data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/94a77/94a774ee800c1a75c5f1a0d7b2bdd9980023b10e" alt="TAW122"
TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,944
It is no surprise that pro-lifers often engage in debates and arguments against pro-choicers in "bad faith." What do I mean by "bad faith" and what is "bad faith" in particular? The deliberate ignorance and exclusion of opposing perspectives and other facts in order to sustain their own worldview, then also resorting to ad hominem attacks (when they lack any good arguments to back up their claims) and even doubling down. Here is yet another example of such kinds of responses. Here is the quote and also link to it:
So then existentialgoof (the person responding to the chain of comments) responded with:
You can't make this up even if you tried, and it really is a new low, but again, not surprising given how pro-lifers are. While I know this may be preaching to the SaSu choir and it most likely is, I feel like given how things are, these people just have no inclination to change their views, nor care for the truth, but would rather just push their views on those who don't agree with them and also validate their own claims. Sadly, this is becoming more common and the worst consequence of this all is the paternalistic and authoritarian acts that the State (along with the people who sanction and endorse such violations of civil liberties) take while all feigning and masquerading as benevolence, when it fact it is not. There is more to be said, but that would be for another topic and thread.
I'm sorry but what you are saying doesn't make any sense. It's like saying the state is forcing you to be poor because it's not giving you a mansion. You don't need any involvement with state healthcare should you choose - so you aren't currently being forced. That's a fact. And you can be detained under the Mental Health Act currently regarding suicide regardless of your capacity. It's been this way since the early 1980s. |
So then existentialgoof (the person responding to the chain of comments) responded with:
I don't understand how it isn't making sense. The analogy that you've given isn't apt at all. The state isn't forcing me to be poor by not positively providing me with a mansion. But if it stops me from being able to die due to its actions, then it is forcing me to be alive, by depriving me of my negative liberty rights. By being actively obstructed from ending my life, I am being caused to have needs and desires which the state is unable to fully satisfy. Suicide would prevent me from having those problems; but the state is actively preventing me from being able to pursue that solution. Without access to reliable and humane methods through alternative channels, the state is creating the very problem that the assisted dying bill is designed to (partially) solve - which is the fact that people cannot arrange their deaths in a way that avoids unnecessary risk and pain, at a time of their choosing. As for the Mental Health Act, that just further proves my point about the state actively forcing people to remain alive. I don't know why you're denying that this is happening on one hand, and then admitting to it in the next post. |
You can't make this up even if you tried, and it really is a new low, but again, not surprising given how pro-lifers are. While I know this may be preaching to the SaSu choir and it most likely is, I feel like given how things are, these people just have no inclination to change their views, nor care for the truth, but would rather just push their views on those who don't agree with them and also validate their own claims. Sadly, this is becoming more common and the worst consequence of this all is the paternalistic and authoritarian acts that the State (along with the people who sanction and endorse such violations of civil liberties) take while all feigning and masquerading as benevolence, when it fact it is not. There is more to be said, but that would be for another topic and thread.