TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,511
One of the more uncommon, but interesting arguments that come from pro-lifers, anti-choicers, and similar people are that if 'X' (where X could be anyone or individual) decided to CTB or gave up trying, then 'X' would have missed out on (insert certain thing, event, accomplishment, contribution, etc.). However, I have a counterargument to that. My counterargument is that even if said person, 'X' did recover (albeit at much later time, they would still have missed out something great during their absence or during debility or their worse times). I will elaborate more and give an example to convey my argument in depth.
For example, there is an extremely talented pianist (Leon Fleisher) who played at very high levels of performance, basically a world renowned concert pianist, however, during near the peak of his concert pianist career, he suffered a neurological disorder, called focal dystonia, which affected his ability to perform, let alone have full functional use of some of his fingers on his right hand. This effectively ended his career as a concert pianist and he suffered for many decades. While he did end up doing other career paths, to me, it was more of a 'cope' (which is valid if he accepted and embraced it – which he did but again, not everyone is similar to he). One day, he recovered and ended up playing again, albeit not to the same degree of mastery and level that he'd liked but he was satisfied.
Now people would ask, how does this example prove my argument and my argument is that even though he did make a recovery due to medical advancements later in his life, it wasn't until he was near his twilight years (in his 60's) and senior age, which by then he wouldn't have the same stamina as he did when he was younger. So in a sense, there was still "missing out" of what his career at his absolute peak could have been and while regained a lot of function and was able to play extraordinarily well even into his senior age, he still missed out on what he could have gotten. Again, while not everyone is similar to Leon Fleisher's case, the point still stands, that for some (or perhaps many more that we don't know of) people, missing out is still missing out.
One other small example is when someone is in their 20's or 30's suffering a false incarceration and one day, even if/when they are exonerated from prison, they lost the years of their adult life that they will never experience nor attain and no matter what happens post-exoneration, they will still always miss it and nothing could fully or truly replace the lost experience. While they could move forward in their senior and twilight years, they will always miss out on what they may have yearn for. Sure coping is one thing but for some people, missing out on something that is irrecoverable and irreplaceable is just too much.
Therefore, to summarize things up and using my examples the way I did, is basically that even if one was able to recover, sometimes it may not always be what they want. Many people ultimately think that well if they recover (even if it may be decades – which most people won't even wait that long, let alone a few years), that it should be good, despite the damage already done or losses already incurred. A lot people just seem to ignore the fact of 'irreplaceable experiences' and think that 'new experiences' in the present and future is good enough, but that itself is just a 'cope'. Finally, I'll close with a disclaimer: I'm not trying gatekeep or dictate what one deems acceptable or not; but simply pointing out the argument that just because there is a much delayed or different recovery doesn't suddenly make life/sentience worth it again. Ultimately, it is STILL up to each individual to hold that subjective value for themselves and themselves only.
For example, there is an extremely talented pianist (Leon Fleisher) who played at very high levels of performance, basically a world renowned concert pianist, however, during near the peak of his concert pianist career, he suffered a neurological disorder, called focal dystonia, which affected his ability to perform, let alone have full functional use of some of his fingers on his right hand. This effectively ended his career as a concert pianist and he suffered for many decades. While he did end up doing other career paths, to me, it was more of a 'cope' (which is valid if he accepted and embraced it – which he did but again, not everyone is similar to he). One day, he recovered and ended up playing again, albeit not to the same degree of mastery and level that he'd liked but he was satisfied.
Now people would ask, how does this example prove my argument and my argument is that even though he did make a recovery due to medical advancements later in his life, it wasn't until he was near his twilight years (in his 60's) and senior age, which by then he wouldn't have the same stamina as he did when he was younger. So in a sense, there was still "missing out" of what his career at his absolute peak could have been and while regained a lot of function and was able to play extraordinarily well even into his senior age, he still missed out on what he could have gotten. Again, while not everyone is similar to Leon Fleisher's case, the point still stands, that for some (or perhaps many more that we don't know of) people, missing out is still missing out.
One other small example is when someone is in their 20's or 30's suffering a false incarceration and one day, even if/when they are exonerated from prison, they lost the years of their adult life that they will never experience nor attain and no matter what happens post-exoneration, they will still always miss it and nothing could fully or truly replace the lost experience. While they could move forward in their senior and twilight years, they will always miss out on what they may have yearn for. Sure coping is one thing but for some people, missing out on something that is irrecoverable and irreplaceable is just too much.
Therefore, to summarize things up and using my examples the way I did, is basically that even if one was able to recover, sometimes it may not always be what they want. Many people ultimately think that well if they recover (even if it may be decades – which most people won't even wait that long, let alone a few years), that it should be good, despite the damage already done or losses already incurred. A lot people just seem to ignore the fact of 'irreplaceable experiences' and think that 'new experiences' in the present and future is good enough, but that itself is just a 'cope'. Finally, I'll close with a disclaimer: I'm not trying gatekeep or dictate what one deems acceptable or not; but simply pointing out the argument that just because there is a much delayed or different recovery doesn't suddenly make life/sentience worth it again. Ultimately, it is STILL up to each individual to hold that subjective value for themselves and themselves only.
