TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,530
I have written a similar thread (linked here) before in the past, but it is worth repeating the same sentiment as I have seen such patterns online and IRL (not involving me, but through others) and there is a common element to most/almost all those situations.
Note/Disclaimer: Every situation will be different and of course, there are often more variables to it or so, but this article is mainly pointing out and proving that in most situations with anti-choicers and forced-lifers they only care about the act itself rather than the outcome!
With that said, this thread is partly to bring to light while also venting over how many forced-lifers and anti-choicers really only care about the act of (attempting, whether successful or not) rather than the effect or outcome of the person. Of course, they will humble brag (to themselves and their circle of people - friends and acquaintances alike) if the person recovered or moved on in life, but even if said person did not, then the forced-lifers/anti-choicers would just dismiss it and write it off; which proves that they really don't care about the outcome (whether the person being intruded and intervened against was worse off or not) just that they "played hero" and feel good about themselves. Yes, it does boil down to ego a lot of the times, but it's more about their own values and insecurities moreso than genuine care
Example Scenario:
Suppose we have a couple, A and B. So A and B got together, were a couple and after some time, be it a year or few, then A has cheated on B, and B was upset (rightfully so), and then the couple broke up, so A is B's ex and B is A's ex, respectively. They both no longer keep in touch and blocked each other. What or why is not really the relevant point, but the point is that since A and B are both not contact with each other, they are effectively "dead" to each other because neither of them will have any contact (phone, text, communication platforms, in person, etc.,) and yet suppose A couldn't handle it and wanted to CTB, then somehow, B got knowledge of that, and then wanted to prevent, intervene against A, ruining A's escape from (unbearable) suffering. However, if B did not have knowledge of such (whether by third party or any other source - presumably A and B no longer have ANY contact with each other), B wouldn't be bothered. Of course, B intervened not because B and A wanted to be together again (that is not likely to happen as they are both no-contact and have no communication with each other anymore - post separation), but because A's exercising of A's autonomy (to CTB and escape suffering permanently) BOTHERED B's values and the status quo, therefore B had to act, even if it only caused further harm to A. Yet if B did not know of A's plan or so, then B would be blissfully ignorant and at peace.
So in conclusion, it is NOT because B cared about A's problems or suffering, but because A's wanting to exercise A's autonomy goes against B's values and B couldn't accept or respect A's decision and decided to act, regardless of the outcome towards A! If B had no knowledge of A's plans and even going as far to claim that suppose for the rest of A and B's life, they both never contacted nor had knowledge of what happened, B would not have been bothered or been affected. So in the end, it is all about upholding the status quo and challenging their innate belief that "life is a virtue/has a intrinsic value", rather than genuine concern or genuine benefit!
While the example I've gave is a bit oversimplified, the overall point is still the same; anti-choicers and forced-lifers are only offended or bothered because of the "act of CTB" because it goes against their personal values and morals, rather than whatever happened to the person. This is because once said person blocked or even cut off from said forced-lifer/anti-choicer's life (indirectly and directly) it is de facto (effectively) the same as the person being dead because the forced-lifer/anti-choicer would have no contact or knowledge of said person (except the presumption (whether true or not) that said person is still alive - which they gleefully brag to themselves and their circle of people). Again, I want to reiterate that not all situations are the same, and the example I gave was just a general, yet common example of my point. Of course, there are "some" people who genuinely care and really do want to improve the intervened person's life, but most people are not; they just want to intervene to make themselves feel good (and not feel bad, guilty), then move on regardless of whether the person was harmed further, made worse, or made better.
Note/Disclaimer: Every situation will be different and of course, there are often more variables to it or so, but this article is mainly pointing out and proving that in most situations with anti-choicers and forced-lifers they only care about the act itself rather than the outcome!
With that said, this thread is partly to bring to light while also venting over how many forced-lifers and anti-choicers really only care about the act of (attempting, whether successful or not) rather than the effect or outcome of the person. Of course, they will humble brag (to themselves and their circle of people - friends and acquaintances alike) if the person recovered or moved on in life, but even if said person did not, then the forced-lifers/anti-choicers would just dismiss it and write it off; which proves that they really don't care about the outcome (whether the person being intruded and intervened against was worse off or not) just that they "played hero" and feel good about themselves. Yes, it does boil down to ego a lot of the times, but it's more about their own values and insecurities moreso than genuine care
Example Scenario:
Suppose we have a couple, A and B. So A and B got together, were a couple and after some time, be it a year or few, then A has cheated on B, and B was upset (rightfully so), and then the couple broke up, so A is B's ex and B is A's ex, respectively. They both no longer keep in touch and blocked each other. What or why is not really the relevant point, but the point is that since A and B are both not contact with each other, they are effectively "dead" to each other because neither of them will have any contact (phone, text, communication platforms, in person, etc.,) and yet suppose A couldn't handle it and wanted to CTB, then somehow, B got knowledge of that, and then wanted to prevent, intervene against A, ruining A's escape from (unbearable) suffering. However, if B did not have knowledge of such (whether by third party or any other source - presumably A and B no longer have ANY contact with each other), B wouldn't be bothered. Of course, B intervened not because B and A wanted to be together again (that is not likely to happen as they are both no-contact and have no communication with each other anymore - post separation), but because A's exercising of A's autonomy (to CTB and escape suffering permanently) BOTHERED B's values and the status quo, therefore B had to act, even if it only caused further harm to A. Yet if B did not know of A's plan or so, then B would be blissfully ignorant and at peace.
So in conclusion, it is NOT because B cared about A's problems or suffering, but because A's wanting to exercise A's autonomy goes against B's values and B couldn't accept or respect A's decision and decided to act, regardless of the outcome towards A! If B had no knowledge of A's plans and even going as far to claim that suppose for the rest of A and B's life, they both never contacted nor had knowledge of what happened, B would not have been bothered or been affected. So in the end, it is all about upholding the status quo and challenging their innate belief that "life is a virtue/has a intrinsic value", rather than genuine concern or genuine benefit!
While the example I've gave is a bit oversimplified, the overall point is still the same; anti-choicers and forced-lifers are only offended or bothered because of the "act of CTB" because it goes against their personal values and morals, rather than whatever happened to the person. This is because once said person blocked or even cut off from said forced-lifer/anti-choicer's life (indirectly and directly) it is de facto (effectively) the same as the person being dead because the forced-lifer/anti-choicer would have no contact or knowledge of said person (except the presumption (whether true or not) that said person is still alive - which they gleefully brag to themselves and their circle of people). Again, I want to reiterate that not all situations are the same, and the example I gave was just a general, yet common example of my point. Of course, there are "some" people who genuinely care and really do want to improve the intervened person's life, but most people are not; they just want to intervene to make themselves feel good (and not feel bad, guilty), then move on regardless of whether the person was harmed further, made worse, or made better.
