Discussion Imagine if pro-lifes only did/change one thing...

[TAW122]

Before I start, I will say that by now most of you already know that I'm a analytical, philosophical, deep thinker which means I think about things in great detail and analyze them rather than accept it without challenge. With that said, I had an interesting thought about what happened if "prolifers just changed one thing" in their view, which is to be pro-life for themselves, but NOT projecting, imposing that viewpoint onto others.

I would think that alone would mean that there would be less people who would feel trapped or be 'forced' to live life because they have no choice, indoctrinated, or pressured into choosing 'life'. Also, as far as this forum and similar platforms, it could be argued that it wouldn't exist (or maybe in a different form) since pro-lifers would only be 'pro-life' for themselves rather than imposing it on everyone. So in the end, the people who wouldn't want to be around would leave relatively freely, without much resistance, and those who want to stay and love life (pro-lifers) would stay and just go about their days. There are just so many different changes in the world and society would be very different with just one minor, but fundamental shift.

In addition to this, I would say that the people who desperately want to go would find more peaceful means or at least would not deliberately or desperately try to involve unwilling participants into their CTB (excluding first responders since they would still show up after the deed is done). There would be less violent methods such as jumping in front of a train, vehicular suicides (crashing onto walls, trees, or even other traffic, etc.), and other violent means. This would certainly be more true if voluntary euthanasia clinics are a thing and commonplace. Also, the people who may otherwise not open up, would be more willing to open up due to not having to fear incarceration for expressing their wish to die and not wishing to live, thus increasing their likelihood of recovery. Furthermore, more people would be willing to try other solutions because they know that if all else fails, they do have the option to leave and leave on their own terms, without intervention.

What are your thoughts and why?

 

[BipolarGuy]

I don't understand the question.

 

[almost_dead]

too long dint read

 

[Ghost2211]

I think it goes against the primary function of pro life to be quiet about it. The main point is forcing ones will on others.

 

[BipolarGuy]

The question boils down to: "If pro-lifers did not impose their views and will onto pro-choicers, but instead only choose to be pro-life for themselves and themselves only, what do you think would happen?" I gave my hypothetical guess on what may happen with that small but significant change.

Thank you for clarifying.
Could you tell me what is meant by "pro-choice" please?

 

[TAW122]

Thank you for clarifying.
Could you tell me what is meant by "pro-choice" please?

Being pro-choice (at least on this forum and in terms of self-deliverance and right to die) is allowing others to choose between whether they wish to give up on life or decide to recover and live life.

 

[BipolarGuy]

Being pro-choice (at least on this forum and in terms of self-deliverance and right to die) is allowing others to choose between whether they wish to give up on life or decide to recover and live life.

Thank you for the above clarification.

It is interesting to me who would fall into the "pro-life" category.
Is it literally anyone who tries to intervene in a suicide plan (a friend, relative, doctors, politicians for not allowing assisted suicide, etc)?

 

[Eren]

It doesn't bother me that people are "Pro-life" or that they try to dissuade me, or even give completely irrational "pro-life" advice. What bothers me is that they impose it by force. If it were not for them, simply someone who wanted ctb could buy N easily, in a pharmacy, at an affordable price, with the security that a pharmacy gives.

 

[Libracusp_1022]

Before I start, I will say that by now most of you already know that I'm a analytical, philosophical, deep thinker which means I think about things in great detail and analyze them rather than accept it without challenge. With that said, I had an interesting thought about what happened if "prolifers just changed one thing" in their view, which is to be pro-life for themselves, but NOT projecting, imposing that viewpoint onto others.

I would think that alone would mean that there would be less people who would feel trapped or be 'forced' to live life because they have no choice, indoctrinated, or pressured into choosing 'life'. Also, as far as this forum and similar platforms, it could be argued that it wouldn't exist (or maybe in a different form) since pro-lifers would only be 'pro-life' for themselves rather than imposing it on everyone. So in the end, the people who wouldn't want to be around would leave relatively freely, without much resistance, and those who want to stay and love life (pro-lifers) would stay and just go about their days. There are just so many different changes in the world and society would be very different with just one minor, but fundamental shift.

In addition to this, I would say that the people who desperately want to go would find more peaceful means or at least would not deliberately or desperately try to involve unwilling participants into their CTB (excluding first responders since they would still show up after the deed is done). There would be less violent methods such as jumping in front of a train, vehicular suicides (crashing onto walls, trees, or even other traffic, etc.), and other violent means. This would certainly be more true if voluntary euthanasia clinics are a thing and commonplace. Also, the people who may otherwise not open up, would be more willing to open up due to not having to fear incarceration for expressing their wish to die and not wishing to live, thus increasing their likelihood of recovery. Furthermore, more people would be willing to try other solutions because they know that if all else fails, they do have the option to leave and leave on their own terms, without intervention.

What are your thoughts and why?

It seems to me you're advocating for pro-choice. Pro choice is exactly what you're saying- each person has the right to choose for themselves what they feel is right for them. The problem is that when it comes to making laws, it's pro- life vs pro-choice. Pro-life laws prohibit people from being able to legally make those decisions for themselves.

 

[Ghost2211]

Live and let live/die is a beautiful ideal, but it's not human nature. I guess I can't wrap my head around if people minded their own business since that goes against pack mentality of all pack animals. You see some of this in China where people can be held responsible for helping others, so people look the other way if someone needs help. There is no middle ground we are either pack or individual.

 

[TAW122]

It doesn't bother me that people are "Pro-life" or that they try to dissuade me, or even give completely irrational "pro-life" advice. What bothers me is that they impose it by force. If it were not for them, simply someone who wanted ctb could buy N easily, in a pharmacy, at an affordable price, with the security that a pharmacy gives.

Exactly. They are free to parade around all day about how they enjoy their life, how life is valuable, how life is amazing, and all that, as long as they leave us (pro-choicers) alone and not push that onto us.

It seems to me you're advocating for pro-choice. Pro choice is exactly what you're saying- each person has the right to choose for themselves what they feel is right for them. The problem is that when it comes to making laws, it's pro- life vs pro-choice. Pro-life laws prohibit people from being able to legally make those decisions for themselves.

I would think that someday in the future, there should be a law that allows a person who reaches age of majority (18 in the US and various parts of the world, 16 in Europe, etc.) the choice to decide whether to continue life or not. As long as they are making the choice by their own volition (not being pressured and making the decision all on their own, 100%), then they should be given the go ahead. Then there is a short waiting period including up until the final moment, just in the uncommon (but possible) event that the person changes his/her mind. This is because once someone CTBs or goes through to the very end, that's it. There is no reversing or going back once on the bus.

Live and let live/die is a beautiful ideal, but it's not human nature. I guess I can't wrap my head around if people minded their own business since that goes against pack mentality of all pack animals. You see some of this in China where people can be held responsible for helping others, so people look the other way if someone needs help. There is no middle ground we are either pack or individual.

Sad but true. Human nature can be rather disgusting and there is no perfect solution at all. As for what you mentioned in China, I believe it happens in other countries as well, where people deliberately get into accidents to sue the person and get money out of it. It's rather disgusting that there are people who "intentionally" get into accidents in order to get compensation (which is of course, fraud - a very serious crime). Nowadays, there are citizens who have dashcams and bodycams in order to combat those who do that in order to protect themselves from unscrupulous actors who try to fraud the system + them.