Pro-life?

[Sensei]

The term "pro-life" is used frequently in this forum and often quite arbitrarily, in my opinion. It has become something of a derogatory term for almost anything and a manifestation of an "us" and "them" mentality. In the end, I think "pro-life" and "pro-choice" risk losing their meanings and become empty and distorted labels, like for instance the political terms "conservative", "liberal", "socialist", and "fascist". So, this is how I see it. It's just my personal opinions and I fully understand that not everyone will agree with them.


This is pro-life, or at least not pro-choice, in my opinion:

• To deny someone the right to commit suicide.
• To fail to acknowledge or even understand that everyone has the right to commit suicide.
• To claim that suicide never is an alternative or always a bad alternative.
• To judge someone for wanting to commit suicide or for actually committing suicide.
• To belittle someone's desire to die by questioning their reasons or using platitudes.
• To show contempt for someone who's suicidal instead of being understanding.

This is not pro-life, in my opinion:

• To discuss options with someone who is suicidal. In many cases, suicide is not the only option, but an option. As long as suicide is recognized as a valid option, it never hurts to explore other options, just as with everything else in life. The option of suicide won't disappear.
• To think that suicide should be the final option when no other options remain. Sometimes suicide is the least bad option and sometimes a pre-emptive strike may be the most rational course of action, but we can't get past the fact that suicide lowers the number of options to zero.
• To discuss with someone who's suicidal whether they are thinking rationally. For instance, someone can be very young, in a state of affect, mentally ill, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Suicide is such an important decision that it shouldn't be carried out on a whim.
• To think that suicide is something tragic. A suicide can be necessary, rational, liberating, and even beautiful, but we can't get past the fact that a fellow human being dies. It doesn't help that people who commit suicide often are kind and innocent people, at least around here.
• To encourage someone who's actively trying to recover. Someone who tries to recover is obviously trying to avoid a premature death and shouldn't be discouraged for doing so. Suicide is for people in utter despair, not for people with hope, even if it's just a glimmer.

I admit that this is borderline pro-life, but I personally think it's reasonable anyway:

• To try to convince a young person to not commit suicide. This is undeniably to not recognize someone's right to commit suicide. However, it's a biological fact that a human being's brain isn't fully developed until around the age of 25 and it's a fact of life that young people lack life experience, so one can argue that their thinking isn't always fully rational.
• To question a parent for wanting to commit suicide. This is undeniably to not recognize someone's right to commit suicide too. On the other hand, one can argue that the deed has too serious repercussions to be justifiable. Children are dependent on their parents and are traumatized for life by a suicide. They never asked to be born and shouldn't have to suffer.

There are of course always exceptions. For instance, suicide might be the most rational course of action for a person in a late stage of terminal cancer or ALS, even if it's a 15-year-old or a parent of six. That's my two cents.

 

[Soul]

Maybe anti-choice is a better term for people who deny others rights

 

[FusRohDracarys]

I mostly agree except for the last two points. The second point in particular seems strikingly like the basis of most pro-life arguments, just swap out children with "mother, father, partner, etc." Yes, it's unfortunate that young, dependent children will lose a parent, possibly their only support system. But will they really be that much better off being raised by someone who is barely holding on, or will that just multiply the suffering of everyone involved? It's fair to explore alternative options with suicidal parents, just as with anyone else, but I don't see it right to single them out because they're parents.

 

[Life sucks]

Prolife is simply glorifying life, making it a must for everyone, or ignoring all the faults and horrible things within it.

Prochoice is simply respecting someone's choice while acknowledging the wrongs of life.

People should keep it simple and not give it a different meaning.

 

[Isadeth]

I'll admit I have some borderline views or rather comments to some people. At least they probably come off that way. It's more or less asking if they're really truly sure, or something to that effect and if they just need someone to talk to. I think some, if not most, of it is subconscious selfishness of not wanting to lose their presence or whatnot. I know I'm not the only one that gets sad or emotional when a certain member you've grown close to decides it's time. But, at the same time, I also respect their decision because I want them to have peace, especially if they're really sure.

It's bittersweet.

 

[Sensei]

Maybe anti-choice is a better term for people who deny others rights

I've been thinking along similar lines. The term pro-life is very ambiguous and pro-choice doesn't automatically equal anti-life.

I mostly agree except for the last two points. The second point in particular seems strikingly like the basis of most pro-life arguments, just swap out children with "mother, father, partner, etc." Yes, it's unfortunate that young, dependent children will lose a parent, possibly their only support system. But will they really be that much better off being raised by someone who is barely holding on, or will that just multiply the suffering of everyone involved? It's fair to explore alternative options with suicidal parents, just as with anyone else, but I don't see it right to single them out because they're parents.

Indeed, it's borderline pro-life. However, I'd claim that being a parent is a special case. You don't choose to get parents, but you choose to get children. You can stop being someone's partner, but you can't stop being a parent. If I look at myself as a child, I'm quite certain that I would prefer a dysfunctional parent to no parent. An adult may handle a sudden social void, but it's difficult for a child. There are of course cases, such as terminal cancer and ALS mentioned above, when suicide is the best solution for everyone involved, but I'd say that most cases aren't such cases.

I should be honest and share what has made me adopt this stance. A good friend of mine comparatively often talk about her mother's suicide. It torments her and she asks herself how it could happen and what she could have done. This suicide happened 30 years ago. I'd say it's not the same if you're a parent.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

This is pro-life, or at least not pro-choice, in my opinion:

• To show contempt for someone who's suicidal instead of being understanding.

I've seen some actual pro-lifers not display this behavior, in fact some can be quite loving/love-bombing. And I've seen pro-choice members treat other members who are suicidal with utter contempt, from way back before I even joined.

This is not pro-life, in my opinion:

• To discuss with someone who's suicidal whether they are thinking rationally. For instance, someone can be very young...

This is a huge point of contention on the forum, and in fact a mod just recently stepped in on a thread and said why it is not okay.

From my own perspective, it is ageist and dismissive. I was a whole person at 18, I'm just better at being myself at 49. Age does not equate rationality. I've met wise children, and I've known utterly delusional adults who were considered rational and successful by social standards.

I think you're conflating ageism with pro-life, but in this forum they often go together. I've noticed many actual pro-life folks target younger members (a new member was recently banned for doing this on multiple goodbye threads including the one linked above where the mod intervened), and I've seen pro-choice members act pro-life with younger members and then get that label. The label goes with specific behaviors.

And yes, I understand one's brain isn't fully formed until 25, that there are sometimes more risk-taking behaviors and less cognitive function up until then. I definitely felt the shift around that age and managed life better. But at 18 I knew what was shit in my life, and I had the right and authority and ability to make decisions for myself. If someone is so unformed at 18-25 that they can't make a rational choice about suicide, then let's make a real difference for them instead of trying to get them to not suicide, let's go lobby for them not being allowed to enlist in the military, sign leases (they could damage an apartment), or even have jobs, because they're just not rational enough to make such decisions and they could really fuck things up for themselves. Let's also force them to use birth control.



@Sensei, I'm going to go out on a limb here. There are a couple of things I've noticed.

The first is that whenever the site comes under pro-life attack, which has been happening lately, both externally (which has died down) and internally, there is often a reactive pendulum swing in posts, and they say: don't call people pro-life, don't call out pro-life, and don't be paranoid, all of which is deemed as toxic for the community. To me, that's victim blaming and shaming and reinforces subjugating and oppressive power.

My other observation is that the OP is apologetics, which means, in my opinion, you're feeling poked when you read some accusations and want to distance yourself from them even as you want to continue to embrace actions and their motivating beliefs and values, so you try to diffuse and disempower the term "pro-life." You feel good about what you do, and you believe you come from a good place when you do them. Yet pro-lifers do such things, too. They also feel good about what they do, and believe they come from a good place when they do them. So for you, there is cognitive dissonance. I liken it to the parent who has strong moral values and beats their child -- they can't accept that what they did for the child's own good was abusive or in any way harmful. It is a matter of adherence to wrong views. They get caught up in the label of abuser and rejecting it, and so cling even more to harmful actions and the motivating views because they came from a place of good that they feel good about. But the beatings don't feel good.

The result is separateness and disagreement between the actor and the one who is acted against.

All I can suggest is to take off the labels I think you're rejecting and notice how people respond to such treatment that you want to continue and feel good about. Do they feel negated, or do they feel recognized and valued? If they change their mind and go along, is it because they see reason, or are they just caving? If you find you have been in error, does that negate and harm you, or does it rather help you moving forward so that you experience non-separateness, and the agreement of reciprocal support in pursuit of the same desires -- freedom and choice?


These are just my thoughts. You may or may not agree.

 

[Sensei]

Prolife is simply glorifying life, making it a must for everyone, or ignoring all the faults and horrible things within it.

Prochoice is simply respecting someone's choice while acknowledging the wrongs of life.

People should keep it simple and not give it a different meaning.

Unfortunately, this is an illustration of how arbitrarily the term "pro-life" is used. Pro-choice and pro-life are about the right to commit suicide or die at one's own terms, not the wrongs of life. You can be pro-life and admit that life can be terrible and pro-choice and admit that life can be fantastic.

However, I do agree with you that people who are pro-life often also fail to recognize the evils and sufferings of the world. It takes a certain kind of ignorant optimism to not understand that some fellow human beings suffer so badly that they may want to die.

 

[Deleted member 17949]

I generally agree with all this. As long as people accept that we are ultimately allowed to make the final choice they are pro choice. I do find it frustrating as an 18 year old when people that go on spiels about how bad life is turn around and tell me that I have no reason to ctb and that I should recover. This isn't entirely pro life as much as it is extremely invalidating and frustrating imo.

 

[Sensei]

I'll admit I have some borderline views or rather comments to some people. At least they probably come off that way. It's more or less asking if they're really truly sure, or something to that effect and if they just need someone to talk to. I think some, if not most, of it is subconscious selfishness of not wanting to lose their presence or whatnot. I know I'm not the only one that gets sad or emotional when a certain member you've grown close to decides it's time. But, at the same time, I also respect their decision because I want them to have peace, especially if they're really sure.

It's bittersweet.

This certainly applies to me too. Suicide is an incredibly complex topic and I think we have to deal with it case by case.

 

[Brick In The Wall]

Well written as always. You've expressed many of the same opinions and sentiments that I share on this topic.

 

[Sensei]

I've seen some actual pro-lifers not display this behavior, in fact some can be quite loving/love-bombing. And I've seen pro-choice members treat other members who are suicidal with utter contempt, from way back before I even joined.

Agreed. It's a weak point.

This is a huge point of contention on the forum, and in fact a mod just recently stepped in on a thread and said why it is not okay.

From my own perspective, it is ageist and dismissive. I was a whole person at 18, I'm just better at being myself at 49. Age does not equate rationality. I've met wise children, and I've known utterly delusional adults who were considered rational and successful by social standards.

I think you're conflating ageism with pro-life, but in this forum they often go together. I've noticed many actual pro-life folks target younger members (a new member was recently banned for doing this on multiple goodbye threads including the one linked above where the mod intervened), and I've seen pro-choice members act pro-life with younger members and then get that label. The label goes with specific behaviors.

And yes, I understand one's brain isn't fully formed until 25, that there are sometimes more risk-taking behaviors and less cognitive function up until then. I definitely felt the shift around that age and managed life better. But at 18 I knew what was shit in my life, and I had the right and authority and ability to make decisions for myself. If someone is so unformed at 18-25 that they can't make a rational choice about suicide, then let's make a real difference for them instead of trying to get them to not suicide, let's go lobby for them not being allowed to enlist in the military, sign leases (they could damage an apartment), or even have jobs, because they're just not rational enough to make such decisions and they could really fuck things up for themselves. Let's also force them to use birth control.

Suicide is a special case and can, in my opinion, not really be compared with the other potential fuck-up choices you present. You can't fix a suicide.

I'm a teacher and I work with young people every day. The overwhelming majority of all young people are not fit to make such an important decision, in my experience. We can discuss dozens of theoretical exampels, but it won't change what I see in practice.

@Sensei, I'm going to go out on a limb here.

By all means.

The first is that whenever the site comes under pro-life attack, which has been happening lately, both externally (which has died down) and internally, there is often a reactive pendulum swing in posts, and they say: don't call people pro-life, don't call out pro-life, and don't be paranoid, all of which is deemed as toxic for the community. To me, that's victim blaming and shaming and reinforces subjugating and oppressive power.

You're always talking about these pro-life attacks, just like Jean6, but I have yet to see any. Care to give any examples? To be make things clear, I don't count a single member submitting suspicious posts as an "attack".

My other observation is that the OP is apologetics, which means, in my opinion, you're feeling poked when you read some accusations and want to distance yourself from them even as you want to continue to embrace actions and their motivating beliefs and values, so you try to diffuse and disempower the term "pro-life." You feel good about what you do, and you believe you come from a good place when you do them. Yet pro-lifers do such things, too. They also feel good about what they do, and believe they come from a good place when they do them. So for you, there is cognitive dissonance. I liken it to the parent who has strong moral values and beats their child -- they can't accept that what they did for the child's own good was abusive or in any way harmful. It is a matter of adherence to wrong views. They get caught up in the label of abuser and rejecting it, and so cling even more to harmful actions and the motivating views because they came from a place of good that they feel good about. But the beatings don't feel good. The result is separateness and disagreement between the actor and the one who is acted against. All I can suggest is to take off the labels I think you're rejecting and notice how people respond to such treatment that you want to continue and feel good about. Do they feel negated, or do they feel recognized and valued? If they change their mind and go along, is it because they see reason, or are they just caving? If you find you have been in error, does that negate and harm you, or does it rather help you moving forward so that you experience non-separateness, and the agreement of reciprocal support in pursuit of the same desires -- freedom and choice?

Why are you talking about me instead of my points? That's called an ad hominem and it's a big no-no in serious debates.

These are just my thoughts. You may or may not agree.

I very much disagree with your use of ad hominems.

I generally agree with all this. As long as people accept that we are ultimately allowed to make the final choice they are pro choice.

You basically summarize my standpoint in a single sentence. Well put.

 

[Life sucks]

Unfortunately, this is an illustration of how arbitrarily the term "pro-life" is used. Pro-choice and pro-life are about the right to commit suicide or die at one's own terms, not the wrongs of life. You can be pro-life and admit that life can be terrible and pro-choice and admit that life can be fantastic.

However, I do agree with you that people who are pro-life often also fail to recognize the evils and sufferings of the world. It takes a certain kind of ignorant optimism to not understand that some fellow human beings suffer so badly that they may want to die.

The term pro-life and its meaning isn't limited to suicide and there are topics like abortions also. Check prolife subreddit for example, its arbitrary meaning is enforced by the people who call themselves "prolife" and not this community. Yes, this term glorify life "or" force others to stay "or" ignore life's faults, which all leads to opposing suicide in one way or another.

Second, being prolife and anti-suffering or being prochoice and saying life is fantastic is both absurd. In the first case, life inherently have suffering and you can't oppose suffering by creating more suffering or ignoring it. While in the second case, saying life is absolutely fantastic means that whatever hurts other people is fantastic also. However, if they acknowledge the wrongs of life, they can say that their lives are good and fantastic while other people's lives are unfortunately bad and that they respect their choices, in this case they acknowledge the fault and not ignore it.

But unfortunately, many humans could be absurd anyway.

 

[FusRohDracarys]

Indeed, it's borderline pro-life. However, I'd claim that being a parent is a special case. You don't choose to get parents, but you choose to get children. You can stop being someone's partner, but you can't stop being a parent. If I look at myself as a child, I'm quite certain that I would prefer a dysfunctional parent to no parent. An adult may handle a sudden social void, but it's difficult for a child. There are of course cases, such as terminal cancer and ALS mentioned above, when suicide is the best solution for everyone involved, but I'd say that most cases aren't such cases.

I should be honest and share what has made me adopt this stance. A good friend of mine comparatively often talk about her mother's suicide. It torments her and she asks herself how it could happen and what she could have done. This suicide happened 30 years ago. I'd say it's not the same if you're a parent.

I respect your right to have your own views, but I'm going to firmly disagree. I've observed more than a couple members on this site who have been brought here by the suicides or otherwise loss of their own children. While I feel for your friend's suffering, I don't believe the loss of a parent is more painful than the loss of a child.

Additionally, I think saying people choose to have children is painting things with a broad brush. For some, an unwanted child may very well be the reason for CTB where other options are not readily available. While, yes, most parents will have willingly engaged in what eventually leads up to a pregnancy, for some, the choice to go through with the pregnancy and have the child was not their own. I won't claim that's true of every or even most cases, but the point I would like to drive is that one cannot possibly know the circumstances the suicidal parent had their children under or what circumstances they face that drives them to CTB (unless they choose to share) so it's unfair to single them out simply because they're parents.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

You're always talking about these pro-life attacks, just like Jean6, but I have yet to see any. Care to give any examples? To be make things clear, I don't count a single member submitting suspicious posts as an "attack".

When there is a spate of members submitting posts, it is an attack.

Here's the attack that preceded the spate:

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/did-anyone-else-read-the-mothers-long-post.41330/post-770187

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/did-anyone-else-read-the-mothers-long-post.41330/post-770187

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/did-anyone-else-read-the-mothers-long-post.41330/post-770580

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...-site-done-for-manslaughter.42262/post-772002

At the same time as the attack, @MorticiasHair and other members were ganging up on and targeting younger members in goodbye threads. @MorticiasHair was banned. The comment from the mod that I linked in my last comment was partly directed at that member, who then proceeded after warnings and the admonition to target another member and was banned.

After that, two members began posting for the pro-life agenda in quick succession. Lovely posts in some respects, not combative, but both members make it clear their goal is to dissuade:

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/i-just-want-to-help.42853/

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/death-to-liberate.42994/post-783720

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/death-to-liberate.42994/post-783720

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...quotes-on-death-and-suicide.40922/post-787139

Why are you talking about me instead of my points? That's called an ad hominem and it's a big no-no in serious debates.

Not all ad hominem is attack or a fallacy of logic. And this is not a serious debate, nor I in a position beneath you, so you can stop aiming your ruler at my knuckles. I stated it was my perspective and made suggestions based on that.

I'm a teacher and I work with young people every day. The overwhelming majority of all young people are not fit to make such an important decision, in my experience. We can discuss dozens of theoretical exampels, but it won't change what I see in practice.


I very much disagree with your use of ad hominems.

My sense was that your opinions were not separate from you -- that is, from your beliefs and subsequent actions. Your defense provides evidence that my intuition was accurate.

Your position is in fact ad hominem.

Furthermore, I'm really glad that you were not an adult in a position of influence in my life when I needed supportive people to reflect back to me how fit I was in spite of overwhelming circumstances that all but crushed me. I had to make a lot of hard choices in my teen years in order to save myself, and sometimes that's exactly what suicide is.

 

[WinterFaust]

A lot of good points were brought up here and I agree with a lot of them. However, the last two points swing a little two closely to anti-choice sentiments.

The age issue is one that has come up quite frequently on this forum. I think the question that should be asked is, "Does it work?" Is it effective in helping members on this forum consider their options if they are young? From what I have seen, it does not. It typically ends in alienating or frustrating the member in question. It results in the very us vs them mentality that you wish to avoid - the "older, wisened" members who have earned the right to die vs the "younger, irrational" members who haven't. But the reality is, being young does not negate someone's suffering.

I think it's also important to know when to respect people's choices and simply back off. I saw a goodbye thread where the member was harassed for being young and questioned as to whether or not they were even an adult based on some of their interests. It was terrible. They weren't asked to consider their options, they were bagered with demands to not ctb after they respectfully responded to questions about their age and readiness.

I also have seen responses to parents wanting to ctb that are guilt-tripping at its finest. In my personal experience, guilt-tripping has only ever served to make me feel more suicidal. It's not a conversation, it's a judgment that can alienate the member. From what I've seen, these parents feel enough shame for even having to consider ctb already.

Everyone is here for different reasons. It's a delicate issue. Ask if you must but be discerning.

All of that said, I do think it's fine to engage in conversation. I have spoken with a few people here, including @Sensei, that have helped me consider things. I'm pretty terrible at implementing any recovery strategies on a consistent basis but being encouraged and not shamed has helped me to continue a bit. It is nice to talk to people who genuinely care but also respect my right to die and aren't spewing empty platitudes. This forum has been great for that.

 

[Pryras]

IMO it's all in the language we choose to use that can either come across as patronizing, invalidating or helpful and understanding. There's no black and white answer to what is and isn't since it's down to our individual perception at the end of the day.

I've spoken with members who have alternative views on issues that I'm dealing with currently and I don't find it invalidating at all when they talk to me. It's one thing to give advice and uplift someone out of a dark place and another to say that it will always get better. That I need to justify my suicidal ideations because my story isn't debilitating or crippling enough. It is, to ME.

I think the same could be said towards younger members. I'm studying to become a therapist but I worked with children as an EA for several years. I agree the brain isn't fully developed but that doesn't make their problems or feelings any less valid or real to >them. A child contemplating suicide clearly has something going on mentally or physically enough to justify their feelings.

 

[Sensei]

I respect your right to have your own views, but I'm going to firmly disagree. I've observed more than a couple members on this site who have been brought here by the suicides or otherwise loss of their own children. While I feel for your friend's suffering, I don't believe the loss of a parent is more painful than the loss of a child.

I think your standpoint makes much sense, but I don't agree; a childe is simply more vulnerable. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because it's obviously difficult or even impossible to measure which category suffer the most.

Additionally, I think saying people choose to have children is painting things with a broad brush. For some, an unwanted child may very well be the reason for CTB where other options are not readily available. While, yes, most parents will have willingly engaged in what eventually leads up to a pregnancy, for some, the choice to go through with the pregnancy and have the child was not their own. I won't claim that's true of every or even most cases, but the point I would like to drive is that one cannot possibly know the circumstances the suicidal parent had their children under or what circumstances they face that drives them to CTB (unless they choose to share) so it's unfair to single them out simply because they're parents.

You're right, I'm no doubt too categorical. An unwanted child is the result of a choice to have sex, but people are people and people make mistakes. However, I'd maintain that most children are brought into this world as a result of an active choice.

 

[Alucard]

Against Pro-Life Rhetoric :

 

[Sensei]

The term pro-life and its meaning isn't limited to suicide and there are topics like abortions also. Check prolife subreddit for example, its arbitrary meaning is enforced by the people who call themselves "prolife" and not this community. Yes, this term glorify life "or" force others to stay "or" ignore life's faults, which all leads to opposing suicide in one way or another.

I don't think we can reach common ground here. To me, "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are exact, or rather as exact as they can be. There'e another risk if a term is given a wider meaning, and that is that it can be associated with somethinge one disagrees with. Let's just say, as a completely hypothetical example, that Nazis would adopt the pro-choice stance and that it would be associated with Nazism. Then we would have a problem, wouldn't we? Well, I assume we'll have to agree to disagree.

Second, being prolife and anti-suffering or being prochoice and saying life is fantastic is both absurd. In the first case, life inherently have suffering and you can't oppose suffering by creating more suffering or ignoring it. While in the second case, saying life is absolutely fantastic means that whatever hurts other people is fantastic also. However, if they acknowledge the wrongs of life, they can say that their lives are good and fantastic while other people's lives are unfortunately bad and that they respect their choices, in this case they acknowledge the fault and not ignore it.

I don't think it's absurd at all. I think life can be fantastic, although not very often for me nowadays, and I'm pro-choice and harbour a desire to die. I don't think I'm an anomaly.

But unfortunately, many humans could be absurd anyway.

Well, I sure am.

When there is a spate of members submitting posts, it is an attack.

Here's the attack that preceded the spate:

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/did-anyone-else-read-the-mothers-long-post.41330/post-770187

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/did-anyone-else-read-the-mothers-long-post.41330/post-770187

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/did-anyone-else-read-the-mothers-long-post.41330/post-770580

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...-site-done-for-manslaughter.42262/post-772002

At the same time as the attack, @MorticiasHair and other members were ganging up on and targeting younger members in goodbye threads. @MorticiasHair was banned. The comment from the mod that I linked in my last comment was partly directed at that member, who then proceeded after warnings and the admonition to target another member and was banned.

After that, two members began posting for the pro-life agenda in quick succession. Lovely posts in some respects, not combative, but both members make it clear their goal is to dissuade:

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/i-just-want-to-help.42853/

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/death-to-liberate.42994/post-783720

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/death-to-liberate.42994/post-783720

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...quotes-on-death-and-suicide.40922/post-787139

Thank you for the effort. However, it may simply be two individuals with separate agendas, so I'm not so sure that the dramatic term "attack" i justifiable. If one person trolls a forum it's normally not called a "troll attack".

Not all ad hominem is attack or a fallacy of logic. And this is not a serious debate, nor I in a position beneath you, so you can stop aiming your ruler at my knuckles. I stated it was my perspective and made suggestions based on that.

The belittling tone in your post makes it very clear that your ad hominem was an attack. To me, this is a very serious topic as it deals with how to interact with people who want to die. If you don't think it's serious, maybe you should discuss it with someone else.

My sense was that your opinions were not separate from you -- that is, from your beliefs and subsequent actions. Your defense provides evidence that my intuition was accurate.

I've never met a single person whose opinions are separated from themselves. Total objectivity is an impossibility.

Your position is in fact ad hominem.

That's a quite lame way to say "did not".

Furthermore, I'm really glad that you were not an adult in a position of influence in my life when I needed supportive people to reflect back to me how fit I was in spite of overwhelming circumstances that all but crushed me. I had to make a lot of hard choices in my teen years in order to save myself, and sometimes that's exactly what suicide is.

It's very ironic that our school counselor unjokingly calls me the deputy counselor and that I've been told several times by my pupils that I should be one. Maybe you're not such a good judge of character as you think you are?

The age issue is one that has come up quite frequently on this forum. I think the question that should be asked is, "Does it work?" Is it effective in helping members on this forum consider their options if they are young? From what I have seen, it does not. It typically ends in alienating or frustrating the member in question. It results in the very us vs them mentality that you wish to avoid - the "older, wisened" members who have earned the right to die vs the "younger, irrational" members who haven't.

Well, I use the word "convince", not "persuade". In the end, I guess it's a kind of "troubleshooting". What could make you change your mind? Can your problems be solved? I should be honest and say that I'm a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to this, though. I have said goodbye to young people in this forum without trying to convince them to stay. Suicide was arguably their most rational course of action and I was sure I couldn't sway them anyway. I maintain that such cases are rare, though.

But the reality is, being young does not negate someone's suffering.

Now, I have never, not in a single post nor message, claimed that young people can't suffer as badly as adults. In many cases they suffer more than adults, e.g. when it comes to social isolation, as they normally can't analyze theiir situation fully rationally. I know this for a fact, as I'm a teacher and work with youths.

I think it's also important to know when to respect people's choices and simply back off. I saw a goodbye thread where the member was harassed for being young and questioned as to whether or not they were even an adult based on some of their interests. It was terrible. They weren't asked to consider their options, they were bagered with demands to not ctb after they respectfully responded to questions about their age and readiness.

For the record, I don't condone any such behaviour. No matter who the forum member is and no matter what their reason for being here is, they should be met with respect. They're after all fellow human beings who suffer so badly that they want to die by they're own hand.

I also have seen responses to parents wanting to ctb that are guilt-tripping at its finest. In my personal experience, guilt-tripping has only ever served to make me feel more suicidal. It's not a conversation, it's a judgment that can alienate the member. From what I've seen, these parents feel enough shame for even having to consider ctb already.

Everyone is here for different reasons. It's a delicate issue. Ask if you must but be discerning.

Still, the protective instinct in me makes me think that it's wrong to trauamatize someone you've brought into this world.

All of that said, I do think it's fine to engage in conversation. I have spoken with a few people here, including @Sensei, that have helped me consider things. I'm pretty terrible at implementing any recovery strategies on a consistent basis but being encouraged and not shamed has helped me to continue a bit. It is nice to talk to people who genuinely care but also respect my right to die and aren't spewing empty platitudes. This forum has been great for that.

This forum has no doubt saved many lives.There are probably thousands and thousands of people out there who would feel much better if they found this place.

IMO it's all in the language we choose to use that can either come across as patronizing, invalidating or helpful and understanding. There's no black and white answer to what is and isn't since it's down to our individual perception at the end of the day.

I've spoken with members who have alternative views on issues that I'm dealing with currently and I don't find it invalidating at all when they talk to me. It's one thing to give advice and uplift someone out of a dark place and another to say that it will always get better. That I need to justify my suicidal ideations because my story isn't debilitating or crippling enough. It is, to ME.

Agreed. As long as we really try to understand each other, we can help each other. It all comes down to understanding that we're talking to people who just like ourselves suffer and desire death, and that there are almost never are any easy solutions or highways to recovery.

I think the same could be said towards younger members. I'm studying to become a therapist but I worked with children as an EA for several years. I agree the brain isn't fully developed but that doesn't make their problems or feelings any less valid or real to >them. A child contemplating suicide clearly has something going on mentally or physically enough to justify their feelings.

As I've just stated in a reply to another poster, I work as a teacher and I know how much young people can suffer. However, there's a big leap between suffering and suicide.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

@Sensei, when I am criticized, I check with myself to see if there is merit in the criticism, and if I find there is, then I use it constructively. Sometimes I even state, yes, I see something in what you say, and I need to make a correction and do things differently going forward. In fact, I did so when you criticized me in how I interacted with another member, back in February I think.


I post very thoughtfully, with much consideration about what I read and how I respond to it. I addressed the subject you introduced from multiple perspectives and made clear that they were my own and not an attack, nor demands that you take anything on or agree. I used phrases to make clear these intentions: I think, my observations, in my opinion, I suggest, you may not agree.

I directly addressed your request for evidence.

My actions throughout in commenting have shown that I have taken seriously everything you've presented.

I have reflected on my actions and I do not see in them or in myself what you do.

My sense is that you do not want me or my perspective to be part of this conversation, because you reject not only my point of view, but treat me as an enemy to be rejected, vilified, and cut down. This is not at all how I approached you. I approached your opinion, your stance, and your perspective. If I was in error, it was not out of enmity or frivolity.

I am not so attached to my point of view, my stance, or my ways that I seek to battle over them. I disengage from the thread.

I wish you well.

 

[Living sucks]

There are so many degrees of prochoice and it's based on every individuals view and arguments will last eternities.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

@Sensei you reflect many of my feelings and express them well. I too am absurd.

 

[Sensei]

@Sensei, when I am criticized, I check with myself to see if there is merit in the criticism, and if I find there is, then I use it constructively. Sometimes I even state, yes, I see something in what you say, and I need to make a correction and do things differently going forward. In fact, I did so when you criticized me in how I interacted with another member, back in February I think.


I post very thoughtfully, with much consideration about what I read and how I respond to it. I addressed the subject you introduced from multiple perspectives and made clear that they were my own and not an attack, nor demands that you take anything on or agree. I used phrases to make clear these intentions: I think, my observations, in my opinion, I suggest, you may not agree.

I directly addressed your request for evidence.

My actions throughout in commenting have shown that I have taken seriously everything you've presented.

I have reflected on my actions and I do not see in them or in myself what you do.

My sense is that you do not want me or my perspective to be part of this conversation, because you reject not only my point of view, but treat me as an enemy to be rejected, vilified, and cut down. This is not at all how I approached you. I approached your opinion, your stance, and your perspective. If I was in error, it was not out of enmity or frivolity.

I am not so attached to my point of view, my stance, or my ways that I seek to battle over them. I disengage from the thread.

I wish you well.

Look, we shouldn't quarrel like this. Whether you like it or not, you're one of the members of this forum who resemble me the most. We both suffer and struggle to the point where we want to do the unthinkable, to kill ourselves. You're my sister in pain and I don't want to add to your pain.

As you may have figured out by now, I'm very fond of this place, but I can easily live without it. I'm so dead inside by now that my desire for respect an love is fading for every day that passes, and that applies to this place too. Hence, I'm free to be perfectly honest. If I thought that you were a fucking idiot I could simply say so. I don't. I think you have a mind sharper than a razor and it's no doubt sharper than mine. If this forum has a doyenne, it's you.

We don't know what the future holds. We might succumb to our suicidal impulses tonight and these may be our last posts. With the risk of sounding like some sad hippie, let's try to be kind to each other. I promise to do my part.

 

[Soul]

@Sensei and others, I've been reading with interest, and participating internally, and yet all I have to put on screen for you are three scraps of ideas:

A. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who sometimes adds "are you sure" type posts mainly to protect the forum, not to undermine the member getting ready to exit.

2) Until the mid-1900s it was very common for babies and young children to die; in some parts of the world it's still very common. It's a very new thing to consider it the most terrible thing that can happen to a parent. On the other hand, I don't think I know of any time or place where being orphaned isn't one of the worst things that can befall a child. So it seems to me there's no reason to say one loss is categorically harder than the other.

iii. I still say "anti-choice" is a better term than "pro-life" for people who deny others have a right to end our lives.

 

[Sensei]

A. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who sometimes adds "are you sure" type posts mainly to protect the forum, not to undermine the member getting ready to exit.

Guilty as charged, although not often.

2) Until the mid-1900s it was very common for babies and young children to die; in some parts of the world it's still very common. It's a very new thing to consider it the most terrible thing that can happen to a parent. On the other hand, I don't think I know of any time or place where being orphaned isn't one of the worst things that can befall a child. So it seems to me there's no reason to say one loss is categorically harder than the other.

Exceptionally good examples. I remember that you touched upon the issue of losing children in the past once before and I've actually used it as an example in several discussions in real life. So, you are now officially part of the Sensei's offline life. ;)

iii. I still say "anti-choice" is a better term than "pro-life" for people who deny others have a right to end our lives.

I agree. From now on, I'll try to use the term "anti-choice" instead.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Look, we shouldn't quarrel like this. Whether you like it or not, you're one of the members of this forum who resemble me the most. We both suffer and struggle to the point where we want to do the unthinkable, to kill ourselves. You're my sister in pain and I don't want to add to your pain.

As you may have figured out by now, I'm very fond of this place, but I can easily live without it. I'm so dead inside by now that my desire for respect an love is fading for every day that passes, and that applies to this place too. Hence, I'm free to be perfectly honest. If I thought that you were a fucking idiot I could simply say so. I don't. I think you have a mind sharper than a razor and it's no doubt sharper than mine. If this forum has a doyenne, it's you.

We don't know what the future holds. We might succumb to our suicidal impulses tonight and these may be our last posts. With the risk of sounding like some sad hippie, let's try to be kind to each other. I promise to do my part.

Responding in order of comments:

I'm not sure if I resemble you or you resemble me, so there's nothing to like or dislike. I'm confident in who I am and am very autonomous, I don't define myself in comparison to others, whether favorably or unfavorably. I just am. To me, you just are, not a reflection of me nor an antithesis. I feel like you're saying, "If you dislike me, you dislike yourself. If you like yourself, you like me."

When I speak to others, I speak with honesty. If I love something, I say so. If I see something that I think is not coming from a place of integrity, I say so. I think from your second paragraph that you may have felt from my comments disrespected. In fact I can show someone no greater respect than to be honest with them. What I find valuable in relationships is when we encourage each other to act in integrity and hold one another accountable to our values, because this provides a shelter. I may state things imperfectly, but this is my motivation: not to attack, but to build up and bolster others' shelters and my own.

I'm going to sidestep any praise, except to say that I recognize your generosity in giving it.

I find "kind" to be a rather ephemeral and arbitrary word that can be defined in a variety of ways. Often, it comes up because it's being used to shame. I have no desire to shame you, and I am not ashamed about my behavior in this thread. If you feel you have been unkind toward me and desire to change that moving forward, that's not something I demand or expect, it is up to you. I always have the right and ability to disengage when I do not agree with another's behavior toward me, or I feel that a situation has devolved to a point that nothing productive will happen.

I recognize you were trying to come to agreement in your comment, and that I am not agreeing! That does not mean I feel enmity or that I reject you and anything you say out of hand. You're offering a kind of embrace, but it has terms to which I'd have to agree, and out of self-respect and self-awareness, I cannot. Rather than embrace, I'll say that I hear, acknowledge, and respect you. That is honest.

 

[WinterFaust]

Now, I have never, not in a single post nor message, claimed that young people can't suffer as badly as adults. In many cases they suffer more than adults, e.g. when it comes to social isolation, as they normally can't analyze theiir situation fully rationally. I know this for a fact, as I'm a teacher and work with youths.

I never had the impression that you believe young people couldn't suffer and I'm sorry that I came off that way. A good deal of my response were related thoughts and various observations from my time on the forum. And admittedly, some recent observations had me a little upset and had little to do with the original post.

I do share a lot of these sentiments and I'm glad this thread was made. This forum would be a much colder place if no one expressed concern or questioned if someone was ready.

@Soul I also prefer using anti-choice.

 

[Pryras]

[QUOTE="As I've just stated in a reply to another poster, I work as a teacher and I know how much young people can suffer. However, there's a big leap between suffering and suicide.
[/QUOTE]

what is that leap? And where do we draw the line at what's justifiable and what isn't? I'm not pro-suicide by any means and I'd rather offer choices and a listening ear than a "good luck" on goodbye threads.

 

[Sensei]

what is that leap? And where do we draw the line at what's justifiable and what isn't? I'm not pro-suicide by any means and I'd rather offer choices and a listening ear than a "good luck" on goodbye threads.

It's a leap, because many people suffer, but few take the final step; the majority try to cope. You can self-harm, do drugs, and other destructive things to lessen the pain, but to commit suicide is a different beast as it's final, unretractable, unrepairable.

What's a justifiable reason to commit suicide is an entirely different discussion, in my opinion. Suffering is subjective and it's very difficult, if not impossible to know how deeply a fellow human being really suffers. That, however, doesn't mean that there can't be other options.