To answer those...

Case 1: To me, it looks like that passage is suggesting that in "laying down one's life for one's friends" that individual is in fact doing a supposedly noble deed, by sacrificing themselves so that others may live. If broken down, that might be called suicide; however, it's looked at different, since that person's death is not due to their own wants or desires, but to ensure others may live. Essentially, it's a play on the old saying "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or one)."

Suicide is generally viewed as a selfish act, but something such as this would be as selfless as possible (at least when looked at objectively). If someone were leaving behind a spouse and children, they may not be so enamored with the idea, regardless of the fact it'd be their only ticket to survival.

I can understand this line of reasoning. I have absolutely no wish to die, but if my death were necessary so that my family may live, I'd do it. I'd hate it, but I'd do it.

Case 2: I wouldn't call this suicide (particularly since those doing it didn't actively choose it), although many today would probably refer to it as cruel and inhuman. The problem with this assessment is they'd be looking at it through a modern-day lens. We can't do that; we'd need to see things as those Native Americans did years ago. Survival was paramount and the old and infirm would merely slow down the tribe, perhaps making them more vulnerable to warring tribal nations. Even if that weren't the case, those who were in such terrible and uncurable or untreatable conditions would end up using food that could have gone to healthier and more active tribal members, therefore providing a greater benefit to the tribe.

It sounds crazy to many of us today, but I'd bet most of those who were old and infirm understood this and accepted their fate (at least as best they could), since that was their culture. They knew that the tribe as a whole was more important than any of them and for it to survive, they had to be cut loose. Once again, all of this comes down to the idea of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or one)."

Case 3: Once again, I don't believe this is suicide, since the patient isn't actively doing anything to cause his or her death. At best, this might be considered a form of "passive suicide" since the patient is choosing to not do something, as opposed to do something. Even so, if the prognosis was terminal and nothing could be done, why go through treatments that would only use up precious time and probably make him or her sick in the process? Why not spend what little time he or she has left enjoying life? To me, that seems like the anthesis to suicide.

What if a person is really really ugly, fat, stupid, has a teeny tiny penis, no money, family or friends and has absolutely nothing to look forward to in life?

Its been 12 years now since my brother hanged himself to a tree on his front yard and the pain of losing him is still the same ..there is so many question hang why he do it..

Hmm...A person cannot be all of that all at once. One or Two of those attributes probably is realistic. LOL. I don't see a person having all that attribute. Well, if they do, they probably will have money I'd say.

LuzC, my condolences. I'm sorry to hear about your brother. I can't imagine it happening to me, and what i'd do after seeing my sibling hanged themselves. Although sometimes I wish they did (Doesn't mean it, kidding).

Thank you!

Its hard especially when I am the one who come there first and untie the rope he use..its hard ..

Yes/Mercy/Yes/Yes

Question: what if someone is on Death Row? Do they have the right to kill themselves? Or do their lives belong to the state? In Texas's Polunsky Unit, they force feed inmates through the nose if they hunger strike.


(Note: This post does not mean I endorse state-sponsored murder.)

That's a good question.

I know in Huntsville (Texas, not Alabama) where the Walls Unit is, they do whatever it takes to keep the inmates alive until they execute them too, but that's probably because they have to as well. It's a lot like swabbing the lethal injection site with alchohol to avoid infection. Why bother when they're going to die anyway, right? But it's still procedure and they've been ordered to do so.

In think, when it comes to a Death Row inmate, their life does belong to the state in that situation. They've tried and sentenced by the state to die as punishment for their crime(s). If, after years of reviewing the case and numerous appeals, there's no change and the inmate is still slated to die by lethal injection, then he (or she, in some rare situations) should be forced to follow through on their sentence.

I know, it almost seems a little silly, in a way. If someone is dead, they're dead, right? Well, I suppose the idea is that if they kill themselves, then the state hasn't done their job and the sentence wasn't rendered properly. In addition, when an inmate -- Death Row or not -- commits suicide, it reflects very poorly on the prison and staff. As employees of the state criminal justice system, they have their own red tape to work through and incidents like that could potentially make things more difficult for them and their careers.