Discussion Has anyone noticed that disability advocacy groups have pro-life/anti-choice undertones?

[TAW122]

Disclaimer/Note: I am not shaming anyone who has a physical or mental disability. This is just a discussion for intellectual and educational purposes. I myself have Aspergers (formally diagnosed when I was a teenager and even early young adult as a re-diagnosis), so this is coming from someone who has spent time in the peer support groups in the past and interacted with people there.

With that said, back in the earlier days, over half a decade or more ago, when I used to frequent around disability advocacy groups, peer support groups and forums, as well as subreddits on reddit (before my SS days), I used to believe that that these groups are benign and shared my values. However, after learning of the pro-choice communities (SS when it was on Reddit and later, this forum) and being pro-choice myself, I started to see these advocacy groups and support groups as those that reek of pro-life and anti-choice sentiments. It is one thing to be opposed to death and supportive of people who want to strive, recover, and do well in life, but to outright censor, forbid pro-choice, self-determination choices, and force the default stance of life is valuable, life is great, and all the pro-life sentiments and values, to everyone (whether or not they believe in it) is just wrong.

I am not saying that people should CTB, as the choice is ultimately up to them (each individual), but these disability advocacy groups and support groups claim that if people are allowed the choice to die (pro-choice and right to die, right to self-determination), then it would discourage people from seeking help, discourage doctors and medical professionals for finding a cure, etc., which is far, far from the truth. It is far from the truth because the people who don't wish to stick around will either find a way to CTB themselves (taking the risk of acquiring said method, hiding it until they attempt, and fight their SI in order to go through with the attempt; which depending on their method could carry a high chance of failure) and/or do things to ensure their death while keeping quiet of their intentions. On the flip side, for those who wish to stay (which there are many more out there, plus you only hear their stories because they are the people who have succeeded in recovery and/or learned how to tolerate, cope with their reality (which isn't something everyone can do, nor should they do just to keep their loved ones happy). There are far more people who wish to stick around and even recover within that community such that doctors and medical professionals would almost always have a steady supply of patients that wish to try their new cures and/or treatments. Therefore, having the few that decide to leave and find peace would NOT severely impact the medical industries' and professionals' ability to advance medicine and/or future, better treatments. Plus, it would be respecting the rights of each individual, the people who don't wish to continue living are given peace while those who wish to continue to fight will persist and continue fighting day by day.

So in conclusion, back before I was more firm on my pro-choice stance, I used to be more open towards disability advocacy groups that support various people with various disabilities (both physically and mentally), however, after learning what they are and how much of an impact they are to people, it has only strengthened my pro-choice stance and fueled disdain for what they stand for (pro-life, anti-choice stance).

Does anyone see them in the same (or similar) light as I do?

 

[Zappfe lover]

you only hear their stories because they are the people who have succeeded in recovery and/or learned how to tolerate, cope with their reality
[/QUOTE]
You hit the nail on the head here. It's easy for people to reinforce the narrative that literally everyone can succeed because only the ones that do are able to spread their stories.

It's kinda similar to nature. We like to say how nature is perfect in the sense that everything works, but that's simply because we only have access to the species that managed to adapt and survive. There were a lot of creatures that went extinct due to their "inferior" bodies, but we don't talk abou them.

 

[TAW122]

you only hear their stories because they are the people who have succeeded in recovery and/or learned how to tolerate, cope with their reality

You hit the nail on the head here. It's easy for people to reinforce the narrative that literally everyone can succeed because only the ones that do are able to spread their stories.

It's kinda similar to nature. We like to say how nature is perfect in the sense that everything works, but that's simply because we only have access to the species that managed to adapt and survive. There were a lot of creatures that went extinct due to their "inferior" bodies, but we don't talk abou them.

I think you are right about only hearing about the success stories, which is why it's a skewed picture due to it being cherry picked). It reminds me of the quote "Winners write history", which means the winning side of a conflict would be able to tell the story from their side and even exclude certain truths of the losing side and when people of the current and future read it, they only see part of the picture rather than the whole picture, full story.

With respect to the 'creatures', yes what you said applies to humans too. I'd say it's part of selection bias from the data that we are presented. For example, if there are 100 people with X disability, and 10 of those people managed to pull through and had an amazing recovery and/or made the best out of it, continued living are represented, then about 50-60 you didn't hear about but they didn't CTB but just went about their lives while invisible to the public, then of course, another 30-40 who have CTB'd either passively or actively, which you might (if you are lucky and you dig really hard) hear about. Then people claim that almost all the people (with a sample size of 10) who had X disability or so wanted to live and are glad they didn't give up.

However, what people failed to see is because these advocacy groups only cherry-picked the data of all the successful ones, while ignoring the not successful ones, we are left with selection bias, cherry picked data (aka tainted), rather than a fair sample. If it was a fair sample taken, it would have been maybe 2-3 (3 is still a bit high) success stories, maybe 3-4 not so successful stories but still survive albeit poorly (they would represent that quality of life isn't all rainbows and sunshines), and of course about 3-4 unsuccessful and bleak stories. In such a fair sample size, it would paint an more accurate picture of the group of 100 people with X disability.

In reality, sadly, media and these groups oftenly paint an much brighter (but inaccurate and misleading) picture to the public and the public scoops it up like finding gold in sea of minerals and other soil excavation site.

 

[Linda]

I think that what is underlying their attitude is a fear that disabled people might be pressured into involuntary (or at least not entirely voluntary) euthanasia because of their disability. So that results in them being unenthusiatic about suicide even when it is 100% voluntary. They do have grounds for their concerns, as disabled people have often been involuntarily "disposed of" at various periods in history. So I can see where they are coming from, even though I disagree with their position on suicide. What is needed here, I think, is education, to emphasise the difference between people choosing freely to end their own life for good reasons, and people being pressured into ending their life for no good reason.

 

[TAW122]

I think that what is underlying their attitude is a fear that disabled people might be pressured into involuntary (or at least not entirely voluntary) euthanasia because of their disability. So that results in them being unenthusiatic about suicide even when it is 100% voluntary. They do have grounds for their concerns, as disabled people have often been involuntarily "disposed of" at various periods in history. So I can see where they are coming from, even though I disagree with their position on suicide. What is needed here, I think, is education, to emphasise the difference between people choosing freely to end their own life for good reasons, and people being pressured into ending their life for no good reason.

Indeed and I don't fault them for voicing their opinion, but to paint ALL disabled people of a certain ailment to be of pro-life and wanting to live is wildly inaccurate, just as you said. I am aware of certain periods in history where the disabled and undesired are involuntarily "disposed of" whether indirectly or directly, and that is problematic. This is why even in right to die organizations today, they have very strict measures and criterion in determining who gets said service and who gets denied. I also agree that education as well as a strict distinction between the ones who freely choose to end their own suffering on their own terms versus those who are being guilted, pressured, coerced into doing so.

 

[tidalwxves]

Disclaimer/Note: I am not shaming anyone who has a physical or mental disability. This is just a discussion for intellectual and educational purposes. I myself have Aspergers (formally diagnosed when I was a teenager and even early young adult as a re-diagnosis), so this is coming from someone who has spent time in the peer support groups in the past and interacted with people there.

With that said, back in the earlier days, over half a decade or more ago, when I used to frequent around disability advocacy groups, peer support groups and forums, as well as subreddits on reddit (before my SS days), I used to believe that that these groups are benign and shared my values. However, after learning of the pro-choice communities (SS when it was on Reddit and later, this forum) and being pro-choice myself, I started to see these advocacy groups and support groups as those that reek of pro-life and anti-choice sentiments. It is one thing to be opposed to death and supportive of people who want to strive, recover, and do well in life, but to outright censor, forbid pro-choice, self-determination choices, and force the default stance of life is valuable, life is great, and all the pro-life sentiments and values, to everyone (whether or not they believe in it) is just wrong.

I am not saying that people should CTB, as the choice is ultimately up to them (each individual), but these disability advocacy groups and support groups claim that if people are allowed the choice to die (pro-choice and right to die, right to self-determination), then it would discourage people from seeking help, discourage doctors and medical professionals for finding a cure, etc., which is far, far from the truth. It is far from the truth because the people who don't wish to stick around will either find a way to CTB themselves (taking the risk of acquiring said method, hiding it until they attempt, and fight their SI in order to go through with the attempt; which depending on their method could carry a high chance of failure) and/or do things to ensure their death while keeping quiet of their intentions. On the flip side, for those who wish to stay (which there are many more out there, plus you only hear their stories because they are the people who have succeeded in recovery and/or learned how to tolerate, cope with their reality (which isn't something everyone can do, nor should they do just to keep their loved ones happy). There are far more people who wish to stick around and even recover within that community such that doctors and medical professionals would almost always have a steady supply of patients that wish to try their new cures and/or treatments. Therefore, having the few that decide to leave and find peace would NOT severely impact the medical industries' and professionals' ability to advance medicine and/or future, better treatments. Plus, it would be respecting the rights of each individual, the people who don't wish to continue living are given peace while those who wish to continue to fight will persist and continue fighting day by day.

So in conclusion, back before I was more firm on my pro-choice stance, I used to be more open towards disability advocacy groups that support various people with various disabilities (both physically and mentally), however, after learning what they are and how much of an impact they are to people, it has only strengthened my pro-choice stance and fueled disdain for what they stand for (pro-life, anti-choice stance).

Does anyone see them in the same (or similar) light as I do?

I have become very uncomfortable with this as well. I think it comes from the way people with disabilities whether they be physical or psychological have been treated. Since for a long time in a large number of cultures people with these conditions have been seen as a burden, expendable or even a threat or seen as sign of a curse or spiritual impurity that needs to be purged there is a fear that opening up the option would lead to people taking advantage of those laws to get rid of disabled relatives they don't want to deal with.

While the laws need to be carefully crafted and protections would need to be put in place to prevent that I think its a very flimsy excuse not to allow people to take their lives. The issue is there is an idea this will strip people of their autonomy, but that's already happening. Few people actually care about the actual quality of life of these disabled people, or about their agency to decide when they have had enough. There is this idea that life is sacred above all else, but the fact of the matter is in other cases we have decided that is not the case.

For example, when it comes to abortion, that is a life. Something with a heartbeat is alive. I still don't think that precludes a woman who would be unable to care for that life to decide the more merciful thing is to not bring them into the world. Many people agree and abortion is reasonably accessible, but when it comes to fully autonomous creatures wanting to take their own life suddenly there are all kinds of insultingly infantilizing arguments about how they couldn't possibly actually know what they want and shouldn't be indulged. Why do we allow women to make the decision to terminate a life that is not their own (something I am not suggesting we get rid of) but don't allow the disabled and terminally ill to make decisions about their own life? The logic does not follow.

Or even consider how we treat animals, we euthanize them when its convenient for us, the animal cannot consent, and it is seen as the only good and ethical response to the creature's suffering. Yet a human being who CAN consent and express specifically why and how they are prepared to leave is belittled and dismissed, required to take matter into their own hands and die a painful and undignified death of shrouded in secrecy or continue suffering. Why should a dog receive a more dignified death and access to euthanasia yet humans are simply expected to wallow in their pain? How does that logic follow?

What we really need are more options, actual investment in things that will improve the quality of life of those suffering with these conditions. If that was taken, less people with these conditions would want to die. More communities need to be put together for them, while families should be expected to be supportive it is the government that should actually make sure the resources whether that be a medical device, assistance animal. therapies etc. be made available because often times even committed families can't afford these crucial life changing treatments. But for those whose still do not deem their quality of life was made to be something they could manage, that their physical and emotional pain is too much to bear, they should be able to express that and receive access to a dignified, minimally traumatic exit from this life. That's what honoring the needs of the disabled looks like to me.

 

[TAW122]

I have become very uncomfortable with this as well. I think it comes from the way people with disabilities whether they be physical or psychological have been treated. Since for a long time in a large number of cultures people with these conditions have been seen as a burden, expendable or even a threat or seen as sign of a curse or spiritual impurity that needs to be purged there is a fear that opening up the option would lead to people taking advantage of those laws to get rid of disabled relatives they don't want to deal with.

While the laws need to be carefully crafted and protections would need to be put in place to prevent that I think its a very flimsy excuse not to allow people to take their lives. The issue is there is an idea this will strip people of their autonomy, but that's already happening. Few people actually care about the actual quality of life of these disabled people, or about their agency to decide when they have had enough. There is this idea that life is sacred above all else, but the fact of the matter is in other cases we have decided that is not the case.

For example, when it comes to abortion, that is a life. Something with a heartbeat is alive. I still don't think that precludes a woman who would be unable to care for that life to decide the more merciful thing is to not bring them into the world. Many people agree and abortion is reasonably accessible, but when it comes to fully autonomous creatures wanting to take their own life suddenly there are all kinds of insultingly infantilizing arguments about how they couldn't possibly actually know what they want and shouldn't be indulged. Why do we allow women to make the decision to terminate a life that is not their own (something I am not suggesting we get rid of) but don't allow the disabled and terminally ill to make decisions about their own life? The logic does not follow.

Or even consider how we treat animals, we euthanize them when its convenient for us, the animal cannot consent, and it is seen as the only good and ethical response to the creature's suffering. Yet a human being who CAN consent and express specifically why and how they are prepared to leave is belittled and dismissed, required to take matter into their own hands and die a painful and undignified death of shrouded in secrecy or continue suffering. Why should a dog receive a more dignified death and access to euthanasia yet humans are simply expected to wallow in their pain? How does that logic follow?

What we really need are more options, actual investment in things that will improve the quality of life of those suffering with these conditions. If that was taken, less people with these conditions would want to die. More communities need to be put together for them, while families should be expected to be supportive it is the government that should actually make sure the resources whether that be a medical device, assistance animal. therapies etc. be made available because often times even committed families can't afford these crucial life changing treatments. But for those whose still do not deem their quality of life was made to be something they could manage, that their physical and emotional pain is too much to bear, they should be able to express that and receive access to a dignified, minimally traumatic exit from this life. That's what honoring the needs of the disabled looks like to me.

This is a very well written post and agree with your points. I agree that more should be done for people with disabilities, especially those who want to improve and recover. Then for those who have decided enough is enough, be given a peaceful and dignified exit.

 

[woxihuanni]

People conflate insulting disabled people with acknowledging that their life quality is reduced. Same goes for anything that is not a disability per se but any situation that makes life harder.

 

[TAW122]

People conflate insulting disabled people with acknowledging that their life quality is reduced. Same goes for anything that is not a disability per se but any situation that makes life harder.

Well said, I think this is the main issue when normies and the majority of people think when it comes to discussion about the disableds' right to self-determination. They assume that being 'pro-choice' means diminishing their capacity to function in life and/or being pro-death, which is FAR from the truth. If anything, we respect the disableds who decide to continue life and fight to the bitter end (even if their quality of life is poor) and we also respect and understand the ones who decide enough is enough and decide to exercise their own self-deliverance to find peace.

 

[NotDeanNorris]

Disclaimer/Note: I am not shaming anyone who has a physical or mental disability. This is just a discussion for intellectual and educational purposes. I myself have Aspergers (formally diagnosed when I was a teenager and even early young adult as a re-diagnosis), so this is coming from someone who has spent time in the peer support groups in the past and interacted with people there.

With that said, back in the earlier days, over half a decade or more ago, when I used to frequent around disability advocacy groups, peer support groups and forums, as well as subreddits on reddit (before my SS days), I used to believe that that these groups are benign and shared my values. However, after learning of the pro-choice communities (SS when it was on Reddit and later, this forum) and being pro-choice myself, I started to see these advocacy groups and support groups as those that reek of pro-life and anti-choice sentiments. It is one thing to be opposed to death and supportive of people who want to strive, recover, and do well in life, but to outright censor, forbid pro-choice, self-determination choices, and force the default stance of life is valuable, life is great, and all the pro-life sentiments and values, to everyone (whether or not they believe in it) is just wrong.

I am not saying that people should CTB, as the choice is ultimately up to them (each individual), but these disability advocacy groups and support groups claim that if people are allowed the choice to die (pro-choice and right to die, right to self-determination), then it would discourage people from seeking help, discourage doctors and medical professionals for finding a cure, etc., which is far, far from the truth. It is far from the truth because the people who don't wish to stick around will either find a way to CTB themselves (taking the risk of acquiring said method, hiding it until they attempt, and fight their SI in order to go through with the attempt; which depending on their method could carry a high chance of failure) and/or do things to ensure their death while keeping quiet of their intentions. On the flip side, for those who wish to stay (which there are many more out there, plus you only hear their stories because they are the people who have succeeded in recovery and/or learned how to tolerate, cope with their reality (which isn't something everyone can do, nor should they do just to keep their loved ones happy). There are far more people who wish to stick around and even recover within that community such that doctors and medical professionals would almost always have a steady supply of patients that wish to try their new cures and/or treatments. Therefore, having the few that decide to leave and find peace would NOT severely impact the medical industries' and professionals' ability to advance medicine and/or future, better treatments. Plus, it would be respecting the rights of each individual, the people who don't wish to continue living are given peace while those who wish to continue to fight will persist and continue fighting day by day.

So in conclusion, back before I was more firm on my pro-choice stance, I used to be more open towards disability advocacy groups that support various people with various disabilities (both physically and mentally), however, after learning what they are and how much of an impact they are to people, it has only strengthened my pro-choice stance and fueled disdain for what they stand for (pro-life, anti-choice stance).

Does anyone see them in the same (or similar) light as I do?

I don't have anything to add other than to just tell you this is a very well thought out short essay. Coming from someone who is disabled and lives with a loving partner who is also disabled. My and his disabilities don't really make us want to die but how shitty we get treated does. No cure for either but we get by, but I would like to see more freedom of choice sentiment and personal agency in the disability and chronic illness communities.
The right to die and the right to live are BOTH important, they are 2 sides of the same coin.

 

[TAW122]

I don't have anything to add other than to just tell you this is a very well thought out short essay. Coming from someone who is disabled and lives with a loving partner who is also disabled. My and his disabilities don't really make us want to die but how shitty we get treated does. No cure for either but we get by, but I would like to see more freedom of choice sentiment and personal agency in the disability and chronic illness communities.
The right to die and the right to live are BOTH important, they are 2 sides of the same coin.

Thank you for your kind comment and support. It is refreshing to hear someone who is in the target audience/demographic who also shares similar sentiments, this would be a good example to push back the narrative that disability rights advocates spew. I fully agree with your last sentence, one cannot have one or the other and be pro-choice, and sadly most pro-lifers seem to ignore the other side of the coin (the right to die) just because it conflicts with their moral values.

 

[NotDeanNorris]

Thank you for your kind comment and support. It is refreshing to hear someone who is in the target audience/demographic who also shares similar sentiments, this would be a good example to push back the narrative that disability rights advocates spew. I fully agree with your last sentence, one cannot have one or the other and be pro-choice, and sadly most pro-lifers seem to ignore the other side of the coin (the right to die) just because it conflicts with their moral values.

Not to push God or religion
Honestly I blame a lot of modern interpretations of old religions. I'm semi gnostic non denominational Christian with other spiritual views. CTB in my religion doesn't automatically send you to Hell. And even if it does happen to send you to Hell, it is only for a short while, as God wants to be one with all of his children, and not just a select few.
And Hell isn't necessarily the burning pit of fire and devils. It has many manifestations and the Angels always pull you out eventually to put your soul into another physical body, as all deserve chance after chance to attain the Heavenly Pearl.
At least in my opinion, so CTB doesn't really scare me as much, nor do I fear for the immortal souls of those who do CTB. I just pray they find peace in their next life, or that they attained the pearl and can join God as intended by Jesus, Mary, Thomas, and Sophia.
But again I just think that old religion puts too much emphasis on quiet suffering, and penalizing death and peace.
I know the God stuff can really bother some people and I get why, because I think it is often the moral compass people use to push a pro life narrative, so I guess I'm just saying this to show that some modern religions even can respect the right to CTB while also wanting people to live if they can do so reasonably. Comfort isn't a sin. Peace isn't a sin. Dying isn't a sin either. Greed and selfishness are, and it is selfish to demand one unduly suffers for the pro life comfort of others.
Sorry it is 1 am and I get real philosophical and religious around this time all hopped up on caffeine.
Also God feels everything we feel. Telling someone who doesn't want to live that they have to live, hurts God.

 

[TAW122]

Not to push God or religion
Honestly I blame a lot of modern interpretations of old religions. I'm semi gnostic non denominational Christian with other spiritual views. CTB in my religion doesn't automatically send you to Hell. And even if it does happen to send you to Hell, it is only for a short while, as God wants to be one with all of his children, and not just a select few.
And Hell isn't necessarily the burning pit of fire and devils. It has many manifestations and the Angels always pull you out eventually to put your soul into another physical body, as all deserve chance after chance to attain the Heavenly Pearl.
At least in my opinion, so CTB doesn't really scare me as much, nor do I fear for the immortal souls of those who do CTB. I just pray they find peace in their next life, or that they attained the pearl and can join God as intended by Jesus, Mary, Thomas, and Sophia.
But again I just think that old religion puts too much emphasis on quiet suffering, and penalizing death and peace.
I know the God stuff can really bother some people and I get why, because I think it is often the moral compass people use to push a pro life narrative, so I guess I'm just saying this to show that some modern religions even can respect the right to CTB while also wanting people to live if they can do so reasonably. Comfort isn't a sin. Peace isn't a sin. Dying isn't a sin either. Greed and selfishness are, and it is selfish to demand one unduly suffers for the pro life comfort of others.
Sorry it is 1 am and I get real philosophical and religious around this time all hopped up on caffeine.
Also God feels everything we feel. Telling someone who doesn't want to live that they have to live, hurts God.

That's an interesting interpretation of Christianity and I've heard similar things from other people who are religious too, and from a historical perspective, I do believe that logically, it made sense that early Christians did not view suicide as the taboo as it is, until the Roman Catholic Church got involved and dominated the religion to bend it towards it's agenda. Personally, I'm an atheist so I don't appeal to religion on whether I choose to live or die.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

Because they take one disabled person's choosing to CTB as somehow a reflection on all disabled people's lives and somehow support of the notion that disabled lives are inherently worth less than abled lives despite it just being one individual actively making that choice just for themselves.

 

[TAW122]

Because they take one disabled person's choosing to CTB as somehow a reflection on all disabled people's lives and somehow support of the notion that disabled lives are inherently worth less than abled lives despite it just being one individual actively making that choice just for themselves.

Yes, this is the narrative that the DRAs have and this narrative needs to be reexamined, reevaluated, and reconsidered... I believe that if the DRAs treat EACH disabled individual's case as unique cases rather than painting ALL disabled persons lives to be the same then that would help tremendously in reforming the narrative. You are correct that not all disabled lives are worth less than abled lives and with a strong emphasis on bodily autonomy and personal civil liberties that would be where the narrative should be instead of "disabled people are vulnerable and can't make decisions for themselves".