When prolifers wrongly claim that we pressure others to die, turn the argument back on them

[TAW122]

Prolifers oftenly claim that we (pro-choicers) pressure others who may otherwise not wish to die to die. That is far from the truth, as we are pro "choice" hence the keyword is 'choice' in the name of our movement and tenets. If anything, we could turn their (prolifers') argument against them too by claiming that pro-lifers force others who may wish to exit suffering to continue existence and suffering under the guise of (unhelpful and sometimes forceful) intervention, false hope, and empty promises.

A good example of the argument presented by Anton Estrada in this video at 12:10 mark or so.



The quote shown in the video around 12:40 mark or so (below):

People who oppose MAID say that it's impossible to determine whether or not it's incurable, which I agree with. But then those same people who oppose MAID claim that they know with certainty that they can help or fix everyone who wishes to die.

He also mentions a logical phrase, "you cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time." in reference to the pro-lifers wanting to take all the good while ignoring the bad.

Just fyi, feel free to watch the whole video, but it is not necessary as it is a long video talking about MAiD criteria but I thought I'd raise a good key point about turning the argument back on prolifers, especially those who claim that prochoicers are pressuring others to die/choose death (which is patently false). If anything, we are encouraging others to make the decision (to continue living or to die on one's own terms) on their own, without pressure either way. Likewise, we could claim that prolifers are pressuring others to live through false hope, empty promises, and (unhelpful, sometimes forceful) intervention.

 

[catflowers]

tldr sn should be allowed to everyone even the prolifers

 

[Hollowillow]

Prolifers oftenly claim that we (pro-choicers) pressure others who may otherwise not wish to die to die. That is far from the truth, as we are pro "choice" hence the keyword is 'choice' in the name of our movement and tenets. If anything, we could turn their (prolifers') argument against them too by claiming that pro-lifers force others who may wish to exit suffering to continue existence and suffering under the guise of (unhelpful and sometimes forceful) intervention, false hope, and empty promises.

A good example of the argument presented by Anton Estrada in this video at 12:10 mark or so.



The quote shown in the video around 12:40 mark or so (below):



He also mentions a logical phrase, "you cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time." in reference to the pro-lifers wanting to take all the good while ignoring the bad.

Just fyi, feel free to watch the whole video, but it is not necessary as it is a long video talking about MAiD criteria but I thought I'd raise a good key point about turning the argument back on prolifers, especially those who claim that prochoicers are pressuring others to die/choose death (which is patently false). If anything, we are encouraging others to make the decision (to continue living or to die on one's own terms) on their own, without pressure either way. Likewise, we could claim that prolifers are pressuring others to live through false hope, empty promises, and (unhelpful, sometimes forceful) intervention.

Pro lifers made me want to die by pressuring me into positive happy perfection, invalidating me. I often get urges to kill myself after calling them for help.

The biggest deterrent was here, when someone told me that I could become a paraltzed vegetable if I hang myself wrong.

I need to do it right if I do. Not impulsively

When the suicide hotline & crisis center ask if I'm at risk of losing control... I just told them that suicide is a well thought choice to end suffering. Not some crazy lost of self control

I hate those people. Love you all

 

[FuneralCry]

I just think that for anyone to be pro life in the first place, they must be delusional. The way that they think does not reflect the reality of this existence. I agree that just respecting someones right to die doesn't mean that the person is encouraged and pressured into ctb, it's clear that it's always the persons choice whether they go through with ctb or not and it's cruel to try and force someone to live against their wishes.

I also feel like even if there is a cure for someone's problems (like if there reason to die is physical illness) then they have no obligation to live anyway. MAID should be available for everyone regardless of the suffering they experience. Most pro life arguments make no sense to me as there is literally no disadvantages to being dead, suicide could never possibly be wrong.

 

[TAW122]

I also feel like even if there is a cure for someone's problems (like if there reason to die is physical illness) then they have no obligation to live anyway. MAID should be available for everyone regardless of the suffering they experience. Most pro life arguments make no sense to me as there is literally no disadvantages to being dead, suicide could never possibly be wrong.

I fully agree. Part of being 'pro-choice' means having the option available to everyone including those who don't wish to live (even if their problems are curable albeit with great investment in time, money, and resources). I believe part of why the pro-lifers think that there are disadvantages to being dead is because there is a deprivation of (potential) joy, pleasure, and positive events, but as we know, those are far and few and no amount of (long term) suffering will ever justify staying indefinitely in life to eke out those sparse events in one's lifetime.

 

[Maravillosa]

I fully agree. Part of being 'pro-choice' means having the option available to everyone including those who don't wish to live (even if their problems are curable albeit with great investment in time, money, and resources). I believe part of why the pro-lifers think that there are disadvantages to being dead is because there is a deprivation of (potential) joy, pleasure, and positive events, but as we know, those are far and few and no amount of (long term) suffering will ever justify staying indefinitely in life to eke out those sparse events in one's lifetime.

Also, Catholic pro-lifers would say that one can offer one's suffering to Jesus for the salvation of others. Suffering in itself is wrong and useless, but when one's own suffering is added to the suffering of Jesus, then one is sharing in Jesus' suffering — and I think the Church would say that sharing in the suffering of Jesus means one will also share in the joy Jesus has in Heaven. Would refusing to offer one's suffering to Jesus make one suffer more in the afterlife, in Purgatory if not in Hell? (It makes sense if one accepts the premises, but not if one does not believe already.) I think that this belief can make people think suffering is a good thing, or at least that ameliorating suffering is not a top priority.

When it comes to abortion, war, and the death penalty, I am decidedly pro-life, but I am far more ambivalent about euthanasia and ctb. The unborn, those in war zones, and criminals condemned to execution, usually want to live (or at least have not explicitly and consistently expressed a desire for death). But if someone wants to die and believes that suffering is immoral and useless, then I think they should be allowed to die peacefully, provided that they are at least 25; have no living parents or life partners, or children under the age of 18, and/or adult children with special needs; and if attempts to endure and/or ameliorate their suffering have been unsuccessful.

 

[TAW122]

Also, Catholic pro-lifers would say that one can offer one's suffering to Jesus for the salvation of others. Suffering in itself is wrong and useless, but when one's own suffering is added to the suffering of Jesus, then one is sharing in Jesus' suffering — and I think the Church would say that sharing in the suffering of Jesus means one will also share in the joy Jesus has in Heaven. Would refusing to offer one's suffering to Jesus make one suffer more in the afterlife, in Purgatory if not in Hell? (It makes sense if one accepts the premises, but not if one does not believe already.) I think that this belief can make people think suffering is a good thing, or at least that ameliorating suffering is not a top priority.

When it comes to abortion, war, and the death penalty, I am decidedly pro-life, but I am far more ambivalent about euthanasia and ctb. The unborn, those in war zones, and criminals condemned to execution, usually want to live (or at least have not explicitly and consistently expressed a desire for death). But if someone wants to die and believes that suffering is immoral and useless, then I think they should be allowed to die peacefully, provided that they are at least 25; have no living parents or life partners, or children under the age of 18, and/or adult children with special needs; and if attempts to endure and/or ameliorate their suffering have been unsuccessful.

That is an interesting take on various other topics (abortion, war, and the death penalty). I could see some logic behind why people may be against abortion (even though I'm also pro-choice in that matter) since one could argue that killing something that isn't a human yet is denying that living organism a chance to live (before it is able to understand existence or experience consciousness like a human being). I won't get into all the details as that is another big topic altogether. As for war, I could see one being against killing as that is taking another human being's life without their consent, and finally the death penalty, like you said, there are criminals/convicts who wish to live and executing them would go against their wishes even if the opposers of the death penalty are those use personal morals (such as 'we would be no better than a murderer if we killed them' or 'if we kill them, we are playing God', etc.)

As for your criteria of those who wish to pursue voluntary euthanasia and wishes to CTB, I think drawing the line can be somewhat subjective and tricky, but I will address your arguments. While you may choose age 25 as the starting age to be eligible (under your criteria) for voluntary euthanasia as that is when the brain is fully, neurologically and physiologically mature (an interesting stance), I would go for 18 (maybe 21) as a starting age for accessing it as I believe that is age where one can legally consent into contracts, buy tobacco products (in the US at least), legal age to sign up for war, legal age to vote, and enjoy many rights that the age of majority has. For people having parents or no living parents or life partners, I may be selfish but I still put the individual's freedom of choice above how others' feel as the individual suffering is what matters and if one is merely living because of others, then one isn't truly free. It is a gray area and difficult line to draw when it comes to having dependents; as on one hand, if one has biological or even adopted children (not yet 18 - the age of majority), then they count on their parents to support them and it would be shitty to leave them to the foster care system, similarly adult children with special needs. Then on the other hand, if one is suffering quite a bit, perhaps it would be the responsibility of the individual to not undertake such responsibility to begin with? Again it's a tricky subject and there is no absolute perfect solution when it comes to drawing the line... Finally, when it comes to attempts to recovery and how much suffering one has to take before being eligible, it falls into subjectivity again; however, I will partially agree that I believe there should be a system in place where one has demonstrated that he/she has tried to ameliorate their suffering and tried other options before taking the final and permanent option of voluntary euthanasia (going out in peace). Again, it's hard to draw a line because what one's suffering is personal and subjective as one's suffering may not be another's and vice versa. I do believe however, there should be a waiting period between making the decision and executing the final act to prevent impulsive decisions or any doubt what so ever because there is NO going back once one is dead.

 

[jodes2]

Also, Catholic pro-lifers would say that one can offer one's suffering to Jesus for the salvation of others. Suffering in itself is wrong and useless, but when one's own suffering is added to the suffering of Jesus, then one is sharing in Jesus' suffering — and I think the Church would say that sharing in the suffering of Jesus means one will also share in the joy Jesus has in Heaven. Would refusing to offer one's suffering to Jesus make one suffer more in the afterlife, in Purgatory if not in Hell? (It makes sense if one accepts the premises, but not if one does not believe already.) I think that this belief can make people think suffering is a good thing, or at least that ameliorating suffering is not a top priority.

When it comes to abortion, war, and the death penalty, I am decidedly pro-life, but I am far more ambivalent about euthanasia and ctb. The unborn, those in war zones, and criminals condemned to execution, usually want to live (or at least have not explicitly and consistently expressed a desire for death). But if someone wants to die and believes that suffering is immoral and useless, then I think they should be allowed to die peacefully, provided that they are at least 25; have no living parents or life partners, or children under the age of 18, and/or adult children with special needs; and if attempts to endure and/or ameliorate their suffering have been unsuccessful.

I don't think it should be necessary for someone to wait for their parents to pass. Parents chose to have a child and all that it entails. They brought us into this world, they should be able to handle us leaving this world. Having kids and wanting to CTB is different. They rely on you. That is a real responsibility

 

[Hollowillow]

Also, Catholic pro-lifers would say that one can offer one's suffering to Jesus for the salvation of others. Suffering in itself is wrong and useless, but when one's own suffering is added to the suffering of Jesus, then one is sharing in Jesus' suffering — and I think the Church would say that sharing in the suffering of Jesus means one will also share in the joy Jesus has in Heaven. Would refusing to offer one's suffering to Jesus make one suffer more in the afterlife, in Purgatory if not in Hell? (It makes sense if one accepts the premises, but not if one does not believe already.) I think that this belief can make people think suffering is a good thing, or at least that ameliorating suffering is not a top priority.

When it comes to abortion, war, and the death penalty, I am decidedly pro-life, but I am far more ambivalent about euthanasia and ctb. The unborn, those in war zones, and criminals condemned to execution, usually want to live (or at least have not explicitly and consistently expressed a desire for death). But if someone wants to die and believes that suffering is immoral and useless, then I think they should be allowed to die peacefully, provided that they are at least 25; have no living parents or life partners, or children under the age of 18, and/or adult children with special needs; and if attempts to endure and/or ameliorate their suffering have been unsuccessful.

I wish my mom aborted me like she planned before a pro lifer sister guilt tripped her into abusing & neglecting me into a mad cripple instead.

It's the pro lifers who push me to die by calling my pain a lie! Like The damn suicide action guy. I hope his crotch rots off.

 

[FrozenMango]

I think the best thing we could do is to ignore them and focus our efforts on convincing pro choice people to pass laws in our favor. I don't believe pro lifers are pro life. They are pro control and you can't argue with control freaks

 

[Forever Sleep]

Honestly, I find that almost comical, it sounds so ridiculous. I can't believe there are many pro-choice people out there trying to convince complete strangers to kill themselves- without knowing their views.

Personally, I'm a total pessimist and I truly believe the planet would be a lot better off without a lot of us/preferably all of us but that doesn't mean I think everyone should be forced into it. It does however add to my view that those who wish to go early ought to be given a peaceful way out.