Story Why should there be consequences for prolifers who get it wrong?

[TAW122]

This was a question that someone (a pro-lifer) asked me years ago, and in this thread, I will give the brief story but also go into detail explaining why prolifers must pay the price. Anyways, here is the brief story.

Years ago, when I lived with some roommates in another city (they were prolifers), one of the roommates who also happen to be the landlady, asked "why should there be consequences" if they get it wrong (not specifically related to CTB, right to die, or voluntary euthanasia, but other topics in life). Of course, my response would have been related to accountability, justice, and responsibility. Just like most people who aren't doctors or lawyers, if they give such advice and people are harmed by said (bad) advice, they could be held liable for it (socially, legally, and more), thus they oftenly have a disclaimer of not a doctor, not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc. The conversation didn't really end up being productive and ultimately lead to a dead end, but this thread isn't going to focus on the conversation I had, but to explain why I believe there should be consequences for prolifers if the people who followed their (ill) advice ended up with more harm.

Why should prolifers face consequences if the person who was being coached or pressured into living ends up regretting their decision? Prolifers should face some consequence because once their advice has caused harm and damage to their target audience (people who don't wish to live), the people who regretted it CANNOT turn back time and sometimes, the damage is permanent. While everybody does die in at the end of time, the unnecessary and cruel imposition of continued sentience is not only additional harm (that could have been avoided had the person checked out/CTB'd sooner), but also a major gamble with many risks and consequences for the person taking said advice from the prolifer. This is about accountability and justice which are concepts that I believe most of us resonate to. If prolifers have the risk of consequences from their ill advice, perhaps they might even tone down their aggressive advocacy to continue life at (almost) all costs.

Even in some (or most) of The Right To No Longer Exist's podcasts, one of the hosts, Kevin, states that the imposition of life and forced suffering by prolifers goes unpunished and "is a crime that no one is paying for" implying that the prolifers in the majority of the world push their toxic will onto people who don't wish to live and are not facing any meaningful repercussions for imposing suffering on people (especially pro-choicers and people who wish to die). This is just an additional example that I'm not the only person who believes that pro-lifers should face some repercussion or consequence for their actions. I believe that if it is established that pro-lifers will have to pay for the cost of imposing harm onto non-consenting individuals with respect to 'life', then things will change and perhaps even the pro-lifers may not be as aggressive or pushy as they are now.

Let me know your thoughts.

 

[FuneralCry]

I agree, to me it's simply harmful not respecting someone's right to die and trying to force them to suffer against their wishes. The thing that I find horrific is when they interfere in people's suicide attempts, likely causing damage to the person who wishes to die. Life should be seen as a choice rather than something to be prolonged at all costs and I hate the fact how it's seen as being acceptable and the right thing to do, to stop a suicide attempt and do everything to 'save' people. The reality is that some people wish to not suffer anymore and there could never be anything wrong with this.

This view is just making it more difficult for others to die, they have to plan everything in complete secrecy with the risk of someone else potentially interfering always being there. It's just so wrong how we live in a world like this where suicide is so stigmatised, just because some people wish to live doesn't give them the right to force their beliefs onto others.

 

[WaveringLight]

Thing is, most people are pro-life due to suicide being stigmatized as negative or "the cowards way out", or something you should never do since there is always more to life. These beliefs are echoed throughout our society. That and death itself is scary and unknown, most people are naturally pro-life, even the ones that are suffering. I don't think that most people want you to live because they want you to suffer. Just like pro-choice people don't exactly want you to die, something misunderstood by the media. I don't believe most pro-lifers should be punished since it is not usually with bad intentions on their end. Maybe I'm being too generous, but it's ultimately a case by case basis. I simply do not see it as black and white as you put it.

That being said if someone deliberately went out of their way to make sure your alive knowing you will suffer more or wanting you to, in that instance sure I agree. Just like those people who are extremely pro-death and want to push someone vulnerable into dying. Both are wrong. One extends the suffering of someone intentionally, and one robs someone of their life if they were having conflictions about living. But these are both rare in my opinion. Most people, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-death; their intentions are not out of malice. So I would not see it fit in most cases.

 

[TAW122]

Thing is, most people are pro-life due to suicide being stigmatized as negative or "the cowards way out", or something you should never do since there is always more to life. These beliefs are echoed throughout our society. That and death itself is scary and unknown, most people are naturally pro-life, even the ones that are suffering. I don't think that most people want you to live because they want you to suffer. Just like pro-choice people don't exactly want you to die, something misunderstood by the media. I don't believe most pro-lifers should be punished since it is not usually with bad intentions on their end. Maybe I'm being too generous, but it's ultimately a case by case basis. I simply do not see it as black and white as you put it.

That being said if someone deliberately went out of their way to make sure your alive knowing you will suffer more or wanting you to, in that instance sure I agree. Just like those people who are extremely pro-death and want to push someone vulnerable into dying. Both are wrong. One extends the suffering of someone intentionally, and one robs someone of their life if they were having conflictions about living. But these are both rare in my opinion. Most people, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-death; their intentions are not out of malice. So I would not see it fit in most cases.

Interesting perspective and yes, I think most are generally 'ignorant' and for those who are willing to change their minds, that is better than the deliberate ones (pro-death or pro-life) who go out of their way as some sort of mission/crusade to ensure maximum suffering or even the deprivation of potential recovery (those who aren't fully committed to wanting to die, but in ambivalence), then absolutely.

To use some examples to get across my point, I will give two examples.

Example #1: Pro-lifer who is against CTB because he/she lived a relatively 'good' life (basic necessities met, lived comfortably, did not have much struggles, in generally good health, etc.) but does not impose their will nor try to interfere with another person's wishes, simply will not endorse CTB, but leaves the person be.

In this example, I would be ok with the pro-lifer not having to suffer a (legal) consequence as it is their prerogative to like or love (their own) life due to his/her experiences and perspective. He/she may not endorse nor approve of others' taking their own lives, but he/she is not actively or going out of their way to stop people who do (secretly) CTB.

Example #2: An aggressive pro-lifer (who is religious or just an extreme humanist) who goes out of his/her way to ensure that people live, no matter the circumstance, ignoring others' wishes. Not only does he/she forbid CTB, but actively prevents people (even the terminally or severely ill) from finding peace or dignity.

This person would not only be in violation of bodily autonomy, against a person's wishes (especially those who are terminally ill or severely ill), but also likely violates various laws (not strictly related to right to die but other common laws like harassment, stalking, and even aggravated assault (if their intervention caused significant harm). So in this example, it would be appropriate for the pro-lifer for not only face civil consequences, but also legal consequences from his/her actions.

 

[Drowned Mermaid]

Curiously, the last prolifer who talked me out of CTB was my husband, 10 years ago.

And now we're starting to account for all the damage that he has since suffered by letting broken me continue to flail away in this life, with my brokenness scraping, slicing, and mangling basically everything it touches.

I think he's still nominally pro-life with regard to me, but there does seem to be a marked diminution in fervor.

If I'd CTB'd ten years ago, he'd be in a much better place now materially and healthwise, and he knows that. The benefits he got from being with me during that decade don't make up for a fraction of what he's lost.

So there's one pro-lifer who's reaping the f out of what he sowed.

 

[TAW122]

Curiously, the last prolifer who talked me out of CTB was my husband, 10 years ago.

And now we're starting to account for all the damage that he has since suffered by letting broken me continue to flail away in this life, with my brokenness scraping, slicing, and mangling basically everything it touches.

I think he's still nominally pro-life with regard to me, but there does seem to be a marked diminution in fervor.

If I'd CTB'd ten years ago, he'd be in a much better place now materially and healthwise, and he knows that. The benefits he got from being with me during that decade don't make up for a fraction of what he's lost.

So there's one pro-lifer who's reaping the f out of what he sowed.

I suppose if he does change his mind to become a pro-choicer or something that would be one of the few things he could do to contribute to reducing suffering overall. I think the more voices and supporters we have for our movement and rights is helpful towards our end goal; which is to have voluntary euthanasia and the right to die be accessible, legal to everyone (with safeguards of course).

 

[Drowned Mermaid]

If I'd CTB'd ten years ago, he'd be in a much better place now materially and healthwise, and he knows that. The benefits he got from being with me during that decade don't make up for a fraction of what he's lost.

So there's one pro-lifer who's reaping the f out of what he sowed.

Aaaand the worm has now turned. We are on a divorce footing now, instead of a "ooze-along-just-making-each-other-ever-more-miserable" footing.

Fucker could have had +400g in life insurance, which would have gotten him absolutely everything he wanted and then some.

Now he's going to have approximately -400g after the property settlement.

And yeah, I'm going to actually take care of myself in this, because I'm freaking sick of living as little more than an Act of Contrition made of meat.

I am going to be fair to him, and I am going to try to honor previous commitments to him, but am not going to be like some heraldic pelican, beaking rations of blood out of her chest to feed her offspring.

Being married to his ass the last few years has been a Whole Job, and a bitch WILL receive fair compensation as described by our state legislature.

So yeah, that pro-lifer WILL be regretting his stance for a long, long, long time.

 

[Un-]

I don't understand.. It's not... Realistic? How would this play out at all? If someone's going to take their lives, does this mean it's illegal (or, because they could face punishment, not advisable) to call firefighters or police or something? I mean people would just not stop them then.. So all those thousands of attempts a year would be actual suicides.

And many of those are teenagers.

Psychiatrists and psychologists - the good ones - that admit their patients will now get into trouble? My sister used to be suicidal.. She's doing fine now. But if there wasn't intervention, she'd had died when she really didn't want to.

I don't know. I think you guys are taking the concept of suffering way too far. Life is suffering, yes. But if someone genuinely helps you, and it doesn't work, it's immoral and just plain.. I don't know.. Awful to try hurt that person in some fashion.

Plenty of people on this forum have helped me to continue living. I don't want to but I'm giving it a shot. And if it doesn't work, the last thing I'm gonna do is try punish them. I.. If you don't see the problem.. I don't know.

 

[SamTam33]

I saw a video of a woman sitting on a bridge, presumably preparing to jump. Some jackass reaches over the railing, grabs the hood of her coat and drags her back over to the street side. The caption says he SAT ON HER until authorities arrived.

I'd definitely be in favor of consequences for people like that.

If she was quietly sitting anywhere else and he did that, would it not be assault?

He doesn't even know what he was "saving" her from. Maybe she was diagnosed with a terminal illness. Maybe her kid just died and she was leaving to be with them.

Yes, there should be consequences. But this society can't properly convict straight up criminals. No way they'd figure out how to administer justice in these situations.