TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,871
When it comes to other social issues, topics, and rights not pertaining to the right to die, many pro-lifers recognize and even fight for justice and freedom on them. These include, but are not limited to: womens' rights, LGBTQ rights, minorities' rights, workers' rights, and many more. One of the common lines they like to use to bolster their arguments when supporting and advocating for these rights for said groups is:
"How would you (the audience/person addressed) feel if (insert maltreatment)?"
Which basically means how would someone who is not a part of said marginalized group feel if that someone was put into that same predicament or treatment? Quite frankly, most people (except for the close-minded and most militant, ignorant ones) "get it" and are capable of comprehending that mistreatment and the poor treatment of these people in the 'marginalized' groups is unacceptable. Therefore, with that in mind, I have found yet another rebuttal to use against pro-lifers when it comes to the right to die.
The rebuttal against pro-lifers: "How would you (pro-lifer) feel if you were (insert injustice situation)?"
So this rebuttal stems from what pro-lifers use to advocate for change and justice for marginalized groups and here in this thread, I'm using it against pro-lifers to expose their maltreatment, support of paternalistic, draconian, dictatorial, authoritarian, tyrannical, and oppressive policies against suicidal people. Essentially treating suicidal people like criminals and similar to infant-like or child-like status.
Given the kind of treatment by the State (along with the masses supporting such a despicable and heinous act of coercion) towards said individual(s), including but not limited to: forced medication, forced therapy, forced detainment, violation of civil rights and freedoms, financial ruin (only applies to countries that sent a hospital bill to said patient), and more, if the same treatment and prejudices were directed towards pro-lifers, they would not feel very good. Thus, this means that their paternalistic, authoritarian ways of treating supposed suicidal people is wrong as they would not have accepted the kind of treatment they mete out 'suicidal people' if it were done to they (the pro-lifers).
I suppose this is kind of a mild way of sticking to pro-lifers by giving them a (light) taste of their medicine (no pun intended). Of course (no surprise!) the pro-lifers wouldn't accept it, they wouldn't like their rights to be infringed in such a manner, let alone a violent manner (much to the chagrin of suicidal people and how they treat them). It is ironic and hypocritical that pro-lifers' have no qualms about reducing supposed suicidal people to that of an infant/child/kid, and thus involuntarily relinquishing the pro-choicers' decision and means to CTB.
"How would you (the audience/person addressed) feel if (insert maltreatment)?"
Which basically means how would someone who is not a part of said marginalized group feel if that someone was put into that same predicament or treatment? Quite frankly, most people (except for the close-minded and most militant, ignorant ones) "get it" and are capable of comprehending that mistreatment and the poor treatment of these people in the 'marginalized' groups is unacceptable. Therefore, with that in mind, I have found yet another rebuttal to use against pro-lifers when it comes to the right to die.
The rebuttal against pro-lifers: "How would you (pro-lifer) feel if you were (insert injustice situation)?"
So this rebuttal stems from what pro-lifers use to advocate for change and justice for marginalized groups and here in this thread, I'm using it against pro-lifers to expose their maltreatment, support of paternalistic, draconian, dictatorial, authoritarian, tyrannical, and oppressive policies against suicidal people. Essentially treating suicidal people like criminals and similar to infant-like or child-like status.
Given the kind of treatment by the State (along with the masses supporting such a despicable and heinous act of coercion) towards said individual(s), including but not limited to: forced medication, forced therapy, forced detainment, violation of civil rights and freedoms, financial ruin (only applies to countries that sent a hospital bill to said patient), and more, if the same treatment and prejudices were directed towards pro-lifers, they would not feel very good. Thus, this means that their paternalistic, authoritarian ways of treating supposed suicidal people is wrong as they would not have accepted the kind of treatment they mete out 'suicidal people' if it were done to they (the pro-lifers).
I suppose this is kind of a mild way of sticking to pro-lifers by giving them a (light) taste of their medicine (no pun intended). Of course (no surprise!) the pro-lifers wouldn't accept it, they wouldn't like their rights to be infringed in such a manner, let alone a violent manner (much to the chagrin of suicidal people and how they treat them). It is ironic and hypocritical that pro-lifers' have no qualms about reducing supposed suicidal people to that of an infant/child/kid, and thus involuntarily relinquishing the pro-choicers' decision and means to CTB.
