[Article] The paradox of pro-choicers (unlike pro-lifers)

[TAW122]

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.

 

[FuneralCry]

Maybe there are more people who are pro choice than we think but they don't openly talk about it as suicide is so stigmatised. A lot of people likely see older family members dying from disease/old age and that may make them want the option of a peaceful exit if they got to that point. I just think that the society would never legalise euthanasia for everyone as they need workers, the society that we live in is pro suffering.

 

[Mr_House]

Is it possible for all 3 to be applied?

For instance It will go in an order from 3, 2, 1.

3. Pro-Choicer's stay until time for CTB or Recovery

2. After all original Members are gone, The future might be that of Pro-Choice and Eutheasia, Sanctioned Suicide is retrofitted and repurposed by a new group

1. The new group is getting old and to be dead my natural causes or CTB, Due to advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) many internet functions are now automated, The last members code a AI to ensure the sites survival for any new members

This is just a fun theory of mine, but I like your question nonetheless

Edit: I think A.I. might be a good choice, if it's not hackable or undermanned

 

[obafgkm]

Ideally suicide should be like MAD (nuclear option). It's there as deterrence and never used. Accessible euthanasia should be accompanied by social and cultural changes, so that living conditions would be better, and people don't do things to provoke others into suicide.

In fact if all suicidal people were allowed/ assisted to die, those left would be very positive about life and the society. There wouldn't be a suicide problem. Perhaps that's why dictatorship exists and supported by people, because dissidents powerful enough to affect stability have all died one way or another.

 

[wljourney]

Interesting thought process.

Though I suggest the following question:

What has made us to be pro choice?

Most of us are pro-choice because we have experienced intolerable suffering.
Therefore: As long as people suffer (from illness, from physical and emotional pain, etc), there will always be "enough fresh supply" of pro-choicers.

Another thought:
Being pro-choice is inherently connected to an open mindset and political view that is non-judgemental, allows people freedom of choice as long as it doesn't restrict others, allows people to make their own decisions for themselves, being less guided by external ideology (like religion) and indoctrination etc .

So, as long as a society keeps moving forward into an open, accepting direction, there will always be enough supporters.

Especially those who want other forms of "choice" for themselves to continue are more inclined to also support the choice of assisted dying.

The goal should be to make connections with those other special interest groups and advocate for everyone's choice.

Because if you are pro choice when it comes to abortions or lifestyles or LGBTQ or whatever else you support and advocate for, it's difficult to say "yeah but this is where I draw the line".

Choice is choice.
Freedom to live your life in a humane way.
Freedom to end your life in a humane way.

 

[jodes2]

@wljourney nice idea about collaboration with other advocacy groups

 

[DreamSurfer]

One thing that I would like to point out, is that the world is getting worse and worse at an alarming rate. Therefore if anything, more pro choicers on our side will be created as a result by force basically, due to life conditions.

Like someone else mentioned, people pushed in a por choice mindset may not speak out due to the general down look on allowing assisted suicide. That is the hard part on our end.

Like the cycle of life, we lose some each day as we slowly gain some. There will be pro choicers and pro lifers, probably more pro lifers from the loss of others to ctb though possibly. We just need these hard line politicians to get old and die already so younger more open minded generations can step in.

Interesting discussion!

 

[TAW122]

Bumping this topic even though it is an old topic, I feel like it is quite important and relevant. Also, replying to a few of the posters here, even if they aren't active anymore.

@Mr_House this is an interesting idea, and it would perhaps depend on what kind of new values the future people have for the group. Then again, if it is retrofitted in such a way that deviates from the core values of pro-choice, then that means the pro-choice movement and values would no longer be pro-choice anymore.

@obafgkm Yes, sometimes CTB can be a deterrence at least on a societal level, more as a last resort or sending a subtle message about the living conditions and environment that people are in. I agree that accessible euthanasia along with a culture that doesn't push people towards CTB would be more ideal. Ultimately, this means that people who want to go, have the option and ability to go (on their own terms), and then all the remaining people are those who 'chose' to stay in sentience. That would be a win-win situation as this means the people who are really desperate to go on their own terms won't inconvenience or frustrate and negatively impact others' lives (usually the people who don't want to die or CTB), then the people who want to live, will of course, by default, live.

@wljourney Good points and yes, I think the pro-choice movement should and ideally become more mainstream and accepted by society, at least more open and tolerated than it is nowadays. In our current society and world as of now, more and more places are becoming more accepting of those with 'terminal illnesses' meaning people who are going to die within a fairly short time (6 months or less) in most jurisdictions. While there are some that are more accepting to those with non-terminal, yet chronic and severe conditions, I do believe it should expand more, especially those with severe physical debility that greatly negatively impacts their day to day living and quality of life. The focus of course, should be on patient's wishes and individual's wishes, because only the individual knows what is best for themselves and to presume said individual is unsound of mind or irrational when it comes to choosing to die (on their own terms) but accepting soundness of mind for others is just hypocritical of the pro-lifers themselves.

@DreamSurfer True, if life conditions are bad enough where the current pro-lifers can no longer stay deluded and ignore the circumstances of reality, perhaps by nature and circumstance, they may arrive at the pro-choice, compassionate perspective more. It took many years before terminal illnesses became more/less accepted and tolerated in mainstream social values as a valid option to end suffering, and perhaps the next step would be an expansion to those who are non-terminal, but severely suffering with no relief. It doesn't need to be the elderly or middle aged, but someone with severe physical debility and really poor quality of life should get it. With regards to older politicians, yes a lot of them are still bound by religious mores and values, so when more millennials and gen z politicians come into power, be it a decade or two later, there will likely be a shift towards more acceptance for the right to die laws and expansion of eligibility towards those who are non-terminal, but greatly suffering.

Ultimately, I wrote this article years ago because I've noticed a drawback of our stance in general, especially if/when some of us, in the past and present are no longer around (especially when we CTB) to support and keep the right to die as an option, then there is a vacuum. Whereas for pro-lifers/anti-choicers, they are almost always still around by default since they chose 'life' meaning their numbers still remain more/less the same while ours diminish as some of our members elect to die on their own terms. I still support the right to die as always, but there must be something that can keep our cause going even after the old activists CTB or something (which is why having something like an 'AI' or other kind of species or being that doesn't mind or suffer (in theory) to continue the cause is essential at the macro level.