Suicide should be legal.

If you think about it, the second you are born... no, conceived... you are already starting to die. Although that is a philosophical idea about suciide and not a legal one, let us remember that legalities stem from philosophy along with morality, which has deep seeded roots that often coinside with spirituality. So in this debate, I will attempt to address various if not all aspects of suicide that point to the fact it should officially remain legal. According to Dictionary.com, suicide is the intentional taking of one's own life. The medical definition of suicide is the act of causing one's own death (http://www.medterms.com...). The legal definition of suicide is the intentional taking of one's own life (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...). Other definitions I have come across include a death caused by one's own actions, the act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself, or any form of self-killing, where self-killing is understood as acting in such a way as to bring about one's own death. Using the parameters of that terminology, martyrdom, engaging in risky behavior, refusing medical treatment to prolong your life, overdosing on (legal) drugs, and death by coercion should also be considered a form of committing suicide... but they're not, and they're all legal. In the United States it is not uncommon that we make decisions about what is moral, or what should or should not be legal based on precedent. In this case, you can base your reasoning not on precedent, per se, but by the reasoning that there are many legal types of suicide, such as the ones I have acknowledged above. A common "correction" of the various official definitions of suicide is that, "Suicide is chiefly intended to terminate a life – the other acts are aimed at perpetuating, strengthening and defending values" (http://samvak.tripod.com...). However I then pose the question, what value is one upholding when choosing to smoke cigarettes? The law states that on every U.S. cigarette box or in every U.S. cigarette ad, the Surgeon General's warning about smoking and its negative, damaging, sometimes life threatening effects be clearly disaplayed for the consumer to make a conscious decision about their choices and their health/life. Thus it is fair to assume that one accepts the risk of smoking cigarettes long-term, including the possibility that they could develop potentially fatal types of cancer or mouth disease. This type of blatant disregard for one's health (I'm a smoker btw) is different from accepting the possibility or risk that one could also die in a car accident, because riding in a car is far more useful, practical, and sometimes necessary than smoking cigarettes could ever be. Anyway, the point that I am trying to make is that smoking cigarettes, for example, is legal and I argue it's a form of suicide: It's an intentional action that more likely than not speeds up the process of your death and will ultimately take your life. Now let's think outside of the box for a minute. Consider the people who often oppose suicide's legality and think of it as one of the worst crimes one can possibly commit, because it is the taking of a human life. These people are often religious who cite God's word (via the Bible) that murder is the worst possible mortal sin, even if the killing is done unto self. However isn't this the same Bible (or Torah, Koran, etc.) that promotes infinitity and life after death? Eternal LIFE? Thus it would be hypocritical for them to conclude that taking one's life is the end of their existance/soul, even if it means here on Earth. Who cares. How could they punish someone for wanting to transition to their next life or the after-life, especially if they are in pain and suffering, or the victim of a mental illness (this example includes depression)? Additionally, some people are spiritual and not relgious. They may still believe in life after death, and want to do everything in their power to get there. Now, since this country allows for any and every type of worship (so long as it does not infringe upon another's lifestyle), why should we make a practice of one's beliefs illegal if it only "harms" themselves? Should we also be making people who need to eat meat and choose not to during Lent criminals? And what does society have to say about all this? Well I know that patriotism is encouraged in the United States and that people who choose to die for their country are considered heroes. So why can't one choose to die for whatever reason they choose? They say that dying for your country is upholding a value but who determines what is and isn't of value to each and every individual? That's right. The individual. So to assume that suicide isn't valid for any and every reason is very presumptious; only the individual can determine why they would choose to engage in such a behavior. But back to society. Countless polls including the infamous Gallup Poll show that the death penalty is supported in the United States by at least 60-70% of the population (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). Theoretically, the death penalty is used to act as a deterrent to stop individuals from committing heinous crimes (it's just a theory - it doesn't work). What the death penalty really is, essentially, is a harsh punishment to rectify a malicious crime and serve as 'justice' to the victim and/or victim's family who suffered at the hand of the guilty. I think everyone can agree on that one. But with that mentality, going back to the individual being the only one sure of why they would choose such a fate for themself, how are we to know that someone is not committing suicide BECAUSE they are guilty of committing an incredibly reprehensible crime and wish to avoid the legal system/procedure? In this society we do not always frown upon taking the law into one's own hands, so why be hypocritical? Besides, what if someone who WASN'T CAUGHT chose to take their own life as punishment? If we really believe in the death penalty (which numbers and laws show that we do), then shouldn't we be glad that some creep is removing themself from society and poses one less threat to the world? One valid question regarding suicide is of course revolving around the driving force of the world: Money. What to do about life insurance and other inheritances for people who commit suicide. Well, if suicide were legal, there shouldn't be an issue -- whomever's entitled to what should get it regardless of the cause of death. However, if suicide we ILLEGAL, that could stand in the way in terms of particular pay-outs. Take for example the tragic death of actor Heath Ledger. His death is considered a suicide. Accidental, maybe, but a suicide nonetheless. Now if he weren't a rich actor but instead an average, life insurance policy holding father, should his daughter Matilda not be financially taken care of because of the way her father's life was taken (assuming, of course, that her mother wasn't a famous actress)? Regrettably I am fastly approaching my character limit, so in this round of the debate I cannot address two fundamental aspects of the debate regarding legal suicide: the causes and the effects (not to mention the punishment -- how do we punish the deceased as an individual?). If my opponent wishes to address these issues then I will very well discuss them and any other aspects of my argument in future rounds. As of right now I plan to include facts (numbers) about the amount of people who consider committing suicide, who believe that assisted suicide should be legal, and who believe that suicide itself should be legal... because, don't the opinions of the people matter anymore? Forgive my lack of elaboration in this round; I don't have enough room but I welcome the opportunity for my opponent to address them first. Thank you and good luck.