My answers:
1- Yes.
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.
1 - Well, here we agree...
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.