• UK users: Due to a formal investigation into this site by Ofcom under the UK Online Safety Act 2023, we strongly recommend using a trusted, no-logs VPN. This will help protect your privacy, bypass censorship, and maintain secure access to the site. Read the full VPN guide here.

  • Hey Guest,

    Today, OFCOM launched an official investigation into Sanctioned Suicide under the UK’s Online Safety Act. This has already made headlines across the UK.

    This is a clear and unprecedented overreach by a foreign regulator against a U.S.-based platform. We reject this interference and will be defending the site’s existence and mission.

    In addition to our public response, we are currently seeking legal representation to ensure the best possible defense in this matter. If you are a lawyer or know of one who may be able to assist, please contact us at [email protected].

    Read our statement here:

    Donate via cryptocurrency:

    Bitcoin (BTC): 34HyDHTvEhXfPfb716EeEkEHXzqhwtow1L
    Ethereum (ETH): 0xd799aF8E2e5cEd14cdb344e6D6A9f18011B79BE9
    Monero (XMR): 49tuJbzxwVPUhhDjzz6H222Kh8baKe6rDEsXgE617DVSDD8UKNaXvKNU8dEVRTAFH9Av8gKkn4jDzVGF25snJgNfUfKKNC8
TAW122

TAW122

Emissary of the right to die.
Aug 30, 2018
6,963
I found a good video that explains the fallacy that most pro-lifers have, by Anton Estrada here:



It is titled, "Technically Nobody's Stopping You (The Right to Die)" and I like his example of the person wanting to exit the hotel room but being denied to. The metaphor sums up the pro-lifer fallacy of "if you really wanted to exit, you would have, but if you didn't exit from the window (referring to undignified and awful methods) then you didn't really want to."

I like to put my version or spin of the same fallacy. In my example, I will consider that there is nice cake on the table in the middle of a large room. Then there is a person guarding the cake (the pro-lifer) and the person says "I am not stopping you from touching, eating, or doing anything with the cake. If you want to eat it, I am not stopping you from doing so." So you (the hungry person) in the room gets up to reach the table to eat the cake, but as you do, you are tackled by the guard and detained, then sent to a holding cell in another room temporarily for attempting or even eating the cake. The guard then says "Because you ate the cake or attempted to, which is something that is forbidden, then that was an irrational behavior and you need help/treatment as a result of it."

Would anyone claim that you (the hungry person) are free to eat the cake when you attempted to eat the cake (or even manage to do so)? The answer is no because when the you attempted to (or even did so), you suffered a negative consequence (being tackled and then detained (albeit temporarily) for doing so.

I have another thread addresses that one isn't free to do something unless they are able to do it without (negative) repercussions or consequences and I feel like it is relevant.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Nemeshisu, waitingforrest, Euthanza and 3 others
FuneralCry

FuneralCry

Just wanting some peace
Sep 24, 2020
42,488
Thanks for sharing the video. I do think that some of the things that pro lifers say are ridiculous. It is unfair that we live in a society that is focused on trying to trap us in horrible lives until we die from old age. The option of suicide is always there, but to me it is hardly an option when others make it so difficult for us to leave.
It is unnecessary, making suicide so difficult. All humans will die eventually someday and staying alive is only delaying the inevitable. If someone wants to leave then their choice should be respected.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Euthanza, Rogue Proxy and Darkover