Venting Pro-lifers make suffering unbearable by one simple loophole they exploit!

[TAW122]

It makes me furious how conveniently that pro-lifers set up some axiomatic presumptions about life and that if questioned, it automatically makes the inquirer to be (by default) irrational, not of sound mind, or labeled 'mentally ill'. Hence it is just another way to silence and/or discredit those who don't agree with them. Furthermore, the sham justification for encroaching, violating, and invading on another's personal liberty in the name of safety is not only paternalistic, audacious, but really just despicable! May be preaching to choir here, but this thread is really just trying to expose the 'loophole' that pro-lifers use to oppress people who don't agree with them.

This post from u/existentialgoof in one of the threads he responded to on Reddit in quotes:

"Pro-lifers manage to circumvent this via one neat trick - everyone who is suffering and would ever want to leave is automatically mentally ill, and anyone who is mentally ill has severely compromised capacity for discernment and making sound decisions, which necessitates that the government step in to protect them from their own judgement. The very fact that they would want to die is proof that they lack the capacity for discernment, because anyone possessed of such capacity would wholeheartedly affirm life, with no reservations whatsoever.

We don't have to take that suffering seriously, because the fact that they think that they're suffering in the first place just shows that they are so deluded as to think that there is any cause for suffering."

Anyways, here is my explanation (from my perspective, slightly different but similar to existentialgoof's post but in my own words). The pro-lifers' logic can be broken down into three parts, with two/three premises as listed below:

Premise 1: Voluntary euthanasia should never be allowed because no-one wants to be the person who is 'responsible' to another's death (even if it was done mercifully) and is rife for abuse. Also the aversion to death and such..

Premise 2: No one can individually make the decision to self-delete because they are not reliable witnesses (an election of wanting to die (on one's own terms) is automatically deemed a presumption of irrationality/mental illnesses just from the start, without evaluation or question).

Premise 3: (derived from premise 2) Because one is then deemed 'mentally ill' (yes, this also includes 'depression'), they are then unable to make decisions and would need the government (the State) to step in on their behalf, against their wishes.

With those three premises, where premise 2 leads to premise 3, we are all locked into this world of suffering against our will (especially us pro-choicers) and have no legal nor guaranteed way out of suffering.. It sucks because basically pro-lifers don't want to legalize voluntary euthanasia because they are uncomfortable of being an arbiter of someone's decision (even if it is permanent and leads to the person no longer suffering). Then they also relegate said person to that of an infant, and someone who is incapable of making sound decisions.

Solving/breaking the circular conundrum that pro-lifers set up
So since circular logical itself is irrational and no rational explanation can be used to effectively logically counter it (just by the nature of circular reasoning itself), I will say that it takes irrationality to defeat irrationality, or at least through 'symmetry'. What do I mean by this? I mean just throwing away their circular logic and asserting our will through our own because we said so. I know that there are people who claim but that's not an argument or let's not stoop down to their level, but I justify this action by claiming that you can [almost] never win an unfair fight by fighting fair, it simply just doesn't work. When you must fight dirty just to have a level playing field, then one must do whatever it takes to do so. When logical reasoning falls on deaf years, it's time to use a different approach or just outright rejecting the circular argument and stand one's ground, but I digress. Therefore, I would just assert that forced sentience is one of the main reasons and causes for suffering as well as shitty events (a large part of it) in our current sentient existence and that life is not a gift nor a virtue, but an involuntary imposition onto a once non-sentient being against it's will.

In another thread, I used symmetry by interchanging the scenario and using similar examples to demonstrate and show the hypocrisy and horrific actions of pro-lifers. I also shown the fact that pro-lifers would never accept the same kind of treatment that they impose onto suicidal people. In fact, pro-lifers would assert their rights and double-down on their freedom if that is threatened, even going as far as actively punishing those who would dare infringe their (pro-lifers') rights and freedoms. Yet, hypocritically, pro-lifers have absolutely no problem in doing the very thing that they oppose (oppression, tyranny, paternalism, and such) towards groups of people that they denigrate to be beneath them.

In conclusion, this thread is about how pro-lifers created a situation in which death is not only inaccessible (at least the peaceful and reliable means), but also perpetually torment those who don't enjoy life to endure many unnecessary years. Then any attempt to bring about reform or change is rejected and they continue to impose their sadistic practices and values onto anyone who doesn't share their 'view' of life. Therefore, I suggested that there are times where we (the pro-choicers) must stand our ground since logic and reasoning falls on deaf ears. By standing our ground, we are resisting whatever pro-lifers decide to bring against us and at the least, it is self-defense on our part (from our point of view) and also shows that we are not a group to be messed with and have no repercussions. Although such an approach may be extreme, sometimes when the institutions at large (the legal system, financial system, educational system, and all other social groups and institutions, etc.) fail to offer redress and recourse for such egregious grievances inflicted by pro-lifers unto us, standing out ground and fighting back (not with logic and reasoning) may be perhaps the only way we (pro-choicers) could have any semblance of justice and change.

 

[FuneralCry]

Those people are just so disgusting, it's really sadistic how they want to do all they can to stop others permanently escaping from meaningless and unnecessary suffering. Existence itself is the problem and people should be able to choose when to die in peace, suicide is always a very valid personal choice no matter what.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think there is a further element to this. Suicide clinics seem to prefer people who want to live but not under their current circumstances. And they usually have a few doctors to back them up that their situation is indeed irredeemable- if not terminal. They don't actually want suicidal people as clients and mental illness remains a contentious issue.

I think the main problem is- plenty of suicidal people are screaming out that their situations are irredeemable but- they're simply not being believed. The go-to response usually is mental illness and depression but if they're suffering long-term- doesn't that suggest that their illness is treatment resistant? If they've already had a shit load of treatment- just how long do they need to keep being experimented on?

And- do they have the same rights to refuse treatment? That's always puzzled me. If someone refuses treatment for cancer, will they eventually still qualify for assisted suicide? Will the doctors support them?

But yeah- if the issue is- they think we would want to live if our problems were solved- including mental illness- then- they surely need to try and do that! Doesn't seem like rocket science to me. Plenty of people here probably would live if their circumstances improved. If their illnesses were cured. If they had enough money or enough prospects in life. If those things truly are incurable though- how do they expect us to feel differently?!! If we don't even have realistic prospects of achieving our goals- why are we going to put in the effort?

I imagine a lot of problems are situational. People aren't dumb. When we realise we're unhappy, most will try to do things to solve our problems. I imagine ideation comes along way down the line for a lot of people when our problems feel unsolvable or that we wouldn't be able to solve them to our own satisfaction.

Ok, things like depression may skew our perspective but who here hasn't tried antidepressants and whatever else?... And, we're still suicidal- they clearly don't work for everyone. If they want to insist ideation comes from illness but they can't cure the illness... then what?!! Like really- WTF?

 

[vitbar]

Some suicide clinics do accept those with uncurable mental illnesses, but they are careful about it for obvious reasons.

 

[TAW122]

Those people are just so disgusting, it's really sadistic how they want to do all they can to stop others permanently escaping from meaningless and unnecessary suffering. Existence itself is the problem and people should be able to choose when to die in peace, suicide is always a very valid personal choice no matter what.

I agree.

I think there is a further element to this. Suicide clinics seem to prefer people who want to live but not under their current circumstances. And they usually have a few doctors to back them up that their situation is indeed irredeemable- if not terminal. They don't actually want suicidal people as clients and mental illness remains a contentious issue.

I think the main problem is- plenty of suicidal people are screaming out that their situations are irredeemable but- they're simply not being believed. The go-to response usually is mental illness and depression but if they're suffering long-term- doesn't that suggest that their illness is treatment resistant? If they've already had a shit load of treatment- just how long do they need to keep being experimented on?

And- do they have the same rights to refuse treatment? That's always puzzled me. If someone refuses treatment for cancer, will they eventually still qualify for assisted suicide? Will the doctors support them?

But yeah- if the issue is- they think we would want to live if our problems were solved- including mental illness- then- they surely need to try and do that! Doesn't seem like rocket science to me. Plenty of people here probably would live if their circumstances improved. If their illnesses were cured. If they had enough money or enough prospects in life. If those things truly are incurable though- how do they expect us to feel differently?!! If we don't even have realistic prospects of achieving our goals- why are we going to put in the effort?

I imagine a lot of problems are situational. People aren't dumb. When we realise we're unhappy, most will try to do things to solve our problems. I imagine ideation comes along way down the line for a lot of people when our problems feel unsolvable or that we wouldn't be able to solve them to our own satisfaction.

Ok, things like depression may skew our perspective but who here hasn't tried antidepressants and whatever else?... And, we're still suicidal- they clearly don't work for everyone. If they want to insist ideation comes from illness but they can't cure the illness... then what?!! Like really- WTF?

I would think so (IANAD nor MHP just fyi), because that alone should be evidence that their suffering even if it isn't physical is long term and will not abate. It would be unjust and cruel to keep them hostage to whatever life/circumstances that they are subject to and facing in the mere hope that something turns around in a year, few years, or even a lifetime! This is why in other threads I've mentioned about having a concession, like a waiting period, having a certain amount of treatment and attempts to improve, but if failed, then one should be able to draw the line. Of course, pro-lifers would never concede to such reasonable demands and compromises, hence we continue to have contention and strife until (natural or out of our circumstances) death.

Sadly, the only concession that pro-lifers may even (barely) accept are ones that are terminally ill, which means that people who are within 6 months or less before foreseeable death, or if their condition is considered terminal. This is why I believe that one of the next major steps in gaining the right to die would be to expand it to non-terminal, but incurable, irremediable, or severe physical debility that results in very low quality of life. Of course, maybe DRAs (disability rights advocates) would be upset and try to oppose such prospects claiming that there is potential for abuse and how the disabled couldn't be mentally capable of voicing their own wishes (which is insulting of course but I digress).

Regarding the use of 'depression' and such, I feel like it's been overused (which isn't to say that there aren't people who are actually 'depressed') and oftenly used as a way to side-step, dismiss, invalidate, or belittle and patronize others while feeling morally superior (I think I wrote a thread about that a year ago or so). It is indeed infuriating and I get very offended whenever I hear that line of reasoning. I know pro-lifers wouldn't use that when it comes to other social issues and topics, but when it just comes to the right to die or assisted suicide, they pull that line of reasoning just to shut someone down, it's unacceptable.

All in all I think you raise really good points and these are indeed problems within mainstream society that still persists to this day and I think until we have expanded death with dignity not just for those who meet a very narrow criteria (terminal illness, less than 6 months of life, able to consent, all the red tape, etc.), there will never be true peace or alleviation of suffering. People will continue to hide their (true) intentions and some may even continue to DIY CTBs resulting in collateral damage and unnecessary trauma (not because they want to traumatize others) but because they lack the means for a peaceful, dignified exit as well as a safe space to express their intentions without the threat of hospitalization, invalidation and infantilization, and other infringements on their civil liberties.

Some suicide clinics do accept those with uncurable mental illnesses, but they are careful about it for obvious reasons.

Yes, I could see that happening and I believe even in those situations, in where countries that do so (Belgium, Netherlands, to name a few), they are very subtle and careful I'd imagine.

 

[SilentSadness]

It's dangerous and concerning that mental health is used as a weapon to shut down opposing viewpoints. It's toxic to say "anyone with that view is mentally ill", maybe they're mistaken but mentally ill means they're incapable of making decisions. It's a serious accusation that's thrown around lightly. It's also invalid as an argument, someone being mentally ill doesn't dismiss their arguments.

 

[TAW122]

It's dangerous and concerning that mental health is used as a weapon to shut down opposing viewpoints. It's toxic to say "anyone with that view is mentally ill", maybe they're mistaken but mentally ill means they're incapable of making decisions. It's a serious accusation that's thrown around lightly. It's also invalid as an argument, someone being mentally ill doesn't dismiss their arguments.

This is exactly on point, and I bolded the most important statement. Many people often throw around the term very loosely and indeed use it as some way to just shut down someone's view that they have no (good) counterargument against and instead of having an argument, they resort to a logical fallacy (ad hominem) and a personal attack on the person rather than the argument. This only shows that people don't care about the truth, they just want to preserve their views and if anything goes against that perceived view, they will fight tooth and nail to appear like they won or try to win by sabotage and falsely claiming victory through censorship and discrediting of their opposition. Meanwhile, most of us pro-choicers tend to use actual arguments to counter the arguments that anti-choicers and pro-lifers throw around.

 

[asian.neet]

It makes me furious how conveniently that pro-lifers set up some axiomatic presumptions about life and that if questioned, it automatically makes the inquirer to be (by default) irrational, not of sound mind, or labeled 'mentally ill'. Hence it is just another way to silence and/or discredit those who don't agree with them. Furthermore, the sham justification for encroaching, violating, and invading on another's personal liberty in the name of safety is not only paternalistic, audacious, but really just despicable! May be preaching to choir here, but this thread is really just trying to expose the 'loophole' that pro-lifers use to oppress people who don't agree with them.

This post from u/existentialgoof in one of the threads he responded to on Reddit in quotes:



Anyways, here is my explanation (from my perspective, slightly different but similar to existentialgoof's post but in my own words). The pro-lifers' logic can be broken down into three parts, with two/three premises as listed below:

Premise 1: Voluntary euthanasia should never be allowed because no-one wants to be the person who is 'responsible' to another's death (even if it was done mercifully) and is rife for abuse. Also the aversion to death and such..

Premise 2: No one can individually make the decision to self-delete because they are not reliable witnesses (an election of wanting to die (on one's own terms) is automatically deemed a presumption of irrationality/mental illnesses just from the start, without evaluation or question).

Premise 3: (derived from premise 2) Because one is then deemed 'mentally ill' (yes, this also includes 'depression'), they are then unable to make decisions and would need the government (the State) to step in on their behalf, against their wishes.

With those three premises, where premise 2 leads to premise 3, we are all locked into this world of suffering against our will (especially us pro-choicers) and have no legal nor guaranteed way out of suffering.. It sucks because basically pro-lifers don't want to legalize voluntary euthanasia because they are uncomfortable of being an arbiter of someone's decision (even if it is permanent and leads to the person no longer suffering). Then they also relegate said person to that of an infant, and someone who is incapable of making sound decisions.

Solving/breaking the circular conundrum that pro-lifers set up
So since circular logical itself is irrational and no rational explanation can be used to effectively logically counter it (just by the nature of circular reasoning itself), I will say that it takes irrationality to defeat irrationality, or at least through 'symmetry'. What do I mean by this? I mean just throwing away their circular logic and asserting our will through our own because we said so. I know that there are people who claim but that's not an argument or let's not stoop down to their level, but I justify this action by claiming that you can [almost] never win an unfair fight by fighting fair, it simply just doesn't work. When you must fight dirty just to have a level playing field, then one must do whatever it takes to do so. When logical reasoning falls on deaf years, it's time to use a different approach or just outright rejecting the circular argument and stand one's ground, but I digress. Therefore, I would just assert that forced sentience is one of the main reasons and causes for suffering as well as shitty events (a large part of it) in our current sentient existence and that life is not a gift nor a virtue, but an involuntary imposition onto a once non-sentient being against it's will.

In another thread, I used symmetry by interchanging the scenario and using similar examples to demonstrate and show the hypocrisy and horrific actions of pro-lifers. I also shown the fact that pro-lifers would never accept the same kind of treatment that they impose onto suicidal people. In fact, pro-lifers would assert their rights and double-down on their freedom if that is threatened, even going as far as actively punishing those who would dare infringe their (pro-lifers') rights and freedoms. Yet, hypocritically, pro-lifers have absolutely no problem in doing the very thing that they oppose (oppression, tyranny, paternalism, and such) towards groups of people that they denigrate to be beneath them.

In conclusion, this thread is about how pro-lifers created a situation in which death is not only inaccessible (at least the peaceful and reliable means), but also perpetually torment those who don't enjoy life to endure many unnecessary years. Then any attempt to bring about reform or change is rejected and they continue to impose their sadistic practices and values onto anyone who doesn't share their 'view' of life. Therefore, I suggested that there are times where we (the pro-choicers) must stand our ground since logic and reasoning falls on deaf ears. By standing our ground, we are resisting whatever pro-lifers decide to bring against us and at the least, it is self-defense on our part (from our point of view) and also shows that we are not a group to be messed with and have no repercussions. Although such an approach may be extreme, sometimes when the institutions at large (the legal system, financial system, educational system, and all other social groups and institutions, etc.) fail to offer redress and recourse for such egregious grievances inflicted by pro-lifers unto us, standing out ground and fighting back (not with logic and reasoning) may be perhaps the only way we (pro-choicers) could have any semblance of justice and change.

Well said, how would I win an argument against pro-lifers? What should I do?

 

[TAW122]

Well said, how would I win an argument against pro-lifers? What should I do?

That is something I'm working on continuously as well. I don't have all the answers, but sometimes I realize that you just couldn't win but recognize their arguments as circular reasoning and therefore invalid in terms of logic. There is a reason why circular reasoning is considered a fallacy and that in and of itself should already be considered not a good argument or failed argument alone.