Good point. Should we just let someone commit suicide?

Yeah my bad. I insta deleted that after I realized I read your post wrong.

If they are insane or a danger to others, no.

Otherwise, their decision about happens to their own body takes precedence over what you think should happen to it.

That's basically what OP is asking though. The nun is basically committing suicide, and she may not know it. The question we must answer is should someone have the right to commit suicide if it doesn't harm anyone else. Not sure what I think... Ever since Doctor Kavorkian, I thought most people had decided assisted suicide was wrong.

So you think assisted suicide should be legal I assume?

No, that's not suicide in the traditional sense. It's suicide in the sense that you know for a fact you're going to die and there's nothing you're going to do to stop it, but not suicide in the sense that you're the one doing the killing.

I'm not so sure about making it legal, for real world practical reasons, but I am not morally opposed to it under certain circumstances.

Yeah nvm. It is different from suicide.

I guess my answer, then, would be this; If she's in her right mind, and thinks God wants her to stay, let her stay. If she's out of her mind, and losing it because of the environment, I think it would be best to intervene and rescue her.

I'm not sure we're communicating well with each other. (EDIT: really bad at communicating, actually. On re-reading, I see you already figured all this out. But I'll leave it for the sake of it anyway.)

I am saying that she believes she will be saved. She knows this because she believes God will save here for some reason.

OP knows that she will be raped and killed. He knows this because of the magic of hypotheticals.

Neither of these reasons will be very convincing to the other person.
A: "I know it."
B: "How do you know it?"
A: "I just do."
B: "Well I just know the opposite."
A: "How do you know it?"
B: "I just do."

Also, to join in the new convo, I believe 3 states in the US have legalized physician assisted suicide. I support it and believe it should be legalized nationwide.

Then you flat out disagree with the 'let people make their own decisions' ideal.

Physically lift a finger? No. Do not confuse this with just saying 'whatever' though. I would certainly try to talk them out of it.

Your impression is wrong. I do not know what else to tell you. I have no problem letting someone control their own actions because not letting them but letting someone else is ridiculous. Why in the hell should person A get to control person B but person B does not? Person A does not get to decide what person B thinks is best.

Really, the answers (should) have been very easy thus far. Come up with a tough one. Something like 'what if the person is stoned out of their mind?'

That's not true.

Alright, so you think in absolutes. I think I get it.

Lost Spoiler - but it applies and I'm curious to the answer of those who said 'yes' to dragging the nun away.

arggggh spoilers show on my phone you bastard!!!! (kidding, lost sucks)

So if a loved one had a gun in their mouth, would you ask them if they're stoned, drunk, on pills, etc...before attempting to stop them?

I mean, I'm with you on letting others do what they want if it doesn't hurt others (short of it being someone I know and care for), but I can't imagine taking time to ask these questions before attempting to stop them. Plus, how can you be sure they will be truthful in that situation?

Now, if it's someone I know and care for and they show over a period of time (how long, I don't know) that they'd rather die than live, I think at that point I'd have to respect their wishes.

But if it's the first time I think my reaction would be to attempt to forcefully stop them.

Interesting situation though because I truly am in favor of letting other do whatever if it doesn't hurt others. But if they take their life, it would, in most cases, hurt others emotionally. So does that still fit in the category of say, smoking pot?

I dunno I'm drunk right now so maybe I'll come back later when my head's clearr.

One has to differentiate between the hypothetical and the real world.

Clinically in the real world, suicide will almost always go hand in hand with mental disorders (barring a few cases mostly involving the extremely sick and/or elderly) or substance abuse. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it's fairly close to 100%.

It isn't as simple as "willingness to commit suicide" puts you in mental disorder category either (though admittedly it does not hurt).

Some disorders blocks the brain from cooking up the right amount of restraint for an idea such as suicide, just like people with no legs could have problems moving away from some newtonian disaster. Me and you might have little problems with both.

Now ofcourse we could just say..."but normal is what society has deemed it to be, so the guy with the different brain and the guy with different legs should be allowed to act for themselves".

That also makes a lot of sense in some laissez fairian paradise...but the world isn't laissez fairian. We wouldn't even be humans as we know it without the most basic of social exchange units...the family. For most of you, your parents did not just leave you in a fruit basket to fend for your own life...they actively intervened, took control, helped you and taught you...and they did so in a society that is based on our interaction with eachother...and it would absolutely not work if there wasn't willingness to help eachother in it. We can do without egoism, we can do without trade, we can do without egalitarianism, monarchs, priests...but there is no way we can go without some basic care for eachother.

Then some say "but I was a child" or "i would just have died"...well, then I merely ask...so why are you splitting such hairs? We're not hermits, we're creatures that co-exist in societies where we all to some degree rely on eachother and intervene in eachother's life.

In a hypothetical you can just say "ah, but the person is healthy and of her own mind" and everything is simple and straightforward.

I think that too many people are passing the individual's inaction leading to their death off as "something that does not harm others". If it was a family member who did this, and I was present and didn't do anything to save them, I would be completely wracked with guilt. I don't think I could ever convince myself that I did enough unless I managed to get them out of there, but my level of guilt would increase the less I did to help. It could do harm to those not present too. The death of a loved one is always quite distressing, but I think this increases when you know that it could easily have been prevented.

When somebody tries to take their life, if they are found in time, doctors will (uncontroversially, I think) try to save them. I don't think this is much different.

Only absolute in the sense that person A does not get to override person B's decision about what should happen to person B. You reject that principle when you REALLY do not like the decision. I do not. What the decision is is irrelevant with respect to the principle.

No, I would not ask them unless I suspected something. Also, whether or not it hurts people emotionally is irrelevant. It is when it violates someone else's rights that I object. You do not have the right to not be hurt emotionally by someone else's decision.

We are talking about people who are actively rejecting that help, though. One should not be forced to accept it. You are the first to bring up a tough scenario, though: what if the person is a child?

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”10:11
It might be the first time that we did see some people who have character and now we wonder what is wrong with them. What do we lose when we should just for a single time, only once not twice, ask ourselves: "What is wrong with me?"
If Mohammad and Jesus wouldn't have act like those people in that situation than those people are much greater than Jesus and Mohammad together.

See three posts above about rights. I am sure plenty of people get emotionally hurt this way. As for the doctors, their job is to heal the sick, not to discern whether or not a person really wanted to die and whether or not they should. They do not have time to try to discern that, and it is not part of their job.

I was ofcourse referring to people who actively rejected help, and there is little reason one should not force help on them as I explained in my post.

The scenario does not change if it is a child or not, that's just a cheap appeal to emotion. Either you accept difference in cognitive function as a consideration that needs be done (disorder or lack of adult cognitive faculty) or you don't.

Ok, thanks. I've thought about this some, and Now i think that I would still try to stop a loved one the first time it happened, and ask that they take a bit of time just to be sure it is what they want. If they reflect on it for a period of time (how long i dont know) and still want to go through with it, I would respect their choice. This might be hypocritical in the big picture.

On the suicide front I have a question for theists who:

1. Would allow someone to make their own decision and commit suicide
2. Believe that suicide is a sin

Do you care if two consenting homosexual adults want to get married? or have anal sex?

just curious.

This needs context. Illustrate with an example, please. Like it was mentioned earlier, stopping somebody from blowing their brains out and letting them choose to wait for their inevitable murders are two very different situations. Which one are you talking about?

But like tame_deuces said, nearly 100% of the time the person making the conscious choice to kill themselves is in a state of mental disorder. And you would think so, naturally.