Rebuttals to justifications for coercive suicide "prevention" #1: Permanence

[kaizenmaster]

Preface

Hello. This is my first post. I want to write a series contesting justifications for coercive suicide "prevention". The title of every post will be the same except for the number and the justification being challenged. Tell me what you think about this idea. If you come up with critiques, feel free to comment them. I'm not that good at writing, but I will try to be "slow" in my writings so that everyone can understand what I'm saying, but if people want me to change my style of writing, I can do so.

In addition to the above, the posts in this series will be edited as I hone my arguments. I will add the edit as an amendment. I might also polish my writings, so don't be surprised if the text changes. The message itself won't be changed.

The justification that this post will challenge is the sentiment "suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem".


Clarifying the opposition's position

The sentiment might sound great as a slogan, but is nonsensical as a justification.

Let's assume that the sentiment means that suicide has permanent and irreversible consequences. Why is this viewed as being the case specifically in the case of suicide (and other things, such as getting an abortion, having a kid, getting a tattoo, etc.)? What makes suicide (and the others) special in this connection? Well, suicide results in death, and dead people cannot do anything. The fact of not being able to do anything is the permanent consequence of suicide. So, the idea is that suicide is a permanent decision by virtue of resulting in death.

Compare this to, say, getting a tattoo. For the sake of simplicity, when I speak of getting a tattoo, I am referring to getting a tattoo during times when it was impossible to remove them.
Alright, so people say that this is a permanent decision as well. Why? Because tattoos stay on your body. Because they stay on your body permanently, they permanently affect the rest of your life. You go to a bar, someone sees your tattoos, and instantly makes conclusions about your character. You cannot escape this.

In sum, when people say "suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem", they are seemingly saying "this action will result in you being dead indefinitely". I will show that this is only partially true - that when people use the word "permanent" to describe getting tattoos and committing suicide, they are not just impartially describing the nature of the action, but also making a value judgement about it, thus making all this talk about "permanence" into rhetoric.


The critique

I will try to show that all decisions and their consequences are equally permanent.

Say you eat ice cream today. For the sake of the opposition's position, let's say that the ice cream leaves absolutely no change on your body. Nobody calls this kind of decision permanent. Yet, by eating ice cream, you have permanently imprinted in time the fact of having done so. In addition, your next action will be "taken off of" the circumstances at the end of having eaten the ice cream. So, strictly speaking, the consequences of having eaten ice cream last until the day you die. In fact, they last until the end of the universe, as your behavior determines the location, time, and circumstance of your death. The universe will then "pick up" off of those circumstances. In fact, since you affect other people and other things, and those people and things will go on to affect other things as well, your death is irrelevant to the fact that every decision you make has consequences beyond your lifetime.

This applies in the case of getting tattoos as well. People say that it is a permanent decision, and that by virtue of it being a permanent decision one should not do it. But, as I hope I've shown, every decision is a permanent decision.

What I am essentially saying is that viewing some decisions as having permanent consequences and others as not having permanent consequences is a mistake. (I should add here that by virtue of doing something, such as eating ice cream, you will always not be doing something else. Thus, every decision is a permanent decision in that sense as well. By eating ice cream, you have now permanently not done something else at that particular time, which has consequences of its own. For instance, what if instead of eating ice cream you went to drink milk, spilled it, slipped, and died?)

Interestingly, even the decision to continue to live is ipso facto a permanent decision, as you cannot "unlive" the time you have lived nor can you "undo" the things you have done (strictly speaking, all you can do is do something else). In addition, living has permanent consequences as well, as I've shown above. Yet, you don't see the anti-suicide crowd making the case for abandoning "suicide prevention" because the decision to live has permanent consequences. Nobody has ever said "Don't live! It's a permanent and irreversible decision to live another day!"

This should make it clear that the appeal to permanence is a value judgement masquerading as a neutral statement of fact. It is a selective indignation.


NOTE: What I was trying to say in the second to last paragraph is that you can decide to affect things by living or you can decide to affect things by dying. Either way, you will affect things. Your choice.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I enjoyed your reasoning. I think emphasis should also be put on this 'normie' idea that all problems are temporary. I'd argue- they're not. Even the most benign of problems will continue to be a problem if they severely affect the individual.

What kinds of things bother us and to what extent varies from person to person. For some people, we can probably all agree that their set of troubles are intolerable and pretty much impossible to fix. Others though, we may not ourselves understand why that person is struggling so much. The simple fact is- that they are! They want to kill themselves over it! And perhaps, they feel they can't or don't want to find a way to change their situation.

I think so much about that statement is projecting their views of life on us. Firstly, that everyone automatically views life as something precious and worth fighting for. We don't all have that feeling. We don't all see death as a bad thing even. They likely have a different view when it comes to euthanising pets if they are in that much pain. They see that as 'the kind thing to do'.

But mostly, it annoys me that they assume to know that what's bothering us can be solved and that it is temporary. I'd argue that plenty of people here have such deep seated trauma, mental illness, a long history of ideation- it becomes who we are. It takes enormous amounts of will power, effort and courage to change who you are. I suspect most of us are too tired and afraid to affect real change now- so- just how do we solve problems that basically reside in our character?!!

We don't. We just keep slapping bandaids over them. So- I'd argue that by trying to continue to live for some of us, we simply have to come up with temporary coping mechanisms to permanent problems. Sometimes, we've just had enough of doing that.

 

[kaizenmaster]

I enjoyed your reasoning. I think emphasis should also be put on this 'normie' idea that all problems are temporary. I'd argue- they're not. Even the most benign of problems will continue to be a problem if they severely affect the individual.

What kinds of things bother us and to what extent varies from person to person. For some people, we can probably all agree that their set of troubles are intolerable and pretty much impossible to fix. Others though, we may not ourselves understand why that person is struggling so much. The simple fact is- that they are! They want to kill themselves over it! And perhaps, they feel they can't or don't want to find a way to change their situation.

I think so much about that statement is projecting their views of life on us. Firstly, that everyone automatically views life as something precious and worth fighting for. We don't all have that feeling. We don't all see death as a bad thing even. They likely have a different view when it comes to euthanising pets if they are in that much pain. They see that as 'the kind thing to do'.

But mostly, it annoys me that they assume to know that what's bothering us can be solved and that it is temporary. I'd argue that plenty of people here have such deep seated trauma, mental illness, a long history of ideation- it becomes who we are. It takes enormous amounts of will power, effort and courage to change who you are. I suspect most of us are too tired and afraid to affect real change now- so- just how do we solve problems that basically reside in our character?!!

We don't. We just keep slapping bandaids over them. So- I'd argue that by trying to continue to live for some of us, we simply have to come up with temporary coping mechanisms to permanent problems. Sometimes, we've just had enough of doing that.

Thank you for your kind words. I agree with much of what you have said.

Especially what you said about people viewing things as "obviously true/false" and "obviously bad/good" is of special importance to me. I will speak about this issue more in-depth in the upcoming posts. It is interesting that we so often treat attributions as attributes. For instance, what is a person actually saying when he calls murder wrong? Is "wrongness" and attribute of the act of murdering another? The answer must be no, as "wrong" is a value judgement, which are made by persons. Thus, when a person calls something wrong, he is not communicating about that thing. Instead, he is relaying information about himself, specifically his own values. Despite this, we still hear individuals say things like "Murder is obviously wrong!" (It should be noted that an individual may be able to relay information to person B about person A by telling person B that person A a bad person. However, this is only possible if person B knows what the values of the person calling person A bad are.)

Further posts in this series, I will touch on some of the phenomena you have brought up in your comment, with the ideas of irrationality, arbitrariness, and impulsivity being among them. Again, thank you for your kind words.

 

[Alexei_Kirillov]

I despise this platitude as well but I'm going to (gently) push back a bit against the permanence angle.

I think the problem here is that death provokes a deep-seated aversion--even dread--in most people, that makes it so that it's in a category of its own and cannot be compared to any other experience. Which, honestly, is fair. Sure, logically speaking, you can't undo eating the ice cream or getting the tattoo, but after the fact, you will still have the option to make other, maybe different decisions. These decisions are not permanent in the sense that they don't foreclose on all other future decisions, and I think that's usually what people have in mind when they caution against "permanent" decisions.

For example, getting an optional hysterectomy is taken very seriously because it forecloses on the possibility of having children in the future. In a similar way, death renders all future decisions obsolete, and this is why it's so uniquely terrifying to people, because it is the only thing in this universe that has that power. It is not an action that can be rectified or compensated for or even regretted. IMO the problem with this slogan is moreso in the value judgement, as you later discussed. Pro-lifers assume that not having the ability to make decisions in the future is inherently a bad thing, which is not obvious to me given the nature of nonexistence. Where there is no want or need, and no possibility to want or need, then there is no deprivation.

Anyway I always appreciate it when people put effort into longer posts, looking forward to the next in the series :)

 

[kaizenmaster]

I despise this platitude as well but I'm going to (gently) push back a bit against the permanence angle.

I think the problem here is that death provokes a deep-seated aversion--even dread--in most people, that makes it so that it's in a category of its own and cannot be compared to any other experience. Which, honestly, is fair. Sure, logically speaking, you can't undo eating the ice cream or getting the tattoo, but after the fact, you will still have the option to make other, maybe different decisions. These decisions are not permanent in the sense that they don't foreclose on all other future decisions, and I think that's usually what people have in mind when they caution against "permanent" decisions.

For example, getting an optional hysterectomy is taken very seriously because it forecloses on the possibility of having children in the future. In a similar way, death renders all future decisions obsolete, and this is why it's so uniquely terrifying to people, because it is the only thing in this universe that has that power. It is not an action that can be rectified or compensated for or even regretted. IMO the problem with this slogan is moreso in the value judgement, as you later discussed. Pro-lifers assume that not having the ability to make decisions in the future is inherently a bad thing, which is not obvious to me given the nature of nonexistence. Where there is no want or need, and no possibility to want or need, then there is no deprivation.

Anyway I always appreciate it when people put effort into longer posts, looking forward to the next in the series :)

Thank you for your honest and well thought out critique, as well as your kind words. I will briefly share my views regarding your objection in this comment.

First, the issue of foreclosing all future options so that the person does not have the option to make other decisions. I will quote two relevant paragraphs from my original post:

"[Say you eat ice cream]...your next action will be "taken off of" the circumstances at the end of having eaten the ice cream. So, strictly speaking, the consequences of having eaten ice cream last until the day you die. In fact, they last until the end of the universe, as your behavior determines the location, time, and circumstance of your death. The universe will then "pick up" off of those circumstances. In fact, since you affect other people and other things, and those people and things will go on to affect other things as well, your death is irrelevant to the fact that every decision you make has consequences beyond your lifetime."

"I should add here that by virtue of doing something, such as eating ice cream, you will always not be doing something else. Thus, every decision is a permanent decision in that sense as well. By eating ice cream, you have now permanently not done something else at that particular time, which has consequences of its own. For instance, what if instead of eating ice cream you went to drink milk, spilled it, slipped, and died."

I will rephrase your position to make it clear what I am trying to say, so please correct me if I have accidentally misunderstood and misrepresented you: When a person makes a permanent decision, such as the decision to die or to get a hysterectomy, he is now in a world where a set of possibilities are closed from him permanently.

To me, it is not the permanence of a decision that makes us call it permanent. It is the perceived permanence (which is, in my eyes, determined by our value judgement of the decision) of a decision that makes us do so, which, if I understood you correctly, I believe you were alluding to when you said "I think the problem here is that death provokes a deep-seated aversion--even dread--in most people, that makes it so that it's in a category of its own and cannot be compared to any other experience". In sum, the fact that something is permanent is not the only deciding factor for whether or not we societally view it as permanent.

I'm not sure if we disagree on this point, as your position seems to be in line with mine. Maybe I have misunderstood you?


Now to the point you mentioned about value judgements. Here I completely agree with you. Just as a person is deprived of life and the possibility of happiness when he is dead, he is deprived of death and the impossibility of suffering when alive. I would like to add a few words with regard to this.

Julia is in an abusive marriage with her husband. Her husband beats and berates her. She wants to file a divorce. The result? Encouragement from others. Julia is making a "rational", "reasonable", "buzzword", "buzzword", "buzzword" decision. Julia is not said to be "at-risk" of divorcing a husband that she personally deems abusive. She is not said to be a "danger to herself" (I will address this kind of rhetoric in later posts).

Julia is in an abusive marriage with life (metaphorically speaking). Life beats and berates her. She wants to file a divorce. The result? Defamation and dehumanization through others devaluing her ability to make decisions, thus elevating themselves above her, and justifying her coercion. Julia is now labeled as "at-risk" and as a "danger to herself". Her decision is "irrational", "unreasonable", "arbitrary", "impulsive", etc.

Notice a few things here. First, Julia's coercion is justified by dismissing her personal value judgements as misguided by belittling her ability to make decisions. In other words, those who wish to coerce her must find something wrong with her in order to justify doing so, and if they cannot find it, they will attribute it to her and pretend that what they have attributed (such as irrationality) to her is an attribute of her.

Second, the making of the attribution depends entirely on what it is that Julia is discontent with and what actions she takes based on her situation. In other words, the value judgements that other people make about Julia's circumstances and behavior are what determine what kind of attribution they make to her. Once more, expressed in yet another way: The things that are attributed to Julia depend on the value judgements made about Julia's attitude, behavior, and its consequences. This is why I attack the idea of permanence. I want to show that approval and disapproval are the deciding factors, and that all the talk about permanence, irrationality, and the like, are rhetoric meant to cover up this fact.

I view it as impossible to change the world in the direction of suicide being seen as a decision that is nobody else's business, unless the person who wants to commit suicide is cleared of all accusations of being somehow fundamentally different in her decision-making than so-called "normal" people. It must be demonstrated that value judgements about something do not have any bearing on what is and isn't an attribute of that something. This is what I aim to do.

Again, thank you for your compliments and criticism. I will later either add an amendment or edit my original post to make my views clearer.

 

[bitofftoomuch]

A "temporary problem" is a socially competent person going through breakup. A "temporary problem" is a person with ample savings getting laid off. A "temporary problem" is physical pain that will be gone in a week.

Many many suicidal people do NOT fit in these boxes. If your shattered relationship leaves you with zero support, if your lost job means losing a place to live, if your pain is likely to last the rest of your life... then that's an indefinite cascade of bullshit. Not a small setback that we dust ourselves off from through sheer willpower. People don't understand that broader context can be the difference in whether new acute problems are life-destroying or simply life-disruptive.

What's driven me fucking bananas in my time on this earth is how people expect losing a relationship to mean so little to me when I have no support system to fall back on and that person WAS my system. It's like ok, are you lining up to support me? Because if not what you're asking me to do is stumble for an indefinite period with zero support through this world in hopes I find someone again. It might be temporary but we're talking about ongoing indefinite pain that even if I do find an "end" to, I'll probably still carry with me forever.

 

[Alexei_Kirillov]

In sum, the fact that something is permanent is not the only deciding factor for whether or not we societally view it as permanent.

I'm not sure if we disagree on this point, as your position seems to be in line with mine. Maybe I have misunderstood you?

Yes, I believe we are actually in agreement here. I was basically just pointing out that while everything you said about the nature of permanence was factually true, it's not what most laypeople think of when it comes to suicide, and so I think this line of argument would fall on deaf ears, despite its merit; there's a qualitative difference between these "permanences" in that, to use your own wording, eating the ice cream is a permanent decision that forecloses on a set of possibilities, but suicide is a permanent decision that forecloses on all sets of possibilities.

Now to the point you mentioned about value judgements. Here I completely agree with you. Just as a person is deprived of life and the possibility of happiness when he is dead, he is deprived of death and the impossibility of suffering when alive. I would like to add a few words with regard to this.

Julia is in an abusive marriage with her husband. Her husband beats and berates her. She wants to file a divorce. The result? Encouragement from others. Julia is making a "rational", "reasonable", "buzzword", "buzzword", "buzzword" decision. Julia is not said to be "at-risk" of divorcing a husband that she personally deems abusive. She is not said to be a "danger to herself" (I will address this kind of rhetoric in later posts).

Julia is in an abusive marriage with life (metaphorically speaking). Life beats and berates her. She wants to file a divorce. The result? Defamation and dehumanization through others devaluing her ability to make decisions, thus elevating themselves above her, and justifying her coercion. Julia is now labeled as "at-risk" and as a "danger to herself". Her decision is "irrational", "unreasonable", "arbitrary", "impulsive", etc.

Totally agree, I've often made the analogy to divorce as well. I think it does a great job at highlighting how arbitrary the overvaluation of life is. We've come to agree as a society that you can't have a right to marriage without a right to divorce, and yet the idea of the right to life necessitating a right to death remains elusive. All we seem to be able to eke out of our governments is the admission that only in the worst circumstances can voluntary death be justified. In the marriage analogy, it's like saying that you're allowed to get divorced, and for that divorce to be viewed as the "rational" decision, but only once you've reached the point of being in a severely abusive situation.

Notice a few things here. First, Julia's coercion is justified by dismissing her personal value judgements as misguided by belittling her ability to make decisions. In other words, those who wish to coerce her must find something wrong with her in order to justify doing so, and if they cannot find it, they will attribute it to her and pretend that what they have attributed (such as irrationality) to her is an attribute of her.

Second, the making of the attribution depends entirely on what it is that Julia is discontent with and what actions she takes based on her situation. In other words, the value judgements that other people make about Julia's circumstances and behavior are what determine what kind of attribution they make to her. Once more, expressed in yet another way: The things that are attributed to Julia depend on the value judgements made about Julia's attitude, behavior, and its consequences. This is why I attack the idea of permanence. I want to show that approval and disapproval are the deciding factors, and that all the talk about permanence, irrationality, and the like, are rhetoric meant to cover up this fact.

I view it as impossible to change the world in the direction of suicide being seen as a decision that is nobody else's business, unless the person who wants to commit suicide is cleared of all accusations of being somehow fundamentally different in her decision-making than so-called "normal" people. It must be demonstrated that value judgements about something do not have any bearing on what is and isn't an attribute of that something. This is what I aim to do.

Some very good points here, I especially appreciate the one about how ultimately it comes down to "approval and disapproval," less so than any rational beliefs about permanence.

 

[kaizenmaster]

there's a qualitative difference between these "permanences" in that, to use your own wording, eating the ice cream is a permanent decision that forecloses on a set of possibilities, but suicide is a permanent decision that forecloses on all sets of possibilities.

I see now. Thank you for the clarification.

I should point out that when we talk about foreclosing on sets of possibilities, we must differentiate between two things: sets of possible actions (and therefore decisions) and sets of possible states of the world (consequences). Every action, as I hope I've properly argued, closes on all sets of possible worlds. Here is the logic behind this as far as I can see, a tiny bit more formally (please tell me if you spot fallacious reasoning here, I may be wrong):

When the world is in a given state "A", it is not in a state "not A". In addition, actions are taken in the world as it is at the time of the action being taken. We can conceptualize this by thinking of the world as moving from A to not A whenever we take an action. Since for something to be possible means for it to be able to be the case (in the future), then the entire set of what is able to be the case (what is possible) is contained within "not A". We can thus conclude that what is and isn't possible is directly dependent on the present state of the world.

For something to be permanent means for it to last (=be the case) indefinitely. The concept of permanence, then, is a temporal and specifically future-oriented one. That something lasts indefinitely means that it is not possible for its inverse to be the case: if we are indefinitely out of ice cream, we are permanently out of ice cream and the set of possible states of the world with ice cream in it are ruled out. So, we can see a direct relationship between permanence and possibility.

What is key to note here is that this relationship is not just conditional, but biconditional, as the lack of possibilities entails a form of permanence and permanence entails a lack of possibilities.

For an illustration of the above, let's compare suicide and divorce. What are the consequences of suicide in terms of possible states of the world? Well, for one, it results in death, and by virtue of being dead there is no "you" to be able to make decisions. Thus, the entire set of potential decisions that a human can make is closed. Let's look at divorcing your husband. What possibilities does this rule out? Well, divorcing your husband leads to you and him being divorced, and by virtue of being divorced from each other, there is no marriage in the context of which any actions could be taken. Yes, you can always get married again, but then there is no first marriage in the context of which any actions could be taken. And if you value (which most people don't) that, then you're kind of done for.

This may sound really pedantic, but it is a significant insight given the fact that the significance an action has is entirely subjective. After all, persons assign (attribute) significance to things. The point is, as you observantly mentioned, that the deciding factor for bringing up the permanence of suicide is not the desire to make some rational point about permanence of the act.

Alright, so the above addresses the sets of possible states of the world (one's actions having permanent consequences). I hope I've shown why, in my opinion, every action rules out the same amount of possibilities.

As for the sets of possible actions, what I would say if someone brought up such an argument is that they are demonstrating my point: that the deciding factor for them calling something permanent is not that something has or hasn't permanent consequences, but what those permanent consequences are. For them, it is a personally significant issue that the permanent consequence is the absence of the ability to make decisions. For the "suicidal" person, the issue is insignificant and may in fact be personally desirable. Then I would ask them whose desires take precedent over whose life? In other words: what kind of behavior justifies depriving another person of the same personal autonomy which the coercers themselves enjoy, why, and why do they object to others depriving them of said liberty if said others do not like the way they live their lives?

I would also mention that most people will answer "yes" when asked if they would accept a terminal burn patient's (who is in chronic pain) desire to kill himself. Yet, the nature of death itself is no different for such a person than it is for the person who is completely healthy and decides to kill himself: in both cases, it remains true that dead people are never going to be able to make decisions.

Totally agree, I've often made the analogy to divorce as well. I think it does a great job at highlighting how arbitrary the overvaluation of life is. We've come to agree as a society that you can't have a right to marriage without a right to divorce, and yet the idea of the right to life necessitating a right to death remains elusive. All we seem to be able to eke out of our governments is the admission that only in the worst circumstances can voluntary death be justified.

These are very astute observations. Especially what you implicitly say here about rights and responsibilities is important. In my eyes, what is happening with the anti-suicide crowd right now is that they are obligating people to live. However, this would be very difficult to justify in a free society. Thus, to make it easier to justify, the "suicidal" (we don't call people "divorcal" nor do we talk about "divorcal ideation") person must be made into a victim. A victim of what? Of himself; specifically of his "unconscious impulses", "irrationality", "arbitrariness", "emotional repression", "unresolved trauma", and so on. It is not that he wants to kill himself, but that he lacks the ability to properly evaluate his situation so that he may "recognize" - that is, come to his senses, with regard to the fact that to live is the "correct" thing to do, and only as a consequence of this lacking capacity does he want to kill himself. Thus, since the "suicidal" person is oppressing himself without the ability to stop, coercing him becomes compassionate treatment instead of malevolent and self-righteous torture.

This is why I view the social role of the modern "suicidal" person as the equivalent of that of heretics in past societies.

In the marriage analogy, it's like saying that you're allowed to get divorced, and for that divorce to be viewed as the "rational" decision, but only once you've reached the point of being in a severely abusive situation.

That is a brilliant point. I had not even thought of this.


I just want to thank you for challenging what I say. As much of a person's thinking happens habitually, it becomes somewhat difficult to neutrally assess one's positions. Hence, it is a great help that you are able to so articulately push back on my views.

 

[Alexei_Kirillov]

I see now. Thank you for the clarification.

I should point out that when we talk about foreclosing on sets of possibilities, we must differentiate between two things: sets of possible actions (and therefore decisions) and sets of possible states of the world (consequences). Every action, as I hope I've properly argued, closes on all sets of possible worlds. Here is the logic behind this as far as I can see, a tiny bit more formally (please tell me if you spot fallacious reasoning here, I may be wrong):

When the world is in a given state "A", it is not in a state "not A". In addition, actions are taken in the world as it is at the time of the action being taken. We can conceptualize this by thinking of the world as moving from A to not A whenever we take an action. Since for something to be possible means for it to be able to be the case (in the future), then the entire set of what is able to be the case (what is possible) is contained within "not A". We can thus conclude that what is and isn't possible is directly dependent on the present state of the world.

For something to be permanent means for it to last (=be the case) indefinitely. The concept of permanence, then, is a temporal and specifically future-oriented one. That something lasts indefinitely means that it is not possible for its inverse to be the case: if we are indefinitely out of ice cream, we are permanently out of ice cream and the set of possible states of the world with ice cream in it are ruled out. So, we can see a direct relationship between permanence and possibility.

What is key to note here is that this relationship is not just conditional, but biconditional, as the lack of possibilities entails a form of permanence and permanence entails a lack of possibilities.

For an illustration of the above, let's compare suicide and divorce. What are the consequences of suicide in terms of possible states of the world? Well, for one, it results in death, and by virtue of being dead there is no "you" to be able to make decisions. Thus, the entire set of potential decisions that a human can make is closed. Let's look at divorcing your husband. What possibilities does this rule out? Well, divorcing your husband leads to you and him being divorced, and by virtue of being divorced from each other, there is no marriage in the context of which any actions could be taken. Yes, you can always get married again, but then there is no first marriage in the context of which any actions could be taken. And if you value (which most people don't) that, then you're kind of done for.

This may sound really pedantic, but it is a significant insight given the fact that the significance an action has is entirely subjective. After all, persons assign (attribute) significance to things. The point is, as you observantly mentioned, that the deciding factor for bringing up the permanence of suicide is not the desire to make some rational point about permanence of the act.

Alright, so the above addresses the sets of possible states of the world (one's actions having permanent consequences). I hope I've shown why, in my opinion, every action rules out the same amount of possibilities.

I think this is a bit of an exercise in missing the forest for the trees. I was perhaps a little clumsy in my wording when I said that eating the ice cream would only rule out a set of probabilities; as you pointed out, it would be more accurate to say that a new set of possibilities is generated after each decision, irreversibly eradicating the old set in the process. I would argue that even if this is so, death still stands apart in that once it takes place, no new sets of future possibilities can ever be generated again.

So while I disagree with the use of this slogan, I still do understand why pro-lifers find it so compelling and why it makes so much sense to them, because death's specific flavour of permanence means that there are zero future possibilities. This gives death an immense power that I think even pro-choicers should respect.

Apologies if this sounds a little contrary to my initial arguments; going through the motions of this discussion has made my own views more clear, and ultimately I think I actually am in agreement with the pro-lifers that death is--and should be--in its own category when we speak of permanence.

As for the sets of possible actions, what I would say if someone brought up such an argument is that they are demonstrating my point: that the deciding factor for them calling something permanent is not that something has or hasn't permanent consequences, but what those permanent consequences are. For them, it is a personally significant issue that the permanent consequence is the absence of the ability to make decisions. For the "suicidal" person, the issue is insignificant and may in fact be personally desirable. Then I would ask them whose desires take precedent over whose life? In other words: what kind of behavior justifies depriving another person of the same personal autonomy which the coercers themselves enjoy, why, and why do they object to others depriving them of said liberty if said others do not like the way they live their lives?

I would also mention that most people will answer "yes" when asked if they would accept a terminal burn patient's (who is in chronic pain) desire to kill himself. Yet, the nature of death itself is no different for such a person than it is for the person who is completely healthy and decides to kill himself: in both cases, it remains true that dead people are never going to be able to make decisions.

With you 100% on this, and you worded it so elegantly (especially the part in bold). Even if you accept my claim that death is in a category of its own, you would still then have to make a rational leap in order to conclude that that's a bad thing and should dissuade someone from committing voluntary death. We all have our value hierarchies, and permanence, while it may considered, just doesn't tend to figure near the top. Speaking for myself, I prioritize the minimization of suffering over the inability to make decisions, and I suspect that many people who spout this slogan probably would too if they thought about it in those terms (which they seem to do in cases of physical suffering, as you pointed out).

These are very astute observations. Especially what you implicitly say here about rights and responsibilities is important. In my eyes, what is happening with the anti-suicide crowd right now is that they are obligating people to live. However, this would be very difficult to justify in a free society. Thus, to make it easier to justify, the "suicidal" (we don't call people "divorcal" nor do we talk about "divorcal ideation") person must be made into a victim. A victim of what? Of himself; specifically of his "unconscious impulses", "irrationality", "arbitrariness", "emotional repression", "unresolved trauma", and so on. It is not that he wants to kill himself, but that he lacks the ability to properly evaluate his situation so that he may "recognize" - that is, come to his senses, with regard to the fact that to live is the "correct" thing to do, and only as a consequence of this lacking capacity does he want to kill himself. Thus, since the "suicidal" person is oppressing himself without the ability to stop, coercing him becomes compassionate treatment instead of malevolent and self-righteous torture.

This is why I view the social role of the modern "suicidal" person as the equivalent of that of heretics in past societies.

Precisely. Jean Améry said that the suicidal are the "last great outsiders," and I'm inclined to agree. If you haven't checked it out yet, the blog Schopenhauer on Mars also has some good articles along this vein. Among other points, he talks about how the claim that a suicidal person is unable to correctly evaluate their own situation is unfalsifiable. To play Devil's Advocate though, I can see how a pro-lifer would read this and think about all the impulsive suicidal people who later come to regret their attempts and are glad that they're still alive. Curious how you would respond to this criticism.