TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,706
Nothing really satisfies their urge for life! Sure, in this instance, it is not about hypocrisy, but their deranged, unreasonable expectations and demand to live no matter what! By this, I am referring to how the staunch prolifers refuse to accept CTB at any circumstance. I've made many threads with examples showing and exposing how hypocritical they are, but this time, I'm focusing more on how 'insufferable' they are. They are never satisfied with whatever predicament a person is in, and they ALWAYS impose life regardless of the situation!
Example A: A person is severely ill, but lacks the ability to CTB and quality of life is very poor. A prolifer would still refuse to either citing they cannot do so because it violates their beliefs, takes glee in the fact that despite how much suffering (and some of them even secretly, subconsciously feel 'superior' to said person) that said person couldn't free themselves from the shackles of suffering (e.g. ALS, MS, quadriplegia, SCI, etc.) and is still around so they (the prolifer) would not have to feel sad about a loss of life. They (at least some of them, whether religious or secular humanists) also preach about how it is a blessing to be alive and experience 'life' despite having a poor quality of life. More often than not, they cherry pick examples of those with poor qualities of life who continue to live and use those as examples while ignoring the examples (those that we oftenly never hear about) that did not continue living and chose to die instead (Christina Symanski, Tim Bowers, Daniel James, Federico Carboni to name a few).
Example B: A person who is otherwise physically healthy, but in terrible anguish, doesn't lack the ability to CTB. This is where the majority of cases are, and pro-lifers (classically) would not hesitate to downplay, diminish, and belittle such people as well as guilt trip said person into life. They would claim that the person can still live a good life and thus have no reason to CTB, even if it was to prevent inevitable decline (aging, health problems into senior age, and more). This is illogical because the entire point of having the ability and choice to CTB on one's own terms (like this person) is to avoid an inevitable decline and (potential) future suffering. Nobody can predict how life is going to be and every day alive is a gamble in whether an unfortunate (life changing) event happens to said person or not. However, going out on one's own terms while it may result in future (pleasant, but fleeting) experiences, it will guarantee there are no (future, potentially catastrophic) events that befall the individual.
Example C: Similarly to A and B, but the person has already attempted to CTB (impulsively) but failed due to intervention and then later they still want to CTB. However, the subsequent time(s) when they made a non-impulsive attempt to CTB, they are then also intervened against, and then gaslit, shamed, and invalidated that their reasoning or predicament isn't sufficient to CTB. This happens indefinitely with moving goalposts, false promises, and deception, all with no consequence to said person (the prolifer). In other words, simply put, CTB is never an option according to the pro-lifer's viewpoint. Just like this person, Dan Crews, who was denied a dignified exit despite his wishes to die with dignity. While he did ultimately pass (due to natural causes), he suffered many unnecessary years of sentience that could all have been avoided had his wishes been honored and respected by the medical professionals who were tasked with his care. Furthermore, even his obituary was tainted by pro-life sentiments (written by pro-lifers no surprise) which is something that quite a few of us don't wish to happen even after we are gone (but that's for another thread altogether).
All in all, in conclusion, this thread is exposing the 'insufferable' attitudes of prolifers that no matter the circumstance, they refuse to allow someone the dignity of checking out on one's own terms. This would only mean that said person has to either do so in secrecy with many risks and consequences of failure as well as deal with their own challenges such as overcoming their own SI (survival instinct), research their method and ensuring they make it work (some of which are violent, brutal, and can lead to permanent damage if failed, plus they only have one chance to get it right). Additionally, by forcing people who wish to go to do so covertly, it would often come as a shock towards the people around them or sometimes even result in collateral damage depending on the method said person uses. This is not only unnecessary (causing people to jump through many hoops, risking their own lives and possibly others' lives depending on method and circumstance), but also cruel, immoral, unethical, and inhumane. Their (prolifers') fetish for life knows no bounds and sometimes I wished that they run into a situation where they will change their view even if it caused them to have to incur a loss (suffering themselves, finding themselves in such a horrible predicament, or an overhaul of the system on a large scale, etc.). While that would suck for said prolifers, in the long term, if it leads to more tolerance in acceptance and respecting others (pro-choicers) individual autonomy and right to die, then it may be a price worth paying for (the means to an end).
Example A: A person is severely ill, but lacks the ability to CTB and quality of life is very poor. A prolifer would still refuse to either citing they cannot do so because it violates their beliefs, takes glee in the fact that despite how much suffering (and some of them even secretly, subconsciously feel 'superior' to said person) that said person couldn't free themselves from the shackles of suffering (e.g. ALS, MS, quadriplegia, SCI, etc.) and is still around so they (the prolifer) would not have to feel sad about a loss of life. They (at least some of them, whether religious or secular humanists) also preach about how it is a blessing to be alive and experience 'life' despite having a poor quality of life. More often than not, they cherry pick examples of those with poor qualities of life who continue to live and use those as examples while ignoring the examples (those that we oftenly never hear about) that did not continue living and chose to die instead (Christina Symanski, Tim Bowers, Daniel James, Federico Carboni to name a few).
Example B: A person who is otherwise physically healthy, but in terrible anguish, doesn't lack the ability to CTB. This is where the majority of cases are, and pro-lifers (classically) would not hesitate to downplay, diminish, and belittle such people as well as guilt trip said person into life. They would claim that the person can still live a good life and thus have no reason to CTB, even if it was to prevent inevitable decline (aging, health problems into senior age, and more). This is illogical because the entire point of having the ability and choice to CTB on one's own terms (like this person) is to avoid an inevitable decline and (potential) future suffering. Nobody can predict how life is going to be and every day alive is a gamble in whether an unfortunate (life changing) event happens to said person or not. However, going out on one's own terms while it may result in future (pleasant, but fleeting) experiences, it will guarantee there are no (future, potentially catastrophic) events that befall the individual.
Example C: Similarly to A and B, but the person has already attempted to CTB (impulsively) but failed due to intervention and then later they still want to CTB. However, the subsequent time(s) when they made a non-impulsive attempt to CTB, they are then also intervened against, and then gaslit, shamed, and invalidated that their reasoning or predicament isn't sufficient to CTB. This happens indefinitely with moving goalposts, false promises, and deception, all with no consequence to said person (the prolifer). In other words, simply put, CTB is never an option according to the pro-lifer's viewpoint. Just like this person, Dan Crews, who was denied a dignified exit despite his wishes to die with dignity. While he did ultimately pass (due to natural causes), he suffered many unnecessary years of sentience that could all have been avoided had his wishes been honored and respected by the medical professionals who were tasked with his care. Furthermore, even his obituary was tainted by pro-life sentiments (written by pro-lifers no surprise) which is something that quite a few of us don't wish to happen even after we are gone (but that's for another thread altogether).
All in all, in conclusion, this thread is exposing the 'insufferable' attitudes of prolifers that no matter the circumstance, they refuse to allow someone the dignity of checking out on one's own terms. This would only mean that said person has to either do so in secrecy with many risks and consequences of failure as well as deal with their own challenges such as overcoming their own SI (survival instinct), research their method and ensuring they make it work (some of which are violent, brutal, and can lead to permanent damage if failed, plus they only have one chance to get it right). Additionally, by forcing people who wish to go to do so covertly, it would often come as a shock towards the people around them or sometimes even result in collateral damage depending on the method said person uses. This is not only unnecessary (causing people to jump through many hoops, risking their own lives and possibly others' lives depending on method and circumstance), but also cruel, immoral, unethical, and inhumane. Their (prolifers') fetish for life knows no bounds and sometimes I wished that they run into a situation where they will change their view even if it caused them to have to incur a loss (suffering themselves, finding themselves in such a horrible predicament, or an overhaul of the system on a large scale, etc.). While that would suck for said prolifers, in the long term, if it leads to more tolerance in acceptance and respecting others (pro-choicers) individual autonomy and right to die, then it may be a price worth paying for (the means to an end).
Last edited:
