Venting Pro-lifers don’t even acknowledge or follow their own logic (WRT to the RTD)

[TAW122]

This may be an awkward thread title, but I just had a thought and managed to make a tenuous, but still valid connection between an observation or statement (not related to CTB directly but commonly said) that I've heard of IRL. The statement refers to the reality of successful people in life (think of all the glamorous and carefully curated content that influencers, content creators, and what not (it could be any domain or just any famous or well-known person) in media). The statement and concept that I'm referring to "you only see the successes but not the failures", when it comes to glamorous and exotic experiences or so. Now how does this logic apply to the logic of CTB? The gripe that I'm getting at in this thread refers to how pro-lifers and anti-choicers often ignore, fail to see, or deliberately twist arguments to suit their narrative rather than applying logic.

Take almost any pro-lifer, mainstream person out there in the world, and upon presenting the logic about how there are many failures before success and what one sees as "success" is only a 'fraction' of one's life, which is often curated content rather than the full scope and picture of everything in totality. They would understand that logic, yet when it comes to CTB successes and what not, they cling onto the old and tired argument of "if people (who want to CTB) really wanted to CTB, they will succeed" while ignoring the facts that there are many attempts that end up in failure, and not many that end up succeeding, then even those that succeed, most often do so in brutal means, suffering greatly during the deed.

Another clear example is when it comes to disability rights activists (DRAs) whom decided to cherry pick cases where there are those who are severely disabled (physically and/or psychologically) and often cite that they have found meaning in life, want to live, etc., but then ignore all the ones who didn't see it the same way. In fact, there is perhaps likely many more who are in such predicaments that don't recover and then suddenly change their mind. In other words, these DRAs often cherry-pick and select cases that fit their narrative rather than look at most of the unfortunate to accurately portray the real stance of the disabled. I would believe that most of the disabled would not necessarily choose to go on to live, but while there are a minority of those who are disabled who want to live, they overshadow most of those who just suffer day to day and wish for the suffering to end. Of course, the DRAs ignore all those because it would undermine and shatter their 'narrative' of pro-life or continuing to fight a battle that one may not be interested in.

In conclusion, this thread is venting about the illogical, inconsistent mentality and logic that pro-lifers have (not surprising of course!), when it comes to the right to die and what not. It's inconsistent because when it comes to just about anything else, especially when talking about the doctored, carefully curated content of influencers, content creators, and those who lived 'privileged' lives, the commoners (at least those with sense and critical thinking) can see the reasoning and logic, but then when the subject becomes about the right to die, they either completely fail to see the logic or (worst yet) deliberately misinterpret it because the truth would be too 'uncomfortable' for them to accept.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Regarding the whole idea that we only see the 'tip of the iceberg' in someone's success- I also get the same sense that people tend to assume or portray that with someone who took their own life.

That it was a recent crisis that lead them to it. They seem to ignore the iceberg of suffering underneath that lead them to it. Probably because it would suggest that people had noticed but, ignored it. It's actually pretty interesting though, how many people here started experiencing suicidal thoughts in childhood.

If they actually concede that the person had been struggling long-term, there's usually also- but they seemed to be improving. Yeah- because they knew they were getting the hell out!

But, I find that annoying too. Like it was something totally and utterly unexpected with no discernable motive or build up. Just a crazy, impulsive action- when it realistically sometimes took several weeks or months to plan.

 

[Jorvak]

This is a topic I've put considerable thought into, from somewhat different angles.

For instance, there is a particularly toxic form of anti-choicer, which i'll refer to as the "Reactionary anti-choicer" or RAC, who have the mentality of wanting to force people to live an existence they are miserable in, while refusing to acknowledge people real issues and refusing to accommodate their real needs in any meaningful way. This type does not support an agenda of creating a society that would enshrine human dignity as a fundamental human right, and giving people all the means in the world to have a dignified live, where they can advance themselves and explore their own passions, while not having to deal with social expectations. This is especially true of the christian-nationalist and conservative anti-choicers.

So essentially, these RAC's want to force people to live, and yet refuse to create a society that is conducive towards enabling as many people as possible to have a decent existence with their needs fully accomodated for, and their suffering minimized to as great of an extent as possible.

Worse yet, are the RAC's who not only want barrage people with pro-life platitudes such as "it gets better" or "your life has meaning", will completely ignore all of the actual experiences and real problems that a person has had, treating it like its a fiction, claiming its purely their "personal responsibility" to "get over", and refuses to acknowledge that society is failing to accommodate a suicidal persons needs. Furthermore, they will downplay when someone has prologonged trauma induced conditions like CPTSD, that can make them completely dysfunctional in society, or a neurodivergent person trying to exist in a world that completely works against them at every turn, or SA/DA victims with PTSD and/or CPTSD and so on.

If these RAC's were truly "pro-life", they would support creating a society that is structured to serve human dignity by default, not just by securing generalized people needs, but the needs of people relative to their specific conditions. They would also support striving to abolish all forms of systems and policies that cause prejudice and exploitation, such as racist white nationalism, christian nationalism, patriarchy, ableism, LGBTQ-phobic policies. And they would also want an economic system that does not serve a class of people, but people in general. Capitalism is quite literally incompatible with a pro-life agenda, because it depends on a class owning property to hoard wealth, minimizing how many resources goes to the people who need it the most, and reproducing white-nationalism, christian nationalism and other forms of bigotries to find scapegoats.

This RAC mentality is very common among people with reactionary ideologies, to force people to live an existence they are miserable in, refuse to address their material circumstances and real needs, claim they are "personally responsible" for their own suffering, and somehow expect them to be "happy" and to "want to live".



There are also the Semi-RAC's or SRAC's, people who somewhat acknowledge material causes in some cases for why some people become suicidal and propose half measures to address them, but also often deploying dehumanizing rhetoric, even to the people they want to address. They will often present many of the highly bigoted hard-RAC mentalities against certain disabled people, traumatized people, queer people, and so on, essentially picking and choosing who's issues should be partially addressed and who's issues should be larely ignored.


Finally, the most charitable angle, lets say that an anti-choicer that isn't like the RAC's or SRAC's , and actually does support creating a society that maximizes human dignity and believes in acknowledging all peoples issues and trying to address peoples issues, but does not affirm the right to die. We'll call these "Somewhat Enlightened Anti-Choicers" or "SEAC's". Obviously not as bad as the former, but still denying people the right-to-die.

The SEAC's presume that they can fully resolve a persons issues, and that someone should be forced to live until the cause of their desire to die is eliminated. This is an exceedingly arrogant and inhumane mentality, of course. If someone really believes in maximizing human dignity, they'll believe that if someones issues run so deep that even a highly humane society cannot readily resolve it, that this person should have a right-to-die, period.

So the only humane option is to not be a SEAC, yet alone a SRAC or RAC, to fully affirm the right to die so that people are not forced to live and suffer if they do not want to. Nobody should be forced to live with suffering. we don't choose to exist, and even if that was the case, the right to die would still be very important. We should strive to minimize suffering, and strive to ensure as many people as possible a reason to want to live, but if that's not enough, then people deserve the right to end their suffering that cannot be readily addressed, as an extension of fundamentally enshrined human dignity

Regarding the whole idea that we only see the 'tip of the iceberg' in someone's success- I also get the same sense that people tend to assume or portray that with someone who took their own life.

That it was a recent crisis that lead them to it. They seem to ignore the iceberg of suffering underneath that lead them to it. Probably because it would suggest that people had noticed but, ignored it. It's actually pretty interesting though, how many people here started experiencing suicidal thoughts in childhood.

If they actually concede that the person had been struggling long-term, there's usually also- but they seemed to be improving. Yeah- because they knew they were getting the hell out!

But, I find that annoying too. Like it was something totally and utterly unexpected with no discernable motive or build up. Just a crazy, impulsive action- when it realistically sometimes took several weeks or months to plan.

I'm an autistic person who has basically been chronically depressed since childhood, especially since the first day of school. dealing with repeated social trauma's due to being misunderstood, ostracized and even bullied and humiliated, manifested into CPTSD as well.

I have masked my Chronic Depression and CPTSD for decades, so if i did decide to make plans (which i dont have presently), it would appear sudden, but what would be ignored is literally decades of suffering trying to exist in a world that has worked against me at every turn.

 

[Cauliflour]

Another clear example is when it comes to disability rights activists (DRAs) whom decided to cherry pick cases where there are those who are severely disabled (physically and/or psychologically) and often cite that they have found meaning in life, want to live, etc., but then ignore all the ones who didn't see it the same way. In fact, there is perhaps likely many more who are in such predicaments that don't recover and then suddenly change their mind. In other words, these DRAs often cherry-pick and select cases that fit their narrative rather than look at most of the unfortunate to accurately portray the real stance of the disabled. I would believe that most of the disabled would not necessarily choose to go on to live, but while there are a minority of those who are disabled who want to live, they overshadow most of those who just suffer day to day and wish for the suffering to end. Of course, the DRAs ignore all those because it would undermine and shatter their 'narrative' of pro-life or continuing to fight a battle that one may not be interested in.

I wouldn't say I'm "constantly suffering" but I have high functioning autism and I'm getting so fucking tired of people treating it like this wonderful brain thing that makes you better at this, this and this like this famous person! It feels like if you want to have your problems with autism validated then you have to be barely functioning for people to care. They go on about how great autism supposedly is but they don't like to bring up the downsides, and when they do it's always in reference to low functioning autistics. Hell, I'm starting to think the lower functioning people are getting irritated at the higher functioning ones cause they're always portrayed as guaranteed geniuses and thus people treat them better, while lower functioning people are always seen as just some overgrown toddler for a neurotypical to go "oh woe is me! Having to raise this person is so hard!".

Also yeah I know the term is stage 1 or stage 3 now but it's all the same shit at the end of the day. Changing the labels every other year isn't gonna fix the ingrained ableism society has.