2- Far too speculative to discuss in any viable way in this spacetime.
3 - I support giving people the right currently.
4 - I would not support such actions.
5 - I think that what we're moving towards will not be what you're thinking/expressing in this. I believe we're moving towards greater awareness of multiple incarnations - many physical - many not.
2 - I think this question may become less speculative much sooner than we think. With all the longevity research today, we can't be sure for how long our children and grandchildren would be able to live. I hope we are coming to the new Era of Acceleration - the next stage of the Consciousness and Intelligence Revolution of 1950s - 1970s. It was temporarily slowed down by the counter-revolution of 1980s - 2000s, with its shameful peak at the times of "satanic panic", which, if even being ridiculed today, still appear to influence a lot of (mainstream) thought on many subjects, from psi, consciousness and spirituality to youth rights, censorship and sexual freedoms. But now, being always in search for information on controversial and "fringe" subjects, I see a growing interest towards them; I also see a new uprising of the social protest, such as Occupy movements and Arabic revolutions. Who knows, maybe even we, ourselves, will live long enough to see the real change?
3 - That's good for you. I always tend to agree with the famous critic of psychiatry, Thomas Szasz, that today we have not "suicide prevention", but "suicide prohibition" - people seem to be simply not allowed to end their own life! Not to be misunderstood: I do NOT support or promote suicide, and think it is wrong (and sadly irreversible) decision. I also support non-coersive attempts to persuade people not to kill themselves. What I do not support is coersive attempts to force people to live even if they evidently don't want to.
4 - I think I can understand why you wouldn't support it: you might be afraid that people would be forced to accept particular morality (humanistic one), while all other, more forceful and militaristic possibilities, would be eliminated. I want to emphasise here that I only talked about voluntary transformation - no one, even the most bloody mass murderer, should be forced to undergone such spiritual/psychophysical metamorphosis. I also said that I do not differ beween "legal" and "illegal" violence, as well as between "moral" and "immoral" one. The former depends on particular and local, subjective and situational, legal system; the latter depends on particular and local, subjective and situational, moral system. But I do think that there is something more deep and non-local (both in literal and metaphorical sense) in us, and this deeper spiritual essense seems to be quite "humanistic" in nature. It does not mean that it is always pleasant and peaceful - there are distressing aspects of spirituality, too; and there are a few people, who, being quite spiritual, still chose a "dark" path, such as Satanists. But, still, the vast majority of violence, cruelty and opression seems to be the result not of some intrinsic predisposition towards agression, but simply of stupidity, ignorance, robotization, indoctrination and obscurity. If we give them up for the sake of intelligence, knowledge, free will, free thought and lucidity, the amount of cruelty in this world will definitely become very, very little (even if, probably, not totally absent).
5 - Potential compatibility of these two ideas was the main idea of my post! To experience spiritual journey and rebirth, one should not necessarily die first. It is apparently possible to achieve the new reality and new incarnation by deliberately changing this one, not giving it up for the sake of another.
2. Yes, but that is possible to resurrect a person does not imply that it is always possible to resurrect that person. It would not be immortality. Also I notice that is not the same the afterlife and spiritual immortality, although there are reasons to believe that the afterlife is eternal.
5. This is highly speculative, but perhaps physical immortality can lead to madness, as happens to some vampires in Vampire Chronicles series by Anne Rice.
2. I think there are several different layers/levels of the realities which we call "spiritual", such as Bardos in Tibetian Book of the Dead. I think, we can exist on all of them simultaneously, being both (in) the Source/Pure Light (the First Bardo), in the higher spiritual realms (the Second Bardo), in the lower ones (the Third Bardo), and in the "physical" reality (which I sometimes call the Fourth Bardo). I also think that the digital virtual reality of the Internet might be called the Fifth Bardo - a new artificial techno-semiotic world we created ourselves!
5. The conscious and voluntary control of one's mind and body, combined with continuous, diverse and deliberate transformation of them, gives us quite a good protection from madness (which appear to thrive among mortal sentinent creatures for now)...
3- I always tend to agree with the famous critic of psychiatry, Thomas Szasz, that today we have not "suicide prevention", but "suicide prohibition" - people seem to be simply not allowed to end their own life! Not to be misunderstood: I do NOT support or promote suicide, and think it is wrong (and sadly irreversible) decision. I also support non-coersive attempts to persuade people not to kill themselves. What I do not support is coersive attempts to force people to live even if they evidently don't want to.
Synopsis - they are close to being pro-suicide especially if there are no family or close friends affected. Since there are no judgments in the afterlife, suicide is seen as a poor choice except under certain circumstances.
You can bet on a reincarnation coming your way very soon though.
I meant "poor choice", not moral judgement of any sort. And even in "poor choice", I'm not absolutistic: a person experiencing an extremely intense and/or lengthy torment, might find death as an excape from a truly unbearable (and unavoidable) suffering. I'm not in position to judge here, sitting on my cosy chair in warmth and comfort. But in a (vast) majority of cases, suffering is either bearable, or avoidable, or both. I think it would be not too clever to cut off a whole ocean of further positive possibilities with a one irreversible choice.
Anyway, it should be a one's own choice: I'm highly critical of the coersion (if not to say "violence") common for the modern mental health system, in which is seen as normal "to save people from themselves" (without asking about their own views on the subject).
Well, that's why I'm regularly reading (and ocassionally posting on) Mad in America, a gathering place of the critics of biological and/or coersive psychiatry (and recommend others to look at this site, too): there one can find a really superb collection of materials about scientific, scholarly and social problems and difficulties of the mental health system (and humanistic/libertarian alternatives rising up).
P.S. If one want a quick introduction to the Mad in America, look here for the introductory speech by Robert Whitaker, the founder of the site.