TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,787
Note: This is not an anti-choice, pro pro-lifer thread! It just highlights the drawbacks, weaknesses, blind spots of the pro-choice movement and bring up potential solutions to this drawback.
What is the paradox of the pro-choice movement? The paradox is the fact due to the nature of our movement, we (pro-choicers) will overtime lose members and numbers needed to advocate and support our movement as our own exercise the very right that we are advocating for (the right to die and no longer exist). I fully support the right to die, but I believe that if we do not address this paradox and drawback, then we as a movement would not be able to succeed in our goals in the long term due to declining membership and advocacy.
Example to illustrate the pro-choicer's paradox
I will use an example to illustrate this paradox. Suppose there are two jars of marbles, Jar A and B respectively, with 50 marbles in each jar. Jar A contains red marbles (pro-choicers) and Jar B contains green marbles (pro-lifers). Then there is coin with heads or tails. In Jar A, a coin is tossed and if it is heads, then a marble is removed from the jar. However, if the result is tails, then no marble is removed at all. With about 30 iterations (or coin flips), assuming there is about 50/50 result of heads and tails, there will be about 15 red marbles removed from Jar A, thus only 35 red marbles remaining in Jar A. Meanwhile, Jar B, which contains green marbles remain unchanged, at 50 marbles. As you can see, overtime Jar A (after 30 coin flips) lost 15 marbles, putting the count at 35 while Jar B still retains it's 50 marbles. With about 100 coin flips (and assuming a 50/50 result), there would effectively be 0 marbles in Jar A as there would be at least 50 'heads' result from the coin flip that removes all the marbles from Jar A while Jar B still contains 50 marbles.
Granted this example is simplistic and not perfect, but the idea of the declining marbles in a jar illustrate the paradox pretty effectively.
On a slightly different note, perhaps in history there may have been pro-CTB and pro-RTD (right to die) movements but it's members went extinct due to most of them checking out, thus the movement(s) or group(s) may have existed for some period of time before fading away. Then as time goes by and pro-lifers' (which is the majority of the human population and the masses) groups grow, they overshadow the minority of humans who wish to push the right to die as a human right, and basically drown out the pro-choicers' voices.
Some solutions that I have thought of are:
1. AI programmed to continue pro-choice advocacy and fighting for the movement, long after the vocal ones and our numbers have diminished (either due to natural causes or members who have CTB'd and found peace).
2. Some way or entity (3rd party) pushing, rallying, and supporting our movement long after the original members are gone.
3. The pro-choicers who chose to stay around to continue advocacy and activism for our movement (until they too eventually opt out of life).
These (potential) solutions may be the answer to address the paradox that the pro-choice movement faces.
What is the paradox of the pro-choice movement? The paradox is the fact due to the nature of our movement, we (pro-choicers) will overtime lose members and numbers needed to advocate and support our movement as our own exercise the very right that we are advocating for (the right to die and no longer exist). I fully support the right to die, but I believe that if we do not address this paradox and drawback, then we as a movement would not be able to succeed in our goals in the long term due to declining membership and advocacy.
Example to illustrate the pro-choicer's paradox
I will use an example to illustrate this paradox. Suppose there are two jars of marbles, Jar A and B respectively, with 50 marbles in each jar. Jar A contains red marbles (pro-choicers) and Jar B contains green marbles (pro-lifers). Then there is coin with heads or tails. In Jar A, a coin is tossed and if it is heads, then a marble is removed from the jar. However, if the result is tails, then no marble is removed at all. With about 30 iterations (or coin flips), assuming there is about 50/50 result of heads and tails, there will be about 15 red marbles removed from Jar A, thus only 35 red marbles remaining in Jar A. Meanwhile, Jar B, which contains green marbles remain unchanged, at 50 marbles. As you can see, overtime Jar A (after 30 coin flips) lost 15 marbles, putting the count at 35 while Jar B still retains it's 50 marbles. With about 100 coin flips (and assuming a 50/50 result), there would effectively be 0 marbles in Jar A as there would be at least 50 'heads' result from the coin flip that removes all the marbles from Jar A while Jar B still contains 50 marbles.
Granted this example is simplistic and not perfect, but the idea of the declining marbles in a jar illustrate the paradox pretty effectively.
On a slightly different note, perhaps in history there may have been pro-CTB and pro-RTD (right to die) movements but it's members went extinct due to most of them checking out, thus the movement(s) or group(s) may have existed for some period of time before fading away. Then as time goes by and pro-lifers' (which is the majority of the human population and the masses) groups grow, they overshadow the minority of humans who wish to push the right to die as a human right, and basically drown out the pro-choicers' voices.
Some solutions that I have thought of are:
1. AI programmed to continue pro-choice advocacy and fighting for the movement, long after the vocal ones and our numbers have diminished (either due to natural causes or members who have CTB'd and found peace).
2. Some way or entity (3rd party) pushing, rallying, and supporting our movement long after the original members are gone.
3. The pro-choicers who chose to stay around to continue advocacy and activism for our movement (until they too eventually opt out of life).
These (potential) solutions may be the answer to address the paradox that the pro-choice movement faces.