TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,819
I have written similar threads before about the core problem and contention between pro-choicers (people similar to me or in similar shoes) and pro-lifers (the majority of people out there). If I had to describe the root cause of all problems as well as the core problem itself in one sentence, it would be "Pro-lifers not only deny the right (and guarantee) to a peaceful, dignified exit, but also fail at providing an incentive for others to WANT to 'live' (or enjoy sentience on one's own terms)." So let me elaborate and dissect this one sentence to clarify my point.
While it is true that there (currently) isn't some agency, group, or some individual that actively (in real time) pursues and constantly tail any individual 24/7 for wanting to CTB, and that one 'could' CTB through violent, barbaric, and risky methods which may result in collateral damage to unwilling participants and parties, pro-lifers go to great lengths to limit, if not outright ban many peaceful, easy methods to CTB. Thus resulting in those who are desperate to leave to do so via painful, less reliable, violent, and risky means.
Analysis and breakdown:
For the first part, basically pro-lifers do not wish to allow people to leave this world, let alone peacefully and with dignity. The second part of the sentience they also fail to provide an incentive (subjective to the recipient, pro-choicer in this case) that would let people WANT to live. What do I mean by this? I mean something that is pleasant enough for someone to want to live instead of CTB. (e.g. making a prison cell so comfortable that a prisoner would not wish to leave). So far, the pro-lifers have failed to provide such incentives besides just empty words, drivel, false promises, as well as coercion rather than anything meaningful for said individual(s). To add to the second part, I want to clarify that the onus is on the pro-lifer/anti-choicer to prove, objectively why life is good. So far, they have failed to do so.
As a result of this, pro-choicers are essentially put into a corner and I do believe in the logic of nature, where if an animal is cornered, it will likely bite or fight back ferociously or whatever and however it can when escape is not an option. Of course, this does not imply that I condone an animal fighting back, but it is the logical consequence of prohibition itself. While there are certain animals that don't fight back (most will if they have the capacity and understanding to do so.). This is not saying that animals are evil by nature nor inherently. They are simply doing what their programming states to do, which is to fight or fly, but since they are not afforded to fly (get out of the situation), their only other (natural) option is to 'fight'.
In conclusion, you cannot deny someone an option to escape, but also fail to create a condition(s) that is conducive to wanting to live (subjective to the recipient of course). Otherwise you get the 'cornered animal' consequence which is a natural consequence from the natural instinct of fight or flight. Then of course, pro-lifers would blame and demonize the "suicidal" for reacting poorly due to it's natural instinct (which is ironic).
While it is true that there (currently) isn't some agency, group, or some individual that actively (in real time) pursues and constantly tail any individual 24/7 for wanting to CTB, and that one 'could' CTB through violent, barbaric, and risky methods which may result in collateral damage to unwilling participants and parties, pro-lifers go to great lengths to limit, if not outright ban many peaceful, easy methods to CTB. Thus resulting in those who are desperate to leave to do so via painful, less reliable, violent, and risky means.
Analysis and breakdown:
For the first part, basically pro-lifers do not wish to allow people to leave this world, let alone peacefully and with dignity. The second part of the sentience they also fail to provide an incentive (subjective to the recipient, pro-choicer in this case) that would let people WANT to live. What do I mean by this? I mean something that is pleasant enough for someone to want to live instead of CTB. (e.g. making a prison cell so comfortable that a prisoner would not wish to leave). So far, the pro-lifers have failed to provide such incentives besides just empty words, drivel, false promises, as well as coercion rather than anything meaningful for said individual(s). To add to the second part, I want to clarify that the onus is on the pro-lifer/anti-choicer to prove, objectively why life is good. So far, they have failed to do so.
As a result of this, pro-choicers are essentially put into a corner and I do believe in the logic of nature, where if an animal is cornered, it will likely bite or fight back ferociously or whatever and however it can when escape is not an option. Of course, this does not imply that I condone an animal fighting back, but it is the logical consequence of prohibition itself. While there are certain animals that don't fight back (most will if they have the capacity and understanding to do so.). This is not saying that animals are evil by nature nor inherently. They are simply doing what their programming states to do, which is to fight or fly, but since they are not afforded to fly (get out of the situation), their only other (natural) option is to 'fight'.
In conclusion, you cannot deny someone an option to escape, but also fail to create a condition(s) that is conducive to wanting to live (subjective to the recipient of course). Otherwise you get the 'cornered animal' consequence which is a natural consequence from the natural instinct of fight or flight. Then of course, pro-lifers would blame and demonize the "suicidal" for reacting poorly due to it's natural instinct (which is ironic).
