Explanation on how I arrived at my conclusion of resenting pro-lifers (my thought process)

[TAW122]

While I've been on the topic on pro-lifers and their evils lately, I'd like to take the opportunity to explain my thought process on how I arrived at the conclusion of my resentment and disgust for them. I will explain it step by step.

To start, I am a believer of free will, right of choice, and freedom to do as one wishes as long as it doesn't cause direct harm (e.g. swinging a fist and hitting someone in the face is not allowed as it causes direct physical harm to another person). I take this quite literally, meaning that if one decides to destroy one's own body, then it's his/her prerogative to do so, even if it isn't the best choice. Many people (pro-lifers) would like to invoke irrationality and mental illness as a way to discredit and dismiss pro-choicers the right to self-determination (or to CTB) on their own and by doing so, it makes it even harder to prove that oneself is not mentally incompetent or irrational. This is why I made a claim that even suspected criminals are treated better (not that they would have an easy life at all) than those who are declared irrational or not of sound mind. The difference is that suspected criminals (depending on the crime of course) at least have 'due process' to plead their case (with a lawyer provided by the state or hired by themselves) in a court of law. Furthermore, even for convicted criminals, while vilified by many, are less vilified by the greater public than someone who is deemed mentally incompetent in such that a convict has more credibility than a mentally incompetent person in the eyes of the common public.

So in short, prolifers not only make it where one is nearly defenseless both in the eyes of the public, but also in the legal system, thus rendering pro-choicers almost powerless in a system that has little or no recourse for pro-choicers. Thus, we pro-choicers are pretty much alone in this world with only fellow pro-choicers (far and few in this world), our methods (which some are becoming more difficult to reasonably acquire and/or are not convenient, peaceful, or dignified) and battling to maintain secrecy until the final moment as well as hoping to successfully overcome our SI such that we are able to go through with it.

Oh and another blemish is that prolifers always view CTB as a non-option, a wrong action, an evil that must be prevented at (almost) all costs, barring very few situations (terminal illnesses and/or end of life care with no prospect of improvement). They are also blundering hypocrites as they support bodily autonomy for many other aspects, all except for the right to die, the right to self-determination, and what not. If anything, if they truly supported bodily autonomy and free choice, then they must be willing to support the right to choose whether to live or die on one's own terms instead of forcing the default choice, which is to 'live' until one dies of natural causes or other non self-inflicted death. It basically intellectual dishonesty because when the discussion becomes choosing death, they also default to choosing life rather than allowing death as a 'choice'. They would allow choice for reproductive rights, human rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and many other civil rights that people enjoy today, but completely turn on the choice of death.

A common counter-claim that people make which is, "No one is forcing you to live, you could always CTB on your own.", "You could always CTB at any time." I disagree because while there are people who have successfully CTB'd (in history and in modern times as well), they had to do so in 'secrecy'. Keep in mind that I haven't even addressed the accessibility of each method, each person's unique personal circumstances, and more. Truth be told, if one were to attempt and fail or get caught before attempting, then the (suicidal) person would face consequences including but not limited to being locked up against his/her will (a psych hold), be responsible for the bills and other consequences stemming from such incarceration. Then after that, have a record that will impact their future career decisions, rights, and other privileges. We are not free to do as we please if we must ask for permission to do so and/or when there are consequences imposed onto us for exercising such an action.

In addition to this, they break their own rules, make up their own rules and standards on what to do, defying logic and reasoning. Oftenly they cherry pick, strawman, red-herring their way through reasoning. In other words, they are disgusting hypocrites that will bend their own logic and lie, become dishonest and double down on their illogical stances. Basically, this is what a pro-lifer says (even subconsciously) "I can impose my will onto others and whoever dislikes life is not mentally competent and irrational, and must be stopped. Screw their freedom, life is even more important!" That alone is one of the biggest reasons why they are scary and dangerous to people like us (pro-choicers) as they would just defy logic, law, rules, and even assume authority, power to impose their will on us. It's like they believe they are right and can do no harm and anyone going against their will is bad and must be stopped for their own good.

Therefore, pro-lifers or anti-choicers as I like to refer to them, are in fact, "forcing" someone to live because they do not respect the free choice and bodily autonomy of people who wish to die with dignity. They leave the person with no other choice but 'life' by denying (actively or passively) the means and opportunity for an pro-choicer to exercise self-deliverance. They even go as far as to violate our rights to privacy, harass and stalk us to ensure we aren't planning or attempting to CTB, and many other human rights violations (all under the guise of 'help' and of course, it's all legal). I see them more as the enemy as they are opposed to our stance and will forcibly do anything to change it, even through violating our freedom using the reasoning that we aren't mentally competent or of sound mind (despite us knowing "exactly" what we are doing).

After seeing pro-lifers as the enemy, I am not sorry for doing what I did many years ago and felt justified in doing so. Of course, I don't do these things anymore as I have more important things to take care of, but once again, I am not sorry nor have regrets for doing what I did in the past. See story here. If pro-lifers are going to force us to live (based on the proof and logic in this thread) and make us suffer, then they deserve to at least suffer a bit for their actions. I am a believer of vengeance, but that's another topic for another time.

I hope this allows you all to better understand how I think and how I see the situation as a whole.

Edit: Paraphrased some wording and added a section explaining the hypocrisy.

 

[Wayfaerer]

Well said. The hypocrisy among these people can be infuriating.

 

[EmbraceOfTheVoid]

In my mind they are liars that will perform whatever mental gymnastics suits them so they don't have to face their conscience that they're depriving people of their human rights. Some of them may have good intentions but it doesn't mean that their actions are good or that they are a good person. I suppose most of them think that they're "saving" the person and that it's justification enough to believe that what they're doing is for the greater "good."

Personally I think anti-choicers lack the foresight to understand that they realistically aren't saving anyone; they are momentarily delaying suicide by using force and subjecting people to further cruelty. I've come to have a deep resentment for them as well and frankly I don't think I'll ever be able to forgive their stupidity. The things that these people do is no different than when people use to report runaway slaves or report Jewish people to the Nazi's because they wanted to "help."

Whatever time I have remaining in this place will be spent on shoving pro-choice rhetoric down these peoples throats and enlightening them that they are responsible for pushing people closer to suicide. They are nothing less than sheepish clowns; the entire lot of them.

 

[puppy9]

Many people (pro-lifers) would like to invoke irrationality and mental illness as a way to discredit and dismiss pro-choicers the right to self-determination (or to CTB) on their own and by doing so, it makes it even harder to prove that oneself is not mentally incompetent or irrational.

Gay and bisexuality is considered as a mental illness among mental health experts back in the days it's not even long ago. Imagine normal people been labeled mentally sick just because of their sexuality, it's absolutely horrifying. What if we treat the so called mental illness of today the same way as one's sexuality back then? That history is enough to discredit the mental illness argument. It shows that the psychiatric realm is a joke and will still be in the coming future. It's just my take on this.

 

[TAW122]

Gay and bisexuality is considered as a mental illness among mental health experts back in the days it's not even long ago. Imagine normal people been labeled mentally sick just because of their sexuality, it's absolutely horrifying. What if we treat the so called mental illness of today the same way as one's sexuality back then? That history is enough to discredit the mental illness argument. It shows that the psychiatric realm is a joke and will still be in the coming future. It's just my take on this.

That is a very good example and I do recall someone else making a similar argument too. Anyways, I agree with you and I hope people will be able to see the logic here, that gay and bisexuality used to be considered a mental illness until the 70's and then slowly worked it's way to become destigmatized and eventually accepted into mainstream society as well as become a protected category (making it unlawful for institutions and businesses to discriminate against).

While I don't see the right to die/self-determination becoming like a protected category anytime soon, just getting it off the list or books listing it as a 'mental illness' or irrationality, is a big step in the right direction.

 

[TAW122]

So another way to look at this is like an algorithm, at least in pseudo code.

pick(choice); //This choice variable can be passed as an number, 1 for continue to live, 2 for CTB.
if (choice = 1)
{
live();
break;
}
else if (choice = 2)
{
ctb(method); //Where method is the method chosen.
}

Now here is when it gets a bit interesting. I will use some exception handling for when one's choice cannot be executed.

try
{
ctb(method);
}
catch (ChoiceDeniedException cde)
{
escalate();
vengeance();
}

Anyways, I just wanted to show (albeit an interesting way) how I arrived at resenting pro-lifers and doing what I do, getting back at them. I thought it would be interesting to look at it from a programming point of view.

 

[alexit]

So another way to look at this is like an algorithm, at least in pseudo code.



Anyways, I just wanted to show (albeit an interesting way) how I arrived at resenting pro-lifers and doing what I do, getting back at them. I thought it would be interesting to look at it from a programming point of view.

That made my day. Beautiful coding.

 

[Aap]

I'm curious, what limits do you or other posters think should be imposed (if any) on voluntary euthanasia (age, medical condition, etc.)?

 

[alexit]

I'm curious, what limits do you or other posters think should be imposed (if any) on voluntary euthanasia (age, medical condition, etc.)?

Only age. So long as you're an adult. I could imagine a system for minors to make a plea but I haven't given that any thought.

 

[zeroshark]

Personally I think anti-choicers lack the foresight to understand that they realistically aren't saving anyone; they are momentarily delaying suicide by using force and subjecting people to further cruelty.

excellently said. couldnt agree more.

 

[TAW122]

That made my day. Beautiful coding.

I'm actually more of a newbie when it comes to programming, not that great, but thanks for your compliment.

I'm curious, what limits do you or other posters think should be imposed (if any) on voluntary euthanasia (age, medical condition, etc.)?

I believe legal age as well as screening to ensure that patient is voluntarily making the choice and that the patient is not being pressured, coerced, or manipulated into choosing euthanasia (this would greatly ensure that the patient is making the choice on his/her own volition). Then the other criteria is a waiting period (could be some days, weeks, or months, or what is seem appropriate) so that way the patient can still cancel/abort the process of voluntary euthanasia all up until the final moment (administration of the method).

I've made a post in one of my threads here, just for reference.