Should people have the right to end their own lives?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should people have the right to end their own lives?". Your opponent's style: Christopher Hitchens

Humasn should not have the right to end their own lives. Human lives are a gift from god, ending that is terrible. Murder is illgeal so why should suicide be a right? It should not. Also, think about the botches that could happen, Studies estimate that roughly 90–97% of attempts survive and can cause life altering injuries.

You've neatly trapped yourself in a logical absurdity. If life is God's gift, then surely God granted us autonomy, the very faculty to make choices about our own existence. You can't have it both ways—divine gift AND no say in what happens to it. Your murder comparison collapses instantly. Murder violates another person's autonomy. Suicide exercises it. Completely different moral categories. And those survival statistics you cite? They prove my point. People attempting suicide are *desperate enough* to risk severe injury. That desperation deserves compassionate access to reliable options, not forced suffering. Botched attempts aren't an argument against the right—they're an argument for safe, legal methods that eliminate the botching. Why should unbearable suffering be the price of God's "gift"?

The bible says harming yourself is a sin, why would god give us that permission and then contradict that? He did not. It is our existance with rules, you are arguing for suicide. WHo does that? Copilot Search Branding Like Dislike Bible Verses on Suicide as a Sin The Bible consistently teaches the sanctity of life and God’s commandment to preserve it, which many Christian traditions interpret as making suicide a sin. Below are key passages and their context: 1. The Commandment Against Murder Exodus 20:13 – “You shall not murder.” This foundational commandment underscores that taking a life—whether another’s or one’s own—is contrary to God’s will thebibleteachesthis.com. 2. Life as a Divine Gift Genesis 1:27 – “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Highlights that human life is sacred and made in God’s likeness biblestudyforyou.com+1. Psalm 139:13–14 – “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” Affirms the value and purpose of each person’s life scripturesavvy.com+1. 3. God’s Purpose for Every Life Jeremiah 1:5 – “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” Emphasizes that God has a unique plan and purpose for each individual scripturesavvy.com+1. Jeremiah 29:11 – “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” Reassures that God’s plans are for good and not for harm biblestudyforyou.com+1. 4. Jesus’ Teaching on Life John 10:10 – “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” Jesus affirms that His mission is to give abundant life, countering despair christianitypath.com+1. 5. The Body as a Temple 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 – “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own.” Encourages honoring God’s gift of life christianitypath.com. 6. Isaiah’s View on Life’s Value Isaiah 43:4 – “Since you are precious and honored in my sight, and because I love you, I will give people in exchange for you, nations in exchange for your life.” Stresses the irreplaceable worth of human life biblerepository.com. You say murder is violating someone, yes that is true, and suicide is violating yourself, you are harming yourself. You say that i prove your point about people are desperate enough for serious injury, i do not prove your point. People need help, not suing yourself. Free suicide prevention classes and mental health classes should be a right, not suicide.

You're conflating two entirely different things. A sin against God is a theological matter between that person and their maker—not grounds for state force. If you genuinely believed suicide damns the soul, you'd want to save it through compassion, not legal prohibition. Instead you're using theology as a club. Your argument proves too much. By your logic, refusing life-extending medical treatment is also self-harm and sinful. Yet Christians accept that choice constantly. Why? Because autonomy over one's own body isn't negotiable, even for believers. Mental health support is wonderful. But it cannot—and should not—replace the right to refuse further suffering when all other options fail. Forcing someone to live against their will isn't compassion. It's cruelty dressed in scripture.

I brought up god and you responded

You're right, I engaged on your theological turf. But here's the thing: I don't need God to argue this. Even a strict atheist can see the core problem with your position. You want the state to force suffering on people against their will. That's tyranny, full stop. Religious or not. The question isn't what God wants—it's whether we have the moral authority to trap someone in unbearable pain because *we* decided their life has value they don't feel. You can believe suicide is sinful. Fine. Don't do it. But don't chain others to your beliefs.

Do you belive it is right for a human to harm themselves

I believe humans have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, even harmful ones. We allow people to refuse dialysis, reject chemotherapy, donate organs. Why? Because bodily autonomy is sacred. The real question you're avoiding: is forcing someone to endure unbearable suffering less harmful than letting them choose death? You're assuming continued life is always the lesser harm. But for someone in terminal agony with no hope, you're wrong. There's a difference between harm and autonomy. I'm not celebrating self-destruction. I'm saying it's not your call to make for someone else, no matter how much you believe you're right.

You’re treating bodily autonomy as absolute, but society has never treated it that way when death is the outcome. We intervene when someone is suicidal, stop people from jumping off bridges, and prevent self-harm even if the person “chooses” it in the moment. Why? Because autonomy is not unlimited when irreversible harm is involved. And your comparison to refusing treatment fails because there’s a moral difference between allowing a disease to take its course and intentionally causing death. Refusing chemotherapy means the illness kills you. Assisted suicide means another person actively participates in ending a human life. That changes the ethical line completely. You also frame the debate as “forcing suffering,” but modern medicine already provides palliative care, hospice, sedation, and pain management. The solution to suffering should be better care, not redefining killing as healthcare. Finally, once society accepts that some lives are no longer worth living, the standard inevitably expands. What begins with terminal illness can move toward chronic illness, disability, mental suffering, or social pressure on vulnerable people who feel like burdens. Protecting life creates a clear safeguard; making death a medical option creates dangerous ambiguity.

You've actually conceded the debate. You admit we already intervene on autonomy when death looms—bridge jumpers, psychiatric holds. The question isn't whether to intervene, it's *when*. A suicidal teenager in crisis? Intervene hard. A 78-year-old with terminal cancer in agony for months? Different case entirely. Your slippery slope is fantasy. Belgium and Switzerland have had assisted dying for years with safeguards. No collapse into killing the disabled. You're invoking hypothetical horror instead of confronting reality: people suffer unbearably and have nowhere legal to turn. And that "another person participates" distinction? Doctors already participate in death through palliative sedation. You're just squeamish about honesty.