TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,599
I occasionally hear about the argument of people recovering, however long it may take, or decades and such. Pro-lifers often like to use that as evidence that said person is then enjoying their lives. However, I'm not going to delve into the intricacies and debate on whether the person actually recovered or if they are just afraid of the consequences of failure or such because that wouldn't be the main focus of this thread. Plus that would be for another thread. With that said, here is the argument that I hear pro-lifers make and I will rebut it.
So playing devil's advocate here, I would suppose that, okay, even if said person (either person A or some other random person out there in the world) "has recovered", is it worth it? First off, whether one deems it is worth it or not is not for a third person or outside party to dictate, but rather the individual themselves. Assuming that the person didn't really enjoy their new state in life, but merely stated that they did, I would argue that no, it is not really worth it due to the things they cannot recover or ever get back. Let's consider some scenario examples in order to better illustrate and explain what I mean:
Suppose false convict person is wrongfully convicted and ended up serving many decades of their life, and by the time they are exonerated, they are already of old age, missed out many milestones in their life, and they don't have much of their biological lifespan left, maybe enough just to experience a small amount of pleasure, but not much more as their health won't allow them to fully enjoy what remaining years they have left (at least to what they deem enjoyable/meaningful – subjective and based on the individual themselves). Furthermore, the things they missed, they can never get back, so even if they have the material means to enjoy their life, there are just some things they cannot get and to expect them to enjoy what scraps they have left is just wrong.
The Shawshank Redemption (1994) movie
Another point I'd like to bring up is that prior to recovery, the cost of enduring the suffering in (however long) the interim may be, is a huge factor too. Sometimes even if something is possible, doesn't mean it's feasible and it is not only unjust, cruel, and immoral to impose and decree that one must endure whatever uncanny and intolerable (for said person) conditions that a person must go through, with no evidence of a reasonable time frame for said person to achieve an life that is worth living for said person. This is even assuming there is such one (many pro-lifers would incorrectly, ignorantly, and arrogantly claim otherwise). In most cases, there isn't and said person is just coping through the moon for something that may never come to fruition, thus wasting time and enduring unnecessary suffering!
So in conclusion, what I'm getting at and trying to say here is that even if recovery was possible, it is not necessarily worth the price paid to get there, nor is it feasible. Furthermore, due to objective and universal conditions, even the enjoyment of whatever is left is not always worth it (of course, it will vary from individual to individual, so I can't speak for all, but at least for a lot of people it isn't – and pro-lifers don't want to admit that). Finally, at the end, it would be a grave violation of one's personal bodily autonomy to be subjected to endure whatever suffering in the interim in hopes for a possibility of recovery that may/not come to fruition and that will always be wrong, especially from the pro-choicer's perspective. If one wishes to endure the suffering in hopes to see recovery someday (be it years, decades, or near end of their biological life), then that's noble and commendable, but no one should ever be guilted, forced, or otherwise coerced into living and suffering for a life they never wanted (even if there was minute chance of recovery)! The price paid is not necessarily always worth it.
So playing devil's advocate here, I would suppose that, okay, even if said person (either person A or some other random person out there in the world) "has recovered", is it worth it? First off, whether one deems it is worth it or not is not for a third person or outside party to dictate, but rather the individual themselves. Assuming that the person didn't really enjoy their new state in life, but merely stated that they did, I would argue that no, it is not really worth it due to the things they cannot recover or ever get back. Let's consider some scenario examples in order to better illustrate and explain what I mean:
Suppose false convict person is wrongfully convicted and ended up serving many decades of their life, and by the time they are exonerated, they are already of old age, missed out many milestones in their life, and they don't have much of their biological lifespan left, maybe enough just to experience a small amount of pleasure, but not much more as their health won't allow them to fully enjoy what remaining years they have left (at least to what they deem enjoyable/meaningful – subjective and based on the individual themselves). Furthermore, the things they missed, they can never get back, so even if they have the material means to enjoy their life, there are just some things they cannot get and to expect them to enjoy what scraps they have left is just wrong.
The Shawshank Redemption (1994) movie
In the movie, near the end, the character Brooks Hatlen ends up CTB'ing despite being freed after serving five decades in the Shawshank (prison). Yes, while many people can often consider an exoneration as recovery, Brooks certainly didn't. He may be a free man in the eyes of the law, but the change in society being so great and also the loss of many potential years of pleasure can never be recovered. Many critics, pro-lifers, and anti-choice people would like to claim, "but Brooks can still enjoy what little life has to offer and should make the most out of it!" though that is such an ignorant statement to make because biologically speaking, (and at the time, the life expectancy of an average individual is around 67-70, males being a bit less than females) so even if Brooks isn't necessarily gone, he lost most/all of his best years and only has the twilight years to enjoy. Pro-lifers like to claim but that's better than nothing and he should be grateful for being free and left with scraps (of whatever remains, if any, quality of life)!
See the problem is how pro-lifers like to use outliers and edge cases to prove a point and further their agenda that the pro-life stance is correct and any other stance is invalid (which is why we continue to see contention between the pro-choice and pro-lifer groups, but I digress).
See the problem is how pro-lifers like to use outliers and edge cases to prove a point and further their agenda that the pro-life stance is correct and any other stance is invalid (which is why we continue to see contention between the pro-choice and pro-lifer groups, but I digress).
Another point I'd like to bring up is that prior to recovery, the cost of enduring the suffering in (however long) the interim may be, is a huge factor too. Sometimes even if something is possible, doesn't mean it's feasible and it is not only unjust, cruel, and immoral to impose and decree that one must endure whatever uncanny and intolerable (for said person) conditions that a person must go through, with no evidence of a reasonable time frame for said person to achieve an life that is worth living for said person. This is even assuming there is such one (many pro-lifers would incorrectly, ignorantly, and arrogantly claim otherwise). In most cases, there isn't and said person is just coping through the moon for something that may never come to fruition, thus wasting time and enduring unnecessary suffering!
So in conclusion, what I'm getting at and trying to say here is that even if recovery was possible, it is not necessarily worth the price paid to get there, nor is it feasible. Furthermore, due to objective and universal conditions, even the enjoyment of whatever is left is not always worth it (of course, it will vary from individual to individual, so I can't speak for all, but at least for a lot of people it isn't – and pro-lifers don't want to admit that). Finally, at the end, it would be a grave violation of one's personal bodily autonomy to be subjected to endure whatever suffering in the interim in hopes for a possibility of recovery that may/not come to fruition and that will always be wrong, especially from the pro-choicer's perspective. If one wishes to endure the suffering in hopes to see recovery someday (be it years, decades, or near end of their biological life), then that's noble and commendable, but no one should ever be guilted, forced, or otherwise coerced into living and suffering for a life they never wanted (even if there was minute chance of recovery)! The price paid is not necessarily always worth it.
