the "no-reasonable-person" argument

i often get the "no-reasonable-person" argument right after my "slippery-slope" argument... it goes like this:

ME: "If you allow A, then you will eventually have to allow B."

REASONABLE PERSON: "No reasonable person will ever allow B."

UNREASONABLE ME: "Bullshit."

well, guess what?... there are those among us who are "reasonable" and are pushing arguments that the rest of us abhor... but we've already gone past the point of no return in many cases.

for instance... abortion... (oh lord, here he goes again)... well, we've already allowed the unborn to be aborted at will... maybe we condemn certain methods like partial-birth, but we turn a blind eye to other methods which achieve the same end result; the death of the unborn.

but No-Reasonable-Person would equate abortion and infanticide... right?... right?

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.
- Journal of Medical Ethics - 23 February 2012

step #1: redefine the terms of the argument... it isn't infanticide... it's after-birth-abortion... because you've already accepted the term abortion as morally neutral.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.

did they just make "non-human animals" equivalent to the mentally retarded?... i do believe they did!... and more so, they qualified their argument as "many non-human animals and mentally retarded" are persons; so, by definition, some are not persons.

let that sink in.

in case you missed it, adults who are mentally retarded are given a status below that of "many non-human animals"... they do not have a "moral right to life"... in other (more clear) words, you can kill them with impunity, with no regard to their rights (as they have none).

the "reasonable person" would argue that we would only allow aborting those which are unable to fulfill their potential as a person... "no reasonable person" would suggest aborting healthy children... right?

If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

that's right... they want to abort healthy infants.

but we're not on a slippery slope... are we?

---

source:
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

abort your teenager

Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.

yes... we used to call those people Nazi's... ever visit the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C.?

The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

which "properties" are these?... supposedly, they can't ascribe a "basic value" to their own life, therefore cannot be a "loss" should that life be deprived... i believe that even a fetus recognizes a "basic value", or why else would there be a pain response?

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.

so, what are they saying?... we can ascribe rights as we see fit?... well, what if i say we grant personhood at age 18?... can i abort my teenager?
"I brought you into this world; I can take you out!"

However, whereas you can benefit someone by bringing her into existence (if her life is worth living), it makes no sense to say that someone is harmed by being prevented from becoming an actual person. The reason is that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.

nice trick, that... redefine the term harm into something that agrees with your argument... how many times have we seen this tactic?

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

so... if, as a parent, my child becomes a burden (or a punishment, as President Obama calls them), such that i believe the social, psychological, or economic cost is too great, then i have the right to dispose of them?... this will change my kid's Christmas lists, dramatically!

to all the Pro-Choice people... is this what you wanted?... because this is the natural course for the ethics you support... if such a basic right as life can be granted on such a subjective basis, what right do you have to say someone can't abort a child when it becomes a burden to the parent?

follow this thought down the rabbit-hole, and humans only have the right to life as those around them see fit... cancer patients are a burden to healthcare... elderly have outlived their useful life... children are not persons, but property... the mentally retarded have less rights than "normal" people... if someone is in an accident and gets brain damaged, should we just kill them outright before they inconvenience anyone?

how far do you let this go?

---

source:
Australian Ethicists Argue the Right to Kill Babies After They’re Born - Liberty Counsel March 2, 2012

JME Online First, published on March 2, 2012 as 10.1136/medethics-2011-100411

i'm offended = make a law

Special Olympics: Rosa's Law

i'm sure i'll be thought less of for saying this, but do we really need a law passed rebranding mental retardation as "intellectual disability"?... really?... a LAW?

Merriam-Webster defines retardation as slowness of development or progress... disability is a restriction, disadvantage, or impairment... yet the offensive term is the most benign... if you have a retardation, you have a slowed progress... your progress hasn't stopped, just slowed... but if you have a disability, you are impaired and restricted... you're at a disadvantage... a disability often means you cannot succeed... retardation just means it may take longer to succeed...

but i'm not blind to the cause of this law... mean and hateful people have used the term "retard" as a pejorative... there are hundreds of examples of this... many of them, even i am hesitant to utter... or even write on the internet... normal, often technically correct, words are deemed offensive... mainly due to people, whom we would typically disdain anything they might say, using the words in an attempt to hurt other people...

now, so not to offend, the term "retarded" is off limits... to quote Charlie Brown, "Good grief!"... do we really need to make a law every time someone gets offended?... at what point do we make it official and deputize the Thought Police?...

i would say that practice is retarded, but that would imply progress... this law is intellectually disabled.