TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,585
It is no surprise that since the beginning of time, and even for decades, possibly centuries or more, we (as pro-choicers) especially moreso in the last decade or so have been constantly at conflict (contention) with forced-lifers, whether online or IRL. That also entails with people we know, people we are close with, and/or other acquaintances, friends, or whomever and more. In this thread, however, I will go in more depth to not only summarize the main core contention that we have, but also try to explain the mindset of forced-lifers and their 'flawed' logic.
It seems that for the last decade or so, at least in the recent decade and a half, the right to die has expanded, but mostly only for those whom are terminally ill and such. While more and more jurisdictions (states, provinces, countries, and more) have started to have such policies on their books, and allowing more people to access said services, one going on one's own terms is still heavily constrained. For example, while the law for those who are suffering immensely may be on the books, even those in Canada still face an uphill battle to be able to legally access it (MAID). In jurisdictions where it is legal, the patient still has to go through many eligibility criterion before being allowed to effectively get said service, and sometimes even the eligibility criterion ends up being a catch-22, especially when the criterion of soundness of mind and other unfalsifiable criterions are involved. An severely physically disabled individual applies for MAID but gets rejected just because he/she is too "depressed" and that their "depression" is affecting their ability to choose MAID (which is far from the truth because even if they were deemed the label of being 'depressed' especially due to their condition, then almost ANYONE in that predicament would be depressed and therefore would not qualify! A catch-22 situation).
Another such example is about the suffering and gatekeeping, especially when someone who opts for the right to die but because they are in situations (real problems, be it poverty, abusive relations, or real life situations) that push them towards wanting to CTB, they are denied because others deem their problems 'solvable' and that if all solved, then they would not CTB. It creates a catch-22 because it deems that one would NEVER choose the choice of CTB if they never had struggles or problems to want them to CTB (terminal illnesses, permanent chronic illnesses, severe permanent physical disabilities and debility, low quality of life with irremediable conditions and cannot be restored to a state in which the person deems tolerable etc.), but yet if they want to choose to CTB, then they are too depressed. It is just like a catch-22 cycle that is also built on prejudiced beliefs and hasty generalizations.
While there are more examples that can be given, in the end, it is NOT a matter of whether one is of soundness of mind (maybe with the exception of the terminally ill), whether or not their own argument is in good faith and seeking actual dialogue and truth (they are disingenuous), whether or not , BUT rather because they cannot accept the fact that someone is choosing to opt of sentience/life itself that they blindingly accept as an infinite sum of goodness without qualification (just blanket acceptance)! Then anything that challenges or conflicts with that "view" or value, whether it is the most logical argument, whether or not the person suffering the most could benefit from ending said suffering is irrelevant to them! This is why there has been many challenges (legally before MAID was a thing in Canada, it started from a supreme court case in 2015 over someone whom was terminally ill and not granted assistance in dying to end their suffering, Carter v. Canada, and then later expanded to grant MAID towards those who are suffering but not terminally ill) and even people similar to us whom end up choosing to go DIY or secretly attempting because we could NEVER have a platform outside of our communities in the open, nor could we talk about it openly without risk of consequences (being locked up, incarcerated, humiliated, and having our lives, decision, and our health questioned, interrogated, treated like a criminal despite having committed NO crimes!)! We continue (in present day and for the foreseeable future - as of this article) to have contentions over the right to die because forced-lifers (pro-lifers) SIMPLY CANNOT accept and respect our decision to decide when we no longer wish to continue to live and they do everything they can to frustrate us, whether to discourage our decision, impede and impinge on our efforts actively (if they know), and even up to incarceration, detention, and locking us up against our will!
It seems that for the last decade or so, at least in the recent decade and a half, the right to die has expanded, but mostly only for those whom are terminally ill and such. While more and more jurisdictions (states, provinces, countries, and more) have started to have such policies on their books, and allowing more people to access said services, one going on one's own terms is still heavily constrained. For example, while the law for those who are suffering immensely may be on the books, even those in Canada still face an uphill battle to be able to legally access it (MAID). In jurisdictions where it is legal, the patient still has to go through many eligibility criterion before being allowed to effectively get said service, and sometimes even the eligibility criterion ends up being a catch-22, especially when the criterion of soundness of mind and other unfalsifiable criterions are involved. An severely physically disabled individual applies for MAID but gets rejected just because he/she is too "depressed" and that their "depression" is affecting their ability to choose MAID (which is far from the truth because even if they were deemed the label of being 'depressed' especially due to their condition, then almost ANYONE in that predicament would be depressed and therefore would not qualify! A catch-22 situation).
Another such example is about the suffering and gatekeeping, especially when someone who opts for the right to die but because they are in situations (real problems, be it poverty, abusive relations, or real life situations) that push them towards wanting to CTB, they are denied because others deem their problems 'solvable' and that if all solved, then they would not CTB. It creates a catch-22 because it deems that one would NEVER choose the choice of CTB if they never had struggles or problems to want them to CTB (terminal illnesses, permanent chronic illnesses, severe permanent physical disabilities and debility, low quality of life with irremediable conditions and cannot be restored to a state in which the person deems tolerable etc.), but yet if they want to choose to CTB, then they are too depressed. It is just like a catch-22 cycle that is also built on prejudiced beliefs and hasty generalizations.
While there are more examples that can be given, in the end, it is NOT a matter of whether one is of soundness of mind (maybe with the exception of the terminally ill), whether or not their own argument is in good faith and seeking actual dialogue and truth (they are disingenuous), whether or not , BUT rather because they cannot accept the fact that someone is choosing to opt of sentience/life itself that they blindingly accept as an infinite sum of goodness without qualification (just blanket acceptance)! Then anything that challenges or conflicts with that "view" or value, whether it is the most logical argument, whether or not the person suffering the most could benefit from ending said suffering is irrelevant to them! This is why there has been many challenges (legally before MAID was a thing in Canada, it started from a supreme court case in 2015 over someone whom was terminally ill and not granted assistance in dying to end their suffering, Carter v. Canada, and then later expanded to grant MAID towards those who are suffering but not terminally ill) and even people similar to us whom end up choosing to go DIY or secretly attempting because we could NEVER have a platform outside of our communities in the open, nor could we talk about it openly without risk of consequences (being locked up, incarcerated, humiliated, and having our lives, decision, and our health questioned, interrogated, treated like a criminal despite having committed NO crimes!)! We continue (in present day and for the foreseeable future - as of this article) to have contentions over the right to die because forced-lifers (pro-lifers) SIMPLY CANNOT accept and respect our decision to decide when we no longer wish to continue to live and they do everything they can to frustrate us, whether to discourage our decision, impede and impinge on our efforts actively (if they know), and even up to incarceration, detention, and locking us up against our will!
