TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,283
In an older thread I posted years ago, I debunked and elaborated on the common, old and tired argument that many pro-lifers, anti-choicers (especially DRAs, or Disability Rights Advocates) have with regards to the legalization and expansion of assisted dying laws (be it MAID, Death With Dignity, or any similar laws). One of their main premises is that the expansion or even legalization (in jurisdictions where it is not yet legal) of medical assistance in dying or similar laws will disincentivize further improvements of quality of life or the system to make things better for those who want to stay (which includes adding more supports and funding to solve poverty and systemic issues, etc.), and in the older thread I had, already debunked that. However, in this thread, I seek to further debunk and add further reasons as to why their anti-MAID argument is really "empty" and just an "distraction", rather than anything constructive.
First off, the two key words in this thread, which are "empty" and "distraction", and what they mean. By empty, I'm referring to how such an argument made by many DRAs, pro-lifers, anti-choicers alike are simple just nothing constructive, meaning that they don't offer any real solution other than pushing the issue aside. This is true as they have just been pushing the narrative (even well before MAiD was legalized!) from the beginning, for many years (decades or longer), yet having no substantial improvement in the system. Therefore, it is an empty argument that just seeks to shut down the idea of offering an out/exit for those who are suffering. In other words, these proponents of anti-MAiD arguments often state that we cannot allow or have MAiD because that would just disincentivize improvements to quality of life or care, and not fix systemic issues, without offering real solutions other than just flat out rejection of legalization of MAiD (in places where it is yet to be legal) or expansion (in places where MAiD is already legal and in place).
As for the term, distraction, this is where many DRAs and pro-lifers, anti-choicers like to use the rejection of MAiD just to gloss over the real problems that people who are suffering and want an exit (MAiD being their key out of the prison cell that is life or sentience itself), by not addressing the real problems (or only promising and grandstanding, posturing themselves to solve problems), that cause people to want to go. It is considered a distraction from solving real problems because their main objective (the pro-lifers, anti-choicers, and DRAs) just want to get rid of MAiD (in places where it already exists and is legal, as well as prevent legalization in places where it is yet to be legal), so the people who want it will just have one less option to exit suffering while doing next to nothing about the issues that plague people who are suffering. This is so that these anti-MAiD people will sleep better and know that their atavistic morals and values are upheld, even at the cost of those who are suffering and want out.
So in conclusion, a lot of the anti-MAiD crowd just don't really want that option available for people who want it, and will often use distractions and empty arguments to push their view. Even if such arguments have been debunked, they still refuse to acknowledge those who may benefit from it and their real reason for doing so is so they can uphold their old and tired beliefs and not be confronted with the uncomfortable truth and reality. They further believe that the passing of the buck with their empty arguments and distraction from the real issues means that they don't have the address the real problems (assuming it can be addressed, maybe it's too costly and they don't want to – but I digress..), and get to keep upholding the status quo, even if it harms those who may benefit from MAiD.
First off, the two key words in this thread, which are "empty" and "distraction", and what they mean. By empty, I'm referring to how such an argument made by many DRAs, pro-lifers, anti-choicers alike are simple just nothing constructive, meaning that they don't offer any real solution other than pushing the issue aside. This is true as they have just been pushing the narrative (even well before MAiD was legalized!) from the beginning, for many years (decades or longer), yet having no substantial improvement in the system. Therefore, it is an empty argument that just seeks to shut down the idea of offering an out/exit for those who are suffering. In other words, these proponents of anti-MAiD arguments often state that we cannot allow or have MAiD because that would just disincentivize improvements to quality of life or care, and not fix systemic issues, without offering real solutions other than just flat out rejection of legalization of MAiD (in places where it is yet to be legal) or expansion (in places where MAiD is already legal and in place).
As for the term, distraction, this is where many DRAs and pro-lifers, anti-choicers like to use the rejection of MAiD just to gloss over the real problems that people who are suffering and want an exit (MAiD being their key out of the prison cell that is life or sentience itself), by not addressing the real problems (or only promising and grandstanding, posturing themselves to solve problems), that cause people to want to go. It is considered a distraction from solving real problems because their main objective (the pro-lifers, anti-choicers, and DRAs) just want to get rid of MAiD (in places where it already exists and is legal, as well as prevent legalization in places where it is yet to be legal), so the people who want it will just have one less option to exit suffering while doing next to nothing about the issues that plague people who are suffering. This is so that these anti-MAiD people will sleep better and know that their atavistic morals and values are upheld, even at the cost of those who are suffering and want out.
So in conclusion, a lot of the anti-MAiD crowd just don't really want that option available for people who want it, and will often use distractions and empty arguments to push their view. Even if such arguments have been debunked, they still refuse to acknowledge those who may benefit from it and their real reason for doing so is so they can uphold their old and tired beliefs and not be confronted with the uncomfortable truth and reality. They further believe that the passing of the buck with their empty arguments and distraction from the real issues means that they don't have the address the real problems (assuming it can be addressed, maybe it's too costly and they don't want to – but I digress..), and get to keep upholding the status quo, even if it harms those who may benefit from MAiD.
