Darkover
Archangel
- Jul 29, 2021
- 5,282
At the core of any meaningful idea of freedom is consent the ability to choose, and just as importantly, to refuse. Without the option to say "no," any claim to freedom is hollow. We didn't choose to be born, but from the moment we arrive, we're subject to the rules of a system we had no hand in creating. We're expected to survive, work, cope, contribute, and endure, no matter what. Denying the right to opt out is essentially declaring that life is mandatory not a choice, but an obligation.
Societies place a lot of value on bodily autonomy the right to make decisions about your own body. Yet, when someone decides they no longer want to exist, suddenly that autonomy gets revoked. If someone is experiencing unrelenting psychological, emotional, or physical suffering and if all avenues of relief have failed or are unavailable then preventing them from peacefully ending their life is not protection, it's imprisonment.
The popular narrative that life is a precious gift doesn't hold true for everyone. For some, life is a daily struggle filled with pain, loneliness, trauma, or chronic illness. When suffering outweighs joy and when that suffering is persistent or irreversible it is cruel to force people to endure it against their will just because others believe life has inherent value.
True freedom means recognizing that not all lives feel livable, and that no one else can truly measure the depth of another person's pain.
When people are denied a safe, legal, and painless way to end their life, they are often driven to violent, lonely, or traumatic methods, which hurts not only them but the people left behind. A society that claims to care about its citizens should offer compassionate options, not force people to suffer in silence or die in fear.
Opponents often argue that allowing people to opt out of life could lead to abuse or exploitation and yes, safeguards are necessary. But we already manage risks in other areas of life (medicine, law, etc.) with checks and protections. The existence of potential misuse doesn't justify blanket denial of a fundamental right. Instead, the system should focus on thoughtful, ethical frameworks that balance compassion with caution.
Let's be real there's a reason governments and institutions shy away from allowing people to check out of life easily. An obedient, functioning population is the engine of the economy. Dead people don't work, vote, or consume. There's an underlying fear that if opting out became widely acceptable, it would disrupt the status quo. So in some ways, the denial of this freedom isn't just philosophical it's political and economic too.
True freedom means more than being able to vote, work, or speak freely. It means having full sovereignty over your existence. That includes the right to step away from life peacefully, with dignity, and without being treated as broken or criminal for it.
Societies place a lot of value on bodily autonomy the right to make decisions about your own body. Yet, when someone decides they no longer want to exist, suddenly that autonomy gets revoked. If someone is experiencing unrelenting psychological, emotional, or physical suffering and if all avenues of relief have failed or are unavailable then preventing them from peacefully ending their life is not protection, it's imprisonment.
The popular narrative that life is a precious gift doesn't hold true for everyone. For some, life is a daily struggle filled with pain, loneliness, trauma, or chronic illness. When suffering outweighs joy and when that suffering is persistent or irreversible it is cruel to force people to endure it against their will just because others believe life has inherent value.
True freedom means recognizing that not all lives feel livable, and that no one else can truly measure the depth of another person's pain.
When people are denied a safe, legal, and painless way to end their life, they are often driven to violent, lonely, or traumatic methods, which hurts not only them but the people left behind. A society that claims to care about its citizens should offer compassionate options, not force people to suffer in silence or die in fear.
Opponents often argue that allowing people to opt out of life could lead to abuse or exploitation and yes, safeguards are necessary. But we already manage risks in other areas of life (medicine, law, etc.) with checks and protections. The existence of potential misuse doesn't justify blanket denial of a fundamental right. Instead, the system should focus on thoughtful, ethical frameworks that balance compassion with caution.
Let's be real there's a reason governments and institutions shy away from allowing people to check out of life easily. An obedient, functioning population is the engine of the economy. Dead people don't work, vote, or consume. There's an underlying fear that if opting out became widely acceptable, it would disrupt the status quo. So in some ways, the denial of this freedom isn't just philosophical it's political and economic too.
True freedom means more than being able to vote, work, or speak freely. It means having full sovereignty over your existence. That includes the right to step away from life peacefully, with dignity, and without being treated as broken or criminal for it.
