jason_els
<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Posts
- 10,228
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 162
- Points
- 193
- Location
- Warwick, NY, USA
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
If suicide is the answer, the question is probably pretty stupid. It's the supreme act of selfishness. It exemplifies what I call the law of the conservation of suffering. Not unlike the law of concerning the conservation of mass (i.e., mass is never created or destroyed, but merely changes forms), I maintain that suffering is never created or destroyed, but rather is transferred from one person to another. In the case of the suicide, the person in question is so consumed with suffering that they end their lives. That suffering is transferred to those family, friends, and loved ones who then must live with the agony of that loss for the rest of their lives. Thus, suicide is the supreme act of selfishness, as it callously ignores the irreparable pain and suffering that will be transferred to and/or inflicted upon those who survive the suicide.
Is it not more selfish for others to demand how or when you live or die?
What on earth or in heaven makes you think you have a right to determine such a thing?
Suicide is not selfish in the slightest:
When committed due to mental illness, it's the illness causing the sufferer to commit the act. A person in the throes of deepest mental illness is incapable of rational action and thought.
When committed to save the lives of others it is, perhaps, the most selfless act possible because it places the lives of others above our own in the most final way possible.
When committed due to physical illness, it is done to spare ourselves and loved ones the horrors of agonizing death. It may allow us to find peace, recognizing that ultimately we must be as kind to ourselves as we would be to others.