Discussion WWH if there was a waiver or contract that held pro-lifers accountable?

[TAW122]

There was a thread that I wrote a while back about "Why should there be consequences for those (pro-lifers) who get it wrong?". It was originally a question that someone asked me when I was debating them a few years ago not solely about the right to die or similar topics related to it, but rather about hobbies, activities, and where to draw the line.

With that said, this brings up an interesting idea, and the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is "What Would Happen if there was a waiver or contract that (pro-lifers are made to agree to, sign before they agree to something and) held pro-lifers accountable if they violate it?" In other words, a system or procedure in place where if a pro-lifer demands/requires someone to stay alive for hopes that it may get better and should that not be the case, the pro-lifer would end up paying a legal penalty for it (be it imprisonment, fines, settlement, civil suits, etc.). Of course, the pro-choicer (or anyone) can initiate it and it should be voluntary, meaning that a pro-choicer can choose to not exercise the right to a "continued sentience" contract (aka waive their own right to it), but if they do make a contract (within their rights) it will be legally enforceable for both parties. Also, this is presuming that there is no legal loop hole and that all foreseeable loop holes are closed as reasonably as possible.

For example, here is a hypothetical scenario:
Suppose there is a person A, and we will consider person A to be a pro-lifer, and person B, who is a pro-choicer. B exercises' their right to choose how long B wishes to remain alive, sentient in this world and while A (a pro-lifer) does not respect B's right, A and B enter a contract in which A asserts that life gets better and assures B will come to enjoy life. While B disagrees, both of them are willing to make a compromise, with finite time frames, periods, milestones. If past a certain time frame, things did not change or go well according to what they both agreed to, then B will be guaranteed to exercise their own right (which is the right to die).

For simplicity purposes, I will suppose that B has entered the contract with A that after 2 years (going through treatments, trying different things, or whatever they both agreed upon in the contract), if B still isn't satisfied with the results or things get worse, then B is guaranteed the sweet release of death to free B from indefinite suffering. 2 years has passed and B is at best, in the same situation as before while at worst, things deteriorated. A refuses to let B pass and basically outright ignores the original contract. B is then legally entitled to litigate against A and seek damages from sentience, be it to pay for the investment B put into "attempted" recovery, such as time, treatment costs, and other damages that B has incurred during the process (as well as legal fees).

I suppose one area where abuse of process or manipulators may use the threat of CTB to coerce, pressure, or otherwise influence others' decision to act a certain way, but then there would be measures as well as policies and laws in place that would deter or punish people who maliciously use the threat of CTB as a way to threaten, harass, or otherwise try to influence others' behaviors unduly.

Of course, I know this is just a hypothetical and sadly, this would (probably) never happen nor be a reality, but I thought I'd raise this idea just to see what others think. What do you all think will happen if such a system was ever in reality? Do you think that it may perhaps shut down those platitude pushers, discourage more people from making (false, uncertain) promises, and maybe even change the attitudes of most pro-lifers?

 

[Scythe]

I feel that most people would just refuse the contract and try again to die, unless they are willing to wait and improve their life with the money from the lawsuit. I think most people probably don't want to wait for however long the contract would be

 

[Forever Sleep]

I wonder just how much people care about one another's quality of life. I don't know- I suppose you do sometimes hear the argument that 'Life is beautiful. Life has so much potential' etc. Still- I think there are equally as many people who are ALSO struggling to some level but still don't see suicide as an option for themselves- or- anyone else. More of a: 'Life's hard for everyone- just pull yourself together and get on with it.' I doubt they'd be interested in pandering to someone's needs in order that they don't CTB. For them- and many- I don't think it is a: 'What can we do to support you to make your life better?' It's a: 'Why are you so different/special? You need to take responsibility for your own life.' I think many people just feel an obligation to keep living and trying and expect the same of others.

I suppose to some degree- I understand this. Why SHOULD it be up to them ultimately whether another person gets better? Ok- they don't WANT them to CTB- but that's kind of predictable. HOW are they actually stopping them though? It's not like any individual is stashing away a supply of N but refusing to give it to their struggling loved one.

I suppose- as a society, the concept interests me. One of my major reasons for wanting to CTB is because I don't want to go back into another wage slave job. My creative job really isn't very sustaining though. Plus- jobs in my industry are much thinner on the ground now. Despite all that though- I paid in. I paid shit loads of money to study two degrees to learn all this stuff.

So- perhaps an unreasonable part of me wants to say to the government- I want to CTB. Either let me- and ideally provide me the peaceful means to do it. OR- provide enough jobs in areas people like me (paid to) study. OR- pay me benefits to keep me living against my will.

OF COURSE- I realise this is unreasonable. There are SOME jobs out there- I'm just not good enough for them- or- I don't want to make the sacrifices to do them. Ultimately- that's on me. So is life I suppose. Yes- we didn't ask for it but i suppose no one did. Most people do struggle somewhat in life. Why should it be someone's legal responsibility that another person enjoys their life? Just because they don't want them to CTB?

Ok- maybe it IS selfish for the pro-lifer to expect them to keep living. Is it partly though because they don't know the full story as to why that person wants to CTB? Because the whole subject is so taboo? I suppose I've never actually had conversations with pro-lifers about my situation- so- I haven't really come up against all that opposition in person. I wonder how many people would be more open to it if these discussions were more permissible.

I don't know. To some extent- I think some of us here are hell bent on being miserable. (I include myself in that bracket.) It doesn't seem worth me seeking out therapy/treatment because in my heart- I don't particularly want to recover. So- in my case at least- it would utterly piss me off if I then had some do-gooder checking in on me to see whether I was making steps towards 'recovery'. It wouldn't be fair on them either because my intention to 'get better' simply isn't there. It's a bit like marrying someone for their money with the intention of divorcing them in a few years!

 

[unnormal9]

Waiver is not giving a fuck about them.

 

[TAW122]

I feel that most people would just refuse the contract and try again to die, unless they are willing to wait and improve their life with the money from the lawsuit. I think most people probably don't want to wait for however long the contract would be

This is true too, but in such a situation, a person attempting to die (diy CTB) has the risk of failing, interference, and assumes a lot of unnecessary barriers and challenges doing so. I'm probably going to speak for myself but if it was me and such a system exists in the world, I would take because that presumes 1) I am 100% guaranteed (no exceptions no moving goalposts, etc.) to exercise my right after the time period, and 2) If contract is broken such that the other party goes against my wishes or alter the contract in such a way that perverts the purpose and intention (kind of like professionals who don't honor one's living will/advance directives), then the offending party would incur legal consequences. As for the money, well I could then use it to help pro-choice movements, personal enjoyment, or whatever I can during my time, and perhaps (in this hypothetical scenario) enter into another, albeit shorter contract as I have already served my waiting period (but shorter wait period to ensure consistency). This is speaking for me (as well as some others) and not for everyone else.
Again, as mentioned in my original post, this is a hypothetical scenario and sadly, it isn't the reality nor is it likely to become true.

I wonder just how much people care about one another's quality of life. I don't know- I suppose you do sometimes hear the argument that 'Life is beautiful. Life has so much potential' etc. Still- I think there are equally as many people who are ALSO struggling to some level but still don't see suicide as an option for themselves- or- anyone else. More of a: 'Life's hard for everyone- just pull yourself together and get on with it.' I doubt they'd be interested in pandering to someone's needs in order that they don't CTB. For them- and many- I don't think it is a: 'What can we do to support you to make your life better?' It's a: 'Why are you so different/special? You need to take responsibility for your own life.' I think many people just feel an obligation to keep living and trying and expect the same of others.

I suppose to some degree- I understand this. Why SHOULD it be up to them ultimately whether another person gets better? Ok- they don't WANT them to CTB- but that's kind of predictable. HOW are they actually stopping them though? It's not like any individual is stashing away a supply of N but refusing to give it to their struggling loved one.

I suppose- as a society, the concept interests me. One of my major reasons for wanting to CTB is because I don't want to go back into another wage slave job. My creative job really isn't very sustaining though. Plus- jobs in my industry are much thinner on the ground now. Despite all that though- I paid in. I paid shit loads of money to study two degrees to learn all this stuff.

So- perhaps an unreasonable part of me wants to say to the government- I want to CTB. Either let me- and ideally provide me the peaceful means to do it. OR- provide enough jobs in areas people like me (paid to) study. OR- pay me benefits to keep me living against my will.

OF COURSE- I realise this is unreasonable. There are SOME jobs out there- I'm just not good enough for them- or- I don't want to make the sacrifices to do them. Ultimately- that's on me. So is life I suppose. Yes- we didn't ask for it but i suppose no one did. Most people do struggle somewhat in life. Why should it be someone's legal responsibility that another person enjoys their life? Just because they don't want them to CTB?

Ok- maybe it IS selfish for the pro-lifer to expect them to keep living. Is it partly though because they don't know the full story as to why that person wants to CTB? Because the whole subject is so taboo? I suppose I've never actually had conversations with pro-lifers about my situation- so- I haven't really come up against all that opposition in person. I wonder how many people would be more open to it if these discussions were more permissible.

I don't know. To some extent- I think some of us here are hell bent on being miserable. (I include myself in that bracket.) It doesn't seem worth me seeking out therapy/treatment because in my heart- I don't particularly want to recover. So- in my case at least- it would utterly piss me off if I then had some do-gooder checking in on me to see whether I was making steps towards 'recovery'. It wouldn't be fair on them either because my intention to 'get better' simply isn't there. It's a bit like marrying someone for their money with the intention of divorcing them in a few years!

Very interesting points that you brought up. As far as telling my story or talking about CTB and death itself, yes (sadly) it is still taboo, hence I don't get the chance to have an open, honest discussion with the greater majority of the populace. I do agree and believe that if there are many more people who would be able to have a normal conversation, dialogue, and much more open, honest with discussion if they were able to do so without the taboo, the stigma, and most importantly, without risk towards their freedom and civil liberties. So until laws change and the social norms change to fit such criteria, many pro-lifers and the majority will never truly know as there would be no benefit and a lot of risk for people to be "honest" about their feelings regarding such topics.

On the last paragraph, I think I differ a bit in the event that if (again, hypothetically) there was such a system in place that guarantees my rights, with the backing of the legal system and/or other institutions, then I would make a genuine effort to try to 'recover', but until then, I will sadly (in this current reality) hide my true intentions, operate quietly, and of course, secretly CTB in which my death will be a 'surprise'. It's not that I want to do it in such a manner, but rather the natural consequence of prohibition. Just like @FuneralCry said in various other threads, it is not the fault of the person wanting out, but rather pro-lifers and prohibitionist society itself.