Discussion What kind of laws would you pass in a pro-choice society?

[TAW122]

I have just read a reply by the stanch pro-choicer advocate on Reddit (existentialgoof) and in one his replies, he mentioned that states how stripping someone of their autonomy without evidence of lacking mental capacity and lumping them all into the same category is considered a case of prejudice and discrimination and should be challenged under the law (see quote in box below):

u/existentialgoof said: if everyone is being dumped into a category of losing their bodily autonomy based on the mere fact that they have a "diagnosis", then that is a case of prejudice and discrimination, and should be challenged as such under the law. Everyone deserves the right to be treated as an individual, rather than permanently lose their rights based on a label, with no legal avenue for appeal.

So after reading the quote and idea, this makes me wonder that in an ideal society that is more pro-choice, what kind of laws would you implement and why? As for me, assuming the conditions in this hypothetical scenario are true, then I would certainly extend the same protections. The same kind of anti-discrimination laws and protections should be extended to the supposedly 'suicidal' people and also the expansion of due process. We hear about due process when it comes to criminal proceedings and what not, and I believe the same should apply to those who already have a diagnosis, especially one that isn't based on objective standards, but subject to personal interpretations by "professionals" and are subjective standards (hence why the DSM keeps changing over time).

In addition to this, I would also extend the right to die, not just limited to the terminally ill or those who have a irremediable chronic physical condition that is not likely to get better and the person (patient) in the case would likely suffer that condition indefinitely. This means that people who have already been suffering an inordinate amount of time should NOT be forced to endure treatments that they do not wish to endure just because some professionals decide that they should continue (for the sake of society, their family, or loved ones).

With regards to penalties, I would enact policies and bills that will enforce punishment for those who discriminate (again back to extending legal protections via anti-discrimination laws that already exist for marginalized groups and protection of certain statuses (age, disability, gender, race, national origin, sex, political affiliation, etc.), and actually have real penalties (fines, imprisonment, liability for litigation, etc.). Then furthermore with this, expand the rights of the patient, by allowing them to request MAID, death with dignity, and providers (even if they object or disagree), CANNOT legally discriminate or use that as a basis for unsoundness of mind (circling back to anti-discrimination), and if they object or disagree they would be legally required to refer the patient out to a provider that would be willing to provide (if in a pro-choice society, and the legal ramifications of forced-life were abolished, there WILL likely be providers who will provide such services – due to the risk of prosecution no longer being a thing). The patients would further have rights to appeal any decision (denials or objections) and would have a third party, independent panel of MAID or similar assessors hear their case and more.

In conclusion, these are the laws and regulations I would pass (including the ones where I cited examples of what I would do), but what kind of laws would you all pass in this kind of society? Feel free to get creative, whether it be through existing legislation, future legislation (albeit hypothetical and imaginative), or other kinds of changes.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

this world is an extreme suicide prohibition state. they made every painless guaranteed suicide method like Nembutal , Sarco suicide pod, hiring someone to assist you in suicide a crime. to me this violates the most important rights the right to move away from extreme suffering and the right to personal autonomy to decide when to exit this hell . we're all going to die soon too ( how fast did the last 5 years pass by) : so it's evil and illogical for them to stop you from wanting to escape if you are in unbearable pain every second with no other way to stop the pain other than suicide . for what reason can they justify torturing people like that ?

if i'm suffering extreme torture or soon will be i can't escape that hell a trillion times worse than anyone can imagine. and there are guaranteed ways to escape that hell but they made all those into crimes. furthermore they made even saying in words that you want to suicide an offense where you are locked up in mental hospital and can be kept there until they decide to let you go : too bad if you are in unbearable pain every second they don't care.

imo the most important rights a human has is the right to move away from unbearable pain and then from all suffering in a guaranteed painless quick affordable manner. the right to personal autonomy to decide what you do with your life like when to exit this hell is also very important. also voluntary acts like mutually voluntary transactions need to be protected. also what to do in your own life as long as you are not harming others against their will. of course all of these facilitate me killing myself in a painless guaranteed quick affordable manner which is my goal.

for example if someone named D is selling Nembutal and then if i want to buy that and use it kill myself that should be protected. it's a voluntary act no one is forcing me or D to do it. it's not affecting anyone else except me and D.

example 2: i'm in unbearable pain with no way out so i should be able to pay someone to shoot me in my head with a gun. why can't i because they made that a crime too so no one will do it. if it were legal then i could ask many people or pay "suicide services" to shoot me. but i can't do that because i'll be arrested or put in a mental hospital for even proposing that to someone. again this is also a mutually voluntary in regards to both parties. both perceive a benefit . the assister gets money and i get to escape hell. why is this not allowed. i saw a video of a large moose and it had some kind of brain parasite that was eating it's brain . the moose was confused and suffering extremely. a guy had a rifle and said if he doesn't shoot it then it will suffer for weeks. so he shot it instant unconsciousness. that's ok with other animals but not with me but i'm also an animal same cells. so they say i have to suffer even though many here have guns ,

but the evil and horror of this evil world is that they wrote all kinds of laws to make that voluntary transaction a crime. they made Nembutal a criminal offense to sell and buy. they made assisting in suicide a crime. so under a Constitution that i would write they could never pass these laws. they could never pass laws to lock you up involuntarily for saying you want to suicide also. so sellers could Sell Nembutal and it would be around $200 which is less than a smartphone or rent or groceries for a month. it would be legal for me to buy Nembutal .similar for assiting in suicide it would be around $300 . Sarco would be legal also .

also to me the constant worst pain outweighs the pleasure addictions by a billion times. horrible things can happen to any human or other animal. the horrible things similarly outweigh the pleasure addictions by a billion times.