Which are Worse: Pro-sufferers or Zombies?

[Rogue Proxy]

I've been comparing pro-sufferers to zombies due to their mindless conformity (regarding the sanction of life), how they outnumber pro-choicers and promortalists; their tenacity in pursuing and capturing those attempting suicide; their lack of compassion and empathy towards individuals who wish to end their lives, how they impose the superiority of existence, and the lengths they go to prevent death, especially suicide. The last two points bare similarities to zombification.

At first, I considered how zombies would be the lesser of the two evils. Zombies don't care if humans commit suicide, don't criminalize suicide or euthanasia, force institutionalization or "treatment" for x amount of time until desired compliance, charge thousands of dollars for unwanted/unnecessary "treatment," or manipulate anyone at all. Their only motive is to devour as much fresh (human) flesh as possible. Plus, their moans and groans are far more tolerable than the pro-sufferers' verbal diarrhea of toxic positivity, guilt-tripping, invalidating, berating, and demands.

On the other hand, I thought about the aspects of zombies and zombification portrayed in different folklore and fiction. Suppose zombification was contagious to living and/or freshly dead humans, that zombies cannot die until their bodies are completely destroyed, and/or they retain their capacity to suffer? Given those possible factors, wouldn't the fate of zombification be just as bad as suicide prevention and prohibition of euthanasia?

There's also the disadvantage of zombies dispatching their prey in a violent, slow, and agonizing matter.

Which of these would be the worst to face: pro-sufferers or zombies? What are your thoughts about this?

 

[Ginnn]

Are you really comparing them to those monsters? Poor zombies

 

[Ringo]

Zombies bring the "collapse of society" trope and with it any means to build a decent everyday life. On the other hand, if we understand zombies as corpses, given enough time they would disappear on their own when the body decomposes enough, of course, assuming that the infection, curse or whatever does not spread, which would imply that humanity coordinate and focus on said danger as well as that common sense prevail in the population. Although many of the situations that he describes in the book World War Z are somewhat implausible, these are curious examples, since the message it conveys is clear, as it shows how we can keep our head on everything except the problem in front of us.

We are comparing a group of stubborn self-righteous idiots to feral beings similar to rabid animals that spread like a plague, you can easily avoid a pro-lifer, pro-suffering or pro-whatever unless you have one very insistent on your close environment that knows about your condition,even with some methods not available in some countries, it is much easier to commit suicide in our world than in one ravaged by zombies.

Zombies are clearly more dangerous, but they're usually driven by instinct, they're not really aware of what they're doing, so it's already a matter of which is morally worse for you.

Short answer: Zombies.