Thou Shalt Not Kill, says he.

In accordance with modern views on life in first world countries, every single human being comes screaming and kicking into this world with an unconditional right to live, and killing is in fact the breaching of this inherent entitlement. Killing is defined as the act of causing death and taking life - with this definition alone, we can see that killing violates this unspoken agreement between humans regarding the right to live. The law also supports this notion of the intrinsic value of human life. The act of murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being, and is thus illegal by definition, as it is against the will of the victim. To kill would be to violate the victim's right to live. Following logically, respecting others' rights as our own, killing would be wrong.

An exception to the general rule of, well, not killing, would be the dissolution of said agreement on the value of life. As a person has the right to live, he or she thus has the right to do the opposite and not live - it is his or her responsibility, after all. In this case, the individual acknowledges the value of his life and rejects it, choosing the dark opposite, and thus the value he holds on his life is gone. However, this right to "not live" only extends to himself and not beyond - other people may not reach out and take his life simply because he desires it, as the implications of taking another's life is the rejection of one's on right to live. In the said scenario, only the depressed and dejected individual wishing to end his own life may choose to take it - the choice belongs to no other. Regardless of his reasons, be they emotional or physical anguish, it is not the authority of any other to end his living, although such power is available to such an individual.

Jamie, Arjun, Serena, Kersh, 09S06J

(were we to have replied to a post somewhere?)