I don't have a problem with the use of the word heroic here. Even if the woman regrets having been saved (something we have no way of knowing), jumping in front of a train carries a high likelihood of traumatizing others, and could potentially place innocent bystanders at risk.
If I were in his position, I'd have intervened too.
Well, you should. It's a dangerously alluring adjective that only perpetuates the toxic pro-life movement.
This woman was desperate to end her suffering and now the person who stopped her is seen as some figure of selflessness and all that is good with humanity-when actually, they symbolize the complete opposite.
The man who saved her is but a bar in the prison cell wall that confines us to this cage of pain and despair. And if you think he did this out of the goodwill of his heart, you are mistaken. There are few reasons why someone would stop another from ending their life, one is being small-minded and privileged enough to never reach the point this woman has, and in turn, never reach the point of understanding her predicament. (If he reacted on impulse, it was a poorly informed impulse.)
Another reason is to perform an action in hopes of being crowned with the very word "hero", to pat oneself on the back.
Imagine this: a little animal stuck neck down in wet cement, writhing, struggling, feeling the heat of the day with a parched mouth and an empty stomach, the cement since hardening, encasing the animal, crushing its skeleton, strangling its organs..think about it, feel it.
There is nothing to be done, no piece of machinery can break apart the cement without risk of cutting through the desperate creature. So someone pulls out a gun, they walk over and place it to the temple of the animal, with every intention of ending its suffering, in an act of mercy. Then another man comes along, some wise guy, rips the gun out of the other person's hand and turns to the crowd, basking in what he knows awaits him..applause, "hero", all while the little animal continues to break down-excruciatingly-behind him, the person meant to end the senseless pain, now unable to do anything. No one else sees the animal, no one else feels its desperation, they only see the person who "saved" it, because that's who they project themselves onto...the poor animal has no voice, it represents only defeat in the face of someone the public deems apt to be called a heroic savior.
..You might think this^ is a poor example, and it is, because if the suicidal were treated as animals, people would be quick to put us out of our misery. But as it stands, we are treated less than human, less than an animal, we are seen as pitiful and unknowing, unable to form a rational opinion or plan our own escape from hell. The world loves a hero's story, but they don't want to learn about ours, not if it doesn't fit their narrative of 'certified loon, undeserving of basic rights because of a perceived mental defect.'
And though what I outlined, on a surface level, seems a bit ridiculous, it's still a far more accurate portrayal of what this type of situation really boils down to, and the absolute absurdity of it all. Because it is, indeed, absolutely fucking absurd.
To do what this man has done. To push for similar actions that are not unlike the actions which cornered this woman into having to resort to a train in the first place-versus a safe, sanctioned option.
But only those in the place of the 'animal' and the few and far between pro-choice individual can see it and acknowledge it for what it truly is. A fucking disgrace.
This woman wanted to die and he just prolonged her suffering.
www.today.com
