Discussion If we were to change one word in the infamous pro-lifer slogan “Permanent solution to …”

[TAW122]

It is no surprise and no secret that all of us despise and detest such banal and infamous CTB prevention slogans such as [it is a] "Permanent solution to temporary problems." and suppose we change one or two words of that slogan, to something like "Permanent solution to temporary [all] problems." then the meaning would drastically change. What do you think would happen if one were to change such statements? Do you think that would change the whole meaning of the statement in a way? What kind of reactions do you think people will have to such things?

I have thought about if someone were to push for the RTD, perhaps the emphasis on solution to ALL problems of the living and more, perhaps that would yield even more effect or something, maybe it might detract from the infamous slogan that pro-lifers have, but maybe I could be wrong? In my eyes, I think that by changing one word (or two), this greatly alters the meaning of the phrase and tone of it. For some people, perhaps they want to have a permanent solution to ALL [life and sentience's] problems, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is only negative in the eyes of pro-lifers because they take an unqualifiable value on life that is faith-based and not based on concrete objectivity, but I digress.

Anyways, I hope people managed to find this idea kind of interesting and in case anyone is wondering, no I don't plan on infiltrating pro-life organizations (maybe someone else might though but not me) and changing their messages and slogans, kind of turning it on it's head. What do you think will happen with such changes?

 

[Darkover]

Changing the wording of well-known slogans, like altering "Permanent solution to temporary problems" to "Permanent solution to all problems," would indeed drastically shift the tone and meaning of the statement. It would suggest that the act in question (CTB, or "choosing to die") solves all problems, not just temporary ones, which could have far-reaching implications. Such a change could undermine the original message that tries to deter suicide by emphasizing the idea that problems are temporary, and that life can improve with time or intervention.

By adding the concept of "all problems," the slogan could appeal to people who see life itself as the root cause of suffering. In this context, death is portrayed as a release from the burdens and inherent challenges of life—something antinatalists and those who support the right to die (RTD) might resonate with. For those in pro-life or suicide prevention communities, this revision would likely be seen as dangerous or misleading because it shifts the focus from the idea of hope and recovery to a broader, more final solution that negates life's inherent value.

Pro-Life and Suicide Prevention Advocates: These groups would likely react strongly against such changes. They may argue that this new phrasing trivializes the complexity of life's problems and overlooks the value of resilience, therapy, and recovery. They'd probably view it as fatalistic and a dangerous oversimplification of mental health struggles.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

the prolifers are acting like we won't all die anyway. so they use all these meaningless slogans to keep you suffering here a while longer and then we all will die anyway.

Why would they want us to continue to suffer since we will all die no matter what we do?. why prolong the suffering . why is it so important to them that we suffer for a while longer then die anyway., A lot f the time they are strangers so this shouldn't matter to them.

suicide would solve all problems instantly and forever for me . After Death is non-existence where there can be no problems no pain no suffering. and it's non-existence forever never any pain or problems

 

[Plato'sCaveDweller]

I've always put it as "it's a permanent solution to the problem of having problems."

But I think it would be a good strategy to directly attack this common retort we get from suicide preventionists (or at least, it's worth trying). It isn't just a singular temporary problem that suicide solves, and often times a potential suicide isn't facing just one problem but many, rather it solves the very base existential issue that living beings face - problems, as a whole. And if one is no longer interested in perpetually encountering and solving problems for no grand purpose other than to survive and be one more day closer to the grave, then by all means they should be allowed to seek this permanent solution.

But I suppose that's where pro-lifers' faith in the value of life comes in, and they would have you believe that endlessly solving problems is actually a good thing. Even though all these triumphs we accrue over our lifetimes amount to absolutely nothing. It is all annihilated upon death. So any character growth one gains from overcoming the various problems of life is merely temporary, and it seriously compromises pro-lifers' belief that it holds inherent value. Especially when one considers that this supposed value was not needed in any way before one was born, and it will provide no value after death. So it's just temporary instrumental value, which is far from what is purported to be the case.

Jean Améry sort of touched on what I'm getting at here:

Since I am still only living in order to die, only building the house so that it will collapse at the roofing ceremony, it is better to flee from death into death, or—thinking further, and more precisely—from the absurdity of existence into the absurdity of nothing.

So this alone to me proves that taking on these "temporary problems" is by no means inherently necessitated - not existentially ipso jure. And that only by authoritarian preventionists measures can this mandate, this imperative, be meaningfully enforced.

But to answer your question: merely changing this slogan probably won't do much since, as I said, pro-lifers' are firmly entrenched in the belief of life's inherent positive value. Any real problems or bullshit can be justified under this belief system, and it's unfortunately the majority position. But I do think it would be a reasonable counter-point to bring up in debates with them. I can't recall ever using it myself (I've only ever brought it up amongst other pro-choicers or pro-suicide folks). But I'd be curious as to what they'd say in response.

 

[permanently tired]

I think it's poorly thought out lmao. The best solutions are permanent. Why tf would I want a temporary solution? So I can face the same problem again down the road? Using a lack of context to prevent bias, ask ppl if they'd rather choose a permanent or a temporary solution to a problem. They will always choose the permanent one. All that it proves is that ppl r clouded with bias when it comes to suicide. I'm sure someone out there will argue otherwise, but the pertinent part of this "experiment" is for them to understand how the suicidal person feels. They view their problems too great to permanently resolve, not whoever is trying to say differently. So unless you can resolve their problems for them, stop thinking like a brick wall.