The (you're) not entitled to argument

[TAW122]

Many prolifers and other normies often use the line "you are not entitled to (insert thing or attribute)" when they are talking to other people whom they believe to be entitled. They oftenly nonchalantly spew such lines, which may be true, but this also means that they must accept that they (pro-lifers) too, are not entitled to pro-choicers' sentience just so they (pro-lifers) feel good about having people who don't want to be alive to be alive for them (pro-lifers).

What this means is that if pro-lifers want to use that argument to dismiss others' grievances, then the same argument applies to them as well, whether they like it or not. As far as the universe is concerned, the non-entitlement argument works on all sides, pro-lifers, pro-choicers, and everyone else. In other words, pro-lifers cannot simply ignore the fact that their argument only applies to people they want it to because other groups can also use the same argument against them too. Therefore, the next time pro-lifers' want to entitle themselves to others' sentience, then a pro-choice retort could include "you're not entitled to my continued existence!" along with other retorts.

 

[Forever Sleep]

That's so true- I often hear it in religious arguments- when they are backed into a corner. It tends to be- well- we're not entitled to know God's plan but we can assure you- it has your best intentions at heart. I'm guessing we also can't question whether those intentions ARE really all that good- that's blasphemy. Convenient really... any questions they don't want to answer- we're not allowed to ask! That's why it's called faith I suppose but faith ISN'T compulsory- and WHY shouldn't we be able to question things? Their God built us to have enquiring minds after all.

I guess the other one is medical records. Maybe things are changing now. I think you are entitled to be able to access your own records now. I don't know if this extends to psychiatric health though. I get the impression there is still quite a big power divide between patient and doctor there. I don't know- maybe that's important in some cases. Still, I imagine it must be pretty humiliating in others. I don't like being prescribed stuff or having procedures done without knowing what will happen. I get the impression- with things I've read here and documentaries I've seen that patients just seem to have to accept stuff without knowing why- when it seems like they are perfectly capable of grasping stuff- no matter what else is wrong. Maybe I'm wrong there- it's just an impression I've had.

Still- I love your train of thinking. Who is entitled to tell me what to do with MY life? So long as I'm not hurting others? I MIGHT listen to my parents- they've invested more in me than anyone else- but that's mainly because they have enough respect for me to NOT tell me outright what to do. NO ONE else should be telling me though- like you say- no one else should dictate my destiny- my life is my own. Otherwise- that makes me a slave doesn't it?

 

[Rogue Proxy]

The same pro-suffers that spew this dismissive drivel will also preach about your obligations to society and other social groups (e.g. family, significant other(s), workplace, belief system, community, ect.), and demand your total compliance and contributions to them. All while completely ignoring the lack of choice in one's existence and the decades-worth of intense indoctrination. These two major factors, along with many others, greatly obstruct an individual's free will - including escaping this situation one way or another.

On a similar note, parents - especially breeders - aren't entitled to the various benefits they anticipate and dictate from their offspring. And yes, that includes continuing existence.

But of course, none of these notions penetration the dense miasma of human stupidity, greed, arrogance, egotism, anthropocentrism, and the insatiable desire for power, control, and domination.

 

[TAW122]

That's so true- I often hear it in religious arguments- when they are backed into a corner. It tends to be- well- we're not entitled to know God's plan but we can assure you- it has your best intentions at heart. I'm guessing we also can't question whether those intentions ARE really all that good- that's blasphemy. Convenient really... any questions they don't want to answer- we're not allowed to ask! That's why it's called faith I suppose but faith ISN'T compulsory- and WHY shouldn't we be able to question things? Their God built us to have enquiring minds after all.

I guess the other one is medical records. Maybe things are changing now. I think you are entitled to be able to access your own records now. I don't know if this extends to psychiatric health though. I get the impression there is still quite a big power divide between patient and doctor there. I don't know- maybe that's important in some cases. Still, I imagine it must be pretty humiliating in others. I don't like being prescribed stuff or having procedures done without knowing what will happen. I get the impression- with things I've read here and documentaries I've seen that patients just seem to have to accept stuff without knowing why- when it seems like they are perfectly capable of grasping stuff- no matter what else is wrong. Maybe I'm wrong there- it's just an impression I've had.

Still- I love your train of thinking. Who is entitled to tell me what to do with MY life? So long as I'm not hurting others? I MIGHT listen to my parents- they've invested more in me than anyone else- but that's mainly because they have enough respect for me to NOT tell me outright what to do. NO ONE else should be telling me though- like you say- no one else should dictate my destiny- my life is my own. Otherwise- that makes me a slave doesn't it?

Good example and yes, it is indeed paradoxical that we are not allowed to ask certain things, but then ironically, given the instruments and tools (or ability) to have curiosity and inquiry. Of course, religious apologists will always try to spin it in a way that defends their religion, which is why you could (almost) never change their minds. Anyways, back to the topic at hand, I would say nobody (not even one's own parents) is entitled to dictate and govern how one is living their own life as long as they are not hurting/harming others. As an individual citizen and legal adult (16 in some places, 18 in the US, and most places where one reaches the age of majority), one should be able to decide what one does, regardless of what others' think. And yes, if one isn't allowed to think freely, speak freely (not under the false pretense of freedom that most normies think, but actual free, uncensored speech), and exercise their TRUE bodily autonomy, then, by extension, they are a slave towards the collective people (and society itself). Even more so, a slave to sentience (life) itself.

The same pro-suffers that spew this dismissive drivel will also preach about your obligations to society and other social groups (e.g. family, significant other(s), workplace, belief system, community, ect.), and demand your total compliance and contributions to them. All while completely ignoring the lack of choice in one's existence and the decades-worth of intense indoctrination. These two major factors, along with many others, greatly obstruct an individual's free will - including escaping this situation one way or another.

On a similar note, parents - especially breeders - aren't entitled to the various benefits they anticipate and dictate from their offspring. And yes, that includes continuing existence.

But of course, none of these notions penetration the dense miasma of human stupidity, greed, arrogance, egotism, anthropocentrism, and the insatiable desire for power, control, and domination.

Good points and yes, it is also hypocritical for them to think they are entitled to an individual's contributions for them, but an individual is not entitled to how much an individual wishes to partake in the system (or even check out, CTB to be free from the shackles of sentience). Of course, pro-lifers would then use an argument stating that if everyone thought that way (or acted selfishly), then society would cease to exist. To that, a retort could simply be, which means the society and status quo must be bad enough for people to want to not partake, contribute, or otherwise be a part of. Pro-lifers would either just not respond (lacking of a response there), or naively claim, that's why it's up to the next generation to fix things, which is the classic passing the buck (letting future humans inherent problems of the past and present). This is where antinatalistic arguments come in to talk about how prevention of suffering (not giving birth to new humans, aka not creating new sentience, not bringing in new life) while trying to improve current life (alleviating the burdens and improve the lives of those who currently exist, up to and including voluntary euthanasia as an option for those who cannot recover and/or don't wish to continue suffering).

 

[Forever Sleep]

Even more so, a slave to sentience (life) itself.

Think maybe it's our sentience that allows us to realise what a shitshow we are in and that we want to leave. But otherwise- I agree. I love your posts by the way.