the framework’s values, because they feel rewarded and integrated inside the framework. When the child does not conform with the framework, he or she seems off, odd, unusual—like an outsider or an outcast—in view of the others. After a threshold point, the child gives up trying to fit in and accepts detachment. The detachment embodies in either extrovert (e.g., oppositional defiant and violence) or introvert (e.g., anxiety and depression) reactions, rarely ensued by complete alienation that fades the shattered persona away. Finally, with no persona left, the child is free to detach and attach to any frameworks, regardless of the body.

In addition to being prodded into certain frameworks, children are given a skewed compass called morality or ethic. Ethical standards shape legal procedures, and vice versa. There is no such thing as objective morality, the rigid definition of good or bad. Morality is, at best, the norm of society or, at worst, the ordained whim. And suicide is the good old bad.

Suicide in children

“It does not matter how long you live, but how well you do it.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

It would be hypocritical to design the universe around one’s self definition of the right time to die, because everybody has their own definitions hence expectations. Age alone does not preclude one from standing as a suicide candidate. Suicide in children is okay no matter what’s the cause, but the cause is not okay—no matter how accepted it is. The reason anti-choicers oppose suicide in children is the fear that it might happen to their personal property, their own children that they treat as possessions—rather than having them exclusive but shared within the collectivity, to eradicate unlucky hurt upbringings and dilute fate. Because anti-choicers don’t accept their incapability in resolving what causes the suicide, they crusade against anyone who sees that, currently, some of the causes of suicide in children are not going to be resolved. The right of suicide is taken from the victim, since anti-choicers’ mindset is that the risk factors can be mitigated or will be irrelevant in an unforeseeable future for the victim. The crux of problem is that accepting an exit for the victim correlates with laziness in working towards mitigating the risk factors. Thus, the (band-aid) strategy is to stagnate the present choice by extending the time frame for the victim. There are far more people who wish to stick around and even recover such that doctors and medical professionals would almost always have a steady supply of patients that wish to try their new cures or treatments. This extending of time slows down the time for the troubled child until it stops at suicide. In other words, the guardians of morality and ethic, anti-choicers, wish to control the flow of time only to slow it down, and prevent it from being stopped. The irony is that the human body expires within 100 years, so why not waltz to the end of life at a rapid pace?

The difference between suicide of a physically-healthy individual and a terminally-ill patient is that the solution for the former seems near but far away for the latter. There are children who nonetheless commit suicide every year for various reasons that could have been prevented. So euthanasia industry was created to draw a line between what the society accepts good of an excuse to give up. Euthanasia industry guards the public’s feelings from getting hurt, in return for the public’s sympathy.

Suicide becomes more complicated when it is replaced with euthanasia, especially in children. Euthanasia is a subtle trick for people with suicidal tendency. The trick is that death is okay, under certain conditions. These conditions are defined to protect defenseless individuals from opting out of life too early. The crucial requirement of euthanasia is the consent of the individual that couldn’t actually make decisions before applying for euthanasia. So by applying for euthanasia and being approved, the applicant suddenly gains the mental capacity that he or she needed to have earlier. The justification for such discrimination in euthanasia is that mental illness is acquired from the nature, rather than the product of the nurture. This justification gives euthanasia industry the permission to select its victims. As was the case in suicide, accepting euthanasia for terminally-ill patients incentives not working towards a treatment for the illness.

Life, per se, is terminal. In case of terminally-ill children, in a few countries, it’s accepted that whatever could possibly be done has been done for terminally-ill children. So it’s okay to let them have euthanasia, regardless of their age (because their death is subjectively deemed to be foreseeable, whereas a physically-healthy child might die sooner in a natural accident). Euthanizing terminally-ill children does not correlate with having terminally-ill children (if the health care system is adequate). If the health care system be inadequate, euthanasia for children will be a cost-effective treatment. Since no objective criteria exist for “adequate” or “efficient,” there will be no equal, unanimous law for euthanasia. Even so, children benefit from watching euthanasia close up. Lack of preparations, however, traumatizes them. The importance of preparations is captured by two videos of poor self-euthanasia, one of a father[1|2|3] and the other of a mother[1|2|3]. To minimize the distressing experience on children, there should be guidelines on explaining euthanasia for children, and children should equally be given the chance of saying goodbye or rapturously accompanying the adult to the afterlife.

Responsible parents let children make age-appropriate decisions—namely, self-determining one’s own destiny. Some children may need assistant in doing so, similar to adults who use assisted-suicide service. Take assisted suicide, for example, in dementia patients—a somewhat-accepted type of murder. At early stages of the disease, the adult with persona #1, applies for the service of a hitman from euthanasia industry, because he or she refuses the body to be bequeathed to persona #2 (who is weaker due to the disease). When the disease progresses over the body, persona #1, the euthanasia applicant, leaves and persona #2, the newcomer, arrives. The hitman—based on the wish of persona #1—kills the body, and persona #2 will be left with no vessel. Sometimes, persona #2 disagrees with the choice of persona #1. Essentially, persona #2 does not make the choice; he or she succumbs to the choice of persona #1: death. The choice was made by persona #1 who neither had the will to commit suicide nor did want the next persona be the heir of the body. This type of euthanasia results from a sense of ownership and entitlement towards the body, giving humans the dispensation to juice life out of the body and throw away its pulp. Likewise, children whose persona has not fully shaped have the same rights that dementia patients have: to be euthanized before arrival of the next persona.

In sum, euthanasia is fettered by rules and regulations, glossing over one’s desire to leave. Systematic discrimination in euthanasia is due to gerontocracy and disableism. Anybody can kill oneself, except physically-impaired individuals. For physically-impaired individuals, there should be safeguards to ensure access to assisted suicide or euthanasia. For everyone else, however, a way to make killing oneself easier is glorifying and destigmatizing suicide, which requires changing cultural and social norms. Indeed, accessing to assisted suicide or euthanasia compels checks, procedures, screenings, or ramparts—as much as becoming pregnant or giving birth compels checks, procedures, screenings, or ramparts.

Arguments

“Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.” ― 1 John 3:4

Pregnancy is a critical period for the development of a life. Women who want to have abortion (i.e., killing an innocent life) can’t be trusted with a life, because they might do anything (such as having their stomach punched or exposure to teratogens) that endangers the life of the vulnerable embryo or fetus. Therefore, the government has the responsibility to protect embryos or fetuses from their mothers—as soon as possible—starting from early stage of prenatal development: fertilization. Doing so requires embryo or fetus protective services, similar to child protective services.

No child should be born in captivity—only to will have been deprived by his or her adulthood. As the ones who carry the child with no legal obligation, incarcerated women have the right to abortion; hence, a fortiori free women too have the same right, or else the law is encouraging women to break it (i.e., law for lawlessness) to legally have abortion. Moreover, since sexism has no place in law, other genders, including men, should have as much of an abortion right as women have. The right to abortion (i.e., to destroy a life) a fortiori implies a right to assisted suicide (i.e., the right to destroy one’s own life), or else taking others’ lives will be privileged and incentivized over taking one’s owns life. The price of abortion service or assisted-suicide (or euthanasia) service should be determined in a free market, so that everybody can pursue happiness.

Pro-lifers assume that giving birth bears a positive value and giving death bears a negative value. If a mother who is incapable of raising her child becomes pregnant, pro-lifers do nothing for the child. They wait till the child is born. Then, they rush to help the child with social service. The reason pro-lifers make this assumption is that they confuse (1) love or hate, (2) sex or rape, and (3) birth or death. Each of these 3 concepts are interconnect with the other 2. For example, a divorced couple could look back at their sexual intercourse as disgusting as rape that gave life to a lovely child. According to pro-lifers, love—an ephemeral, high emotion—blooms between a man and a woman, where hate has no place. They have sex and give birth, accompanied by a sense of ownership towards the product: the offspring’s lifetime. Actually, love is being able to see through others’ eyes, in contrast to hate that is blindness in doing so. Sex is entangled with death. And death comes with birth, so, as much as nobody wants to die, nobody should give (or, at least, own) birth. What makes giving birth justified is being in the destination right now (i.e., being a resident), rather than being on a pathway to reach a destination in future (i.e., being a passenger). Passengers, moving in a procession, give birth hence trade life (and death) with more time to justify their journey.

Minors or those with autism or an intellectual disability have the capacity to make requests, and to give and receive love. They have the right to be euthanized, similar to lost, stray, or abandoned animals that are euthanized in animal shelters. Otherwise, euthanasia is humane cruelty towards unlucky animals that have lower intelligent compared to humans. Even in the perspective of pro-lifers, euthanasia is justifiable, taking into account that pro-lifers have a sense of ownership towards their own children. With their logic, putting down one’s small child akin to putting down one’s own livestock or pet.

Possible recovery

One of the most famous arguments against suicide in children is the possibility of recovery. If the child somehow gets the right help, there is a chance of recovery. Statistically speaking, most of children who are suicidal recover from their suicidality in adulthood. That gives anti-choicers the audacity to take the choice from every child. Children who don’t recover (the minority) have to suffer and make the sacrifice for the sake of those who do recover (the majority); that is, exchanging one’s life with the lives of others. Anti-choicers feel so unique and superior that they differ between physical and psychological suffering in different mortal biological organisms—namely non-human animals, human children, and human adults. Anti-choicers prefer to sacrifice everything for the group to which they belong.

Pro-choice is vehemently against sacrifice and martyrdom; otherwise, sacrifice could be used to give life a meaning. For example, someone who neither lived nor leaved might find a meaning in getting revenge on the anti-choicers that took the choice. As the chance of recovery decreases by time, the chance of wrecking a havoc increases. That said, in pro-choice communities, nobody is neither pulling children towards life nor pushing children towards death.

Brain development

The second counter argument is the development of brain till age 25—on average. Waiting till age 25 was feigned as an excuse so that the mental health system has enough time to find out the troubled child and help him or her in time so that the life path of the individual be altered at an early age (before it gets too late). The idea sounds very noble and promising, but it doesn’t clarify how the individual will be helped during young ages. Children who want to commit suicide or have mental health issues can ask for mental help at anytime, so what does this waiting period offer them? This waiting period expires the individual in mental health system and have the window of opportunity closed, so his or her suicide can be less tragic for everyone else involved. At the end of the waiting period, the cost of possible treatments outweighs the possible benefits, owing to never ending patient flow. To illustrate the matter of age in suicide, think of the severely-ill patients or the senior citizens who commit suicide in nursing homes or retirement communities. You don’t hear about them, let alone read about them, because their usefulness for the society is over, so there’s no need to prevent them from committing suicide. You only hear the stories of the people who have recovered or learned how to tolerate and cope with their reality. It’s similar to nature. We like to say how nature is perfect in the sense that everything works, but that’s simply because we only have access to the species that managed to adapt and survive. There were a lot of creatures that went extinct because of their “inferior” bodies, but we don’t talk about them.

Undeveloped brains have rights to makes decisions that will affect the life of everybody. With undeveloped brains, young adults can have driving license, vote, marry, use birth control pills, become parents, or enroll in army (in most countries). Each of these rights can positively or negatively affect the life of others. For example, voting of an irresponsible 21-year-old adult can change the life of a 17-year-old teenager. Or careless driving of a 19-year-old adult can take the life of a 10-year-old child.

The concept of mental capacity in children becomes more intriguing when it’s implemented in the criminal justice system. Children—who, no matter how young, commit a crime—are penalized in the criminal justice system, because in the face of law they had the mental capacity to make choices. So, when the crime is against the system, children have not only the mental capacity but also the choice—but, when the crime is against oneself, children have neither the mental capacity nor the choice. If a child is engaging in what is considered an "adult activity," such as driving an automobile or flying an airplane, the child will be held to an adult standard of care. The higher standard of care imposed for these types of activities is justified by the special skills required to engage in them and the danger they pose to the public. But suicide is excluded from the "adult activities."

Mentally ill

The next counter argument is the lack of mental health. Mental health is a subjective concept that is used to categorize individuals from a righteous stance. The stronger you believe in mental health, the more convincing it becomes. For example, according to the DSM-5 (the Bible of psychology) the essential feature of antisocial personality disorder (ASD) is a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights of others. In a nutshell, someone who has ASD sees all relationships as transactional. Everybody, during a day, treats some relationships as transactional, yet those who take it to an extreme level are considered antisocial. Here is a test to determine if ASD objectively exists. If several individuals who are diagnosed with ASD be grouped together, based on the norm of the group, none of them diagnose each other with ASD. But, if somebody whose subjective criteria are tuned with norms of another group joins in, he or she will diagnose everybody with ASD in relationships with himself or herself. (See the “therapeutic” effect of group therapy for psychopaths.) An anit-choicer who joins in a pro-choice community is antisocial with regard to the norms of pro-choice community, because he or she treats his or her relationships with every other member as transactional, taking into account that the deceased can’t make wagerers. To ameliorate the relationship with the anti-choicer, a pro-choicer distance oneself from the other community. Being galvanized in rare cases, he or she either kills oneself, which is sacrificing hence disapproved, or kills the anti-choicer, which is homicide hence illegal. Ironically, those who ended up in pro-choice communities were not good wagerers in the firs place.

Being in the position of “mentally healthy,” the society has the right to define “mental illness.” Mentally healthy individuals are becoming scarcer, everyday. It is easy to witness this scarcity with the naked eye, taking into account that many cases of obesity are the result of such mental illnesses as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), binge eating disorder, and night eating syndrome. Hypothetically, in a society in which mentally healthy patients take specific psychiatric drugs, mentally ill individuals don’t need to take any medicines.

Mentally healthy individuals have rights that in practice endangers the life of not only oneself but also others. When someone drinks alcohol and becomes intoxicated, he or she might have periodic bouts of instability; however, he or she does not lose the right of drinking more alcohol—even though, being drunk, the individual is not of sound mind to decide whether continue drinking. The overly intoxicated individual poses danger to oneself or others. Drinking alcohol is not the only time that life can be endangered; being in stressful or humiliating events is another. Mental stress increases the reaction time and decreases the attention and the concentration of a mentally healthy individual to make vital decisions, such as obstacle avoidance in driving car. But mentally healthy adults don’t lose the right of driving car, solely based on the possibility of having mental stress. Those who don’t drive car (and use public transportation or bicycle) don’t demand vehicle control laws after vehicle-ramming attacks (e.g., 2018 Toronto van attack); conversely, those who don’t owe gun demand gun control laws after mass-shooting attacks (e.g., 2020 Nova Scotia attacks). The next example is from the police force. Seldom do police officers’ guns go off or shoot the wrong target; however, police officers don’t continue carrying gun, in exchange for preventing those very small number of accidents. The next argument is from genetics and nature. Based on statistics, males or blacks, whose gender or color is visible to the naked eye, have higher incarceration rate. They account for longer sentence and larger population of the prison and jail. In contrast, mentally-ill individuals, whose illness is invisible to the naked eye, are more likely to be the victims of crime. Yet detected mentally-ill individuals have less rights, in comparison to easily-detectable, dangerous genders or ethnicities. People claim they’re not sexist or racist because they can easily see the sex or race of another individual. They first see the gender, the ethnicity, or the group the other individual belongs to, then they adjust their emotions and conducts accordingly.

There’s a discrepancy when it comes to mental health. A reasonable person takes into account the conduct of others and regulates his or her own conduct accordingly. Anti-choicers, though, dogmatically believe they can foresee the future, read the intentions, and decide whether an act will be justified. In doing so, they poignantly trust their prejudiced feelings to reach verdicts that regulate others’ conducts. In spite of the mentioned discrepancies in the previous paragraph, a person who is labeled mentally ill is not 24/7 mentally unstable, but his or her rights are taken.

Parent’s role

“They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to false gods.” ― Psalm 106:37

Suicide is a deeply personal and emotive choice, and there will always be people who feel they cannot support the choice of others. Parents may understandably worry that their child isn’t capable of making such an important decision without their input. But they should honor their child’s decision on what happens to his or her body. Most children are fully competent to understand the risks and consequences of, and give informed consent to, medical procedures (e.g., the 4-year-old Julianna Snow) including assisted suicide without parental knowledge, involvement, or consent. The majority of children do talk to their parents or a trusted adult, especially younger children. The ones that don’t want to tell their parents has a history of domestic violence. Forcing children to tell their parents doesn’t improve family communication, and pro-lifers can be punitive or coercive. It dangerously increases the number of self-harm attempts or failed suicide-attempts in children. Talking can help prevent suicide in children in the first place. Ultimately, for their own safety and well-being, children should have the right not to tell their parents, considering that suicide has no consequences for the deceased.

Responsibilities & duties

Children aren’t marionettes on strings. Those who have completed their suicide knew what they were doing, like every other decision they had made throughout their life. Rather than encouraging the fighting with invisible enemies, parents who want to take an active role in their child’s suicide should

  • help to ensure the wishes of the child are respected;
  • help to clarify the child’s intentions;
  • help to ensure that the child is making a fully informed and considered choice;
  • help to ensure that the child is done offering the world;
  • prevent relatives from overriding the wishes of the child;
  • assist relatives in understanding the child’s wishes;
  • assist healthcare professionals in securing a do-not-resuscitate order (DNR);
  • help to speed up the suicide process; and
  • help to ensure religious or personal wishes are respected;
  • monitor and track the child’s advancement in suicide;
  • live at the moment and hope for better luck next time.

Anybody would take abandoned children to a safer place. All it takes for trafficking of children to Heaven is being a little evil.