TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,355
Note: I will not use the term prolifers or prochoicers when describing either party as I want to avoid jargon clash with abortion related terminology. I will instead use prohibitionist or preventionist and pro voluntary euthanasia and pro right to die instead for distinction. Also, as an antinatalist myself, I am against bringing in new life so this is further evidence of my support towards being pro-choice for women and abortion rights.
Disclaimer: I am pro-choice just for anyone who is curious where I stand with respect to abortion rights, even though this thread is not solely about the topic of abortion, but rather using the abortion example as a way to show how prohibitionists/preventionists are hypocritical and contradict themselves when it comes to being pro-choice (for abortion) but anti-choice when it comes to the right to die.
With that said, I will explain how pro-lifers contradict themselves when it comes to being pro-choice when it comes to abortion rights and believe that women should have the right to decide what she does with her body. They would oftenly use a phrase called "my body, my choice," to get their point across. These people are generally anti-choice when it comes to the right to die despite not being religious themselves. They may even be secular humanists and/or operate under the 'life is good' axiom. So they are essentially okay with a woman exercising her free will and bodily autonomy when it comes to deciding whether to bring another non-sentient being into sentience or preventing it from coming into this world (existing). Some would argue that it isn't "killing" or pro-death, but if one were to use another view that aborting another non-human (who has yet to come into existence is still murder against that fetus), then yes, in such a niche situation, preventionists/prohibitionists end up contradicting themselves when it comes to wanting to give the freedom of choice, bodily autonomy to women when it comes to deciding whether to give life or prevent life (or even remove life - late term abortions).
So in other words, preventionists and prohibitions are pro-choice when it comes to abortion, aka giving women the right to choose over another (would be) sentient but not yet sentient being, yet refusing to grant the same right towards people who wish exercise their right to die (peacefully and with dignity) and/or voluntary (with their consent) euthanasia.
To piggyback on the concept of 'consent' though, a non-sentient being (prior to being sentient) has no capacity nor ability to consent, yet the decision is made by the woman to be a mother, which preventionists/prohibitionists are ok with, yet when a sentient, rational human being who has the ability to consent and voice his/her wishes, is denied the right to die and/or voluntary euthanasia. This is the irony here, especially when it comes consent because for those who cannot consent, their decision is made for them, yet for those who can consent, they are denied the option (This is similar to the animals suffering argument topic that I wrote a while back.)
Disclaimer: I am pro-choice just for anyone who is curious where I stand with respect to abortion rights, even though this thread is not solely about the topic of abortion, but rather using the abortion example as a way to show how prohibitionists/preventionists are hypocritical and contradict themselves when it comes to being pro-choice (for abortion) but anti-choice when it comes to the right to die.
With that said, I will explain how pro-lifers contradict themselves when it comes to being pro-choice when it comes to abortion rights and believe that women should have the right to decide what she does with her body. They would oftenly use a phrase called "my body, my choice," to get their point across. These people are generally anti-choice when it comes to the right to die despite not being religious themselves. They may even be secular humanists and/or operate under the 'life is good' axiom. So they are essentially okay with a woman exercising her free will and bodily autonomy when it comes to deciding whether to bring another non-sentient being into sentience or preventing it from coming into this world (existing). Some would argue that it isn't "killing" or pro-death, but if one were to use another view that aborting another non-human (who has yet to come into existence is still murder against that fetus), then yes, in such a niche situation, preventionists/prohibitionists end up contradicting themselves when it comes to wanting to give the freedom of choice, bodily autonomy to women when it comes to deciding whether to give life or prevent life (or even remove life - late term abortions).
So in other words, preventionists and prohibitions are pro-choice when it comes to abortion, aka giving women the right to choose over another (would be) sentient but not yet sentient being, yet refusing to grant the same right towards people who wish exercise their right to die (peacefully and with dignity) and/or voluntary (with their consent) euthanasia.
To piggyback on the concept of 'consent' though, a non-sentient being (prior to being sentient) has no capacity nor ability to consent, yet the decision is made by the woman to be a mother, which preventionists/prohibitionists are ok with, yet when a sentient, rational human being who has the ability to consent and voice his/her wishes, is denied the right to die and/or voluntary euthanasia. This is the irony here, especially when it comes consent because for those who cannot consent, their decision is made for them, yet for those who can consent, they are denied the option (This is similar to the animals suffering argument topic that I wrote a while back.)
