TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,819
In an older thread, one of main arguments and claims I made is that "Pro-lifers not only deny the right (and guarantee) to a peaceful, dignified exit, but also fail to provide incentive(s) for others to WANT to live (or enjoy one's sentience/existence on one's own terms)." In this thread, I've constructed a truth table outlining how it is wrong to not only deny one the right to die, but also fail to provide things to allow one to WANT to live (or at least tolerate sentience as it is. I also outlined each scenario showing the aftermath and results of each situation, including the one that we face in present day.
Scenario A would be the most ideal situation for us pro-choicers as this would not only allow us the freedom to choose whether we wish to (continue to) exist and live on or exit peacefully on our own terms. There is also a benefit to overall society and everyone, quality of life improves enough that people who would have chosen to CTB may stick around a bit longer, and the overall CTB rate will drop. People will also be much less desperate to do DIY CTB (along with the risks and consequences from it) knowing that they have a legal, guaranteed way out if they ever choose to go. It's really a win-win situation for both pro-choicers and pro-lifers because there are less people who will do CTB (let alone barbaric and gruesome means of CTB), but also improvement for existence to be at least tolerable. Sadly, as much as we wish for this scenario to happen, it is very unlikely (at least in our existing lifetimes) for this to happen and while I wish for this happen, it likely won't.
Scenario B would be less ideal, but at least there is some consolation over having the right to die. In other words, if the pro-lifers fail to provide incentives or things to make existence more tolerable (or at least for the person to want to live), then at least they respect the right to die (not necessarily having to agree with it, but accept it as a valid, legal option (in a controlled environment and such – e.g. MAID in Canada). It would also be consistent with the claim of "the world doesn't owe anybody anything" or similar lines. The same applies to pro-lifers in this case, that pro-choicers don't owe it to them to stay around to validate their atavistic morals and beliefs. Sure, it would be better if there were improvements to quality of life and incentives to get people to (voluntarily to want to) live, but at least the option to escape is not denied and that is the most important aspect.
Scenario C is definitely not ideal, because it denies the person the right to a peaceful, dignified exit. However, it is the lesser of many evils because of the fact that there are incentives and actual things to make forced existence more tolerable or at least minimize suffering and harm. I'm not claiming that this is ideal nor am I supporting pro-lifers by saying this, but merely pointing out the consolation of the situation, having at least some things to make sentience less awful, even if we are denied a peaceful, dignified exit. In such a world, there would likely still be less DIY CTB's especially with improvements to quality of life and incentives to at least "hold on" a bit longer. Sure, it wouldn't help all situations nor every single person who wishes to CTB, but at least for those who may CTB due to whatever external factors may be alleviated. By such incentives and improvements to quality of life, I am NOT referring to empty words, prayers, platitudes, but meaningful action that is taken to ACTUALLY improve quality of life. Sadly, this takes effort and most pro-lifers would be reluctant to invest or do anything like that because any sacrifice of their quality of life as part of a greater effort to improve the quality of life for others is a loss to them (selfish of them, of course).
Scenario D is our current (shitty) reality. This is the world we live in now, where we are not only denied the right to die, but also the lack of incentives (to add insult to injury, the onus being placed on us) to allow us a less painful, harmful existence. This current reality that we live in is where pro-lifers not only deny our right to a peaceful, dignified exit, but also fail to provide things that would actually allow us to thrive (financially, socially, emotionally, or anything that would require actual effort, sacrifice, or concessions on their end). This is essentially modernized slavery and enslavement because it traps people who don't wish to (continue to) exist to suffer and puts the responsibility on us to find something to live for or improve our own qualities of life. Yes, while not ALL pro-lifers are actively sadistically torturing us, the mindset, attitude, and collective hivemind as a whole is harmful us.
As a result of this world that we live in, we see many people who will secretly CTB, oftenly with risky means of DIY methods and even for those who do manage to succeed, oftenly leave collateral damage for the survivors (including many pro-lifers) as a result of this prohibition of the right to die and failure to improve the conditions of forced sentience. Per existentialgoof and maybe others, I fully agree that the denial of the right to a legalized right to die (on one's own terms, with peace and dignity) and the failure to provide things to make one's life at least 'tolerable' (to said individual) is slavery.
In summary, I wrote this thread to further clarify and explore the topic in more depth. Also, after listing out the possibilities, both hypothetical and realistic ones, it will demonstrate the aftermath and results (including the reality that we face in present day) of each scenario. I am hoping this would help people understand better of the main contention between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. The other alternative scenarios are more like meeting pro-lifers halfway, such as compromises and what not, something in between allowing people the right to die while still having safeguards or at least minimizing suffering and harm.
Sadly, Scenario D is our currently reality and unless things improve, we will continue to see people who use DIY methods that result in failure, further suffering, and for those who do succeed, end up with collateral damage towards the pro-lifers and people around them. Then for those who don't CTB, but are trapped in this world, there are even those (a minority though) who lash out as a result of forced sentience and intolerable conditions of (forced) sentience. I've also compared the denial of the right to die to similar prohibitions in history, alcohol, war on drugs, and other similar social issues and I believe they all share a similar theme, prohibition doesn't address the root cause and only further perpetuals other problems while appearing to be benevolent.
@RainAndSadness @FuneralCry @Forever Sleep
| Allowing the right to die | Incentivize, provide wants | Result |
Scenario A | Yes | Yes | Utopic |
Scenario B | Yes | No | Less ideal, tolerable |
Scenario C | No | Yes | Not ideal, less tolerable |
Scenario D | No | No | Unacceptable |
Truth table showing the possible scenarios
Scenario A would be the most ideal situation for us pro-choicers as this would not only allow us the freedom to choose whether we wish to (continue to) exist and live on or exit peacefully on our own terms. There is also a benefit to overall society and everyone, quality of life improves enough that people who would have chosen to CTB may stick around a bit longer, and the overall CTB rate will drop. People will also be much less desperate to do DIY CTB (along with the risks and consequences from it) knowing that they have a legal, guaranteed way out if they ever choose to go. It's really a win-win situation for both pro-choicers and pro-lifers because there are less people who will do CTB (let alone barbaric and gruesome means of CTB), but also improvement for existence to be at least tolerable. Sadly, as much as we wish for this scenario to happen, it is very unlikely (at least in our existing lifetimes) for this to happen and while I wish for this happen, it likely won't.
Scenario B would be less ideal, but at least there is some consolation over having the right to die. In other words, if the pro-lifers fail to provide incentives or things to make existence more tolerable (or at least for the person to want to live), then at least they respect the right to die (not necessarily having to agree with it, but accept it as a valid, legal option (in a controlled environment and such – e.g. MAID in Canada). It would also be consistent with the claim of "the world doesn't owe anybody anything" or similar lines. The same applies to pro-lifers in this case, that pro-choicers don't owe it to them to stay around to validate their atavistic morals and beliefs. Sure, it would be better if there were improvements to quality of life and incentives to get people to (voluntarily to want to) live, but at least the option to escape is not denied and that is the most important aspect.
Scenario C is definitely not ideal, because it denies the person the right to a peaceful, dignified exit. However, it is the lesser of many evils because of the fact that there are incentives and actual things to make forced existence more tolerable or at least minimize suffering and harm. I'm not claiming that this is ideal nor am I supporting pro-lifers by saying this, but merely pointing out the consolation of the situation, having at least some things to make sentience less awful, even if we are denied a peaceful, dignified exit. In such a world, there would likely still be less DIY CTB's especially with improvements to quality of life and incentives to at least "hold on" a bit longer. Sure, it wouldn't help all situations nor every single person who wishes to CTB, but at least for those who may CTB due to whatever external factors may be alleviated. By such incentives and improvements to quality of life, I am NOT referring to empty words, prayers, platitudes, but meaningful action that is taken to ACTUALLY improve quality of life. Sadly, this takes effort and most pro-lifers would be reluctant to invest or do anything like that because any sacrifice of their quality of life as part of a greater effort to improve the quality of life for others is a loss to them (selfish of them, of course).
Scenario D is our current (shitty) reality. This is the world we live in now, where we are not only denied the right to die, but also the lack of incentives (to add insult to injury, the onus being placed on us) to allow us a less painful, harmful existence. This current reality that we live in is where pro-lifers not only deny our right to a peaceful, dignified exit, but also fail to provide things that would actually allow us to thrive (financially, socially, emotionally, or anything that would require actual effort, sacrifice, or concessions on their end). This is essentially modernized slavery and enslavement because it traps people who don't wish to (continue to) exist to suffer and puts the responsibility on us to find something to live for or improve our own qualities of life. Yes, while not ALL pro-lifers are actively sadistically torturing us, the mindset, attitude, and collective hivemind as a whole is harmful us.
As a result of this world that we live in, we see many people who will secretly CTB, oftenly with risky means of DIY methods and even for those who do manage to succeed, oftenly leave collateral damage for the survivors (including many pro-lifers) as a result of this prohibition of the right to die and failure to improve the conditions of forced sentience. Per existentialgoof and maybe others, I fully agree that the denial of the right to a legalized right to die (on one's own terms, with peace and dignity) and the failure to provide things to make one's life at least 'tolerable' (to said individual) is slavery.
In summary, I wrote this thread to further clarify and explore the topic in more depth. Also, after listing out the possibilities, both hypothetical and realistic ones, it will demonstrate the aftermath and results (including the reality that we face in present day) of each scenario. I am hoping this would help people understand better of the main contention between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. The other alternative scenarios are more like meeting pro-lifers halfway, such as compromises and what not, something in between allowing people the right to die while still having safeguards or at least minimizing suffering and harm.
Sadly, Scenario D is our currently reality and unless things improve, we will continue to see people who use DIY methods that result in failure, further suffering, and for those who do succeed, end up with collateral damage towards the pro-lifers and people around them. Then for those who don't CTB, but are trapped in this world, there are even those (a minority though) who lash out as a result of forced sentience and intolerable conditions of (forced) sentience. I've also compared the denial of the right to die to similar prohibitions in history, alcohol, war on drugs, and other similar social issues and I believe they all share a similar theme, prohibition doesn't address the root cause and only further perpetuals other problems while appearing to be benevolent.
@RainAndSadness @FuneralCry @Forever Sleep
