Discussion Something pro-lifers just don't get...

[TAW122]

This is a partial rant/discussion. Anyways, I think as long as pro-lifers keep trying to impose their will and override the suicidal's freedom of choice, then nothing will change and progress will be stunted. After hearing many arguments on both sides, yes I get pro-lifers believe that life is good and that things get better and other stuff, that's fine. However, we agree to disagree and from both sides, at least the pro-choice stance allows a choice between life or death and most importantly, doesn't override or impose death or lack of choice to pro-lifers.

Basically, in short, what I'm saying is that pro-lifers and pro-choicers agree to disagree, but the main difference is that pro-lifers feel they have the need to impose their pro-life choice onto pro-choicers, which is immoral and unethical. They have no authority or right to do so (even though they claim it from religion, government, or even just out of thin air -- which makes them no different than the extremist radicals that impose death upon others because their ideology says so.)

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Santiago]

Already mentioned this in a different thread (also can there not be just one thread for this topic?), but there is a thin line between people who would benefit from assisted suicide and people who wouldn't.

I get the argument you are making, but at the same time people want to keep other people from making impulsive decisions and I understand that. Where do you draw the line between being able to get better versus no hope left and a justified death wish?

Bottom line is pro choice should be a thing, but we need more qualified people on the topic (biggest issue) and then have those people communicate with people who want to use this service.

 

[Jean Améry]

I believe that the best solution to this problem is to legalize rational suicide as a middle ground between suicide prohibition (complete denial of the right to choose) and legalizaton of all kinds of suicide including completely irrational attempts out of sheer desperation, under the influence of alcohol ,using stupid means etcetera.

That way society can respect the wish of those who genuinly want to die, have thought it through and have evaluated the options carefully while still preventing unnecessary suicide by people who did not really want to die but were blind to the alternatives.

In the end only the individual can decide whether their life is truly worth living but people sometimes do stupid things in a state of mind that doesn't allow them to think clearly.

In my mind if a person can provide evidence of coherent and logical thinking, a realistic outlook on life and death and isn't intoxicated and/or highly emotional they should have the right to choose death and their freedom should be respected.

 

[Your Own Ghost]

In my mind if a person can provide evidence of coherent and logical thinking, a realistic outlook on life and death and isn't intoxicated and/or highly emotional they should have the right to choose death and their freedom should be respected.

I understand your argument, but nuances would make it difficult to implement:

• Rationality is a varying thing and overestimated as a concept. There are very intelligent people in this world who make "rational" arguments but live in a reality juxtaposed to others' also-rational way of thinking. I'm reminded about watching an interview of Ayn Rand, and how she just seemed bonkers to me, even her gaze to me seemed like a crazy person's gaze, but there she was talking about rationality and promoting her views, which definitely didn't come via lack of effortful thinking. And a lot of people agree with her "rationality." Just an example.
• "…blind to the alternatives." There are always going to be alternatives for those who oppose this pro-choice viewpoint. The endless wheel of psychiatry is a good example. "You just haven't found the right meds," they like to say. Not to mention their ideology is all-encompassing and as soon as you express a desire for self-termination you are labeled as sick and have to face that bias.
• And how would one gauge if a person is highly emotional? What about just a little bit emotional? To what degree should emotion be discounted? Is it not emotional experience that is at the core of our being?
• And these kinds of arguments discount the people who are so ruined by disease or the side effects of treatment that they can no longer advocate for themselves what they may desperately know they want. If they try to put forth the argument, the opposition will talk circles around them and shoot down their desires at every turn.

@Santiago seems grounded on this issue. I would want to place a point of emphasis on getting people to refrain from making impulsive decisions. While I think the world is far off from an end of life pro-choice acceptance movement, we should at least consider getting people to refrain from impulse a personal responsibility.

 

[YukiFox]

I was pro-life for 6 years, and I tell you why I choose that position. In my case, I know the grief for losing a friend to suicide, and supposedly the pro-lifers we advocate to the prevention to 1. Handle with that grief; 2. To prevent doing more grief to others. Since I accepted that I can't fight anymore with suicidal thoughts and imagery, I became a pro-choice because I feel that prevention campaign aren't solve the real problem, that is the cruel nature of society, who pushes to people like me to realize death as a peaceful solution for our sorrows or serious problems. In my case, I recognize the good intentions on pro-lifers, yes, but some of them are because of their pro-life faiths and not for sympathy for the suffering.

 

[TheGoodGuy]

Agree. It´s like any other law e.g. the war on drugs, just because they don´t like it they want to force other people to live by their rules that is tyrannical. As you said we don´t force them to die because we think people should choose for themselves since it´s our lives the same with drugs some want to use drugs we are not forcing others to do them yet they ban drugs and put people in jail which is kidnapping and if you say you have a plan to commit suicide you will be involuntarily locked up because THEY don´t agree with it and again that is kidnapping too and is tyrannical yet people believe they are free, fucking sheeps.

 

[TAW122]

@Jean Améry I agree with you of there being a middle ground, this way it would benefit both sides, the people who genuinely want to die and end their suffering will be able to while the impulsive or unsure people will get a chance to reconsider their decision.

I would want to place a point of emphasis on getting people to refrain from making impulsive decisions. While I think the world is far off from an end of life pro-choice acceptance movement, we should at least consider getting people to refrain from impulse a personal responsibility.

I do agree with this, we should make sure those who make the choice to die is doing so without being coerced, forced, or even just impulsively going through with suicide over a minor, temporary issue. Most of the ones who impulsively make attempts may actually not want to die, so there is some incentive to screening out the ones who aren't making a permanent decision on a clear mind or rushing it without considering it carefully. I'd still highly discourage using involuntary force against others (unless it is to protect other members of society from immediate, direct harm (physical harm).) and only save for, perhaps as a last resort. I believe more people will be willing to open up if involuntary commitment or forced treatment is taken off the table or at least not the first thing that mental health professionals jump to at any suicidal ideation or even mentioning of a plan.

In my case, I recognize the good intentions on pro-lifers, yes, but some of them are because of their pro-life faiths and not for sympathy for the suffering.

In fact, I think a good bit of them are tainted by their 'pro-life' ideologies and faith, along with the lack of questioning their own stances and critical thinking.

Agree. It´s like any other law e.g. the war on drugs, just because they don´t like it they want to force other people to live by their rules that is tyrannical. As you said we don´t force them to die because we think people should choose for themselves since it´s our lives the same with drugs some want to use drugs we are not forcing others to do them yet they ban drugs and put people in jail which is kidnapping and if you say you have a plan to commit suicide you will be involuntarily locked up because THEY don´t agree with it and again that is kidnapping too and is tyrannical yet people believe they are free, fucking sheeps.

Pretty much sums up society in general. Most people in there are sheep who aren't able to think for themselves, rationally and critically. Not to boast too much, but I believe most of here are rational, logical thinkers who use critical thinking, even on the topic of death and suicide.

 

[Umbra]

I mean, when you're hammered in from the start "suicide bad" you're going to believe it regardless. And if you think about it, hasn't every moral standard been made from thin air? Nothing objectively makes anything bad, just the people with power (govt) deem it immoral and have the power to teach people it's bad, and punish those who do said action.