TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,706
Per RainAndSadness's article written quite a while titled "Vulnerability is not an argument", it is a good counterargument against the claim that pro-lifers like to use as justification to deny or keep assisted suicide, the right to die prohibited (with the exception of maybe terminal illness). Additionally, I'd like to add to RAS's counterargument (somewhat similar to RAS's article), which is that pro-lifers want to ban the right to die and assisted suicide because of the fear for it being used for murder or the non-consensual taking of another's life and having almost no way to protect against that.
Countering the pro-lifers' "Vulnerability and exploitative argument":
My counter-argument to that (the vulnerability argument that pro-lifers like to use) is that there are many things that could be used for harm, misuse, abuse, or otherwise malicious and/or fraudulent purposes, but they are not banned. Instead, they are heavily regulated and also penalties are given for those who misuse, abuse, or otherwise harm others through reckless or negligent manners. Having the right to die established as a legal program with a legal process involved is NOT going to force people to just die nor does it imply that one is not of sound mind. In fact, there are many checks, hoops, and procedures in place as well as eligibility criteria which will include psychological evaluation to determine one is of sound mind before being able to proceed.
Another pro-lifer argument against RTD: "Very few people will benefit from it, so it is largely unnecessary and waste of gov't resources!"
I also had another epiphany after hearing an argument that pro-lifers use which is that if the right to die which is that it is unnecessary due to a very, very small amount of people ever needing it or utilizing it, but as a pro-choicer, this is terrible argument for not allowing the right to die. The whole notion of majority rules or even that because only a very small fraction of people benefit from it is not a good reason to prohibit it or just outright refuse to implement such a system. In other words, the pro-lifers who use this argument to deny or refuse to allow the gateway or process for a legal right to die or assisted suicide, is rather asinine because it is effectively marginalizing the small amount. Worst yet, pro-lifers justify this by claiming that it is just the price that one pays due to the nature of life. It is rather a glib attitude such that people should have to suffer because it is just the unfortunate reality of life and the ones who end up that way are just unlucky.
My counter-argument to the majority rules claim and "it's just nature/God's will" is that well, if they (the pro-lifers) were to assert that, then they would need to accept that people who will die passively due to nature (diseases and ailments) should NOT have their life prolonged without their consent! Otherwise they (the pro-lifers) are hypocrites. Why are they hypocrites? They are hypocrites because they will play God and go against nature's course if the result is death by unnecessarily prolonging one's life against their will, yet they wouldn't play God when it comes to relieving pain and suffering (when death wasn't imminent).
Anyways, this article that I written was mainly to address two arguments in one, the vulnerability argument that pro-lifers like to use as well as the denial of a codified right to die due to a waste of resources. Both arguments are rather weak and this article serves to expose them and debunk them. I believe that anyone who is suffering, regardless of whether they may be the marginalized minority of people in a population, all deserve a way out. It is not a waste of resources anymore than the countless and (almost) never-ending paternalistic policies and measures that the government does and continue to do.
@RainAndSadness @Forever Sleep
Countering the pro-lifers' "Vulnerability and exploitative argument":
My counter-argument to that (the vulnerability argument that pro-lifers like to use) is that there are many things that could be used for harm, misuse, abuse, or otherwise malicious and/or fraudulent purposes, but they are not banned. Instead, they are heavily regulated and also penalties are given for those who misuse, abuse, or otherwise harm others through reckless or negligent manners. Having the right to die established as a legal program with a legal process involved is NOT going to force people to just die nor does it imply that one is not of sound mind. In fact, there are many checks, hoops, and procedures in place as well as eligibility criteria which will include psychological evaluation to determine one is of sound mind before being able to proceed.
Another pro-lifer argument against RTD: "Very few people will benefit from it, so it is largely unnecessary and waste of gov't resources!"
I also had another epiphany after hearing an argument that pro-lifers use which is that if the right to die which is that it is unnecessary due to a very, very small amount of people ever needing it or utilizing it, but as a pro-choicer, this is terrible argument for not allowing the right to die. The whole notion of majority rules or even that because only a very small fraction of people benefit from it is not a good reason to prohibit it or just outright refuse to implement such a system. In other words, the pro-lifers who use this argument to deny or refuse to allow the gateway or process for a legal right to die or assisted suicide, is rather asinine because it is effectively marginalizing the small amount. Worst yet, pro-lifers justify this by claiming that it is just the price that one pays due to the nature of life. It is rather a glib attitude such that people should have to suffer because it is just the unfortunate reality of life and the ones who end up that way are just unlucky.
My counter-argument to the majority rules claim and "it's just nature/God's will" is that well, if they (the pro-lifers) were to assert that, then they would need to accept that people who will die passively due to nature (diseases and ailments) should NOT have their life prolonged without their consent! Otherwise they (the pro-lifers) are hypocrites. Why are they hypocrites? They are hypocrites because they will play God and go against nature's course if the result is death by unnecessarily prolonging one's life against their will, yet they wouldn't play God when it comes to relieving pain and suffering (when death wasn't imminent).
Anyways, this article that I written was mainly to address two arguments in one, the vulnerability argument that pro-lifers like to use as well as the denial of a codified right to die due to a waste of resources. Both arguments are rather weak and this article serves to expose them and debunk them. I believe that anyone who is suffering, regardless of whether they may be the marginalized minority of people in a population, all deserve a way out. It is not a waste of resources anymore than the countless and (almost) never-ending paternalistic policies and measures that the government does and continue to do.
@RainAndSadness @Forever Sleep
Last edited:
