pro-life and pro-choice discourse seems to require that we have faithful representatives in order to make a sound case for why the pro-choice position should be considered a rational one, and this is undermined by the fact that many on the pro-life spectrum believe those who suffer from suicidal ideation to be inherently irrational and thus incapable of sound argument. i've come to realize that arguing through logic alone is insufficient for understanding the opposing side. it's necessary to be empathic in dealing with opposing ideals, especially when those voicing dissent in our views may not be able to represent their arguments faithfully due to some impairment on their part.
in the case of the suicidal, i would argue that many are not in a state wherein they can convey their arguments faithfully, due to variables which might undermine how they express their views. for instance, those suffering from depression may not have the energy to convey themselves faithfully, despite believing themselves to be fully capable of rational thought; in a verbal setting, this capacity may be overlooked in favour of debating ability, which is conflated with how faithful they are to their original position. there are inevitably going to be those who aren't entirely consistent in their views, and thus might be refuted on the basis of some small technicality; the particular circumstances involved in ones desire to die might not be articulable in an entirely rational way, which may present itself as an opportunity for those who oppose the suicidal individual's position to make deflationary claims in order to underscore their general pro-life sentiment. this is not to undermine the intelligence of those who are suicidal, but rather that the pro-life position tends to rely on anecdotal justification ("i've tried to argue with X in the past, and i perceived that the entire argument was inconsistent.. so clearly those who hold such ideas are inherently incapable of according with what i perceive to be rational -- they are impaired due to circumstances such as depression which cloud their thoughts!") in order to proactively deny the pro-choice position, according as those who are not the best representatives are tasked with defending the entire stronghold.
it can be extremely tiring to argue against a status quo position, especially when you lack the energy to do so. the burden should fall on those in the pro-life position to be more empathic in their reasoning; if an individual is incapable of strongholding the gamut of pro-choice views, this might be because they lack the capacity to convey their points in debate, and not necessarily the inherent contradictions of such a position. this to me seems very common on a local level i.e trying to have others understand your own intentions, despite protest
maybe this applies more to a pro-mortalist position, which is more philosophical, yet is often a form of justifying ones own suicidal intent
in the case of the suicidal, i would argue that many are not in a state wherein they can convey their arguments faithfully, due to variables which might undermine how they express their views. for instance, those suffering from depression may not have the energy to convey themselves faithfully, despite believing themselves to be fully capable of rational thought; in a verbal setting, this capacity may be overlooked in favour of debating ability, which is conflated with how faithful they are to their original position. there are inevitably going to be those who aren't entirely consistent in their views, and thus might be refuted on the basis of some small technicality; the particular circumstances involved in ones desire to die might not be articulable in an entirely rational way, which may present itself as an opportunity for those who oppose the suicidal individual's position to make deflationary claims in order to underscore their general pro-life sentiment. this is not to undermine the intelligence of those who are suicidal, but rather that the pro-life position tends to rely on anecdotal justification ("i've tried to argue with X in the past, and i perceived that the entire argument was inconsistent.. so clearly those who hold such ideas are inherently incapable of according with what i perceive to be rational -- they are impaired due to circumstances such as depression which cloud their thoughts!") in order to proactively deny the pro-choice position, according as those who are not the best representatives are tasked with defending the entire stronghold.
it can be extremely tiring to argue against a status quo position, especially when you lack the energy to do so. the burden should fall on those in the pro-life position to be more empathic in their reasoning; if an individual is incapable of strongholding the gamut of pro-choice views, this might be because they lack the capacity to convey their points in debate, and not necessarily the inherent contradictions of such a position. this to me seems very common on a local level i.e trying to have others understand your own intentions, despite protest
maybe this applies more to a pro-mortalist position, which is more philosophical, yet is often a form of justifying ones own suicidal intent
