That's not entirely honest - you're also trying to argue that having this option is not a good or valid option (you called "debatable") and are trying to steer the conversation by creating a false equivalency between assistance in dying and suicide, which are not the same thing.

I fully agree with your example - someone unaliving themselves on a deserted island committed suicide. Never said they didn't.

What I said, and what you're conveniently omitting, is that suicide is an act by an individual, there is no other party to the unaliving. This is not the case in assistance in dying, and there's very good legal reason why we consider these distinct from eachother, and from murder (to your earlier point).

Even if we forget the traumatic angle I brought up earlier, surely you must see the difference between an act that involves one party and an act that involves two parties with express intent and consent.

What you're trying to do is the same as arguing masturbation and sex are the same thing because they end with the same result (orgasm).

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

That’s not entirely honest - you’re also trying to argue that having this option is not a good or valid option (you called “debatable”)

Saying it's "debatable" is not the same thing as asserting it's not a good or valid option. It just means that whether it's good or valid hasn't been conclusively established.

Assisted suicide is a form or suicide that is assisted. The thing that makes it different between it and regular suicide is that someone else is assisting. You've chosen the example of masturbation vs sex because it's one of the few analogies that would work for you. Tandem skiing is skiing. Assisted murder is murder. Skydiving with an instructor is skydiving.

The onus is on you to present why the addition of an assistant meaningfully changes the nature of the act.

surely you must see the difference between an act that involves one party and an act that involves two parties with express intent and consent.

I see no such thing. Solo suicide involves intent, and there is no need for consent because there isn't a second person involved. How on earth would the addition of a second person make it meaningfully different? Are you refusing to say the reason because you think it's obvious, or because it doesn't exist?

[–] ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago

You're looking for a reason but refuse to accept one when provided. The reason assistance in dying is not suicide is blatantly obvious; the definition of suicide is an act in which one person takes their own life. End of sentence. Adding another person makes it a different act, and whether you like it or not, at least the legal system agrees on this.

I'm done debating this. Have a good day.

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The thing with suicide is that there's always at least a second person. If you do it the assisted way, you do it with people trained and willing to do it to help you. If you do it the old fashioned way, you traumatize the person that ends up finding you in whichever place you decided to do it. And then there's an ambulance or some other service that comes to pick up the body, etc.

Assisted suicide is better for everyone involved. There's no question about it. As others have said. There's no reason why we see euthanasia as humane but not assisted suicide. It's the same. Even more humane because the human can consent, the pet can't.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

Those are all arguments for why assisted suicide is preferable to non-assisted suicide. They are not arguments for why assisted suicide isn't suicide.

If someone wants to say, "I think people who want to commit suicide should have a legal pathway to commit suicide," they're entitled to their views. But if they say, "I think that assisted suicide isn't a form of suicide" then they're lying, both to themselves and others, and I think it's interesting to pursue why they feel the need to do.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What the fuck is "unaliving". Are you saying that unironically? If so, it's staggeringly Orwellian.

[–] ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No, it's common parlance that attempts to avoid previous words associated with stigma.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Okay, it's fucking ridiculous. And literal Newspeak.