Venting Pro-lifers don’t even acknowledge or follow their own logic (WRT to the RTD)

[TAW122]

This may be an awkward thread title, but I just had a thought and managed to make a tenuous, but still valid connection between an observation or statement (not related to CTB directly but commonly said) that I've heard of IRL. The statement refers to the reality of successful people in life (think of all the glamorous and carefully curated content that influencers, content creators, and what not (it could be any domain or just any famous or well-known person) in media). The statement and concept that I'm referring to "you only see the successes but not the failures", when it comes to glamorous and exotic experiences or so. Now how does this logic apply to the logic of CTB? The gripe that I'm getting at in this thread refers to how pro-lifers and anti-choicers often ignore, fail to see, or deliberately twist arguments to suit their narrative rather than applying logic.

Take almost any pro-lifer, mainstream person out there in the world, and upon presenting the logic about how there are many failures before success and what one sees as "success" is only a 'fraction' of one's life, which is often curated content rather than the full scope and picture of everything in totality. They would understand that logic, yet when it comes to CTB successes and what not, they cling onto the old and tired argument of "if people (who want to CTB) really wanted to CTB, they will succeed" while ignoring the facts that there are many attempts that end up in failure, and not many that end up succeeding, then even those that succeed, most often do so in brutal means, suffering greatly during the deed.

Another clear example is when it comes to disability rights activists (DRAs) whom decided to cherry pick cases where there are those who are severely disabled (physically and/or psychologically) and often cite that they have found meaning in life, want to live, etc., but then ignore all the ones who didn't see it the same way. In fact, there is perhaps likely many more who are in such predicaments that don't recover and then suddenly change their mind. In other words, these DRAs often cherry-pick and select cases that fit their narrative rather than look at most of the unfortunate to accurately portray the real stance of the disabled. I would believe that most of the disabled would not necessarily choose to go on to live, but while there are a minority of those who are disabled who want to live, they overshadow most of those who just suffer day to day and wish for the suffering to end. Of course, the DRAs ignore all those because it would undermine and shatter their 'narrative' of pro-life or continuing to fight a battle that one may not be interested in.

In conclusion, this thread is venting about the illogical, inconsistent mentality and logic that pro-lifers have (not surprising of course!), when it comes to the right to die and what not. It's inconsistent because when it comes to just about anything else, especially when talking about the doctored, carefully curated content of influencers, content creators, and those who lived 'privileged' lives, the commoners (at least those with sense and critical thinking) can see the reasoning and logic, but then when the subject becomes about the right to die, they either completely fail to see the logic or (worst yet) deliberately misinterpret it because the truth would be too 'uncomfortable' for them to accept.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Regarding the whole idea that we only see the 'tip of the iceberg' in someone's success- I also get the same sense that people tend to assume or portray that with someone who took their own life.

That it was a recent crisis that lead them to it. They seem to ignore the iceberg of suffering underneath that lead them to it. Probably because it would suggest that people had noticed but, ignored it. It's actually pretty interesting though, how many people here started experiencing suicidal thoughts in childhood.

If they actually concede that the person had been struggling long-term, there's usually also- but they seemed to be improving. Yeah- because they knew they were getting the hell out!

But, I find that annoying too. Like it was something totally and utterly unexpected with no discernable motive or build up. Just a crazy, impulsive action- when it realistically sometimes took several weeks or months to plan.

 

[Jorvak]

This is a topic I've put considerable thought into, from somewhat different angles.

For instance, there is a particularly toxic form of anti-choicer, which i'll refer to as the "Reactionary anti-choicer" or RAC, who have the mentality of wanting to force people to live an existence they are miserable in, while refusing to acknowledge people real issues and refusing to accommodate their real needs in any meaningful way. This type does not support an agenda of creating a society that would enshrine human dignity as a fundamental human right, and giving people all the means in the world to have a dignified live, where they can advance themselves and explore their own passions, while not having to deal with social expectations. This is especially true of the christian-nationalist and conservative anti-choicers.

So essentially, these RAC's want to force people to live, and yet refuse to create a society that is conducive towards enabling as many people as possible to have a decent existence with their needs fully accomodated for, and their suffering minimized to as great of an extent as possible.

Worse yet, are the RAC's who not only want barrage people with pro-life platitudes such as "it gets better" or "your life has meaning", will completely ignore all of the actual experiences and real problems that a person has had, treating it like its a fiction, claiming its purely their "personal responsibility" to "get over", and refuses to acknowledge that society is failing to accommodate a suicidal persons needs. Furthermore, they will downplay when someone has prologonged trauma induced conditions like CPTSD, that can make them completely dysfunctional in society, or a neurodivergent person trying to exist in a world that completely works against them at every turn, or SA/DA victims with PTSD and/or CPTSD and so on.

If these RAC's were truly "pro-life", they would support creating a society that is structured to serve human dignity by default, not just by securing generalized people needs, but the needs of people relative to their specific conditions. They would also support striving to abolish all forms of systems and policies that cause prejudice and exploitation, such as racist white nationalism, christian nationalism, patriarchy, ableism, LGBTQ-phobic policies. And they would also want an economic system that does not serve a class of people, but people in general. Capitalism is quite literally incompatible with a pro-life agenda, because it depends on a class owning property to hoard wealth, minimizing how many resources goes to the people who need it the most, and reproducing white-nationalism, christian nationalism and other forms of bigotries to find scapegoats.

This RAC mentality is very common among people with reactionary ideologies, to force people to live an existence they are miserable in, refuse to address their material circumstances and real needs, claim they are "personally responsible" for their own suffering, and somehow expect them to be "happy" and to "want to live".



There are also the Semi-RAC's or SRAC's, people who somewhat acknowledge material causes in some cases for why some people become suicidal and propose half measures to address them, but also often deploying dehumanizing rhetoric, even to the people they want to address. They will often present many of the highly bigoted hard-RAC mentalities against certain disabled people, traumatized people, queer people, and so on, essentially picking and choosing who's issues should be partially addressed and who's issues should be larely ignored.


Finally, the most charitable angle, lets say that an anti-choicer that isn't like the RAC's or SRAC's , and actually does support creating a society that maximizes human dignity and believes in acknowledging all peoples issues and trying to address peoples issues, but does not affirm the right to die. We'll call these "Somewhat Enlightened Anti-Choicers" or "SEAC's". Obviously not as bad as the former, but still denying people the right-to-die.

The SEAC's presume that they can fully resolve a persons issues, and that someone should be forced to live until the cause of their desire to die is eliminated. This is an exceedingly arrogant and inhumane mentality, of course. If someone really believes in maximizing human dignity, they'll believe that if someones issues run so deep that even a highly humane society cannot readily resolve it, that this person should have a right-to-die, period.

So the only humane option is to not be a SEAC, yet alone a SRAC or RAC, to fully affirm the right to die so that people are not forced to live and suffer if they do not want to. Nobody should be forced to live with suffering. we don't choose to exist, and even if that was the case, the right to die would still be very important. We should strive to minimize suffering, and strive to ensure as many people as possible a reason to want to live, but if that's not enough, then people deserve the right to end their suffering that cannot be readily addressed, as an extension of fundamentally enshrined human dignity

Regarding the whole idea that we only see the 'tip of the iceberg' in someone's success- I also get the same sense that people tend to assume or portray that with someone who took their own life.

That it was a recent crisis that lead them to it. They seem to ignore the iceberg of suffering underneath that lead them to it. Probably because it would suggest that people had noticed but, ignored it. It's actually pretty interesting though, how many people here started experiencing suicidal thoughts in childhood.

If they actually concede that the person had been struggling long-term, there's usually also- but they seemed to be improving. Yeah- because they knew they were getting the hell out!

But, I find that annoying too. Like it was something totally and utterly unexpected with no discernable motive or build up. Just a crazy, impulsive action- when it realistically sometimes took several weeks or months to plan.

I'm an autistic person who has basically been chronically depressed since childhood, especially since the first day of school. dealing with repeated social trauma's due to being misunderstood, ostracized and even bullied and humiliated, manifested into CPTSD as well.

I have masked my Chronic Depression and CPTSD for decades, so if i did decide to make plans (which i dont have presently), it would appear sudden, but what would be ignored is literally decades of suffering trying to exist in a world that has worked against me at every turn.

 

[Cauliflour]

Another clear example is when it comes to disability rights activists (DRAs) whom decided to cherry pick cases where there are those who are severely disabled (physically and/or psychologically) and often cite that they have found meaning in life, want to live, etc., but then ignore all the ones who didn't see it the same way. In fact, there is perhaps likely many more who are in such predicaments that don't recover and then suddenly change their mind. In other words, these DRAs often cherry-pick and select cases that fit their narrative rather than look at most of the unfortunate to accurately portray the real stance of the disabled. I would believe that most of the disabled would not necessarily choose to go on to live, but while there are a minority of those who are disabled who want to live, they overshadow most of those who just suffer day to day and wish for the suffering to end. Of course, the DRAs ignore all those because it would undermine and shatter their 'narrative' of pro-life or continuing to fight a battle that one may not be interested in.

I wouldn't say I'm "constantly suffering" but I have high functioning autism and I'm getting so fucking tired of people treating it like this wonderful brain thing that makes you better at this, this and this like this famous person! It feels like if you want to have your problems with autism validated then you have to be barely functioning for people to care. They go on about how great autism supposedly is but they don't like to bring up the downsides, and when they do it's always in reference to low functioning autistics. Hell, I'm starting to think the lower functioning people are getting irritated at the higher functioning ones cause they're always portrayed as guaranteed geniuses and thus people treat them better, while lower functioning people are always seen as just some overgrown toddler for a neurotypical to go "oh woe is me! Having to raise this person is so hard!".

Also yeah I know the term is stage 1 or stage 3 now but it's all the same shit at the end of the day. Changing the labels every other year isn't gonna fix the ingrained ableism society has.

 

[TAW122]

@Forever Sleep That's a good analogy and example. Yes, very oftenly whenever there is news or talk of someone who has CTB'd, especially the survivors, they would often gloss over the details and all the factors that led up to it. Sometimes they may consider 1 factor or 2 (but vaguely and often superficially, insincerely) and then from there, they then write it off as a 'tragic event', often downplaying everything that led up to the act. It really is aggravating and insulting, but in the end, it seems like they just do that to soothe themselves after what they see as a 'loss'.

@Jorvak Thanks for a very thorough and thoughtful post! I like your terminology of RACs (Reactionary Anti-Choicers) and what you wrote about them made a lot of sense. I think it is true that society as a whole (even if they wanted to) are unable to create the kind of space that would motivate and incentivize people to WANT to live and thrive since it seems to be too much effort or just not really possible (as ideal as that would sound). I also like how you differentiated the terminology between RACs, SRACs, and SEACs and described them in detail. I fully agree that in the end, the most ideal solution is to create a world in which everyone really genuinely wants to thrive, but if that's not possible, then the option of the right to end one's own suffering (on one's own terms) should be recognized.

@Cauliflour As a person also on the spectrum myself (and avid, fervent supporter of the right to die on one's own terms), I can relate to this. Yes, what you said is generally what I've observed more/less IRL and definitely in online communities. I agree with you at the end, those terminology and labels that mainstream media, the masses throw around don't help anyone at all. The ableistic society is yet another factor towards why people choose to CTB than to endure the mess of the world.

 

[Jorvak]

@Jorvak Thanks for a very thorough and thoughtful post! I like your terminology of RACs (Reactionary Anti-Choicers) and what you wrote about them made a lot of sense. I think it is true that society as a whole (even if they wanted to) are unable to create the kind of space that would motivate and incentivize people to WANT to live and thrive since it seems to be too much effort or just not really possible (as ideal as that would sound). I also like how you differentiated the terminology between RACs, SRACs, and SEACs and described them in detail. I fully agree that in the end, the most ideal solution is to create a world in which everyone really genuinely wants to thrive, but if that's not possible, then the option of the right to end one's own suffering (on one's own terms) should be recognized.

@Cauliflour As a person also on the spectrum myself (and avid, fervent supporter of the right to die on one's own terms), I can relate to this. Yes, what you said is generally what I've observed more/less IRL and definitely in online communities. I agree with you at the end, those terminology and labels that mainstream media, the masses throw around don't help anyone at all. The ableistic society is yet another factor towards why people choose to CTB than to endure the mess of the world.

Thanks for the great response! Yep, these terminologies are very useful to describe some of the main anti-choicer ideologies. Obviously there is a spectrum of ideology, like some SEAC's who may believe in the "right to die for people with chronic pain" (probably the most common type of SEAC in fact), as though that's the only type of chronic suffering that's valid and suddenly grants someone a choice in whether to end their suffering or not. the terms themselves are focused on the motivation and axioms behind someones anti-choicer thinking, rather than some arbitrary cutoff line or hyper-specific caricature, and that's what makes them useful analytical tools, because you could formulate many different interpretations of each of those terms within the motivation and axioms of their reasoning.

I've mentioned it before in this thread, but i'm autistic as well (big surprise, SaSu has a bunch of neurodivergent people). And you're absolutely right, Ableism is a massive issue that drives huge amounts of people to CTB, it should be no wonder why autistic people have such horrible statistics, such as vastly highly suicide rates and 85% unemployment. It's almost like Caricaturing people, denying peoples struggles existing in a neurotypical society (especially if they are high masking), pathologizing autistic people by "deficits" (still a very horrible thing within the DSMV-5 itself), not accomodating the needs of autistic people within a society not designed for their neurotype, leads to the marginalization of autistic people, meanwhile somehow insisting that the problem is with autistic people themselves and not on a society that fails to create conditions that enable anyone be dignified in their existence and thrive by default, regardless of who they are. All or atleast almost all of these issues apply to plenty of other groups to. We simply have an ableist society, and it's reproduced by a toxic culture that only values people by "contribution" to a consumerist society, and "conforming to social norms". It's dystopian.

 

[ThisGameIsOverrated]

Yeah I've thought about this wrt to the "it always gets better" argument, since there's no deadline on how long someone should wait for it to "get better" before their desire to CTB is considered valid, pro lifers can just keep on spamming it even if someone's not gotten better for a while then if the person CTBs they can just say "it would've gotten better" smfh