“To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot; a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to break down and a time to build; a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones and a time to gather stones together, a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to search and a time to count as lost, a time to keep and a time to discard; a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak; a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” ― Ecclesiastes 3:1–8
In the era of double standards, anti-choicers (including pro-lifers and force-lifers) do anything to hamper the dissemination of choice. They dedicates their chamber to echo the nature of the deceased’s conduct while avoiding the causation question altogether. Their fundamental aim is having a controllable something in lieu of an uncontrollable nothing. Anti-choicers are predictable: on a downward spiral—given 3 choices of bad, worse, and worst—they start from the former and proceed to the latter. At the end, they have to chose between sacrificing themselves or sacrificing others. The reason for having such mentality is that pro-lifers haven’t had a choice from the day they were born, nor will pro-deathers have been having a choice till the day they die.
Pro-choice is an attempt to define the dichotomy of life and death. Defining suicide is only possible through a dualistic approach: to neither reproach nor extol (from an external, authoritative standpoint). In pro-choice ideology, the choice descends from Heaven or authorities to the individual. This view is whatever mindfulness yearns to achieve. It is what that straddles the fence, a form of self-governance for creation and destruction. From the outside, it seems like the individual is being torn between two sides, but, at least, it doesn’t feel like being trapped.
If there be no choice but to live, life can’t be given a meaning, except by sacrifice. (Everything was done, because they had to be done.) If there’s choice, however, living the remaining lifetime can have some meaning. Living life does not justify restricting ways to end it, because ends does not justify the means. Otherwise, it’s admissible to do anything—even illegal—to continuously preserve the holy life.
There’s a balance between (1) reasoning, (2) emotions, and (3) life. They don’t go together, unless one of them is withdrawn. Fledge of the former—causality or order—leads to dismissal of happiness and life. Life is assumed sacred in pro-life ideology, so happiness is relinquished in return. In order to remain happy in pro-life ideology, the remedy is detaching from the reality of life. Glorifying life, on the one hand, contradicts with submission. One should yield to God’s will, even if it be death. On the other hand, one neglects God to achieve mundane pleasures. So those who forget God and don’t enjoy earthly life shall be allowed to depart life and gallivant around; If not, life—a mere idea—is being forced on them by force-lifers.
Suicide is not a good or bad decision in and of itself. It’s not something to be either condoned or condemned. You cannot say that suicide is wrong without also saying that death is wrong. Death is equal of a choice to life. You choose not to participate in the same way as you chose to participate in the first place; or else you’re going to be trapped in the standstill of either unachievable life or inescapable death. As much as pro-lifers believe life is always the right choice, pro-deathers believe that death is always the right choice. By 100 years from now, neither of them will have been promoting their ideas—because both of them will be gone. That brings us to the question of where we are.
We are at now, and mindfulness helps us to get here. Mindfulness was misrepresented to bring you to your certain state in here and now: life. (If it were death, you wouldn’t be a living being.) Then, with whatever there is, the technique tries to force peace. Pro-choice is to expand the now from only life to a symbiosis with life and death; thus, you will have the absolute freedom—the choice—as opposed to imposed peace. One of the biggest misconceptions is that mindfulness is living at the present time. Whoever had this misconception was living in pleasure (not pain), so the living part was emphasized to extend the pleasure and the dying part was dropped out to postpone the ending of pleasure. Those who live at the present, die at the present, too. But that doesn’t mean encouraging death for others.
Martyrdom encourages death for the sake of others—as always, for a greater-good or a higher purpose. The higher purpose is eager for offerings. Offerings are given false hope, and survivors are weighed down. It’s no wonder why martyrs (i.e., life traders) are promised that they will have definitely a different destination: the heaven. The same goes for heaven and hell. Heaven acts as an empty promise for humans who don’t know where they will be. So they will always be hopeful to God’s grace and fearful of God’s wrath. Humans are lost and desperate hence easily misled. They don’t know where they will be, because they constantly trust themselves to an external, nebulous source for the rightfulness or wrongfulness of the act, in contrast to deciding at the moment. There is no right or wrong way, as long as one is doing something and being open with oneself about what’s working and what’s not. Certainty in heaven constructs the world, while certainty in hell destructs the world. In reality, nobody certainly knows.
How suicide works
Humans need mentors to tell them what to do. Even what they do might no be the best, but, as long as they have someone at their shoulders and feel satisfied in being part of a group, they continue living. Then, there comes the remnant of the past, the unsolved problems. Solutions of problems seem so far away, given the mental inflexibility stemmed from low self-esteem or situational unchangeability stemmed from their environment. The misty solutions bring to mind that life can’t go on like this forever. The past casts shadow over the short remaining of future, one more time.
Sooner or later, staying on borrowed time in the realm of life must come to and end. Extending the grace period is no longer possible. In the spur of these moments, 2 outcomes occur: (1) Sympathy for oneself, the only thing that’s left, surpasses the content they felt in being part of the group. They look back at life, accept it as it was, conciliate with it, repose their hope in somebody else, and, finally, move on with a smile. They become all, so they leave everything. Or (2) in contrast with feeling sympathy for oneself, a very few go down the path of mass violence—feeling hate for the others. After all, time flies and its cheap price has already been paid. So why not take everything that is left? What is left to stop them?
Mass killers feel they have to take their revenge while they’re still here. Unfortunately, revenge, a poor replacement of the justice, won’t bring the killers back to life. It will only help them to pass the point of no return. They have a plan afoot for evading apprehension; the plan is getting themselves killed. They become one, so they take everything. In their view, the purpose of life is hedonism and reproduction (for when living is no longer possible). Since they can’t enjoy life and don’t leave behind genes, they naturally enjoy killing and removing genes. Sometimes, a mass killer posthumously deceives mental health professionals that he or she was mentally ill.
The flow of time changes for anyone who is not living in par with the society, a shape-adaptive circle of people around. The circles shrinks to one and expands to all. Suicide occurs where the time has frozen in depression and the circle has shrunk in secession. Then, the ray of light thaws the time, and the death emerges from the mist of unknown. As an example of time flow, a serial killer has a circle of one and a normal to fast flow of time (based on the number of victims), living as one and looking forward to the next prey. Cruel as it seems, morality doesn’t really matter in reactions. Good or bad. A pitiful loser or a callous monster. A prey or a predator. It’s just a shortcut to a short stay at the top without any consequences. It’s exhausting all the options for the maximum pleasure before moving on into what comes next.
People who find their way into suicide come from different backgrounds, but their backgrounds have one thing in common: sanctioned suicide. To gather suicidal people and cheer up the eschewed suicide, this is a new belief system, a myth, or a fictional story that explains why suicide is a choice. It’s only fair for pro-choicers to have their own mythologies, similar to what anti-choicers have.
When there was neither a beginning nor an ending, there were nothing & everything. Nothing had everything, and everything had nothing. Neither everything nor nothing was individually good or bad, but each one had Good and Bad in themselves. They created Something, the creatures. Good was saddened when It saw the state of Something. Good loved Something and wanted to protect them from Bad. So Good divided Itself and put a piece of Itself in all creatures; Good became They. They became animated in everything. They were collectively as strong as It that had gone was.
Like every other creature, humans separately had strengths and weaknesses. Bad noticed what Good had done and tricked them by introducing Itself as Good. Humans, rather than becoming Good for Themselves, became the followers of Bad. Humans fearfully sacrificed for Its sake to become free of guilt. Guilt was inside doubts, so doubts were removed by commands. The more commands humans created, the darker turned the reality of life. Later, those moral commands, which had some good intentions, turned into rules. Humans started imitating the role of Bad, who had actually disguised Itself as Good; thereby, the world came into a standstill.
First, let’s see anti-choicers’ general attitude in relationships: triangulation. A third-party in a close relationship can mediate unresolved issues by siphoning off some of the intensity between two sides and help maintain the primary relationship. To do this, two sides often triangulate a third-party—such as an authority, a child, or a savior—into the role of identified surrogate side. Doing this mediates problems in the relationship; however, after some time, the third-party foments strong Oedipal desires in the relationship that can cause dysfunction. Once a dysfunction is exposed, the homeostasis in the relationship is disrupted. Remorse doesn’t necessarily solve the underlying problems. If the third-party succeeds in diminishing the dysfunctional side that mediated the relationship, a new set of conflicts will rise. From this point on, the relationship between two sides spontaneously forms and disrupts. The drama of it all also adds an element of excitement, that, while stressful, alleviates depression typical of codependency.
Anti-choicers lack a collective, reinforced memory of their past decisions. They don’t feel the pain that erases everything, nor do they hear the rhythm of life that recalls the important things. For becoming pregnant and giving birth, there are simple, step-by-step instructions. Likewise, there are simple, step-by-step instructions for killing oneself. Perhaps, had the gap between birth and death been bridged, there were simple answers for every other question in between.
The core of anti-choice ideology is that the rightfulness of an act unarguably comes from an omnipotent outside source. This recondite ideology worked until anti-choicers were left with no choice but to decriminalize suicide, probably because they felt they can play the role of God and help suicidal servants. In fact, there is only one choice: to devote one’s self for Him. Only God was capable of stopping suicide by punishing those who abominate Him. The abomination to His absoluteness was dying in any way that would question His authority. Life and body are the property of God; thus, to commit suicide is to deride God’s prerogatives. That is why life and body should only be used in the way He has ordered. A servant can live and indirectly cause the death of His prerogatives—but how can this happen, given His supremacy? This happens because He can only give life, not choice or freedom. He can’t change His tradition: only giving life.
The church gathered the fear and stocked it in God. The church, whose power came from His holiness, punished the disobedient individuals who were guilty of committing suicide. As an example, consider Iceland. Historically speaking, suicide was not an important legal issue before conversion to Christianity. After the conversion in 1000, however, the church gradually became antagonistic toward suicide. Suicide was explicitly criminalized; disagreements with the law were ineffectual. Eventually, the posthumous punishments of the church put into practice (Kanerva, 2018).
The downfall began when arrogant humans strayed away from His path and started playing His role. They created legal systems that historically have their roots in deity religions. From the point of decriminalization, the rest of the path is a matter of strategy to achieve legalized voluntary euthanasia for everybody. It is achievable in the current system that discriminates reasons for dying. Those “logical” reasons are the justification of beg and grovel legislations that delegate the choice to euthanasia companies. Arrogant humans made the weakest and the most hypocritical strategy based on the notion that God (not humans) plays a Divine Hide-and-Seek with His creatures’ hearts. It is to believe in His empathy yet encourage empathy among humans, for glory of empathy only belongs to Him, not His meek creatures who mimic Him among themselves. It’s to fear knowing you have no place to run yet run to Him for forgiveness—instead of accepting His will (whatever it be); that is, to be neither fearful of his wrath nor hopeful to his mercy.
Legalized voluntary euthanasia for everybody (or right to die) consists of 2 parts: (1) having access to a preferred exit method and (2) the freedom to execute that method at any desired time (the problematic part). This right is achievable by advocating for your right to die meanwhile accepting everybody else’s right—whatever their cause is, as long as they understand the permanence of their decision and the evanescence of their life—that is, being non-judgmental to reasons why they wish to die. Given the hassle of euthanasia, at the end, some advocaters will choose suicide over euthanasia, resulting in new laws. Lawmakers will inevitably lower the bars for euthanasia and make it more inclusive, in order to remain in control of suicide rate. Neither advocating for your right to die nor committing suicide is illegal, but the latter has an stigma attached to it. So the first step should be destigmatizing suicide. Whilst suicide has been decriminalized, encouraging or assisting suicide also should be legal. Why? Because it’s legal to advertise, distribute, sell, or access cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, fast foods, or guns—let alone knives, high buildings, vehicles, trains, or prescription drugs; or indulging in extreme and dangerous sports. These unhealthy and irresponsible choices cause early deaths, cost the health care system, and take the lives of innocent members of society with their second-hand smoke, drunk driving, or rescue-workers endangering.
One of the arguments against pro-choice is that suicidal people don’t have the mental capacity to make decision. They are deemed mentally defective because they pose a danger to themselves. Oddly, anti-choicers consider being of sound mind soldiers who endangered their lives throughout the history. Although there is no objective criterion to measure the mental capacity for suicide, there are objective criteria for mental capacity in other crimes. Given the lack of mental capacity for suicide, those who failed in a suicide pact should be punished, nor do those who did anything illegal while endangering their lives. But the unlucky, distressed individuals whose lives are in danger do get punished, the moment they point their gun from themselves to somebody else—because the direction of gun determines their sanity, and a judge or court of law measures their sanity. In both scenarios, barring the one who just does it impulsively, the criminal and the mindfully suicidal both have planned out, premeditated, and willfully carried out their actions, but the suicidal is seen as not having decision making capacity and then locked up in a psych ward, but the criminal is seen to be capable of decision making and then sentenced accordingly based on the charges and the law(s) broken.
Dying by your choice cleanses you, whereas advocating for your choice demonizes you, and acting on your choice might get you punished like a criminal.
The other counter argument is that most people who attempt suicide and fail later regret their attempt. Contrary to the common belief, dead men tell no tales. Some people who survive a suicide attempt regret being injured or being left worse off afterwards. Or they express regret to avoid possible institutionalization. Suicidal thoughts awaken reminiscing. Sometimes, the suicide attempt embodies the reminiscing into regret; later, vacillation emerges. The root of regret is often misunderstood to be the suicide attempt—rather than the led life. The ones who attempt suicide can always die but can’t always live. Overcoming suicidiality, a terminal illness, is like escaping towards the outside (the past) to reach your desired future, only to find yourself in the inside (the present). There’s no place to run—not even to death, especially at the peak of the crisis.
In general, anti-choicers have a utilitarian view towards any forms of life. They believe life is something to be owned, as oppose to be lived.
Self-determined death is an expression of personal autonomy, personal individuality, identity, and integrity in decisions regarding one’s own life. Anti-choicers allege the existence of the free decision for the individuals but render such decisions impossible. Consequently, social expectations treat individuals as dispensable, permitting them to take their own life based on considerations of usefulness.
Economic aspect of suicide prevention has been analyzed and well-documented[1|2|3|4|5|6]. Economic aspect consists of the magnitude of adverse outcomes associated with suicide and the potential benefits to be achieved by investing in effective suicide prevention strategies. A highly favorable benefit–cost ratio is estimated for investments in additional medical, counseling, and linkage services for suicidal patients (Shepard et al., 2015), workforce (Kinchin and Doran, 2017), or youth (Kinchin and Doran, 2018). The monetized burden of youth suicide can be summarized in direct costs, such as coronial inquiry, police, ambulance, and funeral expenses; indirect costs, such as lost economic productivity; and intangible costs, such as bereavement. From the view of pro-lifers, suicide is an early or untimely death. An early death results in market failure in credit market imperfections or life insurance market imperfections (Sawada, Ueda and Matsubayashi, 2017).
Anti-choicers argue that suicide is unhealthy. There are many unhealthy choices that anti-choicers promote in alcohol industry, tobacco industry, and food industry, to name but a few. Those unhealthy choices benefit everybody who is alive; therefore, they’re legal. Anti-choicers don’t benefit from promoting assisted-suicide and euthanasia for everybody; therefore, it’s illegal (even though suicide is legal). As long as the mentally-ill patients remain dormant sheep, they are still good consumers. The least they do is keeping the demand steady for psych drugs, food, and accommodation. Suicidal people have it worse. They are criminals that may get out of prison if they cry for help. Crying for help, in its best form, is calling the suicide hotline and, in its worst, is attempting suicide. Were it not for their usefulness, everybody had access to euthanasia.
Human organs and tissues
Every year, many people die before the right organ donor be found, and many more are currently on the waiting list. There are thousands of people waiting for that one life-changing phone call to tell them that an organ has been found. One of the ways to save more lives is demanding free organs—in the name of humanity. For example, England introduced ‘opt-out’ consent for organ and tissue donation, in order to to shift the balance of presumption in favor of organ donation.
Anything valuable costs money. Anti-choicers, who were so keen on calculating the capital loss due to suicide, run nonprofit charities to harvest human organs. They are hypocrites. As opposed to having free organ trade market based solely on supply and demand, anti-choicers expect to selflessly be gifted with organs, as if organs had been rented at the beginning of the life and, at the end, should be returned to the owner. Actually, the organs will have been rented out by the end of the life.
Anti-choicers are against successful suicide because it is one of the barriers to harvest unpaid organs. A well-planned suicide usually leads to wasted organs. Euthanasia, though, can open the door to organ market. The market resolves the shortage of organs and the wasted organs. But anti-choicers want everything free of charge—achieved with a justice system that criminalizes victimless acts, based on heinousness and morality. If there won’t be victims anymore, prosecution would be meaningless—unless others, such as relatives or authorities—have ownership over the willful participants in “crime.”
- Kanerva, K. (2018). Female Suicide in Thirteenth-Century Iceland: The Case of Brynhildr in Völsunga Saga. Viator, 49(3), 129-154. doi: 10.1484/j.viator.5.119576 [Abstract][Full Text: 1|2|3|4|5]
- Shepard, D., Gurewich, D., Lwin, A., Reed, G. and Silverman, M., 2015. Suicide and Suicidal Attempts in the United States: Costs and Policy Implications. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 46(3), pp.352-362. [PMC: 5061092]
- Kinchin, I. and Doran, C., 2017. The Economic Cost of Suicide and Non-Fatal Suicide Behavior in the Australian Workforce and the Potential Impact of a Workplace Suicide Prevention Strategy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(4), p.347. [PMC: 5409548]
- Kinchin, I. and Doran, C., 2018. The Cost of Youth Suicide in Australia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(4), p.672. [PMC: 5923714]