I disagree 100% with everything in this post. Including that slavery is gone from the west. Every heard of DEBT Skunk? Debt is the slavery of the west.

As I said, suicide is ALL about the effect on those left behind. They are the victims of that act of pure selfishness.

The truth of this is relevant to an individual's beliefs.

Some, like I do, believe loved ones can choose to stay spiritually 'close-by' after death and are always 'reachable' in both thought and prayer.

Not that I am trying to bash anyone over the head with my beliefs.
</font>[/QUOTE]Now that's just being pedantic and presenting a belief-dependent argument. The truth of it is not relevent to a persons beliefs at all. You cannot have a child for example. You cannot cook each others meals, spend nights holding each other in the same bed. After estrangement there is always the possibility such activities could resume with reconcilliation. Death leaves no hope of that.

You are being ridiculous. For what end I know not. </font>[/QUOTE]I dont know how I am being "pedantic" or "ridiculous", but I do know that any discussion of what is and is not possible after death can only come from a beleif perspective. My 'end' here is sharing my belief about after-death, or what I call the "life-after" and that is it, sharing. Not debating and not bashing anyone over the head with it, Just sharing. You share your beleifs all the time Yorick, so I find it hard to understand why you are taking me to task for sharing mine. Oh well.

I am talking about my beliefs concerning death and reconcilliation and I qualified my post as such. I expect to be treated with respect. I expect not to be called ridiculous or pedantic (interesting choice of words there BTW) I expect everyone discuss the topics, and not take jabs at other each other or call each other names. Thats the rules of the forum and if it keeps up I will call for a moderater to lock the thread or administer justice as they see fit. Play nice and play fair. Be respectful or go away.

Now back to the discussion...

Of course an individual in the life-after cannot engage in any of the temporal activities listed, unless of course one has a belief in purposful reincarnation. Then estranged lovers, parents and children could indeed possibly "meet" again and share in the fruits of the physical.

But I was not talking about having physical activities together as a possibility, I was talking about the possibility of making reconcilliation: an emotional or spiritual "act".

I think, I believe, reconciliation after estrangement is possible after death. </font>[/QUOTE]If proof of self is self awareness, and life is a collection of memories, then reincarnation is irrelevent to the discussion. The person does not exist in the same body, and has no memory of the past, so whether or not they keep the same soul, are for all intents and purposes a different person during their time on this planet. The truth of the matter may be different, but all we know is NOW, and NOW all that is past is memory. Without memory, nothing has happened. One's reality is limited to ones perspective, so for all intents and purposes, reincarnation - true or false - does not provide the reconcilliation I am describing. Death is the ultimate seperator.

Harsh? Of course. You can't wrap death in cotton wool. It is by embracing and accepting the reality of death, that we gain greater realisation and appreciation of life itself. All we have is this moment. The next is no certainty.

I see where you are coming from, Yorick.

I was just offering a different perspective on reconcilliation for consideration.

I agree, Death is the ultimate physical separator.

Chewie, you handled that well. Yorick, if I'd been Chewie I'd have hit "report post" and tried to at least get you a yellow card for the "you are being ridiculous" bit -- it could very well have been viewed as an insult to his religion. I took it that way.

Anyway, I find myself at an impasse with your belief on this issue. Like the "smoking thread" issues, you are limiting the rights of an autonomous person based on the wants and desires of those around him. Some things in life happen and hurt our feelings. This should not be enough of a reason to shackle the rights of free people. Just because what you do makes me feel bad, it does not give me the right to limit what you do -- not without more, real, tangible harm done directly to me by you. Sorry, but for me, liberty trumps most of the "feelings" notions.

Freedom and liberty again?

You advocate one freedom over another, that's all Timber. Freedom to DO over freedom FROM something. I am in this case arguing for peoples freedom FROM the effects of suicide. You are arguing for someones freedom to DO harm to others.

Both are freedoms. What is more beneficial to society? What creates more balanced individuals?

Should someone be protected from themself? Given the seasonal nature of suicide tendencies and their temporarity, I think so.

I have physically prevented someone from carrying out a suicide. Three times actually. Physically intervened in their attempt, which would have been sucessfull each time had I not. Did I impinge on their freedom? Absolutely. Did I step all over their right to die? Absolutely.

Are they alive, creating art, loving life and enjoying the planet to this day as a result? YES YES YES.

I have no apologies for keeping that person free from themself.

Another person I couselled during a suicidal season that lasted quite a while. While I didn't have to physically intervene, I used everything I had mentally to prevent, to intervene and to restrict the persons self destructive action.

Again, they are alive and well, with an abandance of experiences behind them as a result.

Walking in my shoes has given me the values and perspectives I have. The three sucessful suicides I mentioned earlier and seeing the catastrophic effects, and the prevention of these other two I've mentioned gives me clear and present experiences for founding my P.O.V. that a simple debate on the internet won't come close to shifting.

Suggesting that someone is being ridiculous or being pedantic is not actually namecalling, nor is it an insult to his religion. I was referring to his line of argument as my last post to him elaborated. His religious beliefs on the matter of afterlife were irrelevant to the discussion.

I have belief in life after death myself. I have belief that we may be "reconcilled in heaven". That is totally beside the point I was making about death however.

Why make that sort of comment anyway? It simply seems like it's inciteful of you. Oh... is "inciteful" namecalling now? Like "ridiculous" and "pedantic" I'm referring to the specific post, not the character of the person... but does that mean anything anymore?

No, I wasn't trying to incite you. Look, you saw his religion as irrelevant -- that is not necessarily the case. Depending on his beliefs, it could very well be relevant. And, I think he explained how it was. Compare your comments to those I made when I accidently insulted you by saying things about speaking in tongues.

Anyway, here's an example:
If I believed someone could fully support family/friends after death, if I believed their spirit infused everyone around them in such a way that they actually aided them more, spiritually and physically, than during life, then that belief would be completely relevant to the topic at hand, and would directly refute your point that a suicide leaves a "void" in the lives of those who know the person.

Let's look at it from an entirely different perspective.
In British law-making, the legislature adheres to the principle that unforceable laws are pointless - hence the reason why suicide was decriminalised (it's hard to punish a dead person) but remains an offence to assist someone.

When someone desires to end his/her own life - the stage is already set: it is virtually impossible to prevent that person from committing the act without (inhumanely) locking them up in a paddded room - where their lives continue in increased agony.

As Billy Connelly quipped on the subject of the Catholic 'Rhythm Method' of birth control:
What?! At the point of ejaculation whip it out?! Father, at the point of ejaculation, wild horses wouldn't make my a*** go in the opposite direction!"

If you criminalise suicide, if you make it illegal to commit suicide, you force that person to 'go underground'. Rather than risk discovery and 'imprisonment', that person will tell no-one of his plans.

This means that someone has to 'discover' the body. This means that relatives will never get to say 'Goodbye' or understand or get to ask 'Why?'. They will just get a sudden withdrawl of that person's life: out of the blue. It may also mean that the act of suicide may endanger others (jumping off a building, in front of a truck etc.)

So, in actual fact, I would argue that a legalised form of suicide is actually kinder on the relatives than a society that forbids it in all circumstances.

[ 10-20-2003, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Suicide is the ultimate in selfish acts; however, it is also selfish in nature to keep someone here against their will. So who are you to tell someone that your needs are greater than theirs, especially when it pertains to their life.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. Slavery takes away your ability to make decisions that alter the course of your life, while, debt is a choice you made at one time. One is a ramification of your decision making, while the other is forced upon you.

By restricting a personal freedom, you give another protection from the after-effects associated with suicides. You are not bestowing any form of freedom at all; rather you are taking away a freedom for your own benefit.

When you start restricting personal freedoms based upon the psychological impact it may have upon another, you open a door best left closed. Anything could be construed as emotional damage, and the minute you start placing barriers in effect to stop these stimulants, you take away free will.

Someone who feels blame after another commits suicide has a choice. They choose to feel that guilt. Feelings of emptiness associated with the loss of a loved one are normal, but a healthy individual, in mind and body, innately understands that they need to move on and resume life. Any who do not need to seek help.

You may want to catch up on current news Skunk, slavery is alive and well in the West