Suicide on 9/11 - Damned?

Originally posted by no1marauder
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?

You didn't reply to my input to this thread earlier on.

What I recall from the thread you referred to is that you called me an 'idiot'. Apart from that, if you showed anything, it was in your self-centered mind. Enough said.

Originally posted by dottewell
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.

I ain't one of them but why grow something that is wrong as through the grapevine there is a chance they will hear.You should still respect them whether you know they are here or not.
It isn't suicide because they didn't want to die.

Originally posted by windmill
I ain't one of them but why grow something that is wrong as through the grapevine there is a chance they will hear.You should still respect them whether you know they are here or not.
It isn't suicide because they didn't want to die.

Neither does someone who has a painful, incurable disease.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Neither does someone who has a painful, incurable disease.

That is a different situation.It lacks murderers.

Originally posted by windmill
That is a different situation.It lacks murderers.

What possible difference does the cause of the situation you are in have on the ultimate decision? You are being irrational.

Try this as a thought experiment: there are two people on the ledges on 9/11; both are there because of the terrorist attack. One decides that rather than being burned alive, he will jump to his death.

The second, in the same situation, decides to hold onto the ledge until the last moment fully expecting to die anyway. However, amazingly a helicopter is able to get through the smoke and fire, throw down a line and rescue him.

Both are victims of the terrorist attack. One is a suicide. See the difference?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What possible difference does the cause of the situation you are in have on the ultimate decision? You are being irrational.

The difference is the families who lost loved ones.It may hold no relevance to proving your points but to them you are irrelevent.
So now you are saying suicide is dictated on one's intelegence?

Originally posted by Nemesio
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

I haven't got your four cases to hand, but I think we were talking about the difference between someone who shoots themselves (let's say because they have terminal cancer) and a 9/11 jumper.

Both the pain and fear are obviously likely to be more blindingly acute in the case of the latter. That immediacy is also going to make it much harder to evaluate the situation and its consequences. There simply is not time. That is a morally relevant point regarding the state of mind of the person.

A "good" choice? In the case of someone with a terminal disease, I would start from the point of view that life has intrinsic value while it has appreciable quality. Secondly, there is the question of what that person can contribute to lives other people (not necessarily family, nor even friends), and what effect that person's premature death will have on those people. These are morally relevant points regarding the consequences of the act.

I do not believe taking one's own life is necessarily wrong. But it is something that has ethical implications. Surely you agree?

Originally posted by Nemesio
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

I disagree. You want me to set a fixed timeline when you fix none. It's ridiculous to compare imminent death with eutanasia.

Originally posted by Palynka
I disagree. You want me to set a fixed timeline when you fix none. It's ridiculous to compare imminent death with eutanasia.

What I want is for you to explain why the timing of death makes a difference
at all -- why imminent death and very, very proximate death entail different
moral stances.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
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 ...[text shortened]... b]my question above and explain how options
1 through 4 vary and I will explain.

Nemesio[/b]

So, your answer to the marauder's question in the first post ["My (marauder's)question: are they eternally damned?"] is "no".

Originally posted by ivanhoe
So, your answer to the marauder's question in the first post ["My (marauder's)question: are they eternally damned?"] is "no".

Pursuant to the section of Catechism you quoted, I think it is safe to say
that just about everyone who commits suicide is undergoing '[g]rave
psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or
torture' at the moment of commital.

So, yes, my answer is 'No.' And it would seem that the distinction that
the Church makes is the rule rather than the exception by all psychological
accounts.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Pursuant to the section of Catechism you quoted, I think it is safe to say
that just about everyone who commits suicide is undergoing '[g]rave
psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or
torture' at the moment of commital.

So, yes, my answer is 'No.' And it would seem that the distinction that
the Church makes is the rule rather than the exception by all psychological
accounts.

Nemesio

Nemesio: So, yes, my answer is 'No.'


Thank you.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]Nemesio: So, yes, my answer is 'No.'


Thank you.[/b]

It wasn't intended as a poll, Ivanhoe but as a springboard for discussion of people's views of the theological implications of suicide (if any).

Originally posted by no1marauder
It wasn't intended as a poll, Ivanhoe but as a springboard for discussion of people's views of the theological implications of suicide (if any).

Thanks for elaborating. The question remains then why you insisted I answered the question .... or didn't you ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Thanks for elaborating. The question remains then why you insisted I answered the question .... or didn't you ?

Because you did?

Ivanhoe: Answer: No.