From the libertarians/secularists point of view, "Why committing suicide is against the law in the US?"
823515
The consensus of the secular establishment is that one is not in the right frame of mind when the think they want  to  kill themselves anymore than a murderer who wants to murder someone else.  The only difference is the direction of that person's projection of the dysfunction from another to oneself.  This view is from the preponderance of evidence which shows that when treated  for biological, chemical, hormonal, or other dysfunctions within or around the person the vast majority of those people go on to lead happy productive lives without the desire to commit suicide any longer and glad that some one talked them off the ledge.  Civilized culture as a pattern and time proven rule builds, creates and nurtures life.  Although it has within it,  radicles like in any healthy biological body, which if unchecked destroy, mutate and seek death, these are the exception ,however; and not the rule.  Barbarity,  anarchist, and the like of chaos theories or fatalistic tendencies as  a rule, destroys, and kills without noticeable creation, and or helping of life.  If part of a civilizec culture or body is malignant then it is civilized to kill it or let it be killed to save the culture or body, just as we would with any cancer or disease of that nature.  If however it is benign or an attack, like and heart attack ir anxiety attack we treat this symptom and do not let the body die if possible since once the hear is healed many more happy years are possible. Likewise, the person that wants to commit suicide generally has a sick "heart" that needs healing and then they will be fine.
1069586
i'm a muslim and I'd have to say that anybody who is suicidal and armed is a great danger to himself and others. So, the suicidal maniac is much much worse.\n\nBut I wouldn't limit it to the muslims. Police in the usa run into suicidal people, which police will tell you, are the most dangerous calls they take - they never know how many people they will try to take out with them.\n\ni personally "enjoy" visits from jehovahs witnesses. lol, they usually start to running after i compare their beliefs to islam lol. \n\nBut seriously, they can be pretty decent these days, if you just let them get their initial little "speech" out and then respond to their words. You can easily shock them that way. They almost don't know what to say after that lol.
1172230
Must of us know that. It is a defense that some used. Some feel it is against the people or you would ignore the law. Ever see those questions where it said-we all break them? What kind of morals to they have? Do they truly believe that? \n You are right for many it is about country.
1008293
It seems that what bothers you most is the inconsistency of laws.  We have laws that are supposedly in place (like the seatbelt law) to protect ourselves from harming ourselves -- yet we have not legislated all forms of self-harm.  What I find most annoying is the artificiality of saying we pass these laws to "save lives."  I believe the reality is that we pass these laws to save other taxpayers for picking up the cost of a person's health care if they've chosen self harming behavior.  (Examples:  seat belts, motorcycle helmets, recreational drug use.)  If we were just honest, and said these things are illegal because we as a society don't want to have to bear the costs associated with medically caring for those injured as a result of less "safe" behavior, I think most of us would find such laws much less distasteful.
834037
There is no compelling *state* reason that anybody has listed here ... or anywhere else that I've seen.\n\nReligious reasons, by Constitution, are prohibited from being a basis for making laws.  (Thank God for that ... or we'd be no better than the Taliban.)\n\nProcreation is not a state interest.  I'm always baffled by people who raise "procreation" as a reason ... Are they saying that the government should be in the business of ensuring procreation of new Americans?  Are they saying that marriage should not be sanctioned except for purposes of procreation ... so heteros who are unable or do not wish to have children should be prohibited from marrying?  Are they saying that lesbians who *do* undergo AI to procreate, should be OK?  Are they saying that two gay men who love each other, should instead just forget all that "gay" nonsense, and each find "a nice girl" and settle down like "normal" people and have a family?  Seriously, someone please tell me what is the logic behind the government insisting on "procreation" as a requirement for marriage?\n\nOh, and I love 'Oh-Tami's answer: "Because I don't want to see two of a kind pawing each other in my kids park where they play. "  So it would be OK for a hetero couple to be "pawing each other" in front of your kids?  And are you saying that prohibitions against marrying are what is somehow preventing gays from going to the park and "pawing each other"?   You tell me ... is that logic, or just bigotry?\n\n...\n\nNo, here's the real reason we have seen these laws passed in the last three elections.  Ask yourself, are these laws being passed by state legislatures?  No.  They are public referendums and state propositions.  Why?  Because Karl Rove and the Republican leadership found that this was an effective way to get social conservative Republicans to the polls.  However, as we have found out, his tactic only works, if people don't realize that there are actually a lot of closeted gay men in the ranks of the Republicans and religious leaders who were whipping them to the polls.  Evangelicals have a low tolerance for hypocrisy.\n\nTen years from now, all these "defense of marriage" propositions that passed ... will all get repealed or declared unconstitutional by state or federal courts.
1181134
wow...didn't know all that...good info...i agree..it is a type of mental disorder...kinda like over eaters, thieves, drunkards, and so on....people who say it has been around for a long time and say its normal...so has murder is that normal...and if it is so normal...why does is go against natural law...they can't reproduce themselves...how does it exist if it is not a mental condition? so i guess we made the wrong decision...
864658
Not at all.  If someone wants to end their life, it should be THEIR decision.  Who is ANYone to tell me what to do with my body?  \n\nSo far, the government says I can't end my own life, and can't ingest drugs of my choice...both of which can be done without providing an ounce of revenue to a corporation or government btw.  So, why doesn't the govenment stop people from eating themselves to death?  I can sit at McDonalds and down big mac after big mac until I run out of dough, day in and day out, and become the fattest most digusting unhealthy blob of an individual, but as soon as I ingest a "controlled substance", or put a gun to my head, I'm in violation of the law.  How does that make sense?\n\nBTW, you can't compare this to abortion.  Aborted fetuses have no choice, but people stricken with terminal disease should be able to choose their own destiny.
684910
Absolutely not. Morality is a religious issue. \n\nGovernment should legislate based upon practical concerns and objective goals. Murder should be illegal because it causes violence, which disrupts the ability of society to function, and because it interferes with the victim's personal rights. It shouldn't be illegal because "only God can kill". Likewise, communications with a clergyman should be privileged because it serves the social goal of people seeking emotional help (same as a psychologist), and government has an interest in people being rational rather than having emotional breakdowns. Confessions are not legally privileged just because they are sacred in some religions.\n\nMost people don't actually take the time to figure out WHY something may be wrong or bad. Religions and/or politics simply tell them something is bad, and they just accept that conclusion without question.\n\nOnce you look at WHY something is bad, then the answer becomes clear. If it's bad because it interferes with a person's rights to life and liberty, or because it results in property damage, or because it harms the environment thus affecting the health of the community, or because it increases the risk of car accidents -- those are identifiable objective practical goals that are valid for the government to enforce via laws.\n\nIf it's bad because God made it a sin, or because your moral upbringing told you so, or because good people shouldn't do that -- those are not valid reasons to pass mundane laws. Granted, those may be moral reasons why you should choose not to do something. But the government should not not be dictating religious or moral beliefs, let alone attempting to enforce them.
13710
1)Just punishment for heinous crimes 2)prevents prison overcrowding 3)80% public support 4)prevents the possibility of escape 4)Detterent. I, personally am against the death penatly on the grounds that it eliminates the possibility of being proven innocent, it costs a lot, it is against both the bible and the 8th ammendment (cruel and unusual punishment), the prisoners are executed in the name of the state aka us, and, as oppose to the popular belief of "no pain" I have pages and pages of stories of how specific prisoners were victim to a prolonged electorcution/lethal ingection due to a malfunction in equipment. I mean, would YOU want to be subject to deadly poison coursing through your system for 5-15 minutes? I didn't think so.
628840
As I understand the basics of the legal arguments here, its about freedom of choice.....an interesting concept, when the federal government spends millions of dollars every year to treat self-induced cancer.\n\nI feel about this one the same way I feel about helmet laws.  If you want to smoke or not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, fine.  But sign a waiver saying you won't take a dime from taxpayers to treat the result of your foolish decisions.
144205
You can't compare legality for suicide, .... Who are they going to arrest if a person commits suicide??  If one "assists" in suicide, then it's murder
689513
I think it was a little bit of both. He was right for helping people who did not want to live an agonizing life and just wait around to die. \nBut it was also against the law. I do not know what his motives were, so I can not say if he was being kind to these people by helping them or if he was convincing them to die just for fun of having that type of control.
71449
i wish it were legal. If a person wants to die, then why not? dont tell me " life is beautiful, it has its ups and downs, keep ur chin up" or anything like that, i say if ur uhmmm maybe 23 and over then u can decide for yourself. and at least this way u r not getting anyone else involved where they may be harmed like throwing urself into traffic, setting a fire, jumping off a building. we have a surplus population anyway. it should be a persons choice. im not suicidal by the way lol..and dont mean only when they have some illness, if someone wants to die, let them. and dont tell me its agianst religion, the person who wants to die doesnt care obviously, its not there religion or they have given up on it. and dont say that u hurt the ppl u leave behind, the person that wants to die is hurting obviously so he needs to think about himself first. he has kids? well hes not gonna be a good father anyway if he wants to be dead, kids wil be better off....wow hey where is this debate, i want to check it out lol. good luck
803629
There is no justification for this. In Islam, we believe if you commit suicide, the only place to go is Hell. In the Qur'aan and Hadith(what the Prophet(p.b.u.h.) said) the manner in which a Muslim is supposed to fight a war is by fighting the army of the enemy, not its civilians. Extremists believe in suicide to make their point known and extremism has no place in Islam. We believe in fighting those people who fight with us, in the literal sense, meaning the soldier with the AK-47, not the woman with the child in her arms.
7041
Assisted suicide may be permitted under a state scheme, but it is not required under the federal Constitution.  The Supreme Court found in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) found that a Washington statute prohibiting assisted suicide was permissible.  A long-standing legal tradition in the United States, and in English common law history, exists that opposes assisted suicide.\n\nIt is still questionable whether a state may PERMIT assisted suicide, but Oregon has legalized it.  The recent disputes, however, have focused almost exclusively on whether Oregon may violate federal drug control laws when allowing assisted suicide, so the focus of the case is less upon assisted suicide and more about drug laws.  In theory, at least, the Supreme Court has never forbidden assisted suicide.  It's simply been historically opposed by state law, and morally opposed by most citizens.
239167
No...It is not the same thing!  They are not committing suicide for their country...they are committing suicide for their religion - not country! Americans who die for their country are making that sacrifice to defend the liberty and freedom that our nation and its people hold dear. A muslim commits suicide to instill fear and to kill and maim innocent men, women and children on purpose. There is a definite difference. They claim "death to the infidel". Do you know who an infidel is? It is anyone who does not bow the knee to allah...they are an infidel. They will even kill there own people to espose their view and impose their will. According to their own teachings...an infidel is not worthy to breathe the air that allah has provided. There is a difference and you'd better know it. It's not the same thing. There will come a day when it will matter. Don't believe the hype...our greatest threat is radical Islam.
16594
The moral issues you cited, by category, should be deemed lifestyle preferences. As a non-lawyer, but as someone who has studied law, my point of view of this issue is that the state should only intervene if there is demonstrable harm present. Some say it should be merely harm, or potential harm, but that will never wash in front of our Supreme Court.