Discussion Pro-lifers who defend the State and even endorse the State impinging on RTD, wouldn’t like it if...

[TAW122]

Using reverse psychology and flipping the argument on it's head, to me, it seems like pro-lifers themselves wouldn't like it if the State (the government) told them what to do. In fact, the claim and reasoning that pro-lifers and anti-choicers like to use when it comes to the violation of the right to die or one's bodily autonomy when it comes to CTB is that it's safety and wellness. They even go as far as to justify it as some duty of care or even (no surprise) invoking the reasoning of 'life is sacred' or any similar pro-life rhetoric.

If they (the pro-lifers and anti-choicers) REALLY love having the government regulate, monitor, or even middle in others' personal business (hint: They don't!), I'm sure they don't mind the government telling them what to do when it goes AGAINST their morals or ideals! /s
I simply cannot see pro-lifers and anti-choicers embracing let alone tolerating the government or State trying to dictate how they live their lives or meddle in their day to day living, such as regulating what they can/cannot eat, what kind of activities they can partake in (recreation and entertainment), their living habits (showing, dressing, and many more), etc.

Of course, from a logical perspective, if one is for government impinging and telling what one can do, then it applies to all situations, and cuts both ways. They cannot pick and choose, lest the become hypocrites for doing so; only selectively applying logic where it's convenient (intellectual dishonesty) while disregarding or dismissing it when it is no longer convenient. In other words, pro-lifers and anti-choicers cannot claim to respect most/almost all other civil liberties, while making exceptions for the few and then acting like they respect it; they either respect a person's civil liberties and freedoms for as long as it isn't directly physically harming them (note: feelings and atavistic morals being hurt or upset doesn't count. That opens up another set of complications which I won't get into that here.). Because taking any other position means they are being hypocritical by being selective on which rights or liberties they don't want the government or State or meddle with, while also demanding the government to impinge on the liberties of those that they don't agree with or goes in conflict with their atavistic morals. Additionally, the harm towards non-violent and non-harmful parties who have done nothing to deserve having their negative liberty rights (the right to die especially) infringed upon is very unjust and unethical, but that's for another topic/thread.

Personally, I wouldn't want any government, State, or any entity to dictate whether I lived or died, but would rather make my decision on my own terms. So to put it simply: No, I wouldn't support a government that was pro-death or pro-mortalist, but would rather just the government be laissez-faire and stay out of it's citizens' personal civil liberties and freedoms, especially if the citizen has done nothing to deserve to have their rights and liberties impinged upon. I am only presenting this counter-argument as an intellectual exercise and for academic purposes, to disprove the pro-lifers' arguments and turn it back against them (pro-lifers and anti-choicers). What are your thoughts on this?

 

[DeadManLiving]

True.

If abortion is permissible, but the fetus cannot agree or object to their birth and society accepts the termination of life in the womb, defenseless and denied at least the opportunity to appraise later life, then a contemplated suicide by a competent adult of sound mind who is consistent in their informed consent and expression of their will to terminate their lives confers an even greater, if not inalienable, right to the suicidal to consent on their own will alone without the interfering will of another.

To deny the informed right of a person to die by their own sound judgment would therefore make abortion murder since the fetus will have a capacity to appreciate life if born (or appraise it, in the least) after adolescence. The fact and reality that depriving a potential life of that opportunity by the will and act of another is legal in the absence of the chance to consent or object, the legal status of abortion therefore confers an even higher, if not the highest, privilege to the suicidal, without any restrictions because an adult can consent to terminating their lives by their own merit and hand. If the fetus is legally disposable by the act of another, then an adult with good cause and a sound mind has not the same, but the highest prerogative to terminate their own lives by their own doing as the owners of their own lives and fate. The legality of abortion and its widespread practice is murder if suicide is not equally accepted and permissible without restraint in cases where good cause exists (barring impulsive acts), but that would only stand if the suicidal owed a debt of great gratitude to their rescuers each year for the rest of their lives until natural death, an assumption that is promoted but cannot stand. If at least one suicidal was forced to remain alive by compulsion against their will and was "saved" by a self-laudatory heroism complex of another with no debt of gratitude, that would be forcing another to carry a cross in a state of damage control where they do not meaningfully own their own lives, but exist to satisfy the demands society imposes upon them or by undue influence, which is coercive.