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:LisaMPowered by Sidelines