1. Explain-Benefits Argument in Baby Theresa’s case
Baby Theresa was born with condition called Anencephalic, a genetic disorder that causes infants to be born without some parts of the brain such as cerebrum and cerebellum. Most of the time, babies with these conditions do not survive labor or are stillborn. Before Baby Theresa was born, her parents decided to donate her organs to children that would benefit from the organs. This decision brought a great controversy, in which it was widely debated. One of side of the argument was The Benefit Argument that implies if we can benefit someone without harming anyone else, we ought to do so. The Cerebrum is the major part of the brain; it is responsible for determining intelligence, personality, thinking, perceiving, understanding language, interpretation of sensory impulses, planning, organizing, and touch sensation (Bailey). According to Cerebellum.us, the cerebellum is the area of the brain that controls motor movement coordination, balance, equilibrium, muscle tone, and sensory perception. The cerebellum receives signals from all over the body through neural pathways to keep the awareness of where the body’s position and how to handle changes within the environment. The cerebellum “is a very important part of the brain that keeps us aware of our surroundings and therefore alive” (Cerebellum.us). The Benefit Argument of Baby Theresa’s case was “transplanting the organs would benefit the other children without harming Baby Theresa. Therefore, we ought to transplant the organs” (Rachels 3). According to Rachels, The Benefit Argument gives good reason for going forth with the organs transplant once Baby Theresa is born (3). Although, Baby Theresa will need to die in order to donate her organs to other children, she will not be harmed. Because Baby Theresa was born with no Cerebellum or Cerebrum, she had no feelings, no thoughts, and no motor function. As Rachels states, “being alive is a benefit only if it enable you to carry on activities and have thoughts, feelings, and relations with other people- in other words, if it enable you to have a life” (3). Since Baby Theresa would not be able to carry life, her biological existence has no value, thus giving enough reason to go forth with the organs transplantation. In addition, transplanting Baby Theresa’s organs, it would not only give other children a chance to live, but at the same time, Baby Theresa’s biological existence would remain alive as well.
2. Explain-Slippery Slope Argument
Slippery Slope arguments are predictions and acceptance that unproven events will happen if an exception to a rule is made. "If you allow exceptions to a rule, it creates a slope away from the absoluteness of the rule, down which people will slide further and further until they will not obey the rule at all" (Garlikov). According to Hanks, in a slippery slope argument, one argues that the series of actions will lead to an undesirable results because of the lack of evidence. Rachels uses Tracy Latimer’s case as an example of a Slippery-Slope argument. Tracy Latimer was a 12-year-old victim of cerebral palsy with a mental capacity of a three-month-old baby. Tracy’s father killed her by putting her in the cab of his pickup truck and piping exhaust fumes until she died. The Canada Supreme Court stepped in and ruled that a mandatory sentence to be imposed in Mr. Latimer’s case. The Supreme Court’s decisions was based on, “ it would have really been the slippery slope, and opening the doors to other people to decide who should live and who should die” (Rachels 9). By accepting that Mr. Latimer was right in killing Tracy, creates an exception and change to the rule, making it morally acceptable to kill others out of mercy. Therefore, we will be going down a slippery slope, ending up in cheapening the value of human life. Slippery Slope arguments are “hard to assess” (Rachels 10), because they are prediction for the future, and no