Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

On Suicide!

  • Jan. 26th, 2006 at 6:58 PM
In todays society, Man (proper noun form) has evolved (?) into a hindrance to the progress of his own race....

The dictionary describes Suicide as:  "The act of taking ones own life; killing oneself; Ending ones own existence; etc."

Why do people commit suicide anyway?  Grrr!  Oh well, we'll touch on that later....

The Law (Proper noun form) looks at it as "homicide" on the self.  The Law claims that 'al' life is precious.  To commit suicide, is therefore illegal.  Furthermore, it is a punishable offence under the law (not a proper noun form).

Let's analyze this situation in a psychological context shall we?
People who commit suicide, or those that wish to do so with enough determination as to make it a reality, are those individuals who are 'fed up with life', those who 'are pressed under various mental tensions', who are 'depressed', who basically 'feel that they cannot cope with life as it _is_'!

Consider this too:  Darwin, Charles Darwin!
I'm sure most, if not all of you presently reading my journal here, have heard of Darwinian Theory.  It dissolves other theories and stands above the rest, in acceptance worldwide, and possibly even universally.  In short, it dictates "Survival of the Fittest".

It works like a charm in the animal kingdom, and scientists and thinkers alike, believe this to be integral to the advance in evolution.

In the animal kingdom, brain-power is rather on the lower scale (when compared to humans in any case), so Darwinian theory wraps around physical strength, muscular density, flexibility, nervous responses, bone length and weight, horns, tusks, and other sexual appendages.  Humans are mentally judged however.  We use our brains to do most of our work, we don't depend as much on brawn as we do on brains.

A mind considers suicide only when it can't handle its own existence.  Suicide is humanities way of ridding itself of its flaws.  Why go out of our way to reintegrate such ills into our gene pool?  Suicide is _not_ an evil!  It is merely mother natures way of ridding our species of its ills.

We should _not_ have a say in 'personal' choice!  We should _not_ find ourselves responsible for the regression of humanity....

Suicide is a Personal Choice -- Respect it!

//update: tachys pointed out a technical fault in my post:
"Suicide isn't illegal. Its not mentioned in the Indian Penal Code. However, Attempt to suicide is. (s.309)
An act cannot be illegal if its commission is not punishable."

- Thankyou tachys, for seeing the literal side of things. I guess no one else noticed this error because I have dumb friends or something. lol! :o)


(no subject) - fugney - Jan. 26th, 2006 01:35 pm (UTC)
angiasaa wrote:
Jan. 26th, 2006 08:34 pm (UTC)
yes, I'm usually sarchy about my opinion. But it just helps to make certain issues caustic enough to cause people around me some serious concern. Which, at the end of the day, is what I intend to do.

Corruption is a _human_ evil. What exactly is 'Unhealthy' in your statement supposed to mean? What kind of health are you trying to establish? Selfish is again a relative matter. Aggressiveness is a hormonal impulse and not a mental one. Irrationality is a matter of social upbringing. I'm talking about evolutionary ills! *!HUGE_BIG_DIFFERENCE!*

Ask a Jihadi whether 9/11 was a good thing, he's say YES without even thinking! Ask an American what he thinks and he'll bring tears and trauma into his words proclaiming it to be a sin against mankind blah-blah.

You want statistical evidence of what exactly? if you read the post carefully, I've never once mentioned numbers or statistical findings. I have'nt even hinted that anything of the sort exist. I'm stating a mere opinion.

Still, if it's statistics that make people happy, I would be glad to share whatever I have. However, it would be really nice if you could tell me what statistics you are looking for in order that I might be able to locate them in my database for you.

When I say _evil_, don't see it as the "Devil". If you're doing that, then I suggest you forget about my religious opinions and concentrate on my evolutionary progression. The Devil is _not_ what I am talking about. What I am talking about is _not_ the opposite of good, in the term 'good and evil', 'yin and yang', 'Black & White', 'etcetera'.

When I say evil, I mean "misfit from the progression of the majority on the path of evolutionary advance". So relax, it's not a linguistic incompatibility that I'm trying to amplify here, I'm merely talking about a difference from self-perceived correctness and perfection. It's definitely a deviation. However, it does not have horns, it's merely slowing the rest of us down, or causing problems where none should have existed.

I hope you have read Darwinian Theory. If you have, you'll see how physical evolution goes on, and more importantly, _why_ it goes on.

This post is about 'mental' evolution. Darwin never talked of it. However, I wish to draw attention to the fact that Darwinian theory can be applied to the human mental evolution as it stands in suicidal minds.

When you have gangrene in your foot, it will kill you in time if you let it be. But, if you cut the leg off, you can expect to survive to a ripe old age. That's the point I'm making. Suicide is a kind of self amputation of humanity. That's just what it is.

If you can't coax your foot to recover from the gangrene, you are forced to cut it off to save your life. Similarly, If you can't talk a suicidal guy into recovering from his desire to kill himself, you're not doing him, or the rest of the world by forcing him into a prison cell to keep him from doing what he really wants to do.

(no subject) - fugney - Jan. 27th, 2006 01:48 pm (UTC)
angiasaa wrote:
Jan. 27th, 2006 06:32 pm (UTC)
And you think things that may lead to the self destruction of the human race are not evolutionary evils?

Well, they are certainly bad for evolution (as how formulaic perfectionism sees it), but it is not something that is inborn or progressively distributed. It is something that is definitely bad for evolution, and I don't deny that. However, it is not an inborn aspect of the mental position of individuals in a race.

I already knew that. I was talking about the evolution of humanity as a species, and the things that are an impediment to the same. Corruption, stupidity, selfishness, all of these count. These are all big pains in the ass to human society. These, far more than suicide, are "slowing the rest of us down, or causing problems where none should have existed".

They cause problems, yes. But contary to what you say, my claim is not that suicide is slowing us down at all, it's exactly the opposite. That we are being genetically slowed down in our mentallic progression through the curbing of suicide through force. The problems you talk of are social inflictions. This is no a debate I'm trying to start here, I'd rather we stuck to the point in question. That being suicide, and not social deformities.

Yes, suicide might be caused in part by social situations, and I agree that that is an aspect that must be considered. However, my perception is that a discussion based on corruption, stupidity and selfishness has no place in a discussion about the yay or nay behind the moral issues that suicides happen to be viewed with.

Yes, they slow us down, and in your claim, you say that their effect is far more than what suicide is doing. (stats? lol!) But the fact is is that a social ill or a mental ill? Is that something that you are mentally inclined to do, or is that something that you have learned through your social experiential learning's? They are a problem, but they are NOT a problem of the mind as a part of the individual. Thank you.

The analogy does not hold. Failure, depression, and other things that lead to suicide do not "spread" like gangrene.

Who said?

View the world of humans as the organism. The thoroughly suicidal individuals as cells infected with gangrene. Is the genepool is infected, you'll begin to find streaks of red-lines running through entire genealogies. It spreads.

Your argument supposes that no one gifted, intelligent, or otherwise more capable of survival would commit suicide. Your argument also supposes that the most inferior amongst our species (I am going to kill you if you ask me to define "inferior"), automatically know who they are and go ahead and kill themselves.

My argument supposes nothing of the sort!

Please read:
this, this, and this.

BTW, just wondering.... Do you by any chance happen to be a relation to samsat_iit? Or do you idolize Ayn Rand like a godsend or something?

You don't have to answer that if you don't want to, I'm just curious....

(no subject) - fugney - Jan. 28th, 2006 11:36 am (UTC)
angiasaa wrote:
Jan. 31st, 2006 10:38 pm (UTC)
greed, but explain to me what that has to do with evolution.

Her, I'd point you to the third paragraph from the bottom of my first reply to you located here:
This post is about 'mental' evolution. Darwin never talked of it. However, I wish to draw attention to the fact that Darwinian theory can be applied to the human mental evolution as it stands in suicidal minds.

I'm sorry, what I actually meant is that "the factors that lead to suicide are slowing us down, but not as much as this or that".

You make a very valid point here. The factors that lead to suicide are definitely slowing us down. However, my post does'nt concentrate on those factors as such. Not directly NEway.... It's more about the people who _can't_ cope with those factors that this post really deals with. Your point is very valid, and I guess you've got my mind going again.... I think I'll be posting another little something on those factors. :)

Doesn't that suppose that some people are genetically predisposed to suicide?

Yes, though it's not a supposition as such. I read sometime back in the Journal of Science, (I was hyperlinked there from "Nature" magazine) there were some statistics also, a red and black graph with blue text at the bottom. It was regarding research on genealogies and had something to do with hereditary diseases.

One of the main factors that they were tracking were psychosyndromes. The conclusion os the whole report was that suicidal tendencies tend to run through the bloodline and the members of the same family through the generations, tended to be more predisposed to committing suicide.

but I don't think I'm being that annoyying!!

lol! I like you choice of words there. Yes, he _is_ annoying, definitely. But don't you worry, you're not being annoying. It's just that I figured for a moment that your reasoning styles match a little.... even if it's extremely remote, the thought somehow occurred to me and I could'nt help myself, just had to ask. :oP
angiasaa wrote:
Jan. 31st, 2006 10:39 pm (UTC)
The reason I disagree with your argument (or what I imagine it to be) is that I don't see what suicide has to do with natural selection. The frame of mind that leads to suicide, is not like a gene which can be passed on from generation to generation if it's carriers did not kill themselves.

Ah.... I've actually done a lot of research on various subjects, and to me, it seemed obvious that suicide and natural selection were connected. I should perhaps, have explained the background in the original post itself so readers would understand the entire evolution of my reasoning. I've made this mistake before, and I guess I'll keep making it over and over.... I just keep assuming my readers have already done some research on the subject of my delivery. Anyhow, here's a scrunched rendition of what should also have gone int the post in that case. :o)

Apparently, though there are people who commit suicide in a seemingly random manner, there are definitely much higher chances of a suicidal tendency to travel through the generations. There's some argument over this issue, whether it is the close interaction between the generations or whether it's because of an actual suicide-gene (I personally think that's far-fetched, it must be something else) that causes them to commit suicide.

I was watching a documentary on psychology where the featured speakers talked on this matter a great deal. They spoke of a third variant, that of environmental conditions being the same. However, their theory was cut out from the fact that families migrating from location to location still tended to carry the suicidal tendency with them.

A fourth variant follows the fact that, just as personalities can be transferred from father or mother to the child, even if the parents and child have been separated from each other at birth, Suicide is a tendency of the personality. It provokes similar situations to occur from the social environments (however different they might be) that they live in that they can't help but be suicidal. Like a natural instinct to end up killing themselves or so it seems.

To me, the fourth explanation makes sense to a larger degree than the others. For all I know, they could all be wrong or the right answer is an amalgam of all four theories.... I guess we'll never know....

subtle_blues wrote:
Feb. 5th, 2006 07:54 pm (UTC)
Most of the tendencies/diseases/pre-dispositions we have have a partial level of inheritence implicit in them. But this inheritence, in most cases, is only a susceptibility to the disease or disposition, not any gene coding for those diseased proteins!(I know...., but _had_ to say it :D)

This is more so in the case of mental illnesses. Suicide(rather suicidal tendencies), could very well be another one of the heritable mental illnesses like Schizophrenia or chronic depression.
angiasaa wrote:
Feb. 5th, 2006 08:31 pm (UTC)
Yeah, true.... Not all a suicidal chaps kids will be suicidal. It's just that their chances of following the same path is heightened when compared to other kids of non-suicidal parents.

We are seeing eye-to-eye, i2i, etc. on this, I'm guessing....
subtle_blues wrote:
Feb. 5th, 2006 08:58 pm (UTC)
I dont have personal experience with any suicide inclined lineages but I've seen the schizoid ones. I guess it's safe to extrapolate in this case.
Yup, Ay-2-Ay!
angiasaa wrote:
Feb. 5th, 2006 10:04 pm (UTC)
YEs, it's very safe.... The numbers speak in the same direction too. :)
(Anonymous) wrote:
Jan. 26th, 2006 06:29 pm (UTC)
just assuming
this is merely an assumption... but you have never known anyone personally who has committed suicide have you?

how are you by the way - its amanda, SC.
angiasaa wrote:
Jan. 26th, 2006 08:12 pm (UTC)
Re: just assuming
I've known a friend who committed suicide. However much I respected him for who he was, I still stick by my views on the matter today.

He never thought he was worth his life, his legacy, this world.... He chose to end it all, he even told us about his intentions a number of times.

I tried counseling him against following through on his plan. I failed.

I personally thought he was'nt the sort who could do it. I know that his passing was a loss to his friends and family, to me and the world. But on some level, it all rhymes with what I said in my post.

It has been said that suicide runs in families. Some families are more prone to suicidal tendencies than other families. Is nature trying to tell us something?

Besides, for my last point in the post, If I _really_ wanted to commit suicide, I would rather go ahead and do it, than have the law coming and throwing me in gaol, or in an institution for my attempt at doing so.

It's my bloody choice, so leave me alone is what I say.

People don't think twice before condemning a criminal with the death sentence. They don't think twice before dropping a lifer on a murderer. Why step into someones personal choice?

They hang people for being Gay, they hang people for adultery, they hang people for trying to be themselves these days! What's the whole point? It's the same with suicide.

I'm doing good. You really should get an account at LJ. Beats a lot of lost messages. :)

rythm wrote:
Jan. 27th, 2006 03:18 am (UTC)
People think about suicide when they are in a weak frame of mind. Its more like a mental disorder. And committing suicide is not a way of helping them to be free. If somebody has a cancerous tumour, would u remove the tumour or kill the person? If somebody is planning suicide, there will be a reason for it. He/she might have failed at something or has been hurt with somethin. So, the point here is to eliminate the reason and not the person himself. There are ways to achieve it, either by facing it or by ignoring it. But, suicide is not the solution. All that they would need is to get back a bit of confidence.

A Jehadi would justify it coz for him its not a suicide to run away from problems. Hez doin a job for his beliefs. And for the victims, its a gr8 deal of pain. So, suicide and this are opposite poles.
Just my opinion...
angiasaa wrote:
Jan. 27th, 2006 05:32 pm (UTC)
Check this out:

I explain weak frames of mind here.... It will clear up that side of the issue in any case.

However, you do have a very valid point there.

Eliminating the reason is my point as well. If a reason can be eliminated then where's the point of suicide. However, if there is an individual who cannot be brought back, there is no point in forcefully condemning him to a life that he _really_ does not want!

The jehadi point was to voice the issue of "mental dis-conformity", I'm not talking about victims and/or beliefs. I'm trying to move the point into establishing the 'mental' context of the issue.

You should also check out this thread on crabbycool's comment:

We all have opinions, and there's nothing wrong with voicing them. :)

pinak wrote:
Jan. 27th, 2006 04:52 am (UTC)
What about those who simply wouldnt give up :)
angiasaa wrote:
Jan. 27th, 2006 03:27 pm (UTC)
They're nice people. :)

There are those who give up, and there are those who fear to give up. There are also those who just give in because they feel like they already have everything they ever wanted.

No matter what the case, if any one is beyond the reality of being turned back, I believe in my heart that stopping them and calling them cowards is certainly _not_ to be done. That's disrespect to someones wishes. It's a personal thing, not something to be forced under the command of the majority.

The same way that I would hate anyone trying to choose my career-path for me, I would hate anyone barring my way to the end of eternity. It should be _my_ prerogative to choose what I do with my life. I welcome suggestions and insights from others, but at the end of the day, I wish to be able to have a free hand in my choice, even to live, or to die.


P.S.: I added that post to my memories.... I've clean forgotten that I had commented on it. Bless your soul. :)
pinak wrote:
Jan. 27th, 2006 11:14 pm (UTC)
well I agree with you, for my thinking was on the same lines too ("... but at the end of the day, I wish to be able to have a free hand in my choice, even to live, or to die. ...")

angiasaa wrote:
Jan. 31st, 2006 09:42 pm (UTC)
True, to live, or to die, I wish to have that 'choice'.... No one should be able to command me to live, or to die. Not with full authority Neways. By all means, let them ask me to reconsider, let them give me alternate suggestions, let them do what they like to their own selves, but let _me_ make the decision. :)

I know exactly what you mean.... :o)
(no subject) - crabbycool - Jan. 27th, 2006 10:10 am (UTC)
angiasaa wrote:
Jan. 27th, 2006 05:14 pm (UTC)
Check out my reply to pinak here:

Also read the replies to the comments above it.

People who are affected by social incrimination or personal disappointment, enough to want to give up are not going to ever be strong enough to 'vibe' in harmony with those who _can_ pull through these situations.

I say "_can_" and not "_do_" because if they can, then they certainly can be turned around and brought back without much damage to their mental framework.

No one is worth discarding. Not even those millions of criminals that walk the face of the planet. Still, there are sacrifices that are made, whether they have to be done or not. Insisting on taking command of someones life is not what I think should be done. If someone wants to quit, and call it a day, then so be it. Try, give advice, council them, but by no means should an individual be debarred from dropping out when they really want to.

It's an additional burden that they really never wanted. Why should people try to force these laws on us? They certainly ought not to. I'd never be a happy man if someone tried to stop me from doing anything, even if it was the elimination of myself!

Flaws in the animal kingdom are removed mostly through the regular genetic transfer that occurs during sexual intercourse. The good animals pass their genes on into the next generation, the bad genes just rot and die, they don't get passed on into the next generation.

Animals are incapable of throwing themselves off cliffs on purpose. They have a highly developed hypothalamus as do we, that is too full of instinct to survive. However, in Humans, the limbic system is overcome by what we call experiential learning. We are capable of molding our reactions to stimuli after our individual experiences thereby overcoming the primordial instinctual reactions that you see in animals in general.

You therefore cannot compare animals and humans on a purely mental basis since we are miles ahead in mental evolution.

We have something called a neocortex that is non-existent in animal brains. The primordial portion of the brain exists in both animals as well as humans. However, the neocortex is exceptionally well developed in humans. Some animals, like apes and dolphins do have a neocortex, but they are still in the primary stages of development.

The neocortex allows humans to override their instincts therefore, we are capable of jumping off cliffs and tall buildings or out of planes, which no other animal would even dream of. Their natural instincts cause them to petrify in such situations.

Suicide is the annihilation of the self. An animal does not even have a conceptual understanding of the self.

Research on this is available in scientific journals. To mark one prominent experiments conclusions, Humans are the only known animal that is able to visualize the self. When placed in a closed room, the human is able to readily visualize themselves in the room, they are able to view themselves as disassociated from their bodies. I'm not talking about reflections in mirrors, I'm talking about a mental alienation wherein the human is able to see themselves from outside their physical being. Animals in general are unable to do this.

It's what makes us unique.

Mind you, there are animals like tigers that starve themselves to death when left without a pride. Even pack animals do so. In fact, many creatures do so, but that is not as yet understood completely since much research has not been done. This situation is rare, but is known to happen. We do not know why though.

Hope that answers your questions.
teemus wrote:
Feb. 1st, 2006 04:23 am (UTC)
Dude, exactly my point. Animals DO NOT COMMIT suicide! I know about the whole "survival of the fittest" through gene transfer happening when healthy specimens mate.

Btw, tigers do not live in prides. Lions do. Most tigresses hang out with their cubs till they are able to hunt for themselves. Tigers, by large, are a solitary species.

I really don't mind if somebody kills himself/herself if he's too bored with life, when he's achieved everything he has to do, PROVIDED, he/she has little responsibility of people.
angiasaa wrote:
Feb. 1st, 2006 05:55 pm (UTC)
was in reply to fugney, it also explains how mental evolution should be considered as aside from physical evolution. :)

Yes sir, I meant Lions. :"> Error accepted, appology put forth. :o)

PROVIDED, he/she has little responsibility of people.

And you really believe that they would accept those responsibilities and tend to their families and stuff if you kept them from killing themselves? People would'nt commit suicide if they had the heart to continue with the pain of life.
subtle_blues wrote:
Feb. 5th, 2006 06:59 pm (UTC)
People would'nt commit suicide if they had the heart to continue with the pain of life.
Finally _the_ point!
angiasaa wrote:
Feb. 5th, 2006 08:29 pm (UTC)
*points finger at you and laughs*

subtle_blues wrote:
Feb. 5th, 2006 08:53 pm (UTC)
yeah yeah.. laugh!
What was I thinking anyway? It's _your_ rant!
angiasaa wrote:
Feb. 5th, 2006 10:03 pm (UTC)
yeah, silly girl!
karthik wrote:
Jan. 27th, 2006 01:27 pm (UTC)
This well made argument has opened up another argument in my mind. Based on what you said about the "Survival of the fittest", and how it works as a charm in the animal kingdom, I wonder why then should murder be a crime? After all, to kill is also a law of nature. I quote the following from a book by Maupassant:

Every being has the mission to kill; he kills to live, and he lives to kill. The beast kills without ceasing, all day, every instant of its existence. Man kills without ceasing, to nourish himself; but since in addition he needs to kill for pleasure, he has invented the chase! The child kills the insects he finds, the little birds, all the little animals that come in his way. But this does not suffice for the irresistible need of massacre that is in us. It is not enough to kill beasts; we must kill man too. Long ago this need was satisfied by human sacrifice. Now, the necessity of living in society has made murder a crime. We condemn and punish the assassin! But as we cannot live without yielding to this natural and imperious instinct of death, we relieve ourselves from time to time, by wars. Then a whole nation slaughters another nation. It is a feast of blood, a feast that maddens armies and intoxicates the civilians, women and children, who read, by lamplight at night, the feverish story of massacre.

And do we despise those picked out to accomplish these butcheries of men? No, they are loaded with honors. They are clad in gold and in resplendent stuffs; they wear plumes on their heads and ornaments on their breasts; and they are given crosses, rewards, titles of every kind. They are proud, respected, loved by women, cheered by the crowd, solely because their mission is to shed human blood! They drag through the streets their instruments of death, and the passer-by, clad in black, looks on with envy. For to kill is the great law put by nature in the heart of existence! There is nothing more beautiful and honorable than killing!

Therefor, by the application of the survival of the fittest, if suicide becomes a personal choice, why should this natural instinct to kill that both humans and animals possess be a crime? Let only the fittest survive in such a scenario too, where it's ok for the powerful to kill the weak because he is not fit enough to survive.

This is a slight deviation from the actual topic under discussion, but I thought this could be an interesting analogy to analize! :o)
angiasaa wrote:
Jan. 27th, 2006 05:25 pm (UTC)
Murder is NOT a crime in my mind. To me, murder is akin to the natural flow of life.

However, I still hold to my own opinion that I am happier with the scenario of 'live and let live'. I don't believe I should kill people unless I'm under threat and the only way to resolve the situation was to kill the other individual.

Still, the point you make is very valid in itself. Killing is a part of our very nature and there's no two ways about the fact that we really are killing people all the time, and we even go out of our way to glorify certain types of killing.

I feel that killing people just for the sake of the kill is not much of a good thing. It voids a lot of good stuff that could eventually help the progress of mankind as a whole. When two armies battle it out, it's not the superior general that survives to pass on his genes to his offspring. Instead, it's the brains of the scientists, the strategists, the technology builders that have really done the winning. The misplaced captain who is given medals of honours is merely a facade and chances are that he's not half as good as the guy he killed from the other side.

Wars destroy entire clans. And wars treat people as masses, not as individuals. In my opinion, that's where the crux of the problem of killing fails in the evolution of the species. If anything, it's a pathetically inefficient way of distorting Darwinian theory. :o)

Still, point noted. Animals don't murder each other, they kill. We murder by killing.

(no subject) - fugney - Jan. 28th, 2006 11:45 am (UTC)
angiasaa wrote:
Jan. 31st, 2006 09:48 pm (UTC)
If it's not our concern, whose concern is it? God? :o) There're another three posts relating to that in my archives. :)

Our concern might well be our survival and happiness, but what's to say is our concern when our happiness lies in our non-survival?

Stopping murder is definitely a nice idea, and I'm all for it. But stopping people from doing what they want with their own lives is another kette of fish. The public or the law should'nt have a say in such a personal decision. Or so is how I feel NEways....

In human beings, evolution is bound to move to dimensions other than genetic.

You know, I side with you here fully! We're mutating in ways aside from the physical. and you bring it out well. Kudos to you on that statement, I cuold'nt have put it better myself. :o)

You lost me in the last paragraph though....*I must be stupid or something*
(no subject) - fugney - Feb. 1st, 2006 04:10 pm (UTC)
angiasaa wrote:
Feb. 1st, 2006 05:50 pm (UTC)
Ah! Now that's definitely something I'll side with. :) Cool!
(no subject) - fugney - Feb. 1st, 2006 04:13 pm (UTC)
angiasaa wrote:
Feb. 1st, 2006 05:50 pm (UTC)
Yes, But when we talk of homicide, it's a different individual from the self that dies.

Live and let Live, Die and let Live, Live and let Die, Die and let Die.
But not:
Live and Kill, Kill and Live, Die and Kill, Kill and Die....

Another thought springs up here, Would a doctor helping a patient with euthanesia be called a killer? Hmmm.. Technically, yeah.... But morality would cause a lot of us to say naught to that.
sanjubaba wrote:
Jan. 27th, 2006 04:24 pm (UTC)
Right. That was a slightly warped way of looking at it!

But it's your opinion and I'm not going to comment :S
angiasaa wrote:
Jan. 27th, 2006 05:15 pm (UTC)
you should check out some of the arguments made on this post. As also, my replies to them. There's room for long discussions, always! :)
teemus wrote:
Jan. 27th, 2006 10:00 pm (UTC)
Awesome post.

Suicide is not easy. It takes SO much of will power, I can't tell you. Total respect.

But dude, two questions:

1) Don't you think committing suicide to escape responsiblity (i.e. if you have a spouse, kids, dependant parents) is really horrible?
2) Animals and suicide? This "survival of the fittest" thing somehow doesn't figure here. :-S

I like the "Kurt Cobain" clan of people who committed suicide. They were too talented/good for this world.
angiasaa wrote:
Jan. 31st, 2006 09:40 pm (UTC)
Frankly, if there's one thing that would ever keep me from suicide, if all else fails, it's the fear of dying and not knowing for sure what happens after that. I'd never be able to summon the courage to commit the deed unless there was something to be achieved out of selfless service. (That's also a very doubtful thing in my mind btw) :o)

And dude, two answers:

Yes, I think it's really horrible and selfish. But people do it. Some get caught trying to do it and are sent to a 6-year jail sentence. Some are locked up in padded rooms in asylums.... :( What good are any of those solutions anyway? The family still suffers.... Oh, and society does'nt look at the family any better for all it's worth. Sad, but true.... :(


Carbby had a similar question.... Animals, Humans, what corelation does the mind and body have NEway? It's all there.... :)
psychog wrote:
Jan. 28th, 2006 07:26 pm (UTC)
arey tu gaya re dude...you have too much time on yer hands for this short life man...Why cant u jus write stuff about babes, beer, cigs, music, movies, trekking, goa and synonyms?? But then its ur journal. Your funeral. Period.
angiasaa wrote:
Jan. 31st, 2006 09:50 pm (UTC)
Funeral? :o

It's my Funeral, and you're Wonder Woman. :o))

Yeah, babes do get featured on my journal. Sadly (for my visitors), they're protected entries. :)
kalyancreddy wrote:
Jan. 28th, 2006 08:05 pm (UTC)
I agree with most of what you said, and I do respect it as a person's personal choice. On the other hand, if there were people dependant on him/her, wouldn't it be ethically wrong on his/her part to make that decision?
angiasaa wrote:
Jan. 31st, 2006 09:54 pm (UTC)
lol! You happened to put your finger on the same spot as teemus did too. :o)

Check out the reply here:

I consider it wrong, or mean, or just outright selfish, but I guess I can't say I have the right to stop a father or a husband from taking his own life. I could council him, and I would! But I would'nt stand like the rock of Gibraltar between him and death.
tachys wrote:
Feb. 3rd, 2006 09:45 pm (UTC)
Just a technicality,
Suicide isn't illegal. Its not mentioned in the Indian Penal Code.
Attempt to suicide is. (s.309)
An act cannot be illegal if its commission is not punishable. and in this case... :)
angiasaa wrote:
Feb. 5th, 2006 08:22 pm (UTC)
Haha! How expertly apt! I'll update my post with the new information. lol!

Just the kick in the stomach I was looking for! :)

Thankyou! :o)