No, you're not. You're the runtime state of the software that's running in your brain. Your body is just a peripheral, and can very well work against your will. More importantly, your body doesn't think.
I phrased it this way because in the case when someone wants to die, but the society won't let them, it's technically not them that have the right to live but their body (and the body can't voice its opinion).
> Well you don't thats the point.
Real world sometimes doesn't give you that option. Situations happen in which a choice between who lives and who dies needs to be made.
> The point saintPirelli made is that people focus too much on hypotheticals (what if we can stop shooters by shooting them) rather than accepting the right and focusing on the reality(how do we prevent shooters from killing people), your argument demonstrates this.
If you keep avoiding a problem, you'll be unprepared when you're suddenly forced to confront it head-on.
That is not independent of the state of the underlying neural network, it seems no more reasonable to dissociate the two than it does to conflate them.
The point still stands: your mind and your body can be seen as separate things, and from this point of view you're your mind, not your body.
Unless you can stop being in your body this is a moot point.
> If you keep avoiding a problem, you'll be unprepared when you're suddenly forced to confront it head-on.
I argued for preventative measures not reactionary measures.
You keep talking about reactionary things but rights are not reactionary thats the point you are missing.