On Death
One of the major issues is, first and for most, whether or not they deserve life.

What does that mean? That's judgment of life and death, and to judge, there must be something to do so. This may then be simple if one believes in a higher order, and therefore you don't need to think any more on this. (After all, you're not the higher order and so what does it matter what you think?)

But, there being no higher order, what is the point of deserving to live? Life and death is a process. It's an honor to be both. To live, your ultimatum is survival of the species--to procreate. In death, you continue this process of life--as mulch or food. This is the basis of the life-death cycle.

From that, you get ways of life. Do you clean yourself, protect yourself, or choose procreate-partners? Just taking from the basis of the life-death cycle, you could think that those on the bottom rim of society--women who do nothing but have children from their start of puberty to their end, or men who have had a new partner every night, constantly dumping their seed in sometimes willing receivers.

For those who have ever had mice (or other familial species), they could understand that this is not life at its best, but rather it corrupted and in decay. If one has two mice, of opposite sex, and given opportunity, they will non-stop procreate. If sex is the pure only motive, then filth will build--physically and genetically. You find yourself with a box of a teeming fleshy mass. Genetically, and this only takes a few generations, you find the lowest of possibilities form--strange tics or habits. It's similar to a snake swallowing its own tail.

What life is, then, is a balance of choice genetic material, great shelter, food, and overall protection. This then leads to the assumption that lack of procreation may also be a plus in the survival of a species. Those who do not have children, are gay, or choose abortion may, after all, choose to conserve food supply when otherwise spawning more children would diminish chance of overall survival. (After all, if there is a high surplus of uncared for children, then would not those who are gay or unwilling or unable to have children prime candidates to adopt? Where is the intelligence and future-thinking in conceiving more children when there are previous children uncared for?)

With the definition of life taken care of, the reason for death is a constant confusion or question people ask. However, similar to the deserving of life, there depends on your take on these words. If a higher order is believed, then, again, your take on this does not matter. The reason of death is not your worry.

But without a higher order in your belief, then the meaning for death is, simply, that without death there is not life. A constant false impression from vegetarians is that, no matter what, in order for one thing to survive, something else must die. An animal dying is the hunter's gain. If the predator killed a deer, then their life is passed through to the predator's. Then the deer left in the herd are reserved to live for another day.

Of course, one of the arguments is that if you didn't kill the deer in the first place, that one would still be alive, and therefore no need for killing, period. However, if you remember that there is always a limited food supply, then the lack of death would mean a constant lack of food--and in the end, a lack of life.

...

Another thought is that those who die are flawed. In human civilization, death is seen as horrendous--a freak of nature. There must be a point to it (when indeed there is often 'no point' to some people living in the first place), otherwise it goes against order.

Yes, death is a very sad thing. Another potential life wasted, because of course, every one has such potential. (While no one wants to point out that almost no one is of high worth--a mass of people are, after all, always a mass a people.)

One of the highest conundrums to understand is suicide. A constant problem is that people often times view those who have died as 'special' or better than they were--nobody likes to insult the dead. Perhaps because they can't stand up for themself? After all, if you're dead, that's all you are. It's not a very special state. Your flaws are still there in memory and being dead is not an excuse to forgive them. (It's similar to say that if a highly flawed person is alive, then if the gift of life excusing them of their flaws?) The only reason why being dead is an easier excuse to make something more special is because it is harder for those who did not know the person in life to figure out their flaws.

If you take the example of a woman deeply poor never married had six children. In her struggle to feed and care for them, she fell ill and died. A friend or mother of this woman then asks and begs for others to give money out of charity. To feel bad for the mother and her impossible-to-overcome hardships. This woman of six children was such a nice and caring woman! She loved children so much, that's why she had six! Oh, but she just couldn't care for them. She fell prey to unfair hardships--not being able to get a job, and she got sick. (Not that she deserved it).

But what does that mean? Why would a poor woman who has no one to help her financially (such as a husband) have six children? Why would she, knowing she was unable to even properly care for herself, bring to existence six predetermined failures? Instead of properly finding income or a stable lifestyle, she brought in more unrest and chaos because she wanted to. Instead of taking the proper actions, she continued to worsen her situation.

Another example. A woman seeks attention, always wearing the skimpiest of clothing, sitting with her legs wide-open, and seeking the lowest of males to skewer her with their masculinity. While walking down an alleyway one night, or meeting one of her 'boys', she is jumped, raped, and killed.

What a poor girl! She was so well liked by everyone. She didn't deserve to die! She was one her way to college (that's what she told her parents) and she was so well known in the bar where she worked. Her parents and friends should have money given to them--after all, they had such a heavy lose from her death. Despite, of course, her being a 'free' whore. Uncaring and unable to take care of herself. The men she was with never cared for her--who would? They just wanted a 'warm' place and something to be a receptacle of their seed.

Another woman cannot help herself. She has a fine family. That's not the problem. She's just unhappy. Nobody seems to love her. She wants to be loved. Her friends are nice to her--they're exceptionally nice people (or perhaps as well they are just as needy as she is). So this woman takes advantage of that. Always hanging out with her friends, and when they don't, she's sad--after all, she's not needed. They're not with her--why aren't they with her? One day, one of her friend's brothers is killed in a car accident. He was well-liked and the more the woman thinks about it, the more she decided she loved him (and this was after he died--dead people are special after all). Her friend is in deep sorrow. He was her favorite brother. But the woman deserves the care and sorrow, she loved the brother! In her mock sorrow (that she thinks is real), she cuts herself--look at how much I loved him! I'm so sad! is what she'll say to her friend when she seems her again. But her friend doesn't seem to care (and why is the woman so needy for attention?). So the next day, the woman kills herself. After all, she loved the brother. She really did. What sorrow is her plight! Everyone should care for her! Especially her friend! After all, if they both lived, the woman and her friend's brother would have such a wonderful life together!

But really what does the woman matter? She didn't love anyone, not even her friend.

The friend will care. Everyone of these dead people will be cared for unfairly because they're dead. It's some magical word to mean that you're worth more than you are. Who should care for a dead man? What point is there? They are dead and are fodder for life to grow. This deserves respect, perhaps, but not love.

Perhaps one should love the living. This can even mean those memories of those living--but not to worship the dead. Often times, death reveals truth. In life, because they are living, you do not want to think of what an atrocity someone is. Death allows a second look. What if the friend realized that she was relieved of a burdensome duty when the woman died? That would create such guilt--because one isn't supposed to speak ill of the dead.

But why not? What makes a dead person so special? Why does that matter? Why spend time over something in the past (something irreversible) if there is no way to change it?

Perhaps the first step is the accept that one is unable to accept that someone has died.

Usually a mourner was unable to say something to the dead--this is the usual conundrum. They don't want to say it now, since the person is dead--because again, the dead are angelic.

The second step would be to then understand that there was a problem with the dead.

The third would be to accept that no person is perfect.

The fourth--to accept that the dead are imperfect.

The fifth--to accept that 'something imperfect' has died.

The sixth--to accept that the person has died.