TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,680
Disclaimer: Of course, in our current world, yes, there are people who have successfully CTB'd, but more oftenly than not, they have to jump through numerous hoops, take (calculated and sometimes unnecessary and haphazard) risks, and many more. All of this would not be necessary nor would be a thing if only we had either a codified legal right to die, or at the minimum, free from State (or any third party) intervention upon our negative liberty rights. I'm writing this article since I thought it would be an interesting idea and discussion on what could be done if we cannot even have concessions.
In other words, if we are denied our rights and not have our wishes or demands satisfied, the least we can do is to NOT allow the pro-lifers and anti-choicers "keep our plights (our struggles for wanting to CTB or whatever we are facing) out of their minds". Anyways, the inspiration for writing this thread sprung from one of existentialgoof's comment (which has been stated before, but simply just restated and reworded, though the meaning is more/less the same) about how pro-lifers and anti-choicers refuse to honor our rights and keep us in suffering, and ultimately keeping our plights out of their minds.
Here is a quote from existentialgoof that supports my thread:
Building off of EG's comment, this means that they the anti-choicers and pro-lifers would be required to either give us what we wished for (or at least some reasonable concession) or be forced to have our plights on their minds.
Also keep in mind I don't condone nor endorse any illegal acts or actions that would result in more (or worse) consequences for us, but just as part of the argument and strategy such that if we aren't getting what we want, at least we aren't letting our oppressors and opponents (the pro-lifers and anti-choicers) get away scot free either.
So what do I mean by this? What I mean is that if we are de facto 'forced to live against our will' (not withstanding attempting to DIY, taking unnecessary risks with great possibility of failure and complications), then the difference between our current world and the hypothetical scenario would be "the anti-choicers will not get away scot free. They will have to either A) Forced to confront the ugly truth as long as we keep our plights in their minds, B) Not have to confront it by solving it or at least not actively impinging on our rights."
In conclusion, it means that our current reality (the reality that we live in, not hypothetical scenario) is that we currently do NOT have an exclusive, sanctioned right to die (Note: This is not the same thing as having to DIY or sneak around existing policies and run unnecessary risks), and also we don't have our plights acknowledged and solved. We live in a world in which neither the guaranteed positive liberty right to die doesn't exist as well as our plights not being resolved nor addressed. So therefore, this thread's suggestion was to merely keep our plights in the minds of our oppressors, namely the anti-choicers and pro-lifers. Therefore, they would be forced to either put up with our inconveniences as a consequence of the lack of a positive liberty right (the right to die) as well as the lack of freedom from impingement on our negative liberty rights (the right to not be intervened, interfered, obstructed with our civil liberty when we choose to die our own own), or having to come up with some solution whether big or small, and then having to address our suffering.
In other words, if we are denied our rights and not have our wishes or demands satisfied, the least we can do is to NOT allow the pro-lifers and anti-choicers "keep our plights (our struggles for wanting to CTB or whatever we are facing) out of their minds". Anyways, the inspiration for writing this thread sprung from one of existentialgoof's comment (which has been stated before, but simply just restated and reworded, though the meaning is more/less the same) about how pro-lifers and anti-choicers refuse to honor our rights and keep us in suffering, and ultimately keeping our plights out of their minds.
Here is a quote from existentialgoof that supports my thread:
How is it worse to deny them that option without addressing the causes of wanting to die, than at least giving them a choice? Because it will make YOU feel bad if they choose to die, whereas if they're just struggling in poverty but forced to live, you can keep their plight out of your mind? |
Building off of EG's comment, this means that they the anti-choicers and pro-lifers would be required to either give us what we wished for (or at least some reasonable concession) or be forced to have our plights on their minds.
Also keep in mind I don't condone nor endorse any illegal acts or actions that would result in more (or worse) consequences for us, but just as part of the argument and strategy such that if we aren't getting what we want, at least we aren't letting our oppressors and opponents (the pro-lifers and anti-choicers) get away scot free either.
So what do I mean by this? What I mean is that if we are de facto 'forced to live against our will' (not withstanding attempting to DIY, taking unnecessary risks with great possibility of failure and complications), then the difference between our current world and the hypothetical scenario would be "the anti-choicers will not get away scot free. They will have to either A) Forced to confront the ugly truth as long as we keep our plights in their minds, B) Not have to confront it by solving it or at least not actively impinging on our rights."
In conclusion, it means that our current reality (the reality that we live in, not hypothetical scenario) is that we currently do NOT have an exclusive, sanctioned right to die (Note: This is not the same thing as having to DIY or sneak around existing policies and run unnecessary risks), and also we don't have our plights acknowledged and solved. We live in a world in which neither the guaranteed positive liberty right to die doesn't exist as well as our plights not being resolved nor addressed. So therefore, this thread's suggestion was to merely keep our plights in the minds of our oppressors, namely the anti-choicers and pro-lifers. Therefore, they would be forced to either put up with our inconveniences as a consequence of the lack of a positive liberty right (the right to die) as well as the lack of freedom from impingement on our negative liberty rights (the right to not be intervened, interfered, obstructed with our civil liberty when we choose to die our own own), or having to come up with some solution whether big or small, and then having to address our suffering.