Letters To The Editor

Attention: John Bull, Editor; The Immortalist

PO Box 372149 Satellite Beach

Fl. 32973-0149 USA

27th February 2003

Dear Sir,

I refer to your article in the January-February 2003 issue of The Immortalist, by James Swayze.

I was outraged, not only by the title of the article, using the demeaning collective name of female partners or wives as "The little woman", but also by his utter disregard for the abilities of another person to make their own decisions. To suggest that if "the little woman" did not agree to sign up for cryonics, and eventually join him in frozen stasis, she will cause him terrible anguish and horrifying emotions!

I have been with my husband for twenty-seven years -my choice! 1 have also been signed up for cryonics for over a decade - my choice! Whilst both my husband and 1 decided to opt for cryonics, neither of us would ever stoop to emotional blackmail in an attempt to persuade the other to do something against their own judgment. Where, in James Swayze's position, is one's own freedom of choice, especially with regard to the respecting of each other's wishes?

Frankly 1 think Mr. Swayze is overtly smug to think that just because you are in a loving relationship then one's own wishes should override those of the other. 1 can understand that he would wish to save and prolong his own life, but what right has he to force his beliefs on to others?

In the end, no matter what you believe, would it not be a logical preference to allow others their individual choice, using reason as your argument, not emotional blackmail?

Sincerely,

Mrs. Maureen J Michaels

From: James Swayze [swayzej@attbi.com]

Subject: Re: Letter to the Editor

John Bull wrote:

James, Any comment?? (James comments are in italics)

Dear Sir, I refer to your article in the January-February 2003 issue of The Immortalist, by James Swayze. I was outraged, not only by the title of the article, using the demeaning collective name of female partners or wives as "The little woman",

This title was not mine and if she had read my original message on cryonet not only could she have responded to me directly but also she could have seen I did not title it so. I cannot help wonder that if her feminist (I support feminism) hackles had not been raised and so vehemently put her off that she might have read the rest of the article with a more open mind.

But also by his utter disregard for the abilities of another person to make their own decisions. To suggest that if "the little woman" did not agree to signup for cryonics, and eventually join him in frozen stasis, she will cause him terrible anguish and horrifying emotions!

I am not sure that I understand this position. Is she discounting the fact that loved ones not signing up can cause the cryonics believer to feel anguish? Perhaps I am more sensitive than most but I am certain that this life is the one and only life ere have and the thought that my loved ones will no longer exist does cause me anguish. Frankly she is not capable on knowing another's feelings, surely not mine, nor the depth to which one feels them. It is my prerogative to feel what I feel as deeply as I wish. Yes, I feel great anguish that my family members will cease to exist in the universe never to be seen or heard from again!

I have been with my husband for twenty-seven years -my choice! I have also been signed up for cryonics for over a decade - my choice! Whilst both my husband and 1 decided to opt for cryonics, neither of us would ever stoop to emotional blackmail in an attempt to persuade the other to do something against their own judgment. Where, in James Swayzes position, is one's own freedom of choice, especially with regard to the respecting of each other's wishes?

To me not choosing cryonics at this day in time amounts to choosing suicide and so no I would never respect that wish, though I can do little about it. I used to but only before I understood that one day all causes of disharmony and discord in one's life that may make one wish to end life will be possible to ameliorate. I see no rational reason to expect a better existence after this one so even ending this life so to achieve some hoped for afterlife is to me despicable. I think it better to beg, borrow, steal and cajole of necessary everyone possible into the next cycle, as we cryonicists put it, and then after they have been made thoroughly whole and can more rationally decide their ultimate fate they can choose not to remain, but too bad for them for so choosing.

Frankly 1 think Mr. Swayze is overtly smug to think that just because you are in a loving relationship then one's own wishes should override those of the other.

I feel no such thing on the face of the statement. However, if my spouse (if I had one) wished to abuse drugs and alcohol or cut her flesh or vomit everything she ate, should I just respect her right to destroy her own life and mine and our children's along with it? Or should I attempt an intervention or employ coercive means to change her destructive trend? Maybe I'd be better off leaving her for one not so bent on self-destruction? Which would be easier for me to live with for a very very long time, doing something-anything or doing nothing? It's all well and good to be up in arms over my seeming wish to coerce a certain choice from said spouse by objectionable (to some) means in an some effort to guarantee _their- personal choice integrity but what of the other person involved? Is there no consideration for the feelings of the one that must live with, for an indefinite amount of time, the horror of being unable to save the life of the one they loved so much?It may be smug of me to think so but really one must ask if some people, brainwashed by certain erroneous belief systems, really are capable of making a truly rational self choice where continued existence over absolute non existence is concerned.

I can understand that he would wish to save and prolong his own life, but what right has he to force his beliefs on to others?

Where in my article did I at any time advocate force? I cannot, no one can, force anyone to believe anything let alone choose cryonics. I merely pointed out that since manner of burial should be irrelevant to one that does not believe cryonics will work, then what harm is there in that person appeasing their worried spouse by signing up? Where's the love?

In the end, no matter what you believe, would it not be a logical preference to allow others their individual choice,

Always allow individual choice. It is the choice of the non cryonics spouse to employ cryonics as an act of expression of love or not. I only suggest it, I cannot force anyone do it.

using reason as your argument,

Reason is exactly what I used for my argument and always use for all my arguments. However, reason is often very lacking in those that do not appreciate the finality of non existence if they are not choosing whatever means available for preservation of life. For now there is a spectrum of means to do this that range from taking an aspirin or avoiding J walking on one end to cryonics as the extreme last resort. Reasonably then, refusing cryonics is not acting for one's own self-preservation.

not emotional blackmail?

All's far in love and ....James (the rational cajoler) Swayze

Editor's Note: James is right, he did not title it. The first two paragraphs of the article were in italics, suggesting they were someone else's words. This is correct, Dave Pizer wrole them, but they weren't attributed to him, and there's no reference to "The Little Woman" anywhere else in his message.. Although I can't remember it, this would seem to indicate that I am the genius who came up with the title! (Sorry Maureen!)