TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,888
There is a few threads that I've came across of a particular person (who was banned from Reddit – maybe not because of their anti-choice view or so but maybe something else) that I found despicable. Here are some of the threads (here and here too) in question and the Redditor is u/NoTimeForCucks.
Nevertheless, I'm glad that disgusting religious anti-choicer/pro-lifer was banned from Reddit. Also, quite a few people on that thread criticized the OP user for being judgmental, bigoted, cruel, callous, and obnoxious, ironically even those who are religious recognize that allowing nature to take it's course is NOT considered euthanasia or committing murder. It's ridiculous that the OP of those threads could ever compare that to actual euthanasia or even murder for the matter. If anything, that's far from it.
In fact, one of the users, StTheodore03 on one of the threads said:
This goes to show that even those who are religious, still at least have some rationality and respect when it comes to allowing people whose conditions are terminal or otherwise very severe to let nature run it's course. Even though the religious anti-choicers are generally against 'voluntary' euthanasia, but at least there are some out there who recognize patients' rights to refuse unnecessary (and often aggressive) treatment for futile cases to be unethical and unjust. Sadly, while most religious anti-choicers still very much against full patient autonomy and expanding the right to die beyond those who are terminally ill (death within the foreseeable future, usually with less than six months or even shorter), there are some that at least will respect passive euthanasia and don't consider it unethical or unjust.
Though with that said, there is still a long way to go, and with the right to die only being limited to those who are terminally ill is simply insufficient. This is because there are far worse fates of being alive but immensely suffering, yet non-terminal and then being forced to endure the remainder of one's existence, be it a year, a few years (see this case example), or possibly even decades, until natural causes or other causes of death comes. What is even more nefarious is the label of 'mental illness' or 'depression' (a loaded and charged word – pejoratively used in common day to day life) as pretext to deny a person bodily autonomy or to discount and dismiss their suffering. This is jarring because those who end up in such predicaments are essentially subject to the mercy of others and whatever sentience has in store for them, for however long that may be. Even if someone ends up dying later on, all those years of suffering can be avoidable had the patient/person had their bodily autonomy respected! But that would be another topic for another thread.
In conclusion, I made the thread to point out the absurdity of some of the most extreme religious anti-choicers and pro-lifers. However, even in those threads there are other religious anti-choicers who also disagree with the extreme ones and while they are not necessarily on board with our views or ethics, they are at least a bit more open-minded to recognize that forced sentience even in the most extreme cases (terminal illness in particular) is not ethical nor just. It is heinously cruel to subject someone to suffer through their terminal illnesses and not let them go peacefully to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering in their remaining months.
Nevertheless, I'm glad that disgusting religious anti-choicer/pro-lifer was banned from Reddit. Also, quite a few people on that thread criticized the OP user for being judgmental, bigoted, cruel, callous, and obnoxious, ironically even those who are religious recognize that allowing nature to take it's course is NOT considered euthanasia or committing murder. It's ridiculous that the OP of those threads could ever compare that to actual euthanasia or even murder for the matter. If anything, that's far from it.
In fact, one of the users, StTheodore03 on one of the threads said:
| No it is not. The catechism goes over this. 2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected. |
This goes to show that even those who are religious, still at least have some rationality and respect when it comes to allowing people whose conditions are terminal or otherwise very severe to let nature run it's course. Even though the religious anti-choicers are generally against 'voluntary' euthanasia, but at least there are some out there who recognize patients' rights to refuse unnecessary (and often aggressive) treatment for futile cases to be unethical and unjust. Sadly, while most religious anti-choicers still very much against full patient autonomy and expanding the right to die beyond those who are terminally ill (death within the foreseeable future, usually with less than six months or even shorter), there are some that at least will respect passive euthanasia and don't consider it unethical or unjust.
Though with that said, there is still a long way to go, and with the right to die only being limited to those who are terminally ill is simply insufficient. This is because there are far worse fates of being alive but immensely suffering, yet non-terminal and then being forced to endure the remainder of one's existence, be it a year, a few years (see this case example), or possibly even decades, until natural causes or other causes of death comes. What is even more nefarious is the label of 'mental illness' or 'depression' (a loaded and charged word – pejoratively used in common day to day life) as pretext to deny a person bodily autonomy or to discount and dismiss their suffering. This is jarring because those who end up in such predicaments are essentially subject to the mercy of others and whatever sentience has in store for them, for however long that may be. Even if someone ends up dying later on, all those years of suffering can be avoidable had the patient/person had their bodily autonomy respected! But that would be another topic for another thread.
In conclusion, I made the thread to point out the absurdity of some of the most extreme religious anti-choicers and pro-lifers. However, even in those threads there are other religious anti-choicers who also disagree with the extreme ones and while they are not necessarily on board with our views or ethics, they are at least a bit more open-minded to recognize that forced sentience even in the most extreme cases (terminal illness in particular) is not ethical nor just. It is heinously cruel to subject someone to suffer through their terminal illnesses and not let them go peacefully to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering in their remaining months.
