Neither Pro-Life nor Pro-Death but Pro-Choice (short philosophical article)

[Alucard]

Neither Pro-Life nor Pro-Death but Pro-Choice (short philosophical article)

* To be Pro-Life is to prevent others from dying without pain, to force them to live even if they no longer want to, even if they suffer martyrdom.

* To be Pro-Death is to incite others to suicide, prevent them from living well, even kill them or let them die when they want to live.

* To be Pro-Choice is to be neither Pro-Life nor Pro-Death: to impose neither Life nor Death on others, to exert no pressure on them ... but to leave them the choice, to respect their freedom. Give them all the keys in their hand to live well - while also giving them the means to die well.

* It is only when others do everything they can so that I can "live well" (against Pro-Deaths) while also allowing me to "die well" when I decide (against Pro-Vie) that I can truly say to myself: "I have a choice between living and dying."

 

[Sprite_Geist]

Your post is succinct and explains perfectly what it means to be pro-choice. Despite this there will still be individuals and groups who fail to understand basic explanations like yours, and will continue to think that "pro-choice" is the same as "pro-death".

 

[WornOutLife]

I'm so proud of all those pro-choice who are reading your thread and my comment.
I'm really happy to be one of you!

 

[Pen>Sword]

This is a pretty good explanation of all sides. This philosophical short is needed to open the minds of people. May I use this in my suicide note?

 

[Alucard]

This is a pretty good explanation of all sides. This philosophical short is needed to open the minds of people. May I use this in my suicide note?

Thank you ! I agree... You can use it, my text is "free of rights".

 

[noname223]

Neither Pro-Life nor Pro-Death but Pro-Choice (short philosophical article)

* To be Pro-Life is to prevent others from dying without pain, to force them to live even if they no longer want to, even if they suffer martyrdom.

* To be Pro-Death is to incite others to suicide, prevent them from living well, even kill them or let them die when they want to live.

* To be Pro-Choice is to be neither Pro-Life nor Pro-Death: to impose neither Life nor Death on others, to exert no pressure on them ... but to leave them the choice, to respect their freedom. Give them all the keys in their hand to live well - while also giving them the means to die well.

* It is only when others do everything they can so that I can "live well" (against Pro-Deaths) while also allowing me to "die well" when I decide (against Pro-Vie) that I can truly say to myself: "I have a choice between living and dying."

I completely agree to that. I am neither pro-life nor pro death too. Allegedly a study claimed this forum was a pro suicide forum. I did not like that.

 

[Alucard]

Finally, Pro-Life are Pro-Death : by dispossessing us of our life, they make us want to die.

 

[sophie.zzz]

Perfect text !

 

[Alucard]

Thank you ! I hope that one day humanity will understand.

 

[nopointofliving]

Exactly .... pro-choice to the win :D

 

[checkouttime]

pro lifers are really pro death, they let there friends and relatives CTB because they want arsed about them. Only after they CTB did they make an effort

 

[FuneralCry]

I strongly support the pro choice view. Society tries to push the pro life view on to everyone by denying access to peaceful methods and basically forcing people to live at all costs. We deserve to have the right to an peaceful dignified death and be able to end it on our own terms. It is cruel to make people suffer unbearably.

 

[checkouttime]

Yes we all have a choice, the pro-lifers friends and relatives came here and probably contributed to this forum also, not least by being a statistic and proof of the methods working

 

[Alucard]

Michel Houllebecq (a Pro-Life) said: "A civilization that legalizes euthanasia loses all rights to respect."

Admirable response from Roland Jaccard (a Pro-Choice) :
"I suppose Houllebecq must have felt a sense of shame when the right to abortion was admitted. And now here is the fatal blow: the legalization of euthanasia. Perhaps we could remind our illustrious novelist of this word of Benjamin Constant: "Suicide is a means of independence and, in this regard, all powers hate it." And why only doctors and chemists would have access in France to the pharmaceutical technology of suicide? Would he not have the same "right" to kill himself easily, without suffering and surely? Would Houllebecq have become an elitist? Or does he not manage to understand that if some consider the desire to live as a legitimate aspiration, others want to shorten the night they have to spend in a bad inn, to quote Saint Teresa of Avila.
Is it really necessary to intern in psychiatric hospitals those who have a predilection for death, to give them electroshocks and sedatives to take away from them the annoying idea that the small pleasures of existence deserve to be enjoyed ad nauseam, as Houllebecq advocates, thereby robbing human beings of the only spiritual value they need to live a meaningful life or to die a meaningful death, too: respect for their own decisions?
As for the legalization of euthanasia, which is more in the honor of a civilization, it is strange that countries as diverse in their culture or religion as Spain, Belgium or Switzerland have adopted it without s 'collapse immediately. Admittedly, they lost Houllebecq's respect and that is terribly unfortunate. Our novelist probably prefers that brigades of gendarmes track down the traffickers of Nembutal in France and punish the offenders - retirees in general - with hefty fines, even jail time. Kudos to Houllebecq for championing such a limited conception of freedom and, despite the gloomy nature of his novels, for having an appetite for life that nothing seems to be sapping. "​

Source : https://leblogderolandjaccard.com/2021/04/07/pauvre-houellebecq/