Why is every sperm sacred?
Finally, you have to ask Matt, what does it mean that an act, such as suicide, is natural?
The only relevant question is whether it is good or bad for you. What does it mean that it is “natural”?
Does it mean that it is inherently good? Beyond any reason?
A fan of Monty Python. 
Need is the sensation of being alive, and so the cessation of need becomes pleasure. Bliss would be a perpetual state without need, equivalent to death, so yes you are quite right that the pursuit of bliss would be suicidal and life-denying.
It behooves living beings to recognise the intrinsic necessity of suffering and not to devalue life because it is so often difficult.
Suicide is natural; anything that is physically possible is “natural” so this is not really an issue. Is it right or wrong is not an interesting question.
That is not the full picture.
I used to think that death=feminization=bliss but that is not the full picture. More specifically…
Bliss is the swirling of energies, feminization=fluttering,chaos,faeries,swirling of energies. Love=feminization=bliss.
Bliss is the opposite of anhedonia, anhedonia is the flatline of energies.
Masculinity is not the opposite of feminity, but a mutation of feminity.
Pain is a mutation of bliss but not the opposite of bliss.
Death does not exist (by definition) but the moment before death can be either full of bliss or pain or a mix of both.
Pain is a bunch of high frequencies monotonous energies, bliss is a swirling a cacophony of harmonized swirling energy patterns.
Magnus Anderson wrote,
Some might say that sperm is not sacred - considering how one ejaculation may hold about 250 million sperm. You can’t even say that they’re a dime a dozen. 
Sorry guys.
Again, some might say that that one single-minded, determined sperm was the one responsible for a Mother Teresa or the man or woman who would eventually find a cure for something, or who would accomplish something so very important for humanity, et cetera.
Sperm isn’t sacred. That’s just a patriarchal value.
Satan can you explain to me why murder is wrong?
Alright, but if I don’t see anything I’m going to come right back here in chastising you.
Because you don’t have the government’s®©™ permission.
Beyond the fictitious semblance of institutional government there is no “wrong”.
Here you go:
bbc.com/earth/story/20160705 … ot-suicide
The problem I found with this link is a human that reads about animals but, does not experience or observe. And suicide has a lot to do with the chemicals pounding in the brain. When you are so depressed your brain is chemical bound. Change the driving emotion/chemical and suicide is not an option. Animals have these chemicals. You can not pick and give the definition only to humans because of sentient standards as this person does. This person denies animal emotion too much. Animals stop eating, they put themselves into situations where natural instincts should keep them out of and they die.
This reminds me of the famous line in Planet of the Apes: " I am not an animal". The movie/books show humans as exactly animals if your human intellect can overcome your human ego. Most folks never grasp this part of the story.
Suicide requires intent. In the absence of intent, there is no suicide.
Refusing to eat, placing yourself in situations where instincts should keep you out of, and other similar behavior do not, on their own, indicate suicide.
Engaging in risky behavior is not suicide.
There must be an intent to die.
Is it not wrong for LeBron James to murder Kyrie Irving if he wants to win another NBA championship?
The point I am making is that only government-defined wrong that is of use only to government does not exist (i.e. apply) outside of government. Otherwise, there are wrongs, such as King James defined wrong.
I wanted someone, e.g. Mithus, to give me reasons why commiting murder is wrong. So far, only got Joker’s counter-position which is as demonstrated excessive.
Morality is inherent to human beings you psychopath.
Although I agree that the government (as well as the body of the general populace) is largely hypocritical (like a God-being) and demonstrates a case of “do as i say, not as i do” kind of philosophy.
I will explain why it is wrong to murder.
It is wrong to murder because it’s 50/50. 50 50 they will go to heaven or hell, or reincarnate into a worse place.
If you can prove they will reincarnate into better society and better bodies then it is not wrong to murder, if the death is fairly painless.
But atheists cannot prove the Great Absence upon death because it doesn’t exist (fundamentally) therefore cannot disprove the wrongness of murder.
Therefore, I would say that allowing society to degenerate as it has (Justin Beiber, Nikki’s Alarm Clock Music, loss of freedoms, loss of communications, loss of human needs) is as wrong as murder, because it increases the chance of reincarnations into degraded dismal realms.
I don’t understand your need to write shitty posts. They are suffocating.
Mine is logic and reason. Yours is a shitty post by definition, you don’t even bother to explain yourself.
I don’t have to explain myself. It should be evident that your post is a shitty one. If you can’t figure this out on your own, then the situation is far worse .
Heaven and hell? Seriously?
Those are metaphors to lower and higher realms or states of being. But who knows maybe it literally means becoming conscious of the center of the earth or sun.