[Article] Why death/non-sentience is too merciful for the pro-lifers, anti-choicers

[TAW122]

This was a concept that has stirred in my thoughts before and I decided to make a topic out of it after thinking about the logic of it thoroughly. In this article I will explain why the cessation of sentience is too merciful for the pro-lifers (aka pro-sufferers) and as well as my realization and change in stance from the past about how the counter towards forced sentience would be forced non-sentience, from a logical and philosophical standpoint.

Disclaimer: I don't endorse nor condone violence, unethical, or illegal acts against any party and this is just an article for educational and informational purposes only.

In the past, I've once entertained the idea that the opposite of forced sentience is death, and that is true as death itself brings the cessation of all things, good and bad, and if death is presumed to be the neutral state (non-existence) at least in the eyes of the universe (neither good nor bad, objectively speaking), then our persecutors and adversaries, the CTB preventionists, pro-lifers, anti-choicers, don't deserve to get off scot-free. If we think about this objectively, the state of death (non-sentience) itself is the cessation of sentience, meaning the end of their pleasures, but also all the suffering that all sentient beings go through. This means that if our objective is to get back at pro-lifers (some of us, may or may not be myself – or even if I had that attitude many years ago), then it wouldn't make sense if pro-lifers died sooner because this means that they won't face the "justice" that some of us may be wishing that they would face, including accountability and justice (whether through the legal system or extra-legal, extra judicial action.). While it does curtail their life sentience pre-maturely and deny any potential joys and pleasures, again, any continued sentience is unforeseen and always a dice roll, so there is no guarantee that they will have that fleeting joy and pleasure or even create those memories for them to get off to (egotistically speaking). Therefore, having them in sentience while also pushing back against them (in legal ways of course) is still more effective than them being dead. Here is a photo from a video game that sums it up logically:



Note: This image is taken from Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones and instead of empire, replace empire with "pro-choicers" and enemy refers to the pro-lifers, anti-choicers, CTB preventionists (moral busybodies) etc.

Getting back at them while their sentience persists
So from earlier in this thread I mentioned and discussed about how death or non-sentience is too merciful and fails to achieve what we are hoping to achieve for our cause, the curtailment of impingement, infringement, interference against our negative liberty rights, and also getting justice and accountability from the pro-lifers, anti-choicers who wronged us. Years ago I waged war (huggy-trolly wars, see threads linked here, 1, 2, 3) against the pro-lifers and anti-choicers in various ways and not condoning or excusing it (I'm way past that, but again, just for discussion and intellectual purposes), that was more effective than say inflicting death to pro-lifers, anti-choicers, because if we wanted them to feel what it is like to have their liberties impinged or being hounded and messed with, it's the best way to give them a taste of their own tactics against them (also an old thread mentioning that in early 2019). Therefore, if the pro-lifers are dead, they wouldn't have the opportunity to experience what it is like to suffer. Mind you that wasn't the best solution overall, but the idea and concept was at least solid, from a logical standpoint (notwithstanding many other things).

Defection to a neutral stance, or potentially a pro-choicer
Additional realization is that while there are many pro-lifers out there, and some members have pointed out even, that they may even in the end possibly change their minds or at least shift closer to being neutral, neither militantly pro-life at all costs, nor militantly pro-choice, but rather neutral. Some of these people, if they are successfully able to be convinced to change their stance to neutrality would at least result in the cessation of active, aggressive impingement of one's negative liberty rights (the right to not be intervened against by a moral busybody or the State). Even if one doesn't have a positive liberty right (the right to die), merely having one's negative liberty rights not impinged is a major step up from where we are in present day. This is a major step up from where we are at because in our current time, not only do we not have a positive liberty right (the right to die) in most jurisdictions and countries (those who do, are narrow in scope – only for the terminally ill, or those with severe chronic conditions, and many other hoops and criteria before one is granted), we also have our negative liberty rights impinged at almost every corner; the banning and restriction of peaceful and effective means to CTB, the State and moral busybodies conspiring to stop us should they have knowledge of a potential CTB attempt or would be CTB, and more. Therefore, by not pushing death, but reasoning and perhaps even other means, it is possible some people may at least go from the pro-life, anti-choice stance to at the minimum, a neutral stance, laissez-faire (hands off) approach towards CTB. Of course, as a bonus if some of them later became a pro-choicer, even for something like terminal AND chronic illness (constant pain, ALS, quadriplegia, and/or other horrific non-terminal, but severely debilitating illnesses and ailments), that's a big win for us as it's another step towards the world that we will want to see. The world being one where one's bodily autonomy is truly respected, CTB being a basic civil right and not being gatekept for only the terminally ill and meeting very specific, narrow criteria.

In the end, this article basically explains why death is too merciful towards our adversaries, the pro-lifers, anti-choicers, and CTB preventionists because if we wanted to get justice and accountability, death won't bring that result (because they would be dead and not experience the punishment and feeling that we want them to feel, a taste of their own medicine). Furthermore, for those who may change their stance, I believe if they suffered enough or at least faced situations where it would likely change their stance, then that's another potential win for our cause, even if their stance isn't an absolute or very progressive view on the right to die. Therefore, death is too merciful for those who we seek to get justice against and/or try to sway their minds. I hope this article makes sense and allows people to understand an uncommon, yet interesting perspective.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I agree with you in a sense as what you say is logically true but is it worth it to keep pro lifers alive just to get revenge on them? I'd say no as, whilst I do understand wanting to get revenge on them, at the end of the day it won't solve anything long term. I believe in pro mortalism philosophically as, without any sentient beings, there won't be any suffering so in the hypothetical world where I had the ability to end all sentience (including pro lifers), I'd do so that nothing suffers ever again. Since there isn't a way for me to end sentience though, I think that the next best thing is to try and advocate for the RTD however we can since that's super important. Getting revenge on them would make it even more unlikely for them to listen to us so we'd be the ones who end up getting hurt from it

 

[TAW122]

I agree with you in a sense as what you say is logically true but is it worth it to keep pro lifers alive just to get revenge on them? I'd say no as, whilst I do understand wanting to get revenge on them, at the end of the day it won't solve anything long term. I believe in pro mortalism philosophically as, without any sentient beings, there won't be any suffering so in the hypothetical world where I had the ability to end all sentience (including pro lifers), I'd do so that nothing suffers ever again. Since there isn't a way for me to end sentience though, I think that the next best thing is to try and advocate for the RTD however we can since that's super important. Getting revenge on them would make it even more unlikely for them to listen to us so we'd be the ones who end up getting hurt from it

Interesting points and I did also mention an ancillary purpose if pro-lifers are around and alive, which is the possibility of defection towards to our side, or at least go from a militant stance to a neutral stance. Also, the whole idea of revenge is antiquated and instead my efforts are more focused on the justice and accountability aspect, which is different from that. Legally speaking, if there was ways to hold pro-lifers and pro-sufferers accountable for their actions, that would greatly help those who have been victimized by them, at least cathartically, possibly dissuading and discouraging over-zealous pro-lifers from overstepping their bounds.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

I worked in a nursing home. there is a high probability all these pro-lifers and others who think life is good will end up in a nursing home in pain for many years in pain usually the ages 70 to 90. they want to force all of us to do that and won't let those of us that want to exit this prison hell escape

 

[Sutter]

Mulled it over a little.

Is there commonality with pro lifers? In my limited experience the thread is religion based. This is somewhat a circuitous route. If I wanted justice and accountability from them and I was looking for that from governing societal law. I would go after key stones. Kick the concept of religion down a notch. Look to have public recognition for all moral infractions, as has happened for some religions. Work to promote alternate faith based options that have a more neutral view vs purely pro life, also to some extent happening.

The overall tactic here is to realize you may/can not change the majority of the pro life believers but you can look to "lessen" the impact of the primary source of the ideology. This method takes time and if it is truly abhorrent may have issue with ever being accepted main stream.

To make a long term impact though I would look for pro life commonality and ponder how to impact that. Barring that for long term would be as always, go after the children. Attempt to influence an entire generation to instill a desire for personal freedom, not beholden to another.

There are alot of short term initiatives that could be done any pro choice group though would be hard pressed to maintain its self. Pro choice constantly loses members, as we exercise choice.

I suppose for me it is…disheartening that pro life is carried to the extent some are denied their own freedom when it doesnt impinge on anyone elses freedom. In the end though it is still my decision, crafty though I may have to be.

Not sure this furthered the discussion but it did make me tired.

 

[OnlyOneSolution]

I am trying to grasp this concept that my enemies/adversaries are those people who do not understand why I want to be permitted to die at my request. I have longed for death since I was 15. I have failed a couple of times and been forced into counseling and uncomfortable conditions because of the attempts. I have been angry because I was not permitted access to easy, peaceful methods. I am pro-choice all the way.

But, I do not see those who prevent me from gaining access to N or morphine or some other lethal substance as enemies. I don't see NYT or BBC journalists who rail against SaSu as enemies. (Although I wish they would take a more objective look at what this site actually is.) They are not purposefully denying me some perceived right nor are they trying to abuse me.

I wish it was different. I wish I had free access to substances that would allow me to leave my miserable existence. But I do not fault them. I do all sorts of things now that my parents would not let me do "under their roof". But I don't hate them for that.

I understand my reasoning for wanting to die. They do not. They are doing what they believe is right. They believe I have mental health challenges and want to protect me from harm. I don't enjoy it but I do not fault them.

If you can persuade them, you can change their understanding. Until then, we are all bound to societal rules. It sucks, but it is reality. Making them suffer makes no sense.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Reminds me of this...

However, I think the trouble with this is certainly for some pro-lifers, I believe their beliefs are based on a (probably) wrong assumption that all people's problems can be fixed. That all people can recover to live a meaningful, even joyful life. I'm not convinced that all pro-lifers are sadists , who enjoy keeping people alive to watch them suffer. I think it more likely that they lean towards delusionism where they think people- maybe all people will get better given time. (Maybe a bit of therapy, some meds, a few walks in nature.)

Simultaneously, they also believe that we are the delusional ones. That we suffer from mental illnesses like depression which may be skewing our judgement. They may be right about that in some cases. So- that does present a problem. Although, if our 'depression' can't be 'fixed' adequately then- how is it any different to an incurable illness? (Which they are more likely to accept as reasonable cause to want to die if it has been diagnosed by doctors.)

I'd also refute the connection they commonly make between all mental illness and mental capacity. Certainly, some mental illnesses likely do affect our ability to perceive the world realistically and make rational judgements. Not all though. Plus again, even if that person's perspective is off- if it can't be changed- they're still stuck in that hell! Why should they be expected to be?

But yeah, I think many people here would like 'normies' to have a taste of their lives. Again- not necessarily in a sadistic way. They maybe wouldn't wish it on them permanently but- enough to convince them there's no way they would want to live like that. Why wouldn't people who are suffering appreciate a little more empathy?

 

[TAW122]

@pthnrdnojvsc Given that you have worked with the elderly in nursing homes, maybe when more people have family members or loved ones go there, perhaps there may be more people who will eventually realize that not all nursing homes are pleasant, and when more people, who were once independent end up there, maybe their views on assisted dying may change (some may not, but if enough change, that's another few supporters for our cause).

To make a long term impact though I would look for pro life commonality and ponder how to impact that. Barring that for long term would be as always, go after the children. Attempt to influence an entire generation to instill a desire for personal freedom, not beholden to another.

I think as far as the Gen Z and later generations, they do seem to be more in line with more progressive policies and liberal ideas, so perhaps they may not be as close-minded or inflexible as some of the earlier generations. Even the later millennials (again, not all) may also eventually come to face various problems that we are facing in society, so perhaps given the fact that some problems may not necessarily be fixed and the ugly reality that is sentience comes into their reality along with the secular, modern society (less religious doctrine and influences), maybe they may lean closer to expanding assisted death especially if they have loved ones or know friends who suffered through horrific deaths or existences (terminal and non-terminal conditions).

@OnlyOneSolution What you said definitely made sense and this article is merely explaining a shift in my perspective from years ago to present as well as why death itself doesn't really change the views of the pro-lifers and anti-choicers. I also mentioned how if we managed to persuade or get them to understand what our suffering is like, perhaps some of them may even change their views and at the minimum, be less paternalistic, less impingement on our negative liberty rights. So long term, I think if they are faced with the problems we face or even experience similar things to what we have throughout our lives, it's possible their view may change or some may even empathize or even be 'tolerant' of pro-choice views and sentiments, which is still a step in the right direction.

@Forever Sleep Yes, that's true a lot of pro-lifers may not necessarily be sadists and may simply believe that they are doing good (even if the result isn't good) and the video is a good example too. Ultimately, I do think if pro-lifers end up even with some idea of what it is like to suffer, they would at least have more tolerance towards our plight, even if they don't fully agree or support us. Merely getting them to curb their paternalistic attitudes and interventions is a major step in the right direction.