Discussion The pro lifer argument that plenty of people recover just reminds me of the image of the damaged plane (a.k.a survivorship bias)

[coolgal82]

Now idk if you've seen the image (i'll attach it below) but it represents a study done on the most damaged parts of planes that returned to a base, and while some may see it and go "oh those areas get hit a lot and should be reinforced," the reality is that the spots with no markings are the real priority areas as they are the ones where if the plane gets hit, it wont return and thus cannot be counted for the study.

In a pro-life/pro-choice context, i often see it argued by pro lifers that "lots of people who have struggled managed to recover and are glad that they survived." This could show that alot of people go on to recover and be fine, but personally i see it similarly to the plane example, that the ones that went onto recover are only the ones that are able to recover in the first place, and that they are ignoring the amount of people that do not go on to recover and ending up ending their own life.

I had this thought after seeing an argument in a discord server im in with people not from SaSu, so mostly pro lifers, and i saw this said: "every last person I know that tried to commit suicide and failed regretted the attempt and is thankful to be alive." This just perfectly encapsulates my argument. It's literally like saying "every last plane i know that has returned damaged was not hit in these spots" because 1. you cannot ask the ones that didnt survive, and 2. if any that survived didn't regret it and weren't glad to survive likely just attempted again (this also doesnt factor in how long after the attempt they said these things, whether they were telling the truth, what exactly drove them to suicide, and more.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias# link to the wikipedia article on survivorship bias which includes the picture i refer to here.
Feel free to share your thoughts on this in the replies but its just something i realised.

 

[alienfreak]

You have a good point, especially because society intentionally avoids publicising suicides since it is argued by many that it increases the risk of other people doing it. There is a sort of information manipulation going on. People that don't survive arent around to talk about it as you say, and they are censored and swept under the rug. But nothing can dispute the fact that suicide is one of the leading causes of death (maybe making it a taboo, treating it like a thought-crime and further isolating the most vulnerable people isnt working, imagine that)

 

[Plato'sCaveDweller]

I had this thought after seeing an argument in a discord server im in with people not from SaSu, so mostly pro lifers, and i saw this said: "every last person I know that tried to commit suicide and failed regretted the attempt and is thankful to be alive." This just perfectly encapsulates my argument. It's literally like saying "every last plane i know that has returned damaged was not hit in these spots" because 1. you cannot ask the ones that didnt survive, and 2. if any that survived didn't regret it and weren't glad to survive likely just attempted again (this also doesnt factor in how long after the attempt they said these things, whether they were telling the truth, what exactly drove them to suicide, and more.)

I'll also add to the counter-argument that those who survive quite literally have to say they're grateful to be alive and regretted it. Globally, anti-suicide messaging is predominant, and so anything that goes against the grain would not be promoted; in addition to this, it is incredibly risky to admit otherwise - that you regret not having died and that you still wish to kill yourself - as you are under threat of being involuntarily committed to a psych prison. It's wrong-think to express the desire to no longer exist. People will say they're "breaking the stigma" and "destroying the taboo" of talking about suicide, but it's not because society wants to make suicide a reasonable option or allow widespread and open thinking of this nature, rather it's because they need to find out who the squeaky cogs are and entrap them in order to ensure they do not pop out of the machine prematurely.