TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,874
I just found this comment by existentialgoof (EG) quoted below:
The explanation of this analogy in comparison to the imposition of life/sentience against our will is that the subscription is the imposition (or specifically, non-consensual subscription). Then we are responsible for paying for the subscription (upkeep of life itself, including all the woes, suffering, bills, and obligations that come with it). Then if we wish to cancel the subscription (life/sentience itself), not only are we penalized by doing so in the form of additional restrictions, loss of autonomy, and further suffering. Basically, trying to cancel the subscription is akin to CTB'ing. There is simply no risk free nor are we (truly) free to "cancel" our involuntary subscription that was unjustly imposed on us! Thus, it is de facto 'illegal' to cancel the subscription and the process is only allowed for those who are no longer of us for the entity that has us subscribed for their gains, whereas most others are punished for even planning, let alone attempting to unsubscribe.
Anyways, I believe this comment in that thread is a great analogy as life is something that nobody ever consented to, but was rather imposed upon. Then far more nefarious is how if one finds existence itself intolerable, they are actively stopped (if pro-lifers ever learn or get knowledge of), forced to live the life that they don't want to. Then those who do attempt to leave life oftenly have to do so in secrecy, with the risk of failure (and the repercussions following failure including permanent injuries and debility, loss of bodily autonomy and personal liberty, and further suffering), not to mention actively avoiding intervention.
The fact that life was imposed upon us against our will and consent means that we never agreed to it, but instead are also punished for not liking it (through gaslighting, detainment, forced drugging (in some cases), and further abuse). I just thought the analogy/comment was an accurate depiction of how life really is, and not some gift nor miracle that many people erroneously make it out to be. In a utopic world, we would never really have to fight for anything, we wouldn't have to plan in secrecy, we wouldn't have to resort to risky means (and possibly collateral damage to others'), and we'd actually get the respect to our bodily autonomy as we deserve.
"Yes, it's [life/sentience] a subscription I was signed up for without my consent, it's not worth the cost I'm paying for it, and I didn't need it and wouldn't have needed it if I was never born, and I'm not allowed to just cancelled the subscription without people trying to stop me from doing so and making it extremely risky to even try doing so. Not my idea of a good time."
The explanation of this analogy in comparison to the imposition of life/sentience against our will is that the subscription is the imposition (or specifically, non-consensual subscription). Then we are responsible for paying for the subscription (upkeep of life itself, including all the woes, suffering, bills, and obligations that come with it). Then if we wish to cancel the subscription (life/sentience itself), not only are we penalized by doing so in the form of additional restrictions, loss of autonomy, and further suffering. Basically, trying to cancel the subscription is akin to CTB'ing. There is simply no risk free nor are we (truly) free to "cancel" our involuntary subscription that was unjustly imposed on us! Thus, it is de facto 'illegal' to cancel the subscription and the process is only allowed for those who are no longer of us for the entity that has us subscribed for their gains, whereas most others are punished for even planning, let alone attempting to unsubscribe.
Anyways, I believe this comment in that thread is a great analogy as life is something that nobody ever consented to, but was rather imposed upon. Then far more nefarious is how if one finds existence itself intolerable, they are actively stopped (if pro-lifers ever learn or get knowledge of), forced to live the life that they don't want to. Then those who do attempt to leave life oftenly have to do so in secrecy, with the risk of failure (and the repercussions following failure including permanent injuries and debility, loss of bodily autonomy and personal liberty, and further suffering), not to mention actively avoiding intervention.
The fact that life was imposed upon us against our will and consent means that we never agreed to it, but instead are also punished for not liking it (through gaslighting, detainment, forced drugging (in some cases), and further abuse). I just thought the analogy/comment was an accurate depiction of how life really is, and not some gift nor miracle that many people erroneously make it out to be. In a utopic world, we would never really have to fight for anything, we wouldn't have to plan in secrecy, we wouldn't have to resort to risky means (and possibly collateral damage to others'), and we'd actually get the respect to our bodily autonomy as we deserve.