Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

How long does it take to get to the bottom of a slippery slope? While the answer to that question depends on the issue and your definition of the “bottom”, the Netherlands is conducting tests to help answer that question where it concerns the sanctity of life and marriage.

Within the past month we’ve seen news out of Europe’s most progressive state demonstrating their acceptance of polygamous homosexual civil-unions and the euthanasia of new-born children with disabilities. How did they get to this point?

The Dutch journey towards the destruction of marriage began when they legalized homosexual civil unions in 1998. This was followed in a mere three year’s time by the legalization of homosexual marriage and adoption of children. Now just four years later they have certified the civil union of one man and two lesbians.

With homosexual polygamous civil unions now being permitted can anyone doubt that homosexual polygamous marriage will be far behind? They have gone from the top of the slope with traditional marriage to their current position in just seven years. And given what they’ve allowed thus far, how could they justify slowing the wheels of “progress”?

Why not just pass a law saying that everyone is married to everyone and be done with it? Then everyone would be free from condemnation and we could have the purely amoral socialist utopia such people dream of.

So where are we on the slope? Three U.S. states have already legalized civil unions, and last year Massachusetts’ State Supreme Court forced gay marriage on that state without so much as a vote of the people. Now many newly married homosexuals are returning to other states to sue them over recognition of their arrangements.

When it comes to the sanctity of life, the Dutch have even more to be proud of. In 2001 they began with voluntary euthanasia for people that were terminally ill, but then moved rapidly to expand the franchise to those who were disabled. By 2004 they had moved to the euthanasia of disabled and terminally ill newborn babies and granted twelve-year olds the right to assisted suicide without parental consent. In addition, they began to allow the euthanasia of the terminally ill who were mentally incapable of deciding whether they wanted to live or die.

Dutch hospitals have petitioned the government to allow the killing of terminal infants and young children, as well as the severely mentally retarded. They have also pushed ahead with establishing guidelines to euthanize newborns that are determined to be in pain associated with incurable diseases or severe physical deformities. Hitler would be proud.

One could say that we’ve reached the point of “fourth trimester” abortions, or even “post-birth” abortions. This from countries that claim the death penalty for murderers is inhumane.

Given the rapid progress science is making in the field of genetics, how long until perfectly healthy children are subject to abortion or “mercy killing” due to a detected genetic proclivity towards some specific illness?

Once you accept the arbitrary justification that it’s OK to kill a child when it’s on one side of the birth canal, it becomes merely a matter of time before progressive logic rationalizes doing so on the other side.

Within our own country, we first had Roe in 1973 which legalized abortion only up to the second trimester, but it routinely takes place beyond that point. And now in recent years we’ve been faced with the horror of partial-birth abortion; a procedure which the Congress and President moved to eradicate, but the courts have continued to allow.

Even today, prospective mothers of children with disabilities here in America are getting subtle pressure from doctors to have an abortion. In a recent study, mothers-to-be of children with Downs Syndrome reported that their physicians were overwhelmingly negative during their pregnancy, often advising abortion.

Given the rising cost associated with health care, soon the arguments will no longer revolve around the “choice” of the patients, or of the parents in the cases of children, but rather will be about who is fit or even worthy to live. Hard to imagine? Twenty years ago it would have been hard to imagine, much less convince someone we would be where we are today – sliding faster and farther down the slippery slope.

Once society starts down such slopes, how does it stop? And where? And what rationale do you use to defend stopping at any certain point against those who demand we go farther?

Like the cheap ‘70’s sci-fi flick Logan’s Run, we’ll all be genetically engineered to be healthy and pretty and live in a marriageless, parentless, society with guiltless pleasure; but when we turn thirty, it will be our duty to society to allow ourselves to be snuffed out to avoid being a burden. Ah, brave new world. It’s waiting for us at the bottom of the slope.

Ed:LisaM

Powered by

About Drew McKissick

Drew McKissick is a political consultant with over twenty-five years of experience specializing in political strategy, planning and organization as well as the development of grassroots related political action programs. He has worked as a political activist at the local, state and national levels, and has served in elected and appointed positions at all levels of the Republican Party, including serving as a member of the Republican National Committee. He also writes a regular column providing analysis and commentary on current events.
  • http://www.lmaw.org John Wilkinson

    Drew McKissick writes, “The Dutch journey towards the destruction of marriage began when they legalized homosexual civil unions in 1998. This was followed in a mere three year’s time by the legalization of homosexual marriage and adoption of children. Now just four years later they have certified the civil union of one man and two lesbians.”

    The Dutch have not certified a 3-person civil union. The parties involved filed a _private_ agreement that was witnessed by a notary. The government is not a party to their private agreement, nor does it officially recognize it. See http://www.freedomtomarry.org/document.asp?id=3506 for the true story.

  • Nancy

    You’re behind the times. Insurance companies already draw the line of who lives & who dies for most of us. And the rest of us have that decision foisted on us courtesy of W. Bush & our wonderful Congress, who ensure only the rich get decent medical treatment & pharmceuticals, these days.

  • Nex Pert

    No time to think of such things. There could be weapons-of-mass-destruction-related programs in foreign countries. We will eventually have to attack and occupy all foreign countries.

  • Cunning Linguist

    Yeah it’s all George Bush’s and the insurance companies fault when a smoker dies of lung cancer or when an obese person who can’t put down the big macs dies of heart failure.

    The health problems of Americans have nothing to do with the choices we make as individuals or the fact that your left wing buddies are always trying to make it easier for illegal aliens to come into the country and get fre healthcare right Nancy?

    Do you ever get tired of blaming others and making idiotic remarks Nancy?

  • Nancy

    Hardly: I have too many idiots like you to respond to.

  • Dr. Kurt

    Wow! I am going to print out this post & use it in class! It is a beautiful example of several clever rhetorical tricks: the red herring, the logical falacy, and the correlation-means-causation fallacy. Surely this is a sly, clever, spoof?
    Either that or our educational system no longer teaches reasoning skills…

  • Nancy

    What do you teach?

  • Dr. Kurt

    Psychology, human sexuality, gender issues, multicultural competence in counseling, etc. Like many, I think that classic therapy techniques are mostly rhetoric: convince someone to think differently, albeit “for their own good.” That’s why I have embraced Narrative approaches in recent years.
    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the older I get, the less I seem to know!

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    you are right dr. kurt, the correlation-means-causation fallacy is very, very popular in most of the politics columns/threads.

  • Nancy

    I thought from the roster of rhetoric you listed that it might be debating or public speaking or even English. I hadn’t heard of rhetoric per se being taught in ages, anywhere.

  • Dr. Kurt

    Regarding correlations, one of my favorites is the fact that ice cream sales are highly correlated with urban riots. Therefore, says the knucklehead, ice cream must cause riots! I’m sure ya’ll can figure out that a third variable actually drives both correlates: hot weather…
    Let’s all stay away from ignorant, illogical, unsupported, distorted bloggers like this dude’s, shall we?

  • http://iamrighturpie.blogspot.com/ jadester

    don’t be silly. Any right-minded idiot can see that once you’ve legalised gay marriage, legalised polygamy isn’t far behind.
    I mean, these people are all the same, aren’t they? They’re all in on the communist conspiracy to undermine right-thinking fundamentalist Christians, don’tcha know?

  • RedTard

    Ah, the wise and mighty Dr. Kurt educating us on the nuances of correlation and causation. Maybe you could use your post #11 as an example of ad hominem as well.

    I have noticed a strong correlation between soft sciences, propagandizing, and left wing professors. I’m not sure if that is caused by the fact that they can’t find a job in the private sector or if they just enjoy polluting young minds.

    Unlike the good Dr., I think the slippery slope that begins with killing those that are a burden to society is worthy of discussion and debate. Dismissing the argument as ignorant and illogical without addressing it is one of those cheap debating tactics.

    Watching events unfold in countries that are farther along in the process than us is a good first start.

  • RedTard

    At this point I think anybody that wants to die should be allowed to take their own life regardless of their health or the surrounding circumstances. Perhaps they could have a Equate brand home euthanization kit available over the counter at walmart for $18.88 + tax.

    What I don’t believe is that anyone should die because of anyone else’s choice or for anyone else’s convenience.

    I think movies like “Logan’s Run” do a good job of exploring what could happen if society gets too comfortable with the idea of dying for convenience sake.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    I am all for the “slippery slope” theory. It’s visible in society has has several examples. But that means, establishing boundaries and acting within them.

    “Gay marriage and abortion are bad, oh and ban drugs and teach abstinence, because we are losing our morals” is the same kind of argumentative pitfall that can have us tumbling back down the other side of the mountain.

    The line is somewhere, and not necessarily dead-center moderate. Maybe it’s “no gay marriage.” Maybe it’s “abortion is OK.”

    But can we throw out two arguments on gay marriage?

    For: We were wrong about interracial marriage, maybe we are wrong about this. Yes, we were wrong about interracial marriage. But that’s interracial marriage, this is gay marriage.

    Against: If a man can marry another man, then a man can marry two people or an animal. Again, it’s a separate concept.

%d bloggers like this: