This is obviously another instance of the notorious recurring common sense meme of the 99% vs 1% social-economic issue...
I would rephrase this for a even more persuasive force, in spite of the inaccuracy of this statistics:
99% of people deceive themselves into thinking that life's "good" — while, deep down, most of them know that they are just mere replaceable units in a semi-slavery work exploitation system.
(Afterall, what can they do... There is no "Keanu Reeves" to "save" them)
Meanwhile, only the 1% billionaires live an actual "good" life.
(I would argue that 100% of people are not living any "good" lives at all... But that's another completely different discussion to be had, under no misleading statistics)
"Pro-death whatever that means"
You've made a very astute remark here, my friend. There is no such a thing as being "pro-death" (At least not by itself; and I'll explain what I mean by this later on)... Period.
People love to give stupid, inaccurate, names to things they have a very poor comprehension of or a very bad take on — as if they were Elon Musk naming his children x-something.
So... meaningless, inaccurate, names take over the public debate in order to satiate our pettyful, stupid, inclinations to tribalisms.
And terms/expressions/dichotomies like "Left vs Right", "Western civilization vs Barbarians", "American Dream vs Communism", "Pro-life vs Pro-death" and etc, rise into — undue — prominence, in accordance to the specifics of the political issue, or debate, being entertained.
At this point in time, It's no surprise to anyone that the "Pro-life vs Pro-death" tribalism has it's origins on the abortion/women's rights issue — not the right-to-die one.
This dichotomy is essentially anchored in a fundamental, intellectual, dishonesty. Regardless of what specific religion they subscribe to, most religious people believe that life is a "sacred miracle" that "begins" at conception.
(This belief is not warranted in any way whatsoever by any scientific evidence or serious philosophical scrutiny... and it's plagued with gross, misleading, conceptual failures — no pun intended.)
But the kernel of the dishonesty in here, in the abortion issue, lies in the fact that abortionists aren't "pro-death" at all.
This is a gross, straw man fallacy, where the "pro-life" advocates — being manipulative as usual — are frequently using the expression "pro-death" as an eufemistic, polite, way of suggesting that his opponents' stances are "pro-murdering babies" — the horrible, hidious, despicable crime we call 'infanticide'.
Aborting an embryo, however, or a fetus at an early stage of development, isn't in any way equivalent to purpusefully causing the death — i.e. killing — a fully developed, concious, human baby. They're two different things, with two very much distinct moral statuses.
There is also a much foggy scenario when we stop to think about how we use the word 'death' in polyvalent, ambiguous — and arbitrary! — ways.
Virtually all people would think that it's an absolute sheer nonsense to ascribe any practical, moral or legal, value to the "genocidal" aspect of millions and millions of bacteria dying, when someone takes antibiotics, for instance. But — suddenly! — an irrelevant cluster of cells inside a woman's woomb provokes a hysterical war between people, much like the one protagonized by Greeks and Trojans.
If you think about it, the real "pro-death" advocate is, conversly, the self-proclaimed "pro-lifer". Because it's only when "pro-lifers" get what they want — i.e. more babies being born "into life" — that the word 'death' will assume the most serious, relevant, meaning we attach to it.
TLDR: "Pro-life vs Pro-death" is a false dichotomy. B
eing "pro-death" has no real meaning on it's own, since it's somewhat nonsensical to think that people can choose to die or not to die once they're born. Being "pro-life" entails being "pro-death" because the death of a person is necessarily determined at birth....whilst being "pro-choice", strictly speaking, does not entail anything related with death.
