TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,333
I've seen many posts and arguments throughout Reddit over the years with existentialgoof (EG) debating pro-lifers, anti-choicers, and similar opponents of the right to die, euthanasia, and various bodily autonomy policies. It often devolved into name calling, dismissal (the best case), or even discrediting and attacking the person (worst case) than the argument (ad hominem fallacy) and throwing some red herrings about (arguments that are off course from the main point and more). The title of this thread is something that somewhat encompasses what I am aiming to discuss, but couldn't find a better title or have it too long, so it's still succinct enough to highlight what this thread is about. Anyways, without further ado, I will proceed with this vent, article, and thread.
The first point of contention, sanctity of life claim:
To start things off, I want to say that EG has a lot of good arguments and I actually agree with (almost) all of his points (there may be some points I might not fully agree or partially agree but that's beside the point). However, while I may agree with them, I saw enough of the interactions to know the most contentious points and how these supposedly open dialogue and good faith arguments often devolve into either name calling, dismissal of points, and then even an attack on EG's character (often presumptions about his mental state, pathologizing and patronizing language aimed at him rather than the points he made). While he often will go back to defend them from the rational and argumentative point, which is correct on paper, I think his "angle" is the main problem because these opponents (pro-lifers, anti-choicers, CTB preventionists alike) don't see logic nor do they care enough to consider it and see any challenge to their beliefs as an 'attack' and automatically become defensive, accusatory, and even patronizing towards EG. While EG goes back to claiming that the pro-lifers and similar people failed to substantiate and argue the why the 'sanctity of life' is a fact rather than a belief (which he is correct in his defense), he should take a different approach.
So if I'm putting myself into his shoes, and had to argue, I would go for a different approach and just start with saying, well if you are going to claim the sanctity of life as an unassailable fact and objective fact to never be questioned (even though I know it's a subjective claim and a 'faith-based' proposition rather than an objective fact – because the universe is non-sentient and doesn't care about suffering or anything, it is just what it is, independent on existence or not), then I could claim any (subjective) fact or criterion as one and do the same. This is one aspect in which I mentioned about "Using the Pro-lifers' tactics against them (an old thread back in 2019)" and my various reactionary actions throughout my life, up until the past few years (which I stopped actively fighting), but I digress.
Back on the topic, while it may cause friction (anything that doesn't sycophantically praise the sanctity of life itself or so), it at least demonstrates and shows their hypocrisy because these same people wouldn't appreciate nor would they entertain someone using some flimsy criteria or justification for encroachment on their rights and making decisions or even taking 'adverse' action for their own good. In other words, if pro-lifers and similar would just take at face-value the claim of "sanctity of life" as a fact without proving it (and instead of resorting to religious arguments, beliefs, subjective), then proceed to use that as pretext to violate others' negative liberty rights, then they have simply opened up a pandora's box of others to do similar (with one others' own subjective criteria). Thus, they (pro-lifers) would be hypocrites as they would not like to have their liberties trampled upon by other subjective criteria that another third party has come up with! Also, the trite and old tired argument of anyone who wishes to CTB is incapable of making a sound, rational decision, is yet another example of circular reasoning that is a catch-22, but that is another topic and argument for another thread rather than this one.
The second point of contention, method efficacy and availability claim:
Another common contention in the midst of a heated argument and debate I often see is how these opponents resort to deflection by citing methods being available, and while it may be true that even the most desperate do end up dying (often with brutal results and a lot of collateral damage, dependent on method choice), it still remains a bodily autonomy issue. While EG has argued that not having an positive right to die (government) per se, but having one's negative rights to not be encroached or infringed upon in the name of paternalistic benevolence is the matter. Sure, it is true that there are people who end up doing so via DIY means, but the results vary with many failing and some succeeding. However, the fact that one has to go through hoops, secretly and covertly plan, acquire, and later execute, all while under concealment with the risk of being discovered and then having their personal autonomy and bodily autonomy stripped away temporarily (in the name of health and safety), it is therefore not free.
So where I may be similar, but slightly differ in which to approach this contention versus EG's approach is that I would cite examples (not limited to women's rights and abortion rights) where marginalized groups did not necessarily have their acts deemed 'illegal' but are de facto (effectively) treated as such and they have to hide their intentions, live their secret lives in secrecy, at the risk of social persecution, legal persecution, and other uncanny outcomes. One would not claim that but [insert marginalized group(s)] are free to do as they please, as that would be disingenuous! It is often like a gotcha claim where the pro-lifers have no better argument so they default to claiming that because there are people who have succeeded (albeit not as common compared to the amount of attemptees that end up failing with varying degrees of consequences), therefore the State (government) shouldn't need to legalize or even expand existing death with dignity (in jurisdictions that have legalized the practice or have policies on the books) laws to make CTB easier.
So another example pointing this contention out: That's essentially also saying that because there are criminals whom have succeeded rehabilitation (aka former convicts) and led successful lives, that the justice system is fine as is. But nobody who is serious about criminology and such topic would ever think that way. While I know that is a very broad generalization (and for the record, I don't hold that position – just using it as an example!), the point is that most people (especially those who support judicial reforms and what not) will not hold that position.
So in conclusion, I think EG and various people who how such positions really had good arguments and oftenly try to defend them, but the matter of the fact isn't about whether one's argument is sound or rational, and it mostly devolves into just personal attacks rather than mutual, open-dialogue. Therefore, I've offered what I believe to be another angle or approach that is not solely just based on bolstering the position or getting them to disprove/prove their claim (which by experience and observation over the years, they won't). Finally, for the record, I have no inclination to participate in controversial (controversial to the outside world and mainstream society) discussions on Reddit as I know it seems fruitless and also due to the heavy-handed censorship, paternalistic unsolicited concerns directed at those who hold such opinions. I wrote this partly to vent, but also to share my observations as well as how I would have responded if I were in EG's shoes.
The first point of contention, sanctity of life claim:
To start things off, I want to say that EG has a lot of good arguments and I actually agree with (almost) all of his points (there may be some points I might not fully agree or partially agree but that's beside the point). However, while I may agree with them, I saw enough of the interactions to know the most contentious points and how these supposedly open dialogue and good faith arguments often devolve into either name calling, dismissal of points, and then even an attack on EG's character (often presumptions about his mental state, pathologizing and patronizing language aimed at him rather than the points he made). While he often will go back to defend them from the rational and argumentative point, which is correct on paper, I think his "angle" is the main problem because these opponents (pro-lifers, anti-choicers, CTB preventionists alike) don't see logic nor do they care enough to consider it and see any challenge to their beliefs as an 'attack' and automatically become defensive, accusatory, and even patronizing towards EG. While EG goes back to claiming that the pro-lifers and similar people failed to substantiate and argue the why the 'sanctity of life' is a fact rather than a belief (which he is correct in his defense), he should take a different approach.
So if I'm putting myself into his shoes, and had to argue, I would go for a different approach and just start with saying, well if you are going to claim the sanctity of life as an unassailable fact and objective fact to never be questioned (even though I know it's a subjective claim and a 'faith-based' proposition rather than an objective fact – because the universe is non-sentient and doesn't care about suffering or anything, it is just what it is, independent on existence or not), then I could claim any (subjective) fact or criterion as one and do the same. This is one aspect in which I mentioned about "Using the Pro-lifers' tactics against them (an old thread back in 2019)" and my various reactionary actions throughout my life, up until the past few years (which I stopped actively fighting), but I digress.
Back on the topic, while it may cause friction (anything that doesn't sycophantically praise the sanctity of life itself or so), it at least demonstrates and shows their hypocrisy because these same people wouldn't appreciate nor would they entertain someone using some flimsy criteria or justification for encroachment on their rights and making decisions or even taking 'adverse' action for their own good. In other words, if pro-lifers and similar would just take at face-value the claim of "sanctity of life" as a fact without proving it (and instead of resorting to religious arguments, beliefs, subjective), then proceed to use that as pretext to violate others' negative liberty rights, then they have simply opened up a pandora's box of others to do similar (with one others' own subjective criteria). Thus, they (pro-lifers) would be hypocrites as they would not like to have their liberties trampled upon by other subjective criteria that another third party has come up with! Also, the trite and old tired argument of anyone who wishes to CTB is incapable of making a sound, rational decision, is yet another example of circular reasoning that is a catch-22, but that is another topic and argument for another thread rather than this one.
The second point of contention, method efficacy and availability claim:
Another common contention in the midst of a heated argument and debate I often see is how these opponents resort to deflection by citing methods being available, and while it may be true that even the most desperate do end up dying (often with brutal results and a lot of collateral damage, dependent on method choice), it still remains a bodily autonomy issue. While EG has argued that not having an positive right to die (government) per se, but having one's negative rights to not be encroached or infringed upon in the name of paternalistic benevolence is the matter. Sure, it is true that there are people who end up doing so via DIY means, but the results vary with many failing and some succeeding. However, the fact that one has to go through hoops, secretly and covertly plan, acquire, and later execute, all while under concealment with the risk of being discovered and then having their personal autonomy and bodily autonomy stripped away temporarily (in the name of health and safety), it is therefore not free.
So where I may be similar, but slightly differ in which to approach this contention versus EG's approach is that I would cite examples (not limited to women's rights and abortion rights) where marginalized groups did not necessarily have their acts deemed 'illegal' but are de facto (effectively) treated as such and they have to hide their intentions, live their secret lives in secrecy, at the risk of social persecution, legal persecution, and other uncanny outcomes. One would not claim that but [insert marginalized group(s)] are free to do as they please, as that would be disingenuous! It is often like a gotcha claim where the pro-lifers have no better argument so they default to claiming that because there are people who have succeeded (albeit not as common compared to the amount of attemptees that end up failing with varying degrees of consequences), therefore the State (government) shouldn't need to legalize or even expand existing death with dignity (in jurisdictions that have legalized the practice or have policies on the books) laws to make CTB easier.
So another example pointing this contention out: That's essentially also saying that because there are criminals whom have succeeded rehabilitation (aka former convicts) and led successful lives, that the justice system is fine as is. But nobody who is serious about criminology and such topic would ever think that way. While I know that is a very broad generalization (and for the record, I don't hold that position – just using it as an example!), the point is that most people (especially those who support judicial reforms and what not) will not hold that position.
So in conclusion, I think EG and various people who how such positions really had good arguments and oftenly try to defend them, but the matter of the fact isn't about whether one's argument is sound or rational, and it mostly devolves into just personal attacks rather than mutual, open-dialogue. Therefore, I've offered what I believe to be another angle or approach that is not solely just based on bolstering the position or getting them to disprove/prove their claim (which by experience and observation over the years, they won't). Finally, for the record, I have no inclination to participate in controversial (controversial to the outside world and mainstream society) discussions on Reddit as I know it seems fruitless and also due to the heavy-handed censorship, paternalistic unsolicited concerns directed at those who hold such opinions. I wrote this partly to vent, but also to share my observations as well as how I would have responded if I were in EG's shoes.
Last edited:
