People who try to commit suicide shouldn't be able to own guns or knives. I think we can all agree on this.
Smoking causes cancer.
Smokers shouldn't be allowed to own kitchen knives.
Fast food causes obesity and diabetes.
People who eat Taco Bell shouldn't be allowed to own guns or kitchen knives.
Why aren't we trying to save these people from themselves? Half of Americans are trying to kill themselves, slowly, painfully, and expensively. We need to act!
*The real point of this thread is to discuss freedom. When do we let people kill themselves, and when do we lock them up for being insane? Does it have to be something that will kill you within an hour? A day? A week? If someone takes pills, they are suicidal. Poison? Suicidal. Toxins/fats/sugars? We just let them kill themselves?
That is all freedom of choice. Part of being American is our freedom. No one will dictate to anyone if they want to eat a juicy cheeseburger or a taco or anything they want. We can't start being militant with peoples food habits but we can show by example what a healthy lifestyle looks like or if you have the capitol to open up your own healthy food chain that would be a start and serve homemade salads and soups instead of burgers and fries. But it's still not going to stop someone who wants to eat junk food. It's their life and their choice. It's their free will!!!! That's just life.
Why do we treat people differently depending on if they are trying to kill themselves slowly, or trying to kill themselves quickly?
By the reasoning you put forth (I know it's tongue in cheek) the very act of living can be construed to kill so ALL "of Americans are trying to kill themselves, slowly, painfully, and expensively" JUST BY LIVING.
So nobody should be allowed to own guns or kitchen knives. Or nobody should be allowed to live. We must attack this problem at the source. lol
We are all going to die eventually but how we choose to live is up to us not anyone else. If we choose to eat taco bell or micke D's or whatever that is our choice. That is why we are a free country. Some may die sooner than others but they have lived how they wanted to live and it's not up to us to choose what existance they have while they are here, otherwise we'd be robots but we're not we are human beings.
Nobody has answered me yet. Why do we treat people differently when they try to kill themselves quickly then?
Because the ones that try and kill themselves quickly do have some mental/emotional issues either depression or whatever... that need to be treated professionally,whether it be a Dr. or therapist. As opposed to someone who is just living their lives and enjoying the foods and whatever they want and living the best life that they know how and then dying of natural causes rather than someone taking pills or slashing their wrists or hanging themselves.....There is a huge difference, that's why!
People who eat crap and smoke are clearly depressed, otherwise they wouldn't try to kill themselves.
Either people have the right to kill themselves or not.
Well people do have the right and freedom to do whatever they like...whether it is slowly killing themselves with poor diet and no exercise or quickly doing it by taking a bottle of pills. The difference is that the ones that want to do it quickly are the ones with the worst/more critcal problems then the ones that are not really aware of what they are doing...just enjoying themselves and not being aware.
It is a very sad situation but there is nothing we can do about it. We can try and make people more aware...like warning labels on alcohol etc... but ultimatley it's up to a person taking responsibility for their life and if they choose to induldge in rich delicious yummy tasting foods and ignore the health risks then that is up to them.
Well I think people do have the right to kill themselves, I do believe in Euthanasia too, but I think that choice should be taken away from those who are suffering a potentially treatable mental illness or are not yet old enough etc. the problem with the fast methods of suicide (particularly guns) is that often people commit suicide impulsively and without an easy quick method they would not do so, because in just half an hour they may reject the decision and usually go on to live full lives without more attempts.
What is worse? Someone who harms themselves, or someone who, over the course of decades, harms themselves in a way that burdens the medical system and increases costs for the whole society?
It is more and more clear that smoking indicates a far worse mental disorder than depression.
Well #1 Smoking is an addictive behavior which many people are largely unable to control, I don't know if you've ever experienced it but kicking that stuff was incredibly difficult for me, I still get cravings more than 20 years later. So using does not indicate mental disorder so much as an addictive disorder.
I am also unsure about which does more harm to society, lung cancer obviously costs the state if it has to help with the treatment but so do failed suicides, also most smokers continue to work, pay taxes etc, until they are relatively old before they get sick (often never) on the other hand after you kill yourself...
Most people aren't born with an addiction, so I really have no sympathy for people who blame their addiction. The fact that anyone would smoke a single cigarette shows such blatant disregard for self that it's clearly a mental illness on par with any other method of killing oneself.
This is why we should treat all suiciders the same, don't you think? it all hurts other people in the end.
I think most modern smokers started up before they knew it was dangerous (I did) also I think obviously we have to separate actions by cause, someone looking to kill themselves solely is different to someone who harms themselves incidentally while attempting to for example relax as a smoker does. There is a difference between being stupid and being suicidal.
If you take away my Taco Bell, I'll be the least of your concerns. And also the greatest of them. Simultaneously.
I believe in the right to suicide, once a person is 18. It's a morally neutral act when a single individual who is not the financial supporter of anyone else does it. It's morally wrong when it is done by a breadwinner or caretaker, such as a parent or a child taking care of an elderly parent.
me too! Everyone has freedom of choice at least in this country. So if you want to off yourself that's your choice too. It's no one elses business but your own. Again we are not Robots but living breathing human beings and we make choices good or bad but they are our choices and no one elses.
Morally neutral? What if you are in the 1% and want to commit suicide - the left would say you'd be cheating the government of it's fair share! = immoral! - oh but I guess the estate tax makes up for that immoral act?
You live by exploitation if you are in the 1%. There will be death taxes too, and the spouse who gets the money will be paying taxes on goods he/she buys. I don't know if the spouse gets the investments or not? If so, they will still pay taxes on them just like the spouse did. If not, the company will just issue the stocks to someone else who will then pay taxes on them. I wouldn't be too concerned. This isn't about the 1% though.
The implication of your argument is also terribly disturbing. If you pay any amount of sizable taxes to the government at all, you can't kill yourself. I guess how rich you are determines whether you can morally kill yourself or not!
It's usually the poor people that kill themselves because they can't afford to live anymore, Where as the wealthy can travel anywhere and do anything their hearts desire anytime they choose and have no one to answer to, that is if they are rich and single And you know what once you are dead you won't have to worry about taxes or anything anymore because you won't be here, So that 1% he was talking about or the taxes you are talking about won't be your problem anymore...so death is an escape for some.
Well his point was that the 1% pay a lot in taxes to the government, and if they die those taxes wouldn't be paid anymore. That's clearly false.
But you are right about the difference. People who commit suicide usually have gone through something traumatic in their life, like a soldier with PTSD or a woman that was raped by her father.
I"m just arguing for the right to kill yourself.
by danicole2 years ago
More info on friend:Already taking medication and seeing a therapistVery close .............
by Deforest4 years ago
Why would they do that? Necessity to maintain our soldiers' objective, to stand up and kill! Our army reached its top record in July, with 38 deaths. 26 among the active-duty, 12 among the reserve and guard! A 44%...
by incomenews7 years ago
If you like to write and be productive at it then stick with HubPages. It will take a lot of time for a return but it's worth it if you enjoy what you are doing. Scale down. Let them take your home and...
by seanorjohn3 years ago
Of course I won't but how would you react to someone who threatens to do this. Someone I know, fairly well, committed suicide this year. He had money worries and I feel really guilty that I did not take up his offer of...
by Billy Hicks4 years ago
There has been a lot of discussion about class warfare, and the wealthy not paying "their fair share",so my question for you, my esteemed fellow Hubbers is this:Assuming that they are complying with all...
by Scott Bateman16 months ago
Let's break it down even more. Should a disabled person in poverty pay taxes? Should a healthy person in poverty pay them?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.