TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,191
I've just noticed something that isn't really talked about as much, but before I start, I will give a disclaimer as I don't want others to misconstrue my position.
Disclaimer: This article/thread is NOT to support nor endorse pro-lifers, preventionists, or anti-choicers actions and efforts, but rather to analyze as well as point out the flaws of the system and help us (pro-choicers and SaSu) understand what the other side is. I am a pro-choicer and I still stand by SaSu and the pro-choicers, that has NEVER changed and NEVER will.
With that said, here is the topic of this thread.
Throughout centuries and even into the 20th century to present day (21st century), there has been a growing number of CTB prevention initiates, measures, efforts, and actions all aiming to prevent the act of CTB itself. It is not new to us of the many measures and injustices as well as human rights violations, and the way they look at CTB as a pathlogy instead of a civil right that is an ultimate act of one's individual bodily autonomy, but I am not going to be focused on those, but merely about the specific actions of CTB prevention protocols and why they fail.
Many preventionists are often addressing the symptoms and focusing on the act of CTB. While it is not completely their fault for the way society, governments, and even human nature itself ingrained the innate biological imperative to survive, persist, and even propagate (reproduce, thrive, etc.), they do share the blame of being close-minded, addressing arguments in bad faith, and staying ignorant. So what do I mean by bad faith? By bad-faith, this means that they (the pro-lifers, anti-choicers, preventionists, etc.) do not seek to learn about their stances, why they are wrong, or even argue civilly, but instead only seek to extract information to further paternalize, dismiss, or otherwise impinge on the rights of others while touting they are the correct view. There is more than that, but that's the bottom line of most of the contention and until there is an official way to have an true, open, honest discussion without repercussions, there is only going to be very slow progress.
Then there is the survivorship bias and perhaps even false dichotomy (if that is the proper term in this context?), meaning that one of the more common argument presented by preventionists are that those who attempt CTB don't go on to attempt it later in life. This couldn't be further from the truth because they (pro-lifers, preventionists) fail to take into consideration that the people who don't aren't doing so because of their sudden enjoyment in life or that they chose not to (their 'choice' was rather a false choice, or under societal duress), but because they either lack the means, whether it is ability, resources, or methods to do so. Therefore the survivors who resigned to continued sentience are trapped in sentience not by their "true" choice, but by their circumstances surrounding it. This is not (nor should it be) indicative of a change of stance to loving sentience and wanting to live.
Finally, in conclusion, CTB prevention efforts focus on all the wrong things and fail to address the causes for CTB ideation and attempts (most of the time, they cannot fix systemic things but often use it as an excuse to reject voluntary death, bodily autonomy, etc.). Then they often fixate on preventing the act itself at all costs rather than to understand the other person and work towards solving things. I will agree with those who look to at least (try to) alleviate the causes of CTB rather than just solely preventing it regardless of the repercussions of doing so. In the end, if pro-lifers and similar people really wanted to prevent CTB and actually be more compassionate, they should focus on the "why" more than the "act". Furthermore, they should stop looking at CTB through the lens of pathology and more in the lens of bodily autonomy.
Disclaimer: This article/thread is NOT to support nor endorse pro-lifers, preventionists, or anti-choicers actions and efforts, but rather to analyze as well as point out the flaws of the system and help us (pro-choicers and SaSu) understand what the other side is. I am a pro-choicer and I still stand by SaSu and the pro-choicers, that has NEVER changed and NEVER will.
With that said, here is the topic of this thread.
Throughout centuries and even into the 20th century to present day (21st century), there has been a growing number of CTB prevention initiates, measures, efforts, and actions all aiming to prevent the act of CTB itself. It is not new to us of the many measures and injustices as well as human rights violations, and the way they look at CTB as a pathlogy instead of a civil right that is an ultimate act of one's individual bodily autonomy, but I am not going to be focused on those, but merely about the specific actions of CTB prevention protocols and why they fail.
Many preventionists are often addressing the symptoms and focusing on the act of CTB. While it is not completely their fault for the way society, governments, and even human nature itself ingrained the innate biological imperative to survive, persist, and even propagate (reproduce, thrive, etc.), they do share the blame of being close-minded, addressing arguments in bad faith, and staying ignorant. So what do I mean by bad faith? By bad-faith, this means that they (the pro-lifers, anti-choicers, preventionists, etc.) do not seek to learn about their stances, why they are wrong, or even argue civilly, but instead only seek to extract information to further paternalize, dismiss, or otherwise impinge on the rights of others while touting they are the correct view. There is more than that, but that's the bottom line of most of the contention and until there is an official way to have an true, open, honest discussion without repercussions, there is only going to be very slow progress.
Then there is the survivorship bias and perhaps even false dichotomy (if that is the proper term in this context?), meaning that one of the more common argument presented by preventionists are that those who attempt CTB don't go on to attempt it later in life. This couldn't be further from the truth because they (pro-lifers, preventionists) fail to take into consideration that the people who don't aren't doing so because of their sudden enjoyment in life or that they chose not to (their 'choice' was rather a false choice, or under societal duress), but because they either lack the means, whether it is ability, resources, or methods to do so. Therefore the survivors who resigned to continued sentience are trapped in sentience not by their "true" choice, but by their circumstances surrounding it. This is not (nor should it be) indicative of a change of stance to loving sentience and wanting to live.
Finally, in conclusion, CTB prevention efforts focus on all the wrong things and fail to address the causes for CTB ideation and attempts (most of the time, they cannot fix systemic things but often use it as an excuse to reject voluntary death, bodily autonomy, etc.). Then they often fixate on preventing the act itself at all costs rather than to understand the other person and work towards solving things. I will agree with those who look to at least (try to) alleviate the causes of CTB rather than just solely preventing it regardless of the repercussions of doing so. In the end, if pro-lifers and similar people really wanted to prevent CTB and actually be more compassionate, they should focus on the "why" more than the "act". Furthermore, they should stop looking at CTB through the lens of pathology and more in the lens of bodily autonomy.
Last edited:
