An Example Of Why Logic Many Times Cannot Be Used To Adduce Biblical Truth
I have been reading a work by Kant and today just got in a work by Hume. I have been interested for a while in the 'right to suicide' debate and believe as a legislative matter the government should budge on its stance on suicide. I make note of several things here:
1) The government has, except for a number of years in the 1970s and 1980s, practiced capital punishment against its own citizens. In other words, they have rights to terminate your life but you do not.
a) Capital punishment has also unfortunately led to the execution of many innocent people.
2) The government in the last few years has now declared lawful the assassination of US citizens.
3) The government's intervention into health care has resulted in the insurance of a few individuals who were receiving life-saving medical care being canceled. They will die because of government interference.
4) Growing police brutality and the fact that many people have been murdered by patrolling officers without even probable cause for arrest.
6) The cozy relationship between Big Pharma and psychiatry, which suggests many interventions against the mentally ill are the result of vested interests and large corporations profiting off the lives of people.
The government has demonstrated by its actions that it has NO respect for life. So if someone wants to end their life, then why does the government feel the need to restrain them from doing so?
B. Medications for the Mentally Ill
The government can force you to take drugs and then they can demand you stop taking them!
1) Laws in the US that allow for the forced drugging of some individuals
2) Yet if you go to jail or prison, law enforcement can refuse you life-saving medical treatment, which may be in the form of benzodiazeopines which are habit-forming and often prescribed in the cases of seizure disorders. Because of their street value jails routinely restrict this medication from inmates and there have been cases where the inmate has gotten sick and died, for instance, having a seizure, falling, and slamming their head into the hard floor.
C. Medications generally
1) Interventions are often made in the case of children of religious parents of certain religious sects that oppose some or all medical treatment.
2) Yet the government also at times, such as described at B(2), also interjects itself to refuse a person medical treatment, resulting in their death. They mean to say they can force you to accept deadly treatment, deny you life-saving treatment, as well as make any and all treatment decisions for you!
3) The forced treatment of society as evidence through the variety of immunization laws. Some vaccinations provide virtually zero side effects and were instrumental in the suppression of childhood diseases that in previous generations killed thousands of youngsters. But some of the mandates have been ridiculous and off base, as well as being far more harmful than beneficial, the 1978 flu shot debacle being one noted example, in which the vaccine itself killed several times more than the seasonal flu. You might also consider the Gardasil/Cervarix vaccine that was briefly made mandatory in Texas and in the United Kingdom that was especially harmful in terms of the neurological effects including dystonic disorders and Guillain-Barré syndrome. The government still has shown utter disregard for life when it comes to novel varieties of flu virus including the media fear campaign for swine and avian flus, where they would have liked to demand unwitting citizens take an unnecessary vaccine for a flu that was not an impending disaster that the media wanted you to think.
The only conclusions that can be drawn is the government has NO respect for life and often times shows that it considers its citizens hardly more than slaves when it stands to profit Big Pharma and the bought-off politicians. If a person wants to commit suicide, then why should we stop them? I suggest that treatment be offered but if the person insists upon it then they should be left to do as they wish. In cases of terminal illness, a person should have even greater opportunity through doctor-assisted or other provisions to aid in the procedure.
My First Amendment argument states that pursuant to the right of religious freedom, if the person is content with any of the spiritual implications of suicide, that is, they are convinced a more tranquil life awaits them on the other side, or that otherwise the cessation of the physical life here will result in a better hereafter, then to deny him his right to commit suicide is a direct interference in his solemn practice of religion. Suicide should be a protected act under the First Amendment.
The Sorry Christian Argument and Why It Is False
The argument Christians have always made is
x) If forgiveness of sins requires repentance and
y) A person kills themselves
z) A person cannot be forgiven if they commit suicide. They will burn in hell.
This argument however is false. It shows all the signs of logical ingenuity and has the appearance of soundness. There is a presupposition at (x) which is to say that a person who commits suicide who also regrets the decision (1) and sees no other way out (2) that God cannot have mercy on and suggests that God is limited by an outside factor beyond Himself (3) that mandates he condemn the sufferer to hell, neither of which are true. God is not limited by an outside law (in this case). If the act is done in rebellion, that is something that I would not expect God to forgive. 1 Samuel 15:23 "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft..." In this case, it can be seen how God could have mercy on someone who is suffering affliction so great that he feels the need to end his own life.
Matthew 12:31 "And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
It says plain as day right here that there is one unforgivable sin. How can suicide be unforgivable if that violates the basic sense of the Word? It can't. But nevertheless men still feel that their 'logic' trumps that of God's. The next assumption, to continue from (1), (2), and (3), is that Jesus Himself is not clever enough to see the logic of the suicide question, that a man is worthy to correct the Son of God as being incorrect.
If you were to study the philosophical writings on the subject, you will see that the majority of the philosophers, at least the classical philosophers, made arguments against suicide. My only case is that of Bastiat's and Locke's, of the government's delineated roles in the classical sense, is to protect life, liberty, and property and not to make moral prescriptions or laws restricting the habits of others that even the majority finds detestable. That the public finds an activity distasteful or grotesque is hardly grounds for its prohibition. Mill goes on to argue that a young man, a father with children, is a case of why suicide should be unlawful, because his action tends toward the destitution and impoverishing of the mother and children. To answer that my friends, requires a philosopher greater than I.