TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,820
The main central argument that EG (Existentialgoof) makes in most of his posts on various Reddit threads as well as his blog when talking about the right to die and assisted suicide boils down to "If the government (the State) will not provide the means or process to allow ALL citizens the guaranteed right to die in a peaceful and dignified manner, then it should not interfere with one's [ultimate] bodily autonomy, which is the right to die. Otherwise that would constitute as enslavement (due to the fact that each individual is responsible for their own upkeep which entails paying bills, making a living, and supporting oneself independently.)." (Paraphrased and derived from many of his posts on Reddit, but the meaning is still more/less the same albeit just worded differently.)
Expanding EG's argument about "the lack of the right to die and imposition to live against one's will is considered 'enslavement'."
So in this thread, I have thought about his argument and the continuation of it (as well as expansion of it). Since we are effectively trapped in sentience, in a life that we never consented to let alone enjoy 'existing' or being 'alive', just by default, the government and by extension, pro-lifers have preemptively violated our right to die and imposed us to either:
A) Seek out risky means to CTB with a great chance of failure, suffering, and/or collateral damage to unwilling participants and parties.
B) Grovel and hope that we meet a very narrow criteria to qualify for the right to die (most likely only for the terminally ill) in which 99% of the population will not qualify nor be eligible for.
C) Not be able to CTB and forced to live until either natural causes or other causes of death (man-caused, nature-caused, or other kinds outside of one's control.
As a result of this, from what I see the situation as it stands now, we have done nothing to deserve to have our negative liberty rights deprived of. We are gaslit, pathologized, and invalidated (through prejudiced beliefs, labels, diagnoses, and even patronization, belittlement). Since by default we are imposed life against our will, forced to live (CTB is de facto 'illegal' since the State can forcibly incarcerate one who is planning and/or actively going to attempt it) regardless of whether we 'WANT TO OR NOT', and most of us are likely to endure this unwanted, unjustified imposition of sentience against our will for at least ¾ of a century (lifespan is usually around 75-80 for most humans without major health issues), it is only fair for us to do everything in our power to frustrate and rebel against the system, which includes the lower amount of participation, disruption and reduction of the pro-lifers' enjoyment of life.
Many may claim but that's wrong (including pro-choicers too), but to that I would argue that the pro-lifers' unjustly imposed life on us, then prevented us from having a peaceful and dignified means to exit on our own choice/terms through the limitation and curtailment of peaceful and reliable methods, supported CTB prevention programs and policies that are paternalistic and authoritarian, invasive in nature, and have the authority to forcibly detain us and medicate us against our will arbitrarily without due process nor recourse. They (the pro-lifers) fired the shot and drew the first blood (metaphorically speaking), therefore, we are just fighting back against authoritarian, paternalistic system. Furthermore, all the institutions in existence all actively conspire against us to seek justice, reparations, and comeuppance against pro-lifers, therefore, it's just us alone. Perhaps it may (for them to) change the system or at least make us less than easy targets for persecution.
Therefore, years ago, when I waged war against pro-lifers (in another thread explained), I never apologized for it (and never will, not even in my last moments), as it is justified due to their unprovoked paternalistic actions against pro-choicers in general. Pro-lifers have enslaved us and relegated us to 'slaves of sentience (or life itself)' therefore, it is only right for us to rebel and fight back. If I recall, throughout history even slaves revolted against their overseers and masters, and if pro-lifers are essentially our overseers' then it is only right that we rebel against them, even in low key efforts to ensure that they don't just get away without repercussion for pre-emptively imposing a (natural) lifelong slave sentence against our will!
Another common rebuttal I hear is "but what if your (supposed) targets are not actually pro-lifers?" or "How are you (absolutely) certain that they are 'pro-lifers'?" My response to this is why there is no absolute certainty in our world (barring some facts in science that are objectively provable), we have reasonable degree of certainty and with the evidence and statistics to back up our assertions. If we operated on absolute certainty, then there is almost nothing can be done and we can take no action ever. Whatever we do in our existence, there is always a non-zero chance of risk of failure, but we can reach an acceptable level of success where the odds of success are far greater than failure and we simply just accept that.
So in conclusion, I would conclude that because pro-lifers denied us peaceful, reliable, and dignified ways to exit suffering, opposed state-sanctioned programs that will give a pathway to a codified legal right to die (with reasonable safeguards such as a waiting period, having counseling and evaluations done, etc.), and even supporting invasive intervention against us pro-choicers without due cause (we didn't commit any crime, yet the thought and act of CTB is de facto treated as though it is a crime, which means authorities can forcibly detain and treat us against our will), we are in fact 'slaves' of existence. As a result of being relegated to being 'slaves' in existence and not allowed to freely exit suffering without either suffering horrendous consequences (risky methods that have a high chance of failure and suffering, being intervened against our will, not easy (or almost impossible) to obtain the peaceful means to end suffering due to certain items being banned or illegal), we should not continue to appease and pander to the pro-lifers while they continually and perpetually harm us until our natural causes. If anything, there should be repercussions for the way they treat us pro-choicers who are not bothering them, nor infringing on their positive rights (especially the pro-lifers' right to live).
The least that the State and pro-lifers by extension can do is to be a neutral party if they will not take part in alleviating suffering. This means that the State should at the minimum, roll back paternalistic interventions and carceral practices that are imposed on non-violent and non-criminal persons who are not doing anything unlawful. In other words, this means that the State should not have the authority nor power to forcibly detain any individual or group who are not violating any law, ordinance, legal code, etc. Also, pro-lifers (mainly the busybody masses) should stay out of an individual's personal business that does not concern them nor infringe on their rights especially as pro-choicers (by default) have done nothing to infringe on their enjoyment of life! Therefore they should just leave us in peace if they will not support our right to self termination! Since that is an unlikely scenario that will become a reality (even as I hope that becomes the case), we in present day continue to see horrendous situations of people choosing barbaric means to exit suffering, often to the chagrin of greater society and at the minimum inconveniencing (and worst, traumatizing) them. Pro-lifers lose moral grounds and credibility to complain about the consequences of paternalistic intervention by the State, the lack of a legal, codified right to die for all citizens, and the treatment of suspected 'suicidal person(s).'
Expanding EG's argument about "the lack of the right to die and imposition to live against one's will is considered 'enslavement'."
So in this thread, I have thought about his argument and the continuation of it (as well as expansion of it). Since we are effectively trapped in sentience, in a life that we never consented to let alone enjoy 'existing' or being 'alive', just by default, the government and by extension, pro-lifers have preemptively violated our right to die and imposed us to either:
A) Seek out risky means to CTB with a great chance of failure, suffering, and/or collateral damage to unwilling participants and parties.
B) Grovel and hope that we meet a very narrow criteria to qualify for the right to die (most likely only for the terminally ill) in which 99% of the population will not qualify nor be eligible for.
C) Not be able to CTB and forced to live until either natural causes or other causes of death (man-caused, nature-caused, or other kinds outside of one's control.
As a result of this, from what I see the situation as it stands now, we have done nothing to deserve to have our negative liberty rights deprived of. We are gaslit, pathologized, and invalidated (through prejudiced beliefs, labels, diagnoses, and even patronization, belittlement). Since by default we are imposed life against our will, forced to live (CTB is de facto 'illegal' since the State can forcibly incarcerate one who is planning and/or actively going to attempt it) regardless of whether we 'WANT TO OR NOT', and most of us are likely to endure this unwanted, unjustified imposition of sentience against our will for at least ¾ of a century (lifespan is usually around 75-80 for most humans without major health issues), it is only fair for us to do everything in our power to frustrate and rebel against the system, which includes the lower amount of participation, disruption and reduction of the pro-lifers' enjoyment of life.
Many may claim but that's wrong (including pro-choicers too), but to that I would argue that the pro-lifers' unjustly imposed life on us, then prevented us from having a peaceful and dignified means to exit on our own choice/terms through the limitation and curtailment of peaceful and reliable methods, supported CTB prevention programs and policies that are paternalistic and authoritarian, invasive in nature, and have the authority to forcibly detain us and medicate us against our will arbitrarily without due process nor recourse. They (the pro-lifers) fired the shot and drew the first blood (metaphorically speaking), therefore, we are just fighting back against authoritarian, paternalistic system. Furthermore, all the institutions in existence all actively conspire against us to seek justice, reparations, and comeuppance against pro-lifers, therefore, it's just us alone. Perhaps it may (for them to) change the system or at least make us less than easy targets for persecution.
Therefore, years ago, when I waged war against pro-lifers (in another thread explained), I never apologized for it (and never will, not even in my last moments), as it is justified due to their unprovoked paternalistic actions against pro-choicers in general. Pro-lifers have enslaved us and relegated us to 'slaves of sentience (or life itself)' therefore, it is only right for us to rebel and fight back. If I recall, throughout history even slaves revolted against their overseers and masters, and if pro-lifers are essentially our overseers' then it is only right that we rebel against them, even in low key efforts to ensure that they don't just get away without repercussion for pre-emptively imposing a (natural) lifelong slave sentence against our will!
Another common rebuttal I hear is "but what if your (supposed) targets are not actually pro-lifers?" or "How are you (absolutely) certain that they are 'pro-lifers'?" My response to this is why there is no absolute certainty in our world (barring some facts in science that are objectively provable), we have reasonable degree of certainty and with the evidence and statistics to back up our assertions. If we operated on absolute certainty, then there is almost nothing can be done and we can take no action ever. Whatever we do in our existence, there is always a non-zero chance of risk of failure, but we can reach an acceptable level of success where the odds of success are far greater than failure and we simply just accept that.
So in conclusion, I would conclude that because pro-lifers denied us peaceful, reliable, and dignified ways to exit suffering, opposed state-sanctioned programs that will give a pathway to a codified legal right to die (with reasonable safeguards such as a waiting period, having counseling and evaluations done, etc.), and even supporting invasive intervention against us pro-choicers without due cause (we didn't commit any crime, yet the thought and act of CTB is de facto treated as though it is a crime, which means authorities can forcibly detain and treat us against our will), we are in fact 'slaves' of existence. As a result of being relegated to being 'slaves' in existence and not allowed to freely exit suffering without either suffering horrendous consequences (risky methods that have a high chance of failure and suffering, being intervened against our will, not easy (or almost impossible) to obtain the peaceful means to end suffering due to certain items being banned or illegal), we should not continue to appease and pander to the pro-lifers while they continually and perpetually harm us until our natural causes. If anything, there should be repercussions for the way they treat us pro-choicers who are not bothering them, nor infringing on their positive rights (especially the pro-lifers' right to live).
The least that the State and pro-lifers by extension can do is to be a neutral party if they will not take part in alleviating suffering. This means that the State should at the minimum, roll back paternalistic interventions and carceral practices that are imposed on non-violent and non-criminal persons who are not doing anything unlawful. In other words, this means that the State should not have the authority nor power to forcibly detain any individual or group who are not violating any law, ordinance, legal code, etc. Also, pro-lifers (mainly the busybody masses) should stay out of an individual's personal business that does not concern them nor infringe on their rights especially as pro-choicers (by default) have done nothing to infringe on their enjoyment of life! Therefore they should just leave us in peace if they will not support our right to self termination! Since that is an unlikely scenario that will become a reality (even as I hope that becomes the case), we in present day continue to see horrendous situations of people choosing barbaric means to exit suffering, often to the chagrin of greater society and at the minimum inconveniencing (and worst, traumatizing) them. Pro-lifers lose moral grounds and credibility to complain about the consequences of paternalistic intervention by the State, the lack of a legal, codified right to die for all citizens, and the treatment of suspected 'suicidal person(s).'
Last edited:
