Personal suicide should be legal.

"The government requires a law in order to enforce rehab." Why? Counceling is available for alcoholics, but alcohol consumption is perfectly legal. "90% of suicide cases happen while the victim is either impared through alchohol and/or sleep deprivation. Going seventeen hours without sleep is equivilent to the legal alchohol blood limit." Even if this is true (note lack of sources), it has nothing to do with the legality of suicide. Making it illegal is not going to stop a drunk, depressed guy from killing himself. Nor will he be able to be punished for his 'crime'. Hence, law fail. I will ignore the majority of your argument which was copy/pasted from another debate. This is not a primary source, and if you wish to steal Seeker's ideas for this debate, at least reword them. "I got it from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's book "Du Contrat Social" which outlines the definition of inalienable rights. My opponent's definition from the UN is invalid because the law in question is an American law. Thus we must look to American Government foundations. Our government was founded on social contract not the UN charter. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happinessï¿½€"-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."" The law in question isn't American law at all. I'm talking about every single person on this planet, and their right to end their life when they see fit. In fact, it is not even illegal in America any more. [1] This completely quashes your argument regarding American foundations. Even if we were arguing for suicide to be made illegal again in America, the quote you provided gives us the rights to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. We have the RIGHT to life, but not the obligation. We should have the LIBERTY to end our life when we please. We may take 'happiness' as 'lack of sadness or pain', showing that people who commit suicide are indeed on the pursuit of happiness. Suicide is entirely constitutional. "In the event of inalienable rights we do have both a right and an obligation to preserve them." No we don't, that's garbage. Nobody is obliged to do anything they don't want to do, so long as harm is not inflicted upon another human being. You may say that people are hurt, emotionally, when somebody commits suicide, but that's not the law's jurisdiction. Somebody would be emotionally hurt if their father left them forever, never to return, but this isn't against the law. Someone would be emotionally hurt if someone dear to them died of lung cancer, but smoking cigarettes isn't against the law. We are talking about 'second-hand' damage, and the law rarely weighs in on such matters. Suicide is no different. "You cannot expect them to not be attatched. It is a natural inclination for a person to become attatched and thus you cannot condem them for an unconsentual attatchment. As I've said before. If you commit suicide it's like forcibly cutting off the emotional limbs of the person who is emotionally attatched to you." Of course they're attached but that's far beside the point. If you have a wife and 3 kids who love you dearly, and you walk out the door tomorrow never to return, that's basically the same as committing suicide, as far as your family is concerned. But why are leaving home and committing suicide both completely legal in most parts of the world? Because it is our life and we can live it however we please as far as the law is concerned, so long as our sole intent is not to harm another human being. I admit it is selfish to begin a family and then leave them, but not nearly as selfish as expecting somebody to continue a life of torture because you love them. That's as selfish as it gets. "Yes it is a good reason. We don't allow assault in America because it has the potential of hurting someone. Suicide is the same. You are depriving those people who are emotianally attatched to you of their INALIENABLE RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness. I again refer you to Social Contract and the Declaration of Independence. I will again correct your statement. Nobody has the ABILITY to force life on us. Just the responsibility." Once again, if the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right, then you have nothing to say against people who commit suicide, who are merely pursuing happiness (if happiness can be taken to mean 'lack of pain'). I refer you again to the Decleration of Independence, as it says nothing even remotely against suicide. Nor does it say anything about our responsibility for other peoples' lives. You said it yourself, 'nobody has the ability to force life on us.' Enough said. "My opponent is advocating the hurt of people as justified. This is wrong." My opponent is misrepresenting my position, and THIS is wrong. I'm not advocating suicide or people who commit suicide. I am advocating getting rid of the archaic law against suicide in the backwards countries who still outlaw it. As I've explained, it is an ineffective, impractical law, and really none of the government's business. I am all in favor of counceling (if it can be shown effective), but it is the LAW I am against. My opponent has done nothing to show the merits of a law against suicide. Vote PRO. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...