Suicide should be a crime

Thanks to Pro for her argument!Since Pro is the one making the positive claim and it has not been stated otherwise, I will assume that she has the burden of proof, and that my role in this debate is to refute her arguments..For the most part, I agree with Pro's notion that the role of a government is to promote general welfare by taking measures (i.e. creating laws) to preserve the state's social structure while simultaneously protecting individual rights.However, I would like to stress that protecting individual rights is JUST as important as preserving the state's social structure; the two go hand in hand when it comes to ensuring general welfare.I will be contesting all of Pro's arguments regarding why legalizing suicide supposedly works against the goal of general welfare..R1) MoralityPro summarizes her argument here quite nicely:"Suicide is not right for the society. The act is a final clip from the thread holding the society together, morality. It undermines the sanctity of life, and by extension- the basis of every right, law and obligation enforced by the constitution."1. Morality as Society's "Binding Factor"Pro asserts that morality is "the thread holding society together". However, at the same time she concedes that morality is subjective. If morality is subjective, then people are bound to disagree on various issues concerning morality.Take the examples of homosexuality, abortion, and wealth disparity; these represent just a few of the moral issues that divide society. Morality more often serves as a divisive factor than it does as a unifying factor, due to all the different interpretations of it.The subjective nature of morality would cause its inclusion in the law-making process to result in a complete mess of indecisiveness and ineffectivity; basing law-making on more rational, objective principles (e.g. natural rights, separation of church/state, etc.) is much more beneficial to the pursuit of general welfare.Due to its subjectivity, morality is far from being "the thread holding society together". An action being immoral by one interpretation of morality does not warrant making it illegal.2. Sanctity of LifeEven though Pro admits that morality is subjective, she still asserts that suicide is immoral because it violates the "sanctity of life". I will show that Pro's "sanctity of life" argument is just another subjective moral interpretation that does not apply to everyone.More specifically, the sanctity of life doesn't apply to suicidal people. If a guy begins to feel a desire to end his life, then obviously his life is not valuable enough to him personally for him to continue living; if the guy himself does not hold his own life to be sacred, then who are we to declare that it is still sacred? Just because many people believe that life is sacred does not mean that it is; that is their subjective belief based on their own experiences. It does not logically mean that life IS sacred for everyone. The sanctity of life clearly is not objectively true.Thus, suicide is not immoral, as the only reason for believing so (given by Pro) is that it violates "the sanctity of life", which I have shown to be a subjective moral interpretation just like all other ethical theories..R2) Individual RightsFirstly, I will attempt to prove that the right to death is a natural human right by logical extension of the right to life...Let's start with a simple question: on what basis do I have a "right to life" in the first place? It is based on the idea that my life was given to me at birth and is now MY property. Murder is illegal because doing so would be taking away my life, my property, without my consent. With suicide, however, that is not a problem! I am allowed to take away my own life because I have my own consent to do so.I have the right to do what I wish with my life, just like I have the right to do what I wish with my material property. The right to death is analogous to the right to throw away my own property; many may view my exercising either of those rights as stupid and wasteful, but that does not mean that I do not have them.Thus, the right to death is a natural human right that goes hand in hand with the right to life, based on the concept that MY life is MY property, and that I am free to do what I wish with it.Now, Pro argues that people do not have a right to death, not because of anything to do with rights, but because of some utilitarian logic concerning the negative effects of a suicide on society.However, Pro does not show that those effects are substantial enough to warrant the criminalization of exercising what SHOULD be a natural right.All Pro has done is mentioned how a suicide is generally a very sad ordeal for all involved, but that does not equate to the type of societal damage that would substantially hinder general welfare. Pro has to show that the societal damage caused by allowing suicide is SO extensive, that one of our natural rights should be confiscated because of it..CONCLUSIONSMy opponent and I seem to agree that the role of a government is to promote general welfare; where we disagree is whether or not making a suicide a crime is a necessary measure to take in fulfilling that role.I have refuted both of Pro's cases in favor of the taking such a measure:A. MoralityI. Morality is far too subjective with way too many interpretations of it for it to play a serious role in law-making. An action being immoral by one interpretation of morality does not warrant its criminalization.II. Suicide is not immoral, anyways, because the "sanctity of life" does not apply to everyone, especially not to the suicidal people themselves.B. RightsI. The right to death is a natural right that all humans have as a result of having the right to life.II. The negative social effects of suicide have not been shown to be substantial enough to warrant confiscating one of our natural rights..I hand the debate back over to my opponent!Good luck, Pro :D