Venting Stupid argument presented by pro-lifers with regards to lifespan and duration of sentience

[TAW122]

This is a rather uncommon, but still occasionally heard line by pro-lifers who try to appeal to pro-choicers by claiming that life isn't forever. While it is factually true that no existence is ever indefinite (not withstanding immortality and futurology, but that's another tangent and another topic altogether!) and that all living things eventually pass (whether it be a few years, many decades, half a century, a century, etc.), no amount of unnecessary suffering is justifiable to persist beyond what one is comfortable with. This means, that if one has a life expectancy (under a certain disease or ailment) of maybe 30-40 (biological) years, it shouldn't mean that said person MUST live out 30-40 years (or in some cases, beyond their prognosis). It is unethical, inhumane, and cruel to demand that they suffer (and continue to suffer).

For example of Dan Crews, who is a quadriplegic since age 3 and ended up passing away after about 38 years of suffering. Ever since he has reached the age of majority (a legal adult), his request to die peacefully was not only denied, but he was subjected to unnecessary treatment and suffering throughout his adult life. While people claim that he is now at peace (or since March 21, 2021), those additional dozen or more years of suffering were unnecessary and cruel. Just because he has a shorter lifespan than most other healthy people does not mean that he should be compelled by people to suffer, especially if he has clearly expressed his wishes to die on his own terms multiple times. There are two major issues at play here: The first being that his wishes were NOT respected (his wish to end his suffering earlier than what natural causes may allow), thus his bodily autonomy was not successfully exercised, but rather violated and disrespected. Then the other issue is the years of agony and eventual (unpleasant) death that could have be avoided and prevented HAD he had the right to die, and if the medical professionals (including his treatment team) actually respected his wishes!

So back to debunking the argument of lifespan and finite duration of sentience. Whether one lives many more decades or so Is NOT a good argument against the right to die. Not only is it glib, arrogant, flippant, and presumptuous, it violates a person's bodily autonomy and wishes and also incurs unnecessary suffering for said person.

Just because someone can live for many years (decades or more) suffering, doesn't mean that they should nor do they need to! I agree with @FuneralCry that existence is such an unnecessary event, and without existence itself (sentience and life), there can be no suffering, no problem. This also perfectly crosses over towards the anti-natalist's view, which is that the creation of (new) life is inherently negative as life comes with immense suffering and times of fleeting pleasures that cannot be sustained. There is more harm in existence than there is for non-existence. Nothingness can be a good thing especially when there is absence of suffering and pleasure. I hold the view that nothingness (and non-existence) is better than perpetual suffering outside of one's control. It is sad that most people view nothingness and non-existence as some negative state even though it is objectively considered a neutral state, meaning it is neither good nor bad (as far as the universe is concerned).

I would rather have a short, but somewhat pleasurable existence while going on my own terms than that of a long life/sentience while going through decades of ever increasing suffering and at the mercy of nature, others. Of course, the best situation for me was to never have come into this world. In other words, I would rather have died young, in my 20's, 30's, or so, than to live towards 70's, 80's or worse become a centenarian. I simply could not imagine losing my dignity, my independence and freedom, and becoming dependent on others, the loss of privacy, and others, and letting natural causes (or other causes) reign over me.

 

[FuneralCry]

I find those pro-life views to be absurd and inhumane, just because those people wish to delay their inevitable fate doesn't mean that everyone else should have to. Existing here should never be an obligation, it really does make little sense labelling suicide as a terrible thing as it isn't like one can be harmed by not existing, existence is what causes all the harm.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Like my driving instructor used to say- the speed limit isn't a target.

I'd rather have lived fast and died young- been a brighter star but died quicker than to live some long, drawn out boring existence. As it is, I'm likely to have lived a dull, comparitively short existence! If I manage to go before 'my time'.

We're a VERY peculiar race though. In many ways- we will allow people to actively shorten their lifespan through alcohol consumption, smoking, obesity. Many of the pro-lifers out there will be 'guilty' of those things and they wouldn't enjoy being questioned or prohibited from them because- ironically- they improve their quality of life! They do those things for fun. If longevity is the goal- rather than quality of life- they ought to be ALSO focusing on stricter rules so that so many people don't self sabotage.

I think the arguments are often religious though- you have to wait for God to release you type of thing. For religious folk presumably, pain means gain in the afterlife. The more you suffered and put up with it- the stronger your servitude to God. Maybe they think they'll be rewarded if they drag more (unwilling aetheists) along for the ride! Like organisiations where you get bonuses for the people you convert to join.

 

[TAW122]

I find those pro-life views to be absurd and inhumane, just because those people wish to delay their inevitable fate doesn't mean that everyone else should have to. Existing here should never be an obligation, it really does make little sense labelling suicide as a terrible thing as it isn't like one can be harmed by not existing, existence is what causes all the harm.

Yes, the unborn and non-sentient beings that never came to be/existence suffered none at all. They simply did not exist and while they neither experienced pleasure, they certainly experienced no harm, and lack the ability to perceive or experience anything.

Like my driving instructor used to say- the speed limit isn't a target.

I'd rather have lived fast and died young- been a brighter star but died quicker than to live some long, drawn out boring existence. As it is, I'm likely to have lived a dull, comparitively short existence! If I manage to go before 'my time'.

We're a VERY peculiar race though. In many ways- we will allow people to actively shorten their lifespan through alcohol consumption, smoking, obesity. Many of the pro-lifers out there will be 'guilty' of those things and they wouldn't enjoy being questioned or prohibited from them because- ironically- they improve their quality of life! They do those things for fun. If longevity is the goal- rather than quality of life- they ought to be ALSO focusing on stricter rules so that so many people don't self sabotage.

I think the arguments are often religious though- you have to wait for God to release you type of thing. For religious folk presumably, pain means gain in the afterlife. The more you suffered and put up with it- the stronger your servitude to God. Maybe they think they'll be rewarded if they drag more (unwilling aetheists) along for the ride! Like organisiations where you get bonuses for the people you convert to join.

I feel the same way too. Thoughout my life I have made peace with death numerous times, and hopefully soon in my life I will reach that peaceful state yet again. I certainly have no interest in living to an advanced age while being dependent on others, losing my independence and capacity to enjoy my activities that I cherish, or even end up in a situation (whether tragic accident that leaves me alive, but severely crippled, or suffering a terrible incident/natural disaster that causes immeasurable suffering that is worse than death itself). Every living day is a gamble for potentially worse suffering and the fewer days I'm sentient, the fewer times I would need to roll the dice.

With respect to the human race allowing its' own members to self-sabotage their lives in order to improve their quality of life albeit shortening their lifespan, it is ironic how humanity is ok with it, yet when it comes to immediate end or (almost) imminent death/end, they are repulsed by such. I agree that if they are seeking for longevity over quality of life, then logically, it would make sense for them to regulate stricter rules on what one can/cannot do (not trying to sound pro-life here, but pointing out a logical inconsistency of course!) and to live better. In fact, I think in some sense, they do as in people who abuse drugs and alcohol, do end up in the ER or even temporarily in a psych ward, especially if the result is more psychiatric than just the normal situation.

Yes, I think a lot of pro-life arguments are rooted in religion and as an atheist, I do not buy into this religious dogma of life is sacred but rather that life is an unexpected occurrence that is thrusted upon an individual without their say due to two (or singular) existing individuals performing a biological action that results in sentience (sexual intercourse).

Even if there was an afterlife (just playing Devil's advocate here), I certainly wouldn't want to end up in heaven with the religious pro-lifers, that would just be eternal torture and no recourse (this is assuming the Judeo-Christian, abrahamic religion that is Christianity) for justice, including the loss of free will thus relegating one to be a sycophant. No thanks, and I would rather be in Hell, at least I have free will and eternity to do what I wish to. Perhaps it is cutting off one's own nose to spite one's face, but if I were to exist in an afterlife, I'd rather still have some control and free will/say over things.