
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.
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: