Discussion What would say to the pro-lifers, prohibitionists, anti-choicers, if there were no real repercussions?

[TAW122]

It is no surprise nor a new thing that many pro-lifers, prohibitionists, anti-choicers, and the lot of those groups of people often lament and complain about people who end up choosing brutal ways to end one's own suffering (moreso especially when the attemptor is successful at the act). This is a common thing especially whenever there are articles discussing about those who either CTB in public through other means (jumping, train, drowning, high impact, etc.) that may result in collateral damage and certainly involve unwilling participants. It is also a rather grating complaint that many anti-choice people espouse, especially when the very people they complain about making them uncomfortable, inconveniencing them, or even affecting them (their values, their feelings, their beliefs and ethics, etc.), they (the anti-choicers and similar) refuse to allow them an 'easy' way out.

Therefore, I made this thread since I got a spark of an idea: What if there was no real (social or any) consequences for speaking one's mind with regards to the paternalistic policies and ever-growing restrictions on peaceful (and even reliable) methods of CTB'ing? By this, I am referring to the fact that in such an reality where the individual could not do anything actionable against you (cannot report you, cannot take action against you in any way, nor threaten your civil rights, nor freedom and bodily autonomy, etc.). For me, personally, I would be bold enough to stick it to the anti-choicers, and call them out; especially if I knew I wouldn't be at risk of hospitalization, unwanted intervention, unwanted scrutiny, or having my civil liberties and bodily autonomy, freedom threatened. I would also be able to speak freely about the topic especially knowing that they (the pro-lifers and anti-choicers) do not have any teeth or bite and only bark. (That is a metaphor for a situation where something that is perceived to be intimidating really has no real danger). What would your response or reactions be in such a situation?

In this thread, basically it is more of a hypothetical scenario, such that if you were really able to freely express your thoughts, what would you say and what would you do. Of course, in our reality and current reality that simply isn't the case, but I just had an interesting thought where if we are in a world where we could 'really' speak without repercussion, and without a filter, what kind of outcome would there be. Sadly, in our current reality, this ideal, hypothetical scenario and situation is far from a reality, but in theory, it could be really eye-opening and certainly tear down a lot of the stigma and taboo that surrounds CTB and similar topics.

 

[SoulCage]

I always admire your way with words, it's always a good read.

About the topic... My brain fog (slow thinking process) makes it hard to debate people about the topic, because I can't have a real time conversation. I always forget how to construct my argument verbally (tilted by rage-chaos in my head because I realize that people are always defending suffering). I am getting accused of "you don't make sense, because you see the world only pessimistic" and it really triggers me.

A few days ago, this happened with a coworker at my "rehab job" (that is being cut by government saving plan and I am again without income). They said "everyone has to suffer and I don't believe that mental suffering is reason enough to seek help in the job market". By the way, they are not working there as part of the rehab program. They are just a "normal employee" dealing with the business side of the rehab job.
Anyway... In the moment I was so triggered that I couldn't say anything. I was just so angry at her, because it didn't feel right to normalize suffering.
At nighttime I finally figured out what I should have said in return:"if suffering is inevitable or unfixable, why does society make it so hard to end my life?" And what you said makes it even more clear:

It is no surprise nor a new thing that many pro-lifers, prohibitionists, anti-choicers, and the lot of those groups of people often lament and complain about people who end up choosing brutal ways to end one's own suffering (moreso especially when the attemptor is successful at the act). This is a common thing especially whenever there are articles discussing about those who either CTB in public through other means (jumping, train, drowning, high impact, etc.) that may result in collateral damage and certainly involve unwilling participants.

The collateral damage can be avoided if I had access to methods that are less brutal/public.

I hope that next time I will have the memory of a functional human to respond to people's stupid point of view.
Because funny enough, in my country, nothing happens when I say (to doctors, therapists, counsellors, social workers) that I feel like I have no other choice than CTB. I even read in my country's subreddit that others had the same experience: sent back home after one evaluation where they made clear that they can no longer support themselves and contemplating CTB.
So I have many places where I could say it, it's just hard to train myself to argue with the pro-lifers/anti-suicide groups, because once they tell me I am just "seeing it this way because I am depressed" then the chaos in my head intensifies, I have an even harder time to get the point across and then everything I say afterwards will just get dismissed by saying "now you are being hysterical".

Maybe next time I will try to stay calm and remember the words of this thread (and many others in this forum).

 

[TAW122]

Thanks for your response, and I don't think my response are necessarily the absolute best as I too, have areas to refine too. Anyways, I would certainly be more bold to have a retort towards anti-choicers, pro-lifers alike if I knew there were no real repercussions or consequences (detainment, detention, heightened scrutiny, social consequences, etc.). In our current reality, that isn't the case, hence I wrote this thread out of curiosity to see how others may respond if given said hypothetical scenario.

 

[DeniedPeace]

I guess the answer depends on the cultural background of the pro-lifer. Here in France basically everyone is pro-choice when it comes to abortion, and showing an anti-abortion stance would usually come with social consequences.
So in the rare instances where I was able to have this conversation (without coming out as suicidal but during the debate and eventually vote in favor of euthanasia for the terminally ill), I would bring up the argument that you cannot philosophically be both pro-choice for abortion and anti-choice for suicide. If you validate the philosophical and moral prerequisites to abortion (the consequence being death doesn't overcome my individual right to bodily autonomy) then these same prerequisites directly imply choice should be given to the individual for suicide.

 

[Dejected 55]

Why would you want there to be no repercussions? I put it to you that in a world without repercussions, then the "anti-" crowd would win the day, because if there is no reason to fear reprisal for your ideas, then the people with the worst ideas would roam free to spread their bad ideas without repercussion.

Repercussion is one of the few things that helps keep the world in check.

 

[kopebaldy]

Nothing

Us and the normals will never reach an understanding, trying to talk to them achieves nothing except feeding their savior complex.

 

[TAW122]

Interesting responses and to answer @Dejected 55 question, it was more of an hypothetical thought that I had a little while ago and something I was curious about. Of course, in the real world, I don't believe there is ever a situation where there is no consequence, which was what sparked my curiosity about a 'what-if' scenario. With regards to repercussion keeping the anti-choicers (aka pro-lifers) in check, yes I believe that is true and you brought up a good point about repercussions being applied two-ways.

@DeniedPeace that's an interesting situation about France, and also that's a nice argument that you have there with regards to abortion (my body, my choice) and the right to die.

@kopebaldy Yes, that's true in the real world, and hence SaSu is one of the few (perhaps only) community where like minded individuals (pro-choicers) can have an open discussion about CTB and similar topics without having censorship or people pushing their 'savior complex' onto us.

 

[DeniedPeace]

Why would you want there to be no repercussions? I put it to you that in a world without repercussions, then the "anti-" crowd would win the day, because if there is no reason to fear reprisal for your ideas, then the people with the worst ideas would roam free to spread their bad ideas without repercussion.

Repercussion is one of the few things that helps keep the world in check.

There are repercussions of all kinds and espcially social repercussions whatever you say and do and it indeed is a good thing to some extent, but suicidality is one of the few if not only subject that you cannot speak about without risking your very fundamental freedoms as you could get forced into a psych ward. Subjects that would have such consequences are things like terrorist attack planning which imply danger to others while suicidality doesn't.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

I would say to the pro-lifers, normies, even those here, any human :

they stole the right of all 8 billion to move away from extreme torture , extreme suffering and unbearable pain.

1.5 million people in the U.S. alone attempt suicide per year with brutal methods in secrecy as if they were commiting a crime.

there are people suffering extremely with no way out of suffering except suicide. they made every guaranteed suicide method into crimes.

they brainwashed everyone into thinking many lies including that anyone attempting or wanting suicide has a mental illness. that is a big lie and many here might be able to see this is a lie.

Why do i have to live another second? no one has answered this question here . i haven't posted it anywhere else cause they'll ban me or put me in a mental hospital if i say in person. no one can convince me why i have to .

what that we do today will matter in 200 years, a thousand years? a trillion years? nothing

nothing matters to me except me avoiding unbearable pain and my suicide asap

we all will die anyway but no one is allowed to escape extreme torture if they fall into a trap that is a hell a trillion times worse than one can imagine .

imo the above stand alone without know the fact that a human is just cells ,chemical reactions a machine. a brain cells and brain programmed by evolution and culture society to have beliefs

a thousand more things

 

[TAW122]

I've revisited this topic again, and I am thinking that in this hypothetical scenario, if there were no repercussions (whether socially, legally, or otherwise) for really speaking my mind, I would be more freely able to express thoughts about CTB, or even have suicide related references. It wouldn't be out of disrespect nor undermining those who see it, nor would I seek to weaponize such sentiments, but it just allows me more freedom to express myself without unnecessarily censoring it, or even have to tiptoe around and walk on eggshells whenever I want to speak my mind freely..

 

[Gangrel]

probably just to people birthing babies that they're insane lol i'm soon to become an uncle so you can imagine how thrilled i am about that