TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,797
In various posts and responses from the CTB prevention crowd, especially the pro-lifers, anti-choicers, there is a saying of "Don't CTB, you always have the option CTB later.", "Do xyz and if you still feel like CTB'ing in t time, then you can go ahead." or any similar sentiment (worded differently, albeit the meaning is the same). On the surface, yes, it looks like they are respecting pro-choice sentiments, but if one is skeptical and actually do a more thorough investigation, research, or even read into it, we know that pro-lifers, anti-choicers, and CTB preventionists don't TRULY respect bodily autonomy. It is merely just a deceptive play of words to postpone, delay, or defer one's action in hopes that they person will quietly forget it (or if they don't, they will feign ignorance or even just flat out ignore it).
In one of my older threads, I written in the past titled "Pro-lifers like to defer the option of suicide then eventually denying it" as well as "The argument against passing the buck" (though the latter thread to a lesser degree) talks about how pro-lifers use deception by giving the illusion of there being an option later on for the person, or pro-choicer, while in fact, the pro-lifer is merely just diverting attention away from the option and stalling (or buying) time in order to later deny It. It is true that pro-lifers just never really want to respect or honor one's wishes to choose but rather would deny the option of CTB at all costs and those statements that seek to defer the option is de facto the same as denying the option.
Denial through deferment example:
One example I could give (and it happens very commonly) is where suppose a person will denote as B and the pro-lifer as M. M is a pro-lifer who is against CTB at all costs (maybe except for terminal illnesses, but for the sake of this example we'll just focus on non-terminal illnesses). B is an adult (not a teenager) and has been struggling in life, maybe some minor debility but overall B's life sucks in many ways, again not to be too complicated, and B posts online somewhere, not limited to Reddit, or any specific forum, but on the Internet and M reads B's post. B states that he is sick of life and given his circumstances things are not likely to suddenly be sufficient for B's enjoyment or tolerance of life itself and B wants to end it. There are many comments and many of which by pro-lifers strongly dissuading B to CTB and end his suffering. M is one of them, but instead of just outright denying B's option or idea of CTB, then M proposes that B tries therapy, medication, seek help, and/or other platitudes (the usual response by pro-lifers and preventionists), but also told B that if he still felt the same way many months later, he still has that option and (M himself) would understand it, and will not try to talk B out of it. So fast forward about one year later, B's circumstances has still not improved (maybe slightly worse even), and clearly B is still set on CTB'ing. Then someone perhaps M even, who remember B still tells B the same thing as the first time even if M originally said something different. M will put up excuses, play dumb, or be in denial (acting as though he never told B that CTB is an option).
So in short, when M made the statement, it is just another ploy or deception to make a pro-choicer think under the illusion that they have a choice, when it is clear that there isn't a real choice, just the illusion of a potential choice. Some could argue that B could always CTB anytime, but the paternalistic moral busybodies and the State will always conspire to impinge, interfere, or otherwise frustrate one's attempt to permanently end one's suffering, no matter what is said on paper. Promises are broken all the time, and misinterpretations and lies are spewed with no regard for the truth, but I digress.
In conclusion, this article along with the example (as well as referring previous threads) serves to remind the SaSu community that pro-lifers and anti-choicers will never respect the right to die as a real choice by debunking the lies and false promises that pro-lifers, anti-choicers, and preventionists like to use to deceive or otherwise bring a false sense of choice to pro-choicers, when in fact, all along, they never gave a real choice and are always against CTB no matter what. I essentially took apart the statement and explained how it was only used as a diversionary tactic to pro-choicers while the real truth is that people who spew such statements were never really going to honor or respect a pro-choicers' wishes. They only wanted to appeal to the pro-choicer's sense of choice by giving a false impression of a choice while in reality they will never truly respect the right to die.
In one of my older threads, I written in the past titled "Pro-lifers like to defer the option of suicide then eventually denying it" as well as "The argument against passing the buck" (though the latter thread to a lesser degree) talks about how pro-lifers use deception by giving the illusion of there being an option later on for the person, or pro-choicer, while in fact, the pro-lifer is merely just diverting attention away from the option and stalling (or buying) time in order to later deny It. It is true that pro-lifers just never really want to respect or honor one's wishes to choose but rather would deny the option of CTB at all costs and those statements that seek to defer the option is de facto the same as denying the option.
Denial through deferment example:
One example I could give (and it happens very commonly) is where suppose a person will denote as B and the pro-lifer as M. M is a pro-lifer who is against CTB at all costs (maybe except for terminal illnesses, but for the sake of this example we'll just focus on non-terminal illnesses). B is an adult (not a teenager) and has been struggling in life, maybe some minor debility but overall B's life sucks in many ways, again not to be too complicated, and B posts online somewhere, not limited to Reddit, or any specific forum, but on the Internet and M reads B's post. B states that he is sick of life and given his circumstances things are not likely to suddenly be sufficient for B's enjoyment or tolerance of life itself and B wants to end it. There are many comments and many of which by pro-lifers strongly dissuading B to CTB and end his suffering. M is one of them, but instead of just outright denying B's option or idea of CTB, then M proposes that B tries therapy, medication, seek help, and/or other platitudes (the usual response by pro-lifers and preventionists), but also told B that if he still felt the same way many months later, he still has that option and (M himself) would understand it, and will not try to talk B out of it. So fast forward about one year later, B's circumstances has still not improved (maybe slightly worse even), and clearly B is still set on CTB'ing. Then someone perhaps M even, who remember B still tells B the same thing as the first time even if M originally said something different. M will put up excuses, play dumb, or be in denial (acting as though he never told B that CTB is an option).
So in short, when M made the statement, it is just another ploy or deception to make a pro-choicer think under the illusion that they have a choice, when it is clear that there isn't a real choice, just the illusion of a potential choice. Some could argue that B could always CTB anytime, but the paternalistic moral busybodies and the State will always conspire to impinge, interfere, or otherwise frustrate one's attempt to permanently end one's suffering, no matter what is said on paper. Promises are broken all the time, and misinterpretations and lies are spewed with no regard for the truth, but I digress.
In conclusion, this article along with the example (as well as referring previous threads) serves to remind the SaSu community that pro-lifers and anti-choicers will never respect the right to die as a real choice by debunking the lies and false promises that pro-lifers, anti-choicers, and preventionists like to use to deceive or otherwise bring a false sense of choice to pro-choicers, when in fact, all along, they never gave a real choice and are always against CTB no matter what. I essentially took apart the statement and explained how it was only used as a diversionary tactic to pro-choicers while the real truth is that people who spew such statements were never really going to honor or respect a pro-choicers' wishes. They only wanted to appeal to the pro-choicer's sense of choice by giving a false impression of a choice while in reality they will never truly respect the right to die.
