TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,904
It makes me furious how conveniently that pro-lifers set up some axiomatic presumptions about life and that if questioned, it automatically makes the inquirer to be (by default) irrational, not of sound mind, or labeled 'mentally ill'. Hence it is just another way to silence and/or discredit those who don't agree with them. Furthermore, the sham justification for encroaching, violating, and invading on another's personal liberty in the name of safety is not only paternalistic, audacious, but really just despicable! May be preaching to choir here, but this thread is really just trying to expose the 'loophole' that pro-lifers use to oppress people who don't agree with them.
This post from u/existentialgoof in one of the threads he responded to on Reddit in quotes:
Anyways, here is my explanation (from my perspective, slightly different but similar to existentialgoof's post but in my own words). The pro-lifers' logic can be broken down into three parts, with two/three premises as listed below:
Premise 1: Voluntary euthanasia should never be allowed because no-one wants to be the person who is 'responsible' to another's death (even if it was done mercifully) and is rife for abuse. Also the aversion to death and such..
Premise 2: No one can individually make the decision to self-delete because they are not reliable witnesses (an election of wanting to die (on one's own terms) is automatically deemed a presumption of irrationality/mental illnesses just from the start, without evaluation or question).
Premise 3: (derived from premise 2) Because one is then deemed 'mentally ill' (yes, this also includes 'depression'), they are then unable to make decisions and would need the government (the State) to step in on their behalf, against their wishes.
With those three premises, where premise 2 leads to premise 3, we are all locked into this world of suffering against our will (especially us pro-choicers) and have no legal nor guaranteed way out of suffering.. It sucks because basically pro-lifers don't want to legalize voluntary euthanasia because they are uncomfortable of being an arbiter of someone's decision (even if it is permanent and leads to the person no longer suffering). Then they also relegate said person to that of an infant, and someone who is incapable of making sound decisions.
Solving/breaking the circular conundrum that pro-lifers set up
So since circular logical itself is irrational and no rational explanation can be used to effectively logically counter it (just by the nature of circular reasoning itself), I will say that it takes irrationality to defeat irrationality, or at least through 'symmetry'. What do I mean by this? I mean just throwing away their circular logic and asserting our will through our own because we said so. I know that there are people who claim but that's not an argument or let's not stoop down to their level, but I justify this action by claiming that you can [almost] never win an unfair fight by fighting fair, it simply just doesn't work. When you must fight dirty just to have a level playing field, then one must do whatever it takes to do so. When logical reasoning falls on deaf years, it's time to use a different approach or just outright rejecting the circular argument and stand one's ground, but I digress. Therefore, I would just assert that forced sentience is one of the main reasons and causes for suffering as well as shitty events (a large part of it) in our current sentient existence and that life is not a gift nor a virtue, but an involuntary imposition onto a once non-sentient being against it's will.
In another thread, I used symmetry by interchanging the scenario and using similar examples to demonstrate and show the hypocrisy and horrific actions of pro-lifers. I also shown the fact that pro-lifers would never accept the same kind of treatment that they impose onto suicidal people. In fact, pro-lifers would assert their rights and double-down on their freedom if that is threatened, even going as far as actively punishing those who would dare infringe their (pro-lifers') rights and freedoms. Yet, hypocritically, pro-lifers have absolutely no problem in doing the very thing that they oppose (oppression, tyranny, paternalism, and such) towards groups of people that they denigrate to be beneath them.
In conclusion, this thread is about how pro-lifers created a situation in which death is not only inaccessible (at least the peaceful and reliable means), but also perpetually torment those who don't enjoy life to endure many unnecessary years. Then any attempt to bring about reform or change is rejected and they continue to impose their sadistic practices and values onto anyone who doesn't share their 'view' of life. Therefore, I suggested that there are times where we (the pro-choicers) must stand our ground since logic and reasoning falls on deaf ears. By standing our ground, we are resisting whatever pro-lifers decide to bring against us and at the least, it is self-defense on our part (from our point of view) and also shows that we are not a group to be messed with and have no repercussions. Although such an approach may be extreme, sometimes when the institutions at large (the legal system, financial system, educational system, and all other social groups and institutions, etc.) fail to offer redress and recourse for such egregious grievances inflicted by pro-lifers unto us, standing out ground and fighting back (not with logic and reasoning) may be perhaps the only way we (pro-choicers) could have any semblance of justice and change.
This post from u/existentialgoof in one of the threads he responded to on Reddit in quotes:
"Pro-lifers manage to circumvent this via one neat trick - everyone who is suffering and would ever want to leave is automatically mentally ill, and anyone who is mentally ill has severely compromised capacity for discernment and making sound decisions, which necessitates that the government step in to protect them from their own judgement. The very fact that they would want to die is proof that they lack the capacity for discernment, because anyone possessed of such capacity would wholeheartedly affirm life, with no reservations whatsoever.
We don't have to take that suffering seriously, because the fact that they think that they're suffering in the first place just shows that they are so deluded as to think that there is any cause for suffering."
Anyways, here is my explanation (from my perspective, slightly different but similar to existentialgoof's post but in my own words). The pro-lifers' logic can be broken down into three parts, with two/three premises as listed below:
Premise 1: Voluntary euthanasia should never be allowed because no-one wants to be the person who is 'responsible' to another's death (even if it was done mercifully) and is rife for abuse. Also the aversion to death and such..
Premise 2: No one can individually make the decision to self-delete because they are not reliable witnesses (an election of wanting to die (on one's own terms) is automatically deemed a presumption of irrationality/mental illnesses just from the start, without evaluation or question).
Premise 3: (derived from premise 2) Because one is then deemed 'mentally ill' (yes, this also includes 'depression'), they are then unable to make decisions and would need the government (the State) to step in on their behalf, against their wishes.
With those three premises, where premise 2 leads to premise 3, we are all locked into this world of suffering against our will (especially us pro-choicers) and have no legal nor guaranteed way out of suffering.. It sucks because basically pro-lifers don't want to legalize voluntary euthanasia because they are uncomfortable of being an arbiter of someone's decision (even if it is permanent and leads to the person no longer suffering). Then they also relegate said person to that of an infant, and someone who is incapable of making sound decisions.
Solving/breaking the circular conundrum that pro-lifers set up
So since circular logical itself is irrational and no rational explanation can be used to effectively logically counter it (just by the nature of circular reasoning itself), I will say that it takes irrationality to defeat irrationality, or at least through 'symmetry'. What do I mean by this? I mean just throwing away their circular logic and asserting our will through our own because we said so. I know that there are people who claim but that's not an argument or let's not stoop down to their level, but I justify this action by claiming that you can [almost] never win an unfair fight by fighting fair, it simply just doesn't work. When you must fight dirty just to have a level playing field, then one must do whatever it takes to do so. When logical reasoning falls on deaf years, it's time to use a different approach or just outright rejecting the circular argument and stand one's ground, but I digress. Therefore, I would just assert that forced sentience is one of the main reasons and causes for suffering as well as shitty events (a large part of it) in our current sentient existence and that life is not a gift nor a virtue, but an involuntary imposition onto a once non-sentient being against it's will.
In another thread, I used symmetry by interchanging the scenario and using similar examples to demonstrate and show the hypocrisy and horrific actions of pro-lifers. I also shown the fact that pro-lifers would never accept the same kind of treatment that they impose onto suicidal people. In fact, pro-lifers would assert their rights and double-down on their freedom if that is threatened, even going as far as actively punishing those who would dare infringe their (pro-lifers') rights and freedoms. Yet, hypocritically, pro-lifers have absolutely no problem in doing the very thing that they oppose (oppression, tyranny, paternalism, and such) towards groups of people that they denigrate to be beneath them.
In conclusion, this thread is about how pro-lifers created a situation in which death is not only inaccessible (at least the peaceful and reliable means), but also perpetually torment those who don't enjoy life to endure many unnecessary years. Then any attempt to bring about reform or change is rejected and they continue to impose their sadistic practices and values onto anyone who doesn't share their 'view' of life. Therefore, I suggested that there are times where we (the pro-choicers) must stand our ground since logic and reasoning falls on deaf ears. By standing our ground, we are resisting whatever pro-lifers decide to bring against us and at the least, it is self-defense on our part (from our point of view) and also shows that we are not a group to be messed with and have no repercussions. Although such an approach may be extreme, sometimes when the institutions at large (the legal system, financial system, educational system, and all other social groups and institutions, etc.) fail to offer redress and recourse for such egregious grievances inflicted by pro-lifers unto us, standing out ground and fighting back (not with logic and reasoning) may be perhaps the only way we (pro-choicers) could have any semblance of justice and change.