TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,359
I just stumbled upon a video talking about why alcohol (throughout human history) is not banned, and I just made the connection when it comes to the right to die and all the draconic, paternalistic CTB prevention measures and policies in place in present day. The video Why Is Alcohol Not Banned (The Answer is Surprisingly Simple), at the 6:01 mark states in a few sentences why despite many downsides of alcohol, it is not banned (not withstanding the prohibition era in the US, in the early 20th century when the US tried to ban it but only exacerbated further problems and to no avail). I've quoted what the video said below:
So how does this tie into pro-choice philosophy and stance? It ties into the fact that the right to die, bodily autonomy, and CTB itself is and has been taboo, stigmatized, and even prohibited (in the sense that there are social and civil consequences such as unwanted intervention and interference from the State, from our peers and other people and what not) despite the fact that in the modern world (late 20th century and even 21st century), in many jurisdictions it is not a crime, but de facto it is due to the intervention and consequences that arise from those planning to, attempting to (but failing to) CTB.
Therefore, the question becomes, what would happen if the same logic applied to alcohol was then also applied to CTB, where in an ideal world it wasn't prohibited, permitted (maybe not encouraged but not blanket disapproved either) by some, and also not interfered by the State, a third party(s), or anyone? In other words, if society instead of banning (or even strongly and aggressively opposing, intervening, impinging upon an individual's civil liberties) decided to permit it (albeit in some circumstances and not merely for the terminally ill), what would things be like?
I would think that the amounts of impulsive CTB attempts (whether failure or successes) would go down, people would be more inclined and willing to seek help if it is offered voluntarily instead of forced or mandated, and there would be less stigma. Perhaps, even those who may have otherwise desperately attempted to CTB may decide to hold on longer if they knew there was ZERO risk of intervention, temporary loss of liberty (for their own good as a result of unwanted intervention), or any negative consequence (not necessarily legal ones) that would come from it. Let me know your thoughts on it.
So how does this tie into pro-choice philosophy and stance? It ties into the fact that the right to die, bodily autonomy, and CTB itself is and has been taboo, stigmatized, and even prohibited (in the sense that there are social and civil consequences such as unwanted intervention and interference from the State, from our peers and other people and what not) despite the fact that in the modern world (late 20th century and even 21st century), in many jurisdictions it is not a crime, but de facto it is due to the intervention and consequences that arise from those planning to, attempting to (but failing to) CTB.
Therefore, the question becomes, what would happen if the same logic applied to alcohol was then also applied to CTB, where in an ideal world it wasn't prohibited, permitted (maybe not encouraged but not blanket disapproved either) by some, and also not interfered by the State, a third party(s), or anyone? In other words, if society instead of banning (or even strongly and aggressively opposing, intervening, impinging upon an individual's civil liberties) decided to permit it (albeit in some circumstances and not merely for the terminally ill), what would things be like?
I would think that the amounts of impulsive CTB attempts (whether failure or successes) would go down, people would be more inclined and willing to seek help if it is offered voluntarily instead of forced or mandated, and there would be less stigma. Perhaps, even those who may have otherwise desperately attempted to CTB may decide to hold on longer if they knew there was ZERO risk of intervention, temporary loss of liberty (for their own good as a result of unwanted intervention), or any negative consequence (not necessarily legal ones) that would come from it. Let me know your thoughts on it.
