Suicide on 9/11 - Damned?

Originally posted by Palynka
No, I didn't say that. The moment for me is wider than in marauder's view. For him, one minute, a few seconds, makes all the difference. For me death is there, at that moment, it makes no difference how many seconds or minutes he lives by taking one or the other choice. [/b]

How long is a 'moment' because in options 2 and 3, the moment of death is also
imminent?

You said 1 was not suicide, but 2 and 3 are, even though death is certain, painful
and knocking on the door.

This is why I asked about your time frame.

Nemesio

Originally posted by dottewell
Don't you accept there is a moral difference between someone who casts themselves out of a window when in enormous pain and fear and knowing they are going to die and someone who calmly shoots themselves in the head despite having family etc. and access to all manner of palliative care?

I think someone who 'calmly shoots themselves in the head' is most assuredly in
enormous pain and fear. When someone committs suicide, it is because they feel
like they have no other choice (like the person jumping out the window to avoid
the flames).

I'm not saying that they don't have other choices, but their mental state renders
it such that they do not see those choices.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Except yours. What is your position in all this ?

You quoted this:

Therefore, objectively, suicide is a mortal sin. (Moreover, to help someone commit suicide is also a mortal sin.) Here though we must remember that for a sin to be mortal and cost someone salvation, the objective action must be grave or serious matter (which in this case the taking of one's own life is); the person must have an informed intellect (know that this is wrong); and the person must give full consent of the will (intend to commit this action). In the case of suicide, a person may not have given full consent of the will. Fear, force, ignorance, habit, passion and psychological problems can impede the exercise of the will so that a person may not be fully responsible or even responsible at all for an action. Here again the Catechism states, "Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide" (no. 2282).

I feel that nobody who commits suicide is ever free of 'grave psychological distrubances...'
so I feel no one who is being wholly objective (as described above) is ever going to
commit suicide.

Further, I feel that the 'sin' of suicide exists entirely in the spiritual dimension and has
no place in law -- that is, laws prohibiting assisted suicide are only supportable in the context
of a spiritual construct.

If you disagree, then please address my question above and explain how options
1 through 4 vary and I will explain.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I think someone who 'calmly shoots themselves in the head' is most assuredly in
enormous pain and fear. When someone committs suicide, it is because they feel
like they have no other choice (like the person jumping out the window to avoid
the flames).

I'm not saying that they don't have other choices, but their mental state renders
it such that they do not see those choices.

Nemesio

But not the same kind of pain and fear, certainly in most cases. And while most may feel they have no other choice, this is not always the case - some just feel they have no other good choice. Often they are wrong and have not done all they can to explore the alternatives.

In that situation suicide can be selfish, although I would accept that the majority of people who commit pre-mediated suicide may well have mental or other problems which at least absolve them of some blame.

Originally posted by dottewell
I don't think you understand. I am talking about people who know they are going to die anyway _chosing_ to die in a quicker and less painful way. At that moment, they may indeed want to die (quickly and without pain). Yes, given the choice they would rather not die at all; but that is not the choice they are faced with.

Some of the less frantic jumper ...[text shortened]... u don't understand something, perhaps you should ask someone to clarify rather than be so rude.

I do understand it....it is murder.You and other's do not seem to understand that you justify what they did to argue a need to be right for whatever sick reasons.If you want to talk about a situation of time bearing suicide then why not bring up a situation that holds relevance.One must surley wonder why?
Yes those people were faced with two choices but their intentions were for neither.There is no moral aspects that those families have to go through in regards to suicide as it wasn't...it was murder from those whose intentions were to kill!

Originally posted by windmill
I do understand it....it is murder.You and other's do not seem to understand that you justify what they did to argue a need to be right for whatever sick reasons.If you want to talk about a situation of time bearing suicide then why not bring up a situation that holds relevance.One must surley wonder why?
Yes those people w ...[text shortened]... gh in regards to suicide as it wasn't...it was murder from those whose intentions were to kill!

How am I justifying what anyone did? This is just a matter of semantics, not ethics.

"Their intentions were for neither" - I said they did not choose the choice they were faced with. No one would.

The ethics of the situation are clear. The families of the dead know that. It is clear who the villains are. There is no point trying to claim moral superiority.

Originally posted by dottewell
How am I justifying what anyone did? This is just a matter of semantics, not ethics.

"Their intentions were for neither" - I said they did not choose the choice they were faced with. No one would.

The ethics of the situation are clear. The families of the dead know that. It is clear who the villains are. There is no point trying to claim moral superiority.

As there isn't when someone has an incurable disease and decides to end their suffering. The families of the dead know that, too.

Originally posted by no1marauder
As there isn't when someone has an incurable disease and decides to end their suffering. The families of the dead know that, too.

The point is that the ethics of the situation depend on various things, such as the options open to the person in question and what they could still do to contribute positively to the lives of others, and to give their own life value. The semantic question (do we call this action suicide or not) is unimportant.

I support the right of people with incurable diseases to take their own lives. I would expect them to have fully considered the consequences, to have spoken to their families, etc. I do not, however, see a moral equivalence between this case and that of the 9/11 jumpers, who had no such responsibilities.

BTW from the response I got above, I begin to see the point of your posing the original question.

Originally posted by dottewell
How am I justifying what anyone did? This is just a matter of semantics, not ethics.

"Their intentions were for neither" - I said they did not choose the choice they were faced with. No one would.

The ethics of the situation are clear. The families of the dead know that. It is clear who the villains are. There is no point trying to claim moral superiority.

You are justifying it by saying it is suicide when it is not.
....and the choice they deceided to take'whichever one'was not their intentions also.It isn't suicde.Just because of choices,time or whatever anyone else wants to bring up has no relevance to it being a suicide.
Mabey you should ask yourself why i wrote that??????

Originally posted by windmill
You are justifying it by saying it is suicide when it is not.
....and the choice they deceided to take'whichever one'was not their intentions also.It isn't suicde.Just because of choices,time or whatever anyone else wants to bring up has no relevance to it being a suicide.
Mabey you should ask yourself why i wrote that??????

If you are saying you are a friend or relative of someone who died in 9/11, then you have my fullest sympathy. I have nothing but contempt for the people who committed that atrocity and of course accept that none of the victims had any responsibility for their deaths.

That is the whole point of what I have been saying. To me, the semantic question of whether that last action of jumping can be called "suicide" is utterly irrelevant.

Originally posted by dottewell
The point is that the ethics of the situation depend on various things, such as the options open to the person in question and what they could still do to contribute positively to the lives of others, and to give their own life value. The semantic question (do we call this action suicide or not) is unimportant.

I support the right of people wit ...[text shortened]... TW from the response I got above, I begin to see the point of your posing the original question.

The semantic question is important to those who want to say that suicide is a one way ticket to Hell, but then wish to exclude certain acts of suicide on dubious, semantical grounds. We see in this thread people saying I am "accusing" someone of committing suicide, when to me that makes no sense - you "accuse" people of something you believe is wrong. Some people here are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The semantic question is important to those who want to say that suicide is a one way ticket to Hell, but then wish to exclude certain acts of suicide on dubious, semantical grounds. We see in this thread people saying I am "accusing" someone of committing suicide, when to me that makes no sense - you "accuse" people of something you believe is wrong. Some people here are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Pseudo-rational egotripping may be seen as criminal by innocent persons whose's values and beliefs are being harassed. Please do us a fovour and try this in a real courtroom.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The semantic question is important to those who want to say that suicide is a one way ticket to Hell, but then wish to exclude certain acts of suicide on dubious, semantical grounds.

I agree with that. I did not think there were many such people, and Ivanhoe's cut-and-paste seemed eminently reasonable.

Sadly, other religious contributors seem to have a different view.

Originally posted by Mephisto2
Pseudo-rational egotripping may be seen as criminal by innocent persons whose's values and beliefs are being harassed. Please do us a fovour and try this in a real courtroom.

BOOHOO! Still mad that I showed you don't know jack about endgames I see. Do you have anything to add to the thread besides your silly personal attacks?

Originally posted by dottewell
But not the same kind of pain and fear, certainly in most cases. And while most may feel they have no other choice, this is not always the case - some just feel they have no other good choice. Often they are wrong and have not done all they can to explore the alternatives.

Can you explain the significant differences in 'pain and fear'
between options 1 and 2?

You are introducing the word 'good' as in 'good choice.'

Can you explain in options 2 and 3 how not choosing suicide is
a 'good' choice?

Nemesio