TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,874
Around the media and the Internet (as well as some people IRL), we often see prolifers especially religious ones, play victimhood about their rights being threatened or infringed. The alleged infringement are about how their (oftenly religious) held beliefs are being attacked, their lifestyle, and how they are being persecuted. Yet that is far from the truth. They then often claim victimhood from dissenting viewpoints, particularly ones that don't align with their beliefs and cite freedom of speech (1st amendment rights as per US and most other democratic nations' human rights) is being attacked. This is their core claim.
The irony though is how they talk about how they don't wish for their freedom (to choose life) to be infringed or threatened (1st amendment and also their way of life), yet at the same time, they feel that they have the right and/or authority to impose life (as well as their beliefs and values) onto those who don't wish to live, enjoy life, or just find life/sentience to be meaningless or (objectively) pointless. Additionally, they censor people whose beliefs and values are different by gaslighting, emotionally blackmailing, and even downright threatening them to submission or silence. They have no rational argument and only take "life is good, virtuous, sacred" as face value (again, no evidence or explanation except for assertion – which is not an argument). If anything, it is far from the truth and it only shows their hypocrisy in their reasoning. I do recall that there was someone, an article, or video that stated these people (particularly the religious ones, but also some secular humanists too) claim victimhood about how dissenting views (not limited to pro-choicers and right to die views, but other opposing stances) threaten their way of life and beliefs, yet at the same time, victimizes and impose their views on their opponents. If anything, we pro-choicers do none of that and that their myths and accusations are unsubstantiated.
With regards to freedom of speech, it is NOT freedom of speech if it is only speech that THEY (the pro-lifers) approve of. That is censorship and also a predefined narrative (rather the pro-life, anti-choice narrative). Freedom of speech should apply to ALL parties and factions. If certain opinions (including dissenting ones and unpopular ones) are suppressed, censored, or silenced, then it is NO longer freedom of speech, but 'selective speech' under the guise of freedom of speech. Furthermore, regarding stigma and taboo of the subject, again, it is a mere mockery of an attempt that they (prolifers) claim to want to destigmatize the taboo topic of death and suicide, yet they seem to drive the direction of the conversation and topic rather than allowing uncomfortable and dissenting opinions. The amount of mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty involved in spinning the narrative and these "attempts to destigmatize" the taboo topics is a sham. You CANNOT have honest opinions or candid dialogue if the conversation is contraindicated in the sense that having the uncomfortable opinions or dissenting views results in unreasonable (without probable cause) inquiries, inquisition, or even unwanted risk assessments (being treated like a criminal) for said individual(s). So until people are able to have an honest conversation or any meaningful discussion (including dissenting opinions and opposing views that goes against their beliefs) without repercussions or risk, the same consequences will continue to recur (people having to hide their true intentions, quietly CTB, not being able to have closure, collateral damage, and other awful consequences resulting from prohibition).
First off, most of us do NOT go around to tell them that they aren't allowed to live or love life. We also don't force our will on them (the pro-lifers). Instead, we merely state our opinions of why the State as well as society should accept having a choice for people to die on their own terms and how the right to die should be a civil right. We also don't violate their civil liberties (aka locking them up or treating them like a de facto criminal) just because they love life. I do not understand how prolifers think, claim, and play victim whenever they run into those who don't share their beliefs, opinions, and values. If anything, we (pro-choicers) are the ones who respect their right BY DEFAULT yet they don't reciprocate the same treatment that we do unto them. All we (prochoicers) want is for them (prolifers) to respect our beliefs, values, and bodily autonomy just like we respect their decision to enjoy life and to live (regardless of their reasoning). We don't mind that their beliefs or opinions differ from us as long as they don't impose their will or values onto us. But instead, they feel like we should respect their way of life, their opinions, their beliefs while disrespecting ours as well as imposing their will and dictating our bodily autonomy.
I do not understand how/why they feel threatened or fear of a world that allows people the bodily autonomy to choose when, where, and how one dies (on one's own terms). Also, as it is probably preaching to the choir, yes they (pro-lifers) are hypocritical in their beliefs, values, and arguments, and this thread is merely about venting as well as exposing their nefarious nature and illogical arguments and claims.
@RainAndSadness @FuneralCry @Forever Sleep
Edit: Added another few paragraphs since I forgot about it earlier.
The irony though is how they talk about how they don't wish for their freedom (to choose life) to be infringed or threatened (1st amendment and also their way of life), yet at the same time, they feel that they have the right and/or authority to impose life (as well as their beliefs and values) onto those who don't wish to live, enjoy life, or just find life/sentience to be meaningless or (objectively) pointless. Additionally, they censor people whose beliefs and values are different by gaslighting, emotionally blackmailing, and even downright threatening them to submission or silence. They have no rational argument and only take "life is good, virtuous, sacred" as face value (again, no evidence or explanation except for assertion – which is not an argument). If anything, it is far from the truth and it only shows their hypocrisy in their reasoning. I do recall that there was someone, an article, or video that stated these people (particularly the religious ones, but also some secular humanists too) claim victimhood about how dissenting views (not limited to pro-choicers and right to die views, but other opposing stances) threaten their way of life and beliefs, yet at the same time, victimizes and impose their views on their opponents. If anything, we pro-choicers do none of that and that their myths and accusations are unsubstantiated.
With regards to freedom of speech, it is NOT freedom of speech if it is only speech that THEY (the pro-lifers) approve of. That is censorship and also a predefined narrative (rather the pro-life, anti-choice narrative). Freedom of speech should apply to ALL parties and factions. If certain opinions (including dissenting ones and unpopular ones) are suppressed, censored, or silenced, then it is NO longer freedom of speech, but 'selective speech' under the guise of freedom of speech. Furthermore, regarding stigma and taboo of the subject, again, it is a mere mockery of an attempt that they (prolifers) claim to want to destigmatize the taboo topic of death and suicide, yet they seem to drive the direction of the conversation and topic rather than allowing uncomfortable and dissenting opinions. The amount of mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty involved in spinning the narrative and these "attempts to destigmatize" the taboo topics is a sham. You CANNOT have honest opinions or candid dialogue if the conversation is contraindicated in the sense that having the uncomfortable opinions or dissenting views results in unreasonable (without probable cause) inquiries, inquisition, or even unwanted risk assessments (being treated like a criminal) for said individual(s). So until people are able to have an honest conversation or any meaningful discussion (including dissenting opinions and opposing views that goes against their beliefs) without repercussions or risk, the same consequences will continue to recur (people having to hide their true intentions, quietly CTB, not being able to have closure, collateral damage, and other awful consequences resulting from prohibition).
First off, most of us do NOT go around to tell them that they aren't allowed to live or love life. We also don't force our will on them (the pro-lifers). Instead, we merely state our opinions of why the State as well as society should accept having a choice for people to die on their own terms and how the right to die should be a civil right. We also don't violate their civil liberties (aka locking them up or treating them like a de facto criminal) just because they love life. I do not understand how prolifers think, claim, and play victim whenever they run into those who don't share their beliefs, opinions, and values. If anything, we (pro-choicers) are the ones who respect their right BY DEFAULT yet they don't reciprocate the same treatment that we do unto them. All we (prochoicers) want is for them (prolifers) to respect our beliefs, values, and bodily autonomy just like we respect their decision to enjoy life and to live (regardless of their reasoning). We don't mind that their beliefs or opinions differ from us as long as they don't impose their will or values onto us. But instead, they feel like we should respect their way of life, their opinions, their beliefs while disrespecting ours as well as imposing their will and dictating our bodily autonomy.
I do not understand how/why they feel threatened or fear of a world that allows people the bodily autonomy to choose when, where, and how one dies (on one's own terms). Also, as it is probably preaching to the choir, yes they (pro-lifers) are hypocritical in their beliefs, values, and arguments, and this thread is merely about venting as well as exposing their nefarious nature and illogical arguments and claims.
@RainAndSadness @FuneralCry @Forever Sleep
Edit: Added another few paragraphs since I forgot about it earlier.
Last edited: