Unfortunately many countries are already on that slippery slope. Let me take Holland as an example...
1973: Physicial takes the life of her mother. Prosecuted
1981: Abortion on Demand Legalised
1981: Active voluntary euthanasia criteria stipulated. (Physycians could assist terminally-ill patiants who requested to be killed)
1982: Euthanasia permitted for chronic disease.
1985: Non voluntary euthanasia allowed
1989: Infanticide permitted
1994: Euthanasia allowed for mental suffering.
1997: No penalty if physicians to not follow the rules.
2002: Euthanasia legalised (before only tolerated)
In less than 23 years, Dutch doctors have gone from killing the TERMINALLY ILL who ask for it, to killing the CHRONICALLY ILL who ask for it, to killing the DEPRESSED who have no physical illness who ask for it, to killing NEW-BORN BABIES with birth defects, to killing PEOPLE WHO DID NOT ASK FOR IT.
Rather than being rare, statistics now show that almost 9% of all Dutch people who die each year, are intentionally killed by their doctors. (Rammelink report by the Dutch Government)
Yeah! There's no slippery slope there at all.
Unless all innocent life is considered sacred, there's no point too which the human immagination won't go.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI believe he would prefer it, if we choose life, and be aware of what
as a christian KJ, do you think there is a 'right' flavor? what would jesus say on abortion in your opinion?
i disagree that the abortion issue is about personal taste. some nights i crave chocolate; some nights i crave vanilla. my personal tastes are fleeting, fluctuating, and flippy. somehow i think abortion is more cut and dried. the right to ...[text shortened]... hbor? of course not. therefore i think the only question is at what point does 'life' begin?
could occur because of our actions, like sex outside of marriage. I
do believe he wants us to be responsible for the choices we make,
and not make choices that could possibly lead to the death of the
one within the womb.
Children are a blessing from God, they are not something to kill,
because they are not well planned for.
Kelly
Originally posted by bbarrBBarr: "Yep, when confronted with ignorance and superstition I'm as authoritarian as ever."
Yep, when confronted with ignorance and superstition I'm as authoritarian as ever.
Why should we consider a zygote a person? I take it as untendentious that rocks and plants and cells are not persons. So, if zygotes are persons, then zygotes must have some property that rocks and plants and cells lack. What property do you think this is, Ivanhoe? If yo ...[text shortened]... roperty?
Now, I'm off to a NARAL fundraiser, and I won't be back until tomorrow.
Cheers!
Still letting others determine your behaviour, huh ?
Originally posted by bbarrBBarr: "There is no slippery slope here leading to the denial of moral considerability to the mentally insane or the terminally ill."
No, the main point of the debate is whether an organism's possession of the property of being a human is sufficient for it being morally wrong to kill that organism. I see no reason to think that a human organism in a persistent vegetative ...[text shortened]... ersons, early fetuses are not persons, but merely human organisms.
After so many discussions you still haven't managed to be able to make the distinction between the "Logical Fallacy of the Slippery Slope" and the societal developments called the "Slippery Slope" ACTUALLY taking place as Halitose is pointing out to you. I have explained this so many times that I'm beginning to doubt your intentions.
http://discardedlies.com/entries/2005/03/down_the_slippery_slope.php
Euthanasia in the Netherlands.
A hospital in the Netherlands — the first nation to permit euthanasia — recently proposed guidelines ( the so called "Groningen Protocol". IvanH) for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.
The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives — a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates.
In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.
http://discardedlies.com/entries/2005/03/down_the_slippery_slope.php
So, how about it Bbarr ? Do you still keep focusing on the theoretical fallacy of the Slippery Slope or is it about time starting to wonder about what is REALLY happening ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe only person I'm aware of in these threads who advocates such an extreme view is Shavixmir, and I've already told you why I don't think it worth the time to try and educate him. Besides, you have no idea when or with whom I discuss these issues outside of the forums. As I've said before, I commonly discuss these issues in my applied ethics classes. My feminist friends agree with my position.
What keeps surprising me is that you NEVER discuss the, in your ànd my view, immorality of performing an abortion after the sixth month with someone who is in favour of such a crime ..... NEVER.
Are you afraid of loosing some political "friends" ? Maybe you are afraid of being called "mysogynistic" by your feminist friends or maybe you are afraid of being accused of using women as "chattel", Bbarr ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeWe spent most of our time discussing how to fight the push for abstinence only education programs, and about Supreme Court nominations. Had anybody asked me my position on late-term abortions, I certainly would have let them know what I think. Had somebody advocated no restrictions on late-term abortions, I certainly would have asked them if they thought infanticide was permissible, and when then asked them what morally relevant property distinguishes the newborn infant from the just-about-to-be-born fetus.
BBarr: "Now, I'm off to a NARAL fundraiser, ...."
Are you going to defend your stance that it is morally unacceptable to perform an abortion after the sixth month in utero, unless the mother's life is seriously at risk ? ..... of course not.
Originally posted by bbarrYou stated it , that should have been enough.
We spent most of our time discussing how to fight the push for abstinence only education programs, and about Supreme Court nominations. Had anybody asked me my position on late-term abortions, I certainly would have let them know what I think. Had somebody advocated no restrictions on late-term abortions, I certainly would have asked them if they thought inf ...[text shortened]... morally relevant property distinguishes the newborn infant from the just-about-to-be-born fetus.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI was responding to the post of Halitose's where he claimed the following:
BBarr: "There is no slippery slope here leading to the denial of moral considerability to the mentally insane or the terminally ill."
After so many discussions you still haven't managed to be able to make the distinction between the "Logical Fallacy of the Slippery Slope" and the societal developments called the "Slippery Slope" ACTUALLY taking pla ...[text shortened]... ng out to you. I have explained this so many times that I'm beginning to doubt your intentions.
But once you cross that line that you are willing to kill to solve a social problem, what prevents the killing of the mentally insane, or the terminally ill. If the quality of life is the yardstick to measure whether it should be terminated or not, you've hit a slippery slope.
This point is irrelevant to my position, since my position on abortion has nothing to do with the quality of life of the fetus, but rather with the fetus's possession of certain criterial psycological capacities. Since there is no valid chain of reasoning that moves from my position to the position that the mentally insane or terminally ill can be killed, there is no slippery slope that threatens. If you are concerned about politicians and judges reasoning fallaciously from my position to the posiiton Halitose is worried about, then you should confront their fallacious reasoning, and not my position.
Originally posted by bbarrIf you do not draw the line at conception, where would you propose that the line be drawn?
We spent most of our time discussing how to fight the push for abstinence only education programs, and about Supreme Court nominations. Had anybody asked me my position on late-term abortions, I certainly would have let them know what I think. Had somebody advocated no restrictions on late-term abortions, I certainly would have asked them if they thought inf ...[text shortened]... morally relevant property distinguishes the newborn infant from the just-about-to-be-born fetus.
4, 8, 16 cell stage?
When the first brain waves are transmitted?
When it starts sucking its thumb?