Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by inked

That's why the data is pesky. It keeps getting the way. Remember the old axiom of scientism, "I know what I want/need/desire (the data to say). DO NOT CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS (or the lack of them)."

Ah, I see. Thank you. But in that light all data about absolutely everything will be pesky then, because there will always be someone who don't want to hear it.

No evolution debate here, people, if you want to resurrect that old duck, find the right thread (I'm sure there are quite a few about it around here somewhere. ) or start a new one.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Rian when we see a supernova from a star that was tens of millions of light years away from us do you have a problem accepting the fact that it is INDEED an exploding star? Or must we doubt our eyes?

I don't think we should doubt our eyes in general. What I think we need to be careful of are conclusions we draw about things in the past. Your example of supernovas is MUCH more supported by scientific evidence than evolution is. For example, we can study light and its properties in a lab - light exists in the present - and can apply what we observe to what we can observe in the present about the remnants of supernovas. This is a TON more than we can do for some of evolution's major claims.

EDIT - sorry, cross-posted with Earniel. I don't want to get into it anymore in this thread, either - just wanted to correct a few things

[Insidious Rex]

Well you got to sneak in a post so let me just do one quick one in reply myself. Fossils exist (the equivilent of super nova light) and we know enough from current life forms to extrapolate about the fossilized ones.

Now back to breweries err.. i mean homosexuality...

[Nurvingiel]

I bumped the Creationism/Evolitionism thread.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program... yay for gay, I say!

[Insidious Rex]

So… a government health agency is putting on a program about suicide among homosexuals and transgendered people but they aren’t allowed to actually mention “homosexuals and trandgendered� people in the presentation. Seems the push from the top is not only don’t let em marry and don’t let em have the same rights we have but marginalize them even when it comes to a critically important life and death topic so that we don’t have to be exposed to hearing that terminology. Under the rug you go a little more… And out of our sight so we can live normal lives without being troubled by hearing terms like “gay� and “transgendered�. Accept your second class status will you already.

I expect all you folks who rail on and on about the PCing of society to be outraged by this.

I expect all you folks who say we need to restrict their rights because we care about them to be outraged at this.

I expect all you folks who don’t want your government big-brothering how we think and talk to be outraged about this.

Equal time right?

Request to Edit Title of Talk On Gays, Suicide Stirs Ire
HHS Is Being Accused of Marginalization

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 16, 2005

A federal agency's efforts to remove the words "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual" and "transgender" from the program of a federally funded conference on suicide prevention have inspired scores of experts in mental health to flood the agency with angry e-mails.

"It is incredible, the venom from these people," said Mark Weber, a spokesman for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the agency within the Department of Health and Human Services that is funding the conference and told presenters they should remove the words from the title of a talk.

"My boss is being called a Nazi," Weber said, referring to SAMHSA Administrator Charles G. Curie, whom President Bush appointed in 2001 to run the $3.2 billion agency.
At issue is a conference on suicide prevention to be held Feb. 28 in Portland, Ore., and organized by the Suicide Prevention Resource Center of Newton, Mass., a SAMHSA contractor. On the program is a talk that, until recently, was titled "Suicide Prevention Among Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender Individuals."

Everyone seems to agree the topic is important. Studies have found that the suicide risk among people in these groups is two to three times higher than the average risk.

So it came as a surprise to Ron Bloodworth -- a former coordinator of youth suicide prevention for Oregon and one of three specialists leading the session -- when word came down from SAMHSA project manager Brenda Bruun that they should omit the four words that described, precisely, what the session was about.

Bloodworth was told it would be acceptable to use the term "sexual orientation." But that did not make sense to him. "Everyone has a sexual orientation," he said in an interview yesterday. "But this was about gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders."

Moreover, he noted, transgender people differ from others in terms of sexual identity, not sexual orientation.

"Unless you use an accurate term, the people you are trying to reach don't recognize themselves and don't attend," he said, adding that the agency told him he should not use "gender identity."

According to the agency's Web site, "SAMHSA's vision is a life in the community for everyone."

The title rewrite was one of several requested changes. Another was to add a session on faith-based suicide prevention, said Weber, who said he believes the brouhaha is all a misunderstanding.

SAMHSA prefers the term "sexual orientation" simply because it is more "inclusive," he said. And besides, he added, it was only a suggestion.

Asked how strong a suggestion, Weber replied: "Well, they do need to consider their funding source."

Upon due consideration, Bloodworth renamed the session "Suicide Prevention in Vulnerable Populations." But he is not happy.

"We find this behavior on the part of our government intolerable," he wrote in an e-mail to colleagues, in which he called upon the government to "end this shameful marginalization of an already marginalized at-risk population."

An HHS official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to upstage SAMHSA, said there is not a department-wide policy against using terms relating to sexual identity or orientation at federally funded venues. The official suggested it would be overreaching to link this incident with one in the fall of 2003 when hundreds of grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health bearing words relating to sexual identity or orientation fell under federal scrutiny.

Jerry Reed, executive director of the District-based Suicide Prevention Action Network USA, which has been a subcontractor on SAMHSA grants, defended the agency. "I have found them to be incredibly fair players and interested in making sure we reach out to all vulnerable communities," he said.

But Kenneth D. Stark, director of Washington state's division of alcohol and substance abuse and a member of SAMHSA's advisory committee, said he was surprised by the agency's stance and is unswayed by the "inclusiveness" rationale. "You have to ask: What's the problem?" he said. "I mean, other than something political, what is the problem with these words?"

[Rían]

Why were the words taken out? It's not clear. There's an innuendo why the words were taken out, but I don't go for innuendoes (for example, since they said there were "several" requested changes, only showing one isn't fair. And including a faith-based suicide prevention certainly is good - the VAST majority of people in America consider themselves "religious"). I think it looks like it may be some twisted PC-ness of not singling out gays - as they said, "inclusiveness". I wish there was more information.

BTW, I came across several articles (not Christian-based, so keep your hair on) that are claiming that the increased suicide rate among gays is based on a flawed study, and there really is no increased suicide rate. That's a very interesting thing - anyone heard anything about that? It actually goes against one of my arguments about how homosexuality is inherently unnatural, too, and thus would probably cause more suicides. I wonder what is correct in this important and tragic area - increased rates or not?

[inked]

I think this much ado about nothing. The suicide rates are data. It happens they are about sexual behavioural groups other than heterosexuals. If they hadn't changed the title then they would have been pilloried for not being inclusive enough. They did and it's still an offence against the non-heterosexual. This is known as a s...l....o.....w news day.

And its not like this was a big conference which individuals with the problems of being GLTB were attending; it was for providers. And I'm sure the precis of the talk that was available on printout or online didn't use those words, so how could the poor psychiatrists and psychologists figure it out? I mean at all my conferences I never get agenda and course/lecture descriptions and I wander aroung the multitude of offerings looking for something to fill up my CME hours!

Since the populations being the way they are, one could argue that the vast majority of heterosexual suicides were marginalized in the original title (providing as they do the baseline rate), ... but who cares? If you need to feel victimized as part of self-identity, any straw in a whirlwind must do...even on a s.....l....o...w news day, or perhaps particularly in these.

[Insidious Rex]

Are you guys missing the point on purpose? The program was FOR gays and transgenderds. Why not include that in the title? And its not like people simply forgot to and then the gay rights folks were yelling about it. Not at all. it WAS originally included and they HHS people were PRESSURED by more powerful forces above them... *pause*... to ELIMINATE that kind of language from this one specific program. It would be like if the Clinton administration had forced the Interior Department (or whoever would do it) to drop the word "American" from an "American History" symposium or something because that term offends certain people. You guys would be IRATE! There would be looting in the streets.

And Rian how come when you find out that your tax dollars are being used to promote a program dealing with suicide among gays that you change your tune NOW and say oh well its not actually a problem among gays? Were you implying that its a waste of money to focus on it? or that you think focusing on suicide specifically with gays is an unfair extra right?

[inked]

IR, it says clearly that it was a conference for providers on suicide prevention. I find no evidence that it was for the public. Since I have to regularly attend CME (continuing medical education) classes, I know how they set up these conferences and the individual lecture/symposium schedules. On arrival and registration the attendees will be given a syllabus for the entire program, precis of offered subjects (titles and brief descriptions), and opportunities to register for limited venue events. To argue that one single person would be in any mode harmed by their provider's inability to find this conference (if they wanted to attend it), is ludicrous in the extreme. I hope the average provider of these services is a notch or two above the average journalist who writes this tripe!

Your analogy with History is not a good one as set up. But if you imagine it as an American History Teachers conference with a title of Interior Department History rather than American Interior Department History, it might work out the same. All the teachers (providers) looking for that subject
(specific conference) will be able to find it if they wish to register to attend.

There will not be a crush of 10th to 12th grade HS students wandering hopelessly around the meeting place searching for the AMERICAN Interior Department History conference.

[Rían]

IRex, you have completely misunderstood me!
Calm down now and let me re-phrase things, and get rid of your assumptions about what I think. (I often misunderstand you, too, remember?)

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Are you guys missing the point on purpose? The program was FOR gays and transgenderds. Why not include that in the title?

I agree that it's a stupid decision!! OK? I AGREE! My point was that I think it was a stupid decision made in the name of political correctess!! (the stupidest of all stupid reasons to decide anything ) That somehow the idea of not "singling out" gays made someone make this stupid decision in the name of "inclusiveness". Do you understand me now? If the study was truly about gays specifically, then the title should show that, IMO, and people should NOT take it out in the name of "inclusiveness". Now perhaps it was about gays AND hets, and in that case, it could conceivably be something like "sexual orientation" as opposed to "gay". I'm on your side on this one, Rex!

And Rian how come when you find out that your tax dollars are being used to promote a program dealing with suicide among gays that you change your tune NOW and say oh well its not actually a problem among gays? Were you implying that its a waste of money to focus on it? or that you think focusing on suicide specifically with gays is an unfair extra right?

OK, Rex, you are WAAAAAAAY off here on what you think I'm thinking - please re-read my post and note that I am actually admitting that if it is indeed true that the suicide rate is NOT any higher among gays, that it actually takes away a big chunk of evidence that I have that says homosexuality is wrong! I was quite brave to say that, btw, but I believe in honesty and truth, so I said it. I was wondering which conclusion is really true, that's all. I don't think it's a waste of money at ALL to focus on it so there! Now please apologize for interpreting my ENTIRE post wrong

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

IR, it says clearly that it was a conference for providers on suicide prevention. I find no evidence that it was for the public.

I never said it was for the public. Did you miss the part where they said

So it came as a surprise to Ron Bloodworth -- a former coordinator of youth suicide prevention for Oregon and one of three specialists leading the session -- when word came down from SAMHSA project manager Brenda Bruun that they should omit the four words that described, precisely, what the session was about.

I mean this is pretty cut and dry. the conference MATERIAL was about suicide as a phenomenon among gay and transgendered populations. Why would you change the title?? Why are you defending them? I dont get it. If it worked the other way as I said youd be foaming at the mouth.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

My point was that I think it was a stupid decision made in the name of political correctess!!

I interpretted what you wrote as being its just another example of gays (liberals/academics) playing political correctness by trying to have the name in there to begin with. Plus your post came right before inked's ridiculous attempt to write off such double standardness by saying eh who cares. too bad for them. so i address it as a joint reply. if you actually meant to say you disagree with what i wrote then i think thats great.

OK, Rex, you are WAAAAAAAY off here on what you think I'm thinking - please re-read my post and note that I am actually admitting that if it is indeed true that the suicide rate is NOT any higher among gays, that it actually takes away a big chunk of evidence that I have that says homosexuality is wrong!

yes but you chose to finally come out with that evidence when someone brought up the fact that there was a government program to focus particularly on suicide prevention among gays and transgendered. so of course im gonna think geez why did she wait till NOW to say that.

[The Wizard from Milan]

I think that the program should have kept the mention "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual" and "transgender" as it was.
Given the amount of stigma that the society puts on LGBT people, and the fact that the LGBT youth is disproportionately unlikely to have family support, I expect the suicide rate to be much higher among LGBT youth.
I don't think that the higher rate of suicide can in any way be construed as to support the thesis that homosexuality is wrong.

I think that the fact that even the words ("gay," "lesbian," "bisexual" and "transgender") are considered unacceptable by some branch of the government is a big example of the stigma that causes the suicides

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I interpretted what you wrote as being its just another example of gays (liberals/academics) playing political correctness by trying to have the name in there to begin with. Plus your post came right before inked's ridiculous attempt to write off such double standardness by saying eh who cares. too bad for them. so i address it as a joint reply. if you actually meant to say you disagree with what i wrote then i think thats great.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "if you actually meant to say you disagree with what i wrote", so I'll just say that I think if the report addresses, specifically, suicide rates among gays, then the title should reflect that, and should NOT be changed for the sake of "inclusiveness". So it appears, as I said before, that I"m on your side.

yes but you chose to finally come out with that evidence when someone brought up the fact that there was a government program to focus particularly on suicide prevention among gays and transgendered. so of course im gonna think geez why did she wait till NOW to say that.

*SIGH*
You really think I'm mean, don't you?
I came across the articles a week or so ago, IIRC, and filed it away in my head to think about and hopefully research at a later time. When you mentioned that article that mentioned suicide rates among gays, OF COURSE it popped back into my head, and I mentioned it here. It's that simple. Sheesh! What, do you think I was suppressing it before? If I wanted to suppress it, why would I bring it up now? What motive did you think I had? Why did you think that I mentioned it now, besides the fact that the subject came up? I really can't think of a motive that you think I had

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I think that the program should have kept the mention "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual" and "transgender" as it was.
Given the amount of stigma that the society puts on LGBT people, and the fact that the LGBT youth is disproportionately unlikely to have family support, I expect the suicide rate to be much higher among LGBT youth.
I don't think that the higher rate of suicide can in any way be construed as to support the thesis that homosexuality is wrong.

I think that the fact that even the words ("gay," "lesbian," "bisexual" and "transgender") are considered unacceptable by some branch of the government is a big example of the stigma that causes the suicides

Even though I'm not sure what everyone's getting at with this article, I have to say I agree with you WfM.

[inked]

Stigma does not cause suicide. How else do you explain the vastly larger total number of non-GLBT suicides? By profound depression, overwhelming life-events, and auto-eroticism gone awry, etc, etc. One may reasonably ask why the rate is higher in the GLBT population. It is ludicrous to fall for the "society made me do it" rap. Individuals decide to do this, not societies. Some societies ritualize it and accept it and even expect it (eg, hari kari ). You might make that argument but absent the code of conduct of samurai and the like, this rationale does not work, IMHO.

Sui - Latin sui self + cide kill + self-kill(ing)

I do not mean to diminish the problem merely to point out that the claim that society is responsible for personal acts of self-destruction is to abnegate the possibility that the individual chooses to end their life or is responsible for their life. If, by a vicious twist of logic we apply the argued principle that life-not-worth-living justifies abortion, why should individuals choosing to act out retroctive self-abortion be denied the right to their judgment that life is not worth living?

How do you then argue that all life is worth preserving against the individual's choice (as is the case for suicide)? Isn't that a societal imposition on the alleged "right to die"? Which takes precedence and why?

[inked]

FYI, and RAYOR! That agenda thing again....

From mental disorder to civil-rights cause

INTERVIEW: Psychiatrist and Princeton law professor traces the advances of the gay-rights agenda in science and the law to a common source: political intimidation
by Marvin Olasky

PRINCETON, N.J.-A big contributor to the gay movement's political success is the portrayal of homosexuality as an orientation over which individuals have no control. Jeffrey Satinover, author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Baker Books, 1996) and other books, has practiced psychiatry since 1986 and come to a different understanding, which he explained at a recent conference of the Witherspoon Institute here.

Dr. Satinover is a graduate of M.I.T. (Humanities and Science), Harvard (Clinical Psychology), and Yale (Physics), and received an M.D. from the University of Texas Medical School. He presently conducts research into complex systems at the National Center for Scientific Research at the University of Nice in France and teaches civil liberties and constitutional law part-time at Princeton.

WORLD: You've argued, against today's conventional wisdom, that the idea of "sexual orientation" is a fiction. What's the scientific evidence?

JS: A nationwide University of Chicago study of sexuality in America in 1994 concluded, ". . . it is patently false that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured." Studies across the globe that have now sampled over 100,000 individuals have found the same.

We now know that in the majority of both men and women, "homosexuality," as defined by any scientifically rigorous criteria, spontaneously tends to "mutate" into heterosexuality over the course of a lifetime. The proportion of people who adopt a homosexual identity and the length of time they persist in holding on to it are affected primarily by environmental factors clearly identifiable in these epidemiologic studies. These factors-deemed "cultural" or "demographic"-include effects such as social networks, education, early sexual experiences, childhood sexual abuse, and cultural beliefs.

WORLD: How and why did the American Psychiatric Association misrepresent the evidence concerning homosexuality?

JS: In 1957, with quiet political support largely from the prominent UCLA psychiatrist Judd Marmor, Evelyn Hooker, an experimental psychologist (her expertise was with mice, not people) at UCLA, published a scientifically bogus paper that supposedly showed no differences in the psychopathology of homosexual and heterosexual males. In the late '60s she chaired a task force that excluded anyone who believed that there was anything in the least problematic with homosexuality-meaning she excluded the entire body of clinicians who until then had devoted their careers to the subject. She similarly ensured that all its mental-health members were collaborators of Alfred Kinsey.

Under the guise of its being a "mental-health" panel, and using the false cover of the Kinsey Report (which claimed to be scientific, but which even then had been long condemned by the American Statistical Association as invalid), Hooker's Task Force issued a set of "policy" recommendations based on the claim that homosexuality had been shown to be normal, a degree of bisexuality was the universal norm, and whatever unusual distress homosexuals might display was due to social prejudice. The elimination of all forms of social prejudice against homosexuality was a "mental-health" prerogative for the nation.

By the early '70s, Judd Marmor was on his way to the vice presidency of the American Psychiatric Association. He and a number of allies in the APA arranged to have outside gay activists disrupt APA meetings to protest the persistence of homosexuality as a diagnostic category within the APA's list of disorders. Eventually, these protests led to a series of meetings with the APA's "nomenclature committee" at which "research" was presented purportedly demonstrating no connection between homosexuality and psychopathology. These presentations were tendentious, the "research" consisting largely of Hooker's bogus work and Kinsey's data. With that, along with political pressure and the "civil-rights" argument, homosexuality was removed from the diagnostic manual.

Anyone who actually reads the studies examining the association between homosexuality and psychological disturbance will find a very strong association. What has never been clear until, perhaps, recently, is why. Perhaps the same problems that cause increased psychological distress also cause homosexuality. Perhaps homosexuality is an intrinsic psychopathology. Perhaps the social stigma experienced by being homosexual causes the psychological distress. Perhaps some unknown proportion of each. Perhaps some unknown proportion of each and a complex, nonlinear interaction among them over time. None of the early studies addressed these very obvious questions. They merely presumed the ideologically correct responses.

continued...

[inked]

continuation...

WORLD: How have Supreme Court decisions fit in with such misrepresentation?

JS: The mental-health organizations have submitted briefs to courts at every level, and have profoundly corrupted our understanding of human sexuality tacitly via their general influence. They influence judges' understanding before they become judges so that when a man or woman becomes a judge he is, for all purposes, an ignoramus with respect to homosexuality, full to the brim with sentimental platitudes.

These platitudinous outlooks "feel" deep, but are astoundingly shallow (the concept "sexual orientation" is an example-it is a "stopthought" that won't bear five minutes of serious scrutiny before dissolving into a welter of contradiction). But when a judge is handed an amicus brief that bears at its end a list of say five or 10 well-respected national or state mental-health professional organizations-he's impressed. Then he starts reading, and it's "The Emperor's New Robes." In learned-sounding terms, he's fed back all the nice-sounding pieties with which he's become familiar and comfortable. He doesn't have to stop and think for a second. He just has to be "nice."

So, over the years, the concept of "sexual orientation" has worked its way into the culture and up the court system to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court and in certain key state Supreme Court cases, especially in the Goodrich case in Massachusetts. The key U.S. Supreme Court cases are Romer and Lawrence. Leaving specific variations aside, all three approach homosexuality from the point of view of civil liberties-a misframing that goes all the way back to Hooker and the history I've mentioned.

It has been critical for the mental-health guilds to stand before the courts and say, "You see, your honors, we in particular, who are the very experts of what constitutes a mental disorder, proclaim that sexual orientation should not be discussed as a condition that is problematic and changeable, it is a normal and immutable state of the human being and therefore should be discussed in civil-rights terms, like race."

WORLD: How should the understanding that homosexuality is not a stable trait affect public policy?

JS: The entire legal argument (same-sex marriage, homosexual rights) rests upon the civil-rights argument, and this is based on the concept of "suspect class status." That's a technical term referring to the idea that you can define a group of people in some reasonable, meaningful way, and this definitional "boundary" results in their being subject to invidious discrimination.

The obvious example is being black. The way "suspect class status" is determined isn't totally mathematical, but it isn't totally fuzzy either. There's a good deal of common sense to it. We want to avoid having people cry "discrimination!" just when it suits them, in order to game the system. For example, I couldn't apply to the University of Michigan Law School as "black" under the recently decided affirmative-action decision because, having just returned from two weeks in the Caribbean, I've got such a terrific tan.

Since, to quote the University of Chicago study, "it is patently false that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured," you have absolutely no basis whatsoever for building a "suspect class" out of it.

WORLD: How should that understanding affect the way individuals react to those who identify themselves as homosexual?

JS: What you're left with are human beings, no different than you or me, who are, of course, sexual beings. Like you and me, their sexuality is broken in a broken world. The notion that "homosexuals" are in effect a "different species" (different genes) is ludicrous beyond belief. There is not the slightest evidence for that as anyone who actually reads the studies (not reports on the studies) knows.

Of course as one grows and changes, one "grooves" a pathway that becomes embedded and increasingly difficult to alter. Of course a different innate disposition places one at a different "risk profile" for all sorts of different paths in life. So what else is new? It is also true that people do sometimes want to change, and some do and some don't. This is true of everything. It's also true that few good things in life are easy, and no achievement is ever perfect.

That said, we should remember that homosexuality has risen to the top of the social-policy agenda because of the utter wreck we all have made of family life over the past 50 years. This horror cannot be blamed on anyone but us. -*

END

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/m...p?storyid=2094

[Insidious Rex]

So... the concept of homosexuality is simply a left wing ivory tower conspiracy some 50 years old. The truth is that gays are simply mentally handicapped heterosexuals in need of fixing. This is just great stuff...

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

Stigma does not cause suicide. How else do you explain the vastly larger total number of non-GLBT suicides?

There is a difference between necessity and sufficiency. And besides sufficiency and necessity a factor (e.g. social stigma) can increase (or decrease) the likelihood of an event happening; the change in likelihood can reach the 0,1 boundaries.

Originally Posted by inked

auto-eroticism gone awry

You said you have been to medical school. Do you actually practice medicine?

Originally Posted by inked

It is ludicrous to fall for the "society made me do it" rap.

It is ludicrous to deny that societal stigma can cause suicide in any person (besides LGBT).

Originally Posted by inked

Sui - Latin sui self + cide kill + self-kill(ing)

Ah, this is funny . Native speakers of English, might not understand the etimology, but I certainly knew it.
If instead you are giving to the etimology a definitional primacy, then I don't agree. That's not the way in which language evolve

Originally Posted by inked

I do not mean to diminish the problem merely to point out that the claim that society is responsible for personal acts of self-destruction is to abnegate the possibility that the individual chooses to end their life or is responsible for their life.

We can certainly agree on the obvious. So if a person decides to commit suicide because he or she is now permanently paralized, it is obvious that he or she chose it, but it is also obvious that there is a causal link between paralisys and suicide.
By the way I disagree with the English usage of saying "commint suicide" because in English one "commits crimes" and suicide is not a crime in my ethical systme. Therefore I think that it would be more ethical to call it "to suicide" or "to choose death" or "to choose to stop living"

Originally Posted by inked

If, by a vicious twist of logic we apply the argued principle that life-not-worth-living justifies abortion, why should individuals choosing to act out retroctive self-abortion be denied the right to their judgment that life is not worth living?

As I just explained you are completely off-track in the interpretation of my words and there is not the slightes incongruence in my words in this respect.

Originally Posted by inked

How do you then argue that all life is worth preserving against the individual's choice (as is the case for suicide)? Isn't that a societal imposition on the alleged "right to die"? Which takes precedence and why?

Oh, I think that "the right to die" is foundamental, but if A wishes to die because of the unethical actions of B, than it is right of C to step in and block B before he makes harm; A remains free to choose.