Venting Yet another thread highlighting pro-lifer hypocrisy when it comes to RTD and choice

[TAW122]

There is another thread on Reddit that an author wrote a while back that is questioning why the right to die isn't treated the same (thread linked here) as the debate on abortion rights and such. The thread itself opened up a discussion with parallels between abortion rights, bodily autonomy, and the right to die (on one's own terms). As I read through the thread itself, there has been (to no surprise to us) that pro-lifers respond in bad faith, either deliberately misunderstanding the stance and argument, or even twisting the argument to fit their lens. None of that is anything new of course.

However, one of the contentions over a semantic on the point about "being locked up against one's will" and just juggling between terminology and such. Between the OP of that thread, u/Next_Personality_191 and u/kasiagabrielle, there was some back and forth between the two about whether one was arrested or not, but the whole point still stands (terminology aside) is that CTB is not considered a free act; one is NOT free to do so without repercussions! Whether it be legal, civil, or social consequence (including being detained or committed against one's will, not free to do so without consequence) as a result of the action and being caught while doing so. That would be akin to saying that citizens in (insert country or society where government controls the day to day citizen's lives and dictate what they can/cannot do) and then arguing that they are not being controlled or dictated (implying that they are 'free' that they simply just don't get caught) while ignoring the facts. Of course, such an argument would be disingenuous and would be in bad faith; anyone with common sense would know that in (insert country or society where one isn't 'free' to just do whatever) is nonsensical! (While I personally would not engage in bickering over semantics and terminology, I would state the most important parts and not get bogged down over some minute point and still make my argument. Of course, failing that, I would just disengage and wouldn't entertain the argument anymore if the opposition devolves into arguing semantics (which is how arguments end up getting derailed or ending up nowhere), but I digress.. Now back to the thread.)

So how does this show hypocrisy with pro-lifers when it comes to right to die (or even the act of 'CTB') and their claim of "Nobody is stopping you (proverbial) from CTBing!"? It is an argument in bad faith and also hypocritical because it ignores ALL the negative outcomes that arise from those who attempt it (and are unsuccessful) along with all the hoops and challenges that one has to traverse before they could even do the deed! Then they (the pro-lifers) simply ignore the real statistics when it comes to those who have failed versus those who have succeeded (a lot of those who succeeded did so via risky and brutal methods – even leaving collateral damage whether willingly or unwillingly due to society and the State's heavy handed paternalistic grip on the act itself). Pro-lifers wouldn't use the same logic for others' in countries or societies that have paternalistic and draconian governmental control over it's citizens, yet they would deliberately ignore all the details and facts when it comes to CTB. In addition to this, when it comes to abortion rights, they would never use the same logic such as "but they could just do so without being caught", or "nobody is stopping them from (secretly and in some places, illegally) getting contraceptives" all the while ignoring the government/State/jurisdictions that heavily restrict certain contraceptives, drugs, or means for an abortion. They know it's disingenuous to argue that, yet they either deliberately do so in bad faith when it comes to arguments about bodily autonomy with relation to CTB, or just fail to make the connection!

One other example of such hypocrisy at play is how they support bodily autonomy, but then they flip around (after admitting that actively impeding one from CTB'ing is indeed an violation of another's bodily autonomy) to create some 'exception' for violating bodily autonomy, especially when it comes to CTB'ing. This is shown in the conversation between u/Aeon21 and the OP u/Next_Personality_191 further down in the thread. It was about involuntary hospitalization and such. Of course, it is also not a surprise that Aeon21 would resort to the classic platitudinal arguments of how those who wish to CTB don't really want to CTB. (I'm willing to bet money that Aeon21 wouldn't use the argument that "women don't really want an abortion, they would change their mind" (or insert any other facetiously ridiculous argument against abortion) as Aeon21 knows it would be disingenuous to hold such positions, thus again, making them hypocritical and dishonest!)

Either way, I wrote this thread to point out yet another example of pro-lifers' hypocrisy, as clear as day, that they argue in bad faith or even fail to apply their own consistent standards when it comes to the right to die. Yet, when it comes to other important societal issues such as abortion, womens' rights, citizens' rights, (insert other rights), they wouldn't commit the same fallacy, thus proving that they are hypocritical. Until there is a world (which may never come in our lifetimes perhaps) where one is ACTUALLY able to CTB without undue burden, unwanted interference (be it from the State, family, friends, or any other third party), the act of CTB is never really 'free'.

 

[waqs]

pro-lifers dont care about the life after its been born. people just want to control others with arguments that make you seem like a bad person (aka guilt tripping). its best not even to entertain them at all, most pro-lifers dont want to argue to see others viewpoints; they do it so that they can reinforce the idea to themselves (and others in that mindset) that their way of controlling is morally right.

 

[itsgone2]

When we talk about pro life vs pro choice it's 99.9% of the time about abortion obviously.
That debate will never end.
In our case it's far more straightforward. Literally our bodies. So I definitely agree it should be up to us. I should have full authority over what I do to my body.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I support the right for both- abortion and right to die. But then- they really aren't the same. The baby is still usually young enough to be a foetus or, a collection of cells. It hasn't made any impact on this world- except the connection to the mother- who presumably wants rid of it and maybe the father who either does or doesn't want to continue his gene line.

But- there aren't the same attachments formed. I imagine it's still difficult for some to kill their foetus but, I imagine the grief is less complex than a mother, father, family and friends losing a 15 or 20 year old say. They have all those memories. I imagine that impact to be far greater.

That's not to say it should prevent a person from exercising their autonomy but- they are surely very different things in terms of the impact they make.

Abortion is presumably carried out because it's assumed the child will suffer to be born. Maybe the parents can't support it. The woman was raped. Understandable she doesn't want to bear that guy's child! The developing child is showing signs of a serious medical condition in the womb. I just think overall- there's (sometimes) more understanding with abortion- because the motives can seem clearer.

Weirdly though, once we're born- no matter if it is with debilitating problems, there does seem to be a higher consensus that we just need to get on with it then. I think also because there's this naive assumption that society will look after people with born deficits.

It's not something I understand. It ought to be obvious to everyone I think that in many ways- it's still the survival of the fittest in this human world. Just the same as the animal one. In terms of leading a comfortable, happy life anyway. Maybe we'll survive but, we may not necessarily have a good quality of life. I would think it obvious some people suffer enormously.

It's kind of crazy too. People are allowed to kill a developing baby because they assume its life will be awful. While those born who are actually screaming their life is awful are ignored! I suppose abortion is kind of like euthanizing pets. Considered the kinder thing to do- because we IMAGINE they are experiencing or will suffer. Murder though- effectively. Weird we tolerate murder but not assisted suicide.