Shadow to Light: “As Coyne’s reasoning makes clear, the legalization and normalization of abortion has provided the slippery slope toward infanticide. I can’t be sure, but I bet if you look at the arguments of those opposed to legalizing abortion back in the 1960s and 70s, you’d find people warning about this exact development and you’d find such warnings being dismissed.”
Ilíon: I can be sure, I remember it. And it wasn’t just in the 60s and 70s. I wasn’t really aware of the abortion regime until about 1980 … and at least into the 1990s, if not into this century, the pro-abortionists were pooh-poohing the argument not only that that “the legalization and normalization of abortion has provided the slippery slope toward infanticide”, but that it *must* lead to infanticide.
At some point in the very recent past, the pro-abortionists totally switched it up — whereas previously they had pooh-poohed the argument that “the legalization and normalization of abortion has provided the slippery slope toward infanticide”, they began to actively argue that *since* there is no moral difference between a pre-birth human being and a born human infant and *since* the killing of a pre-birth human being is legal, that *therefore* the killing of a born human infant must also be legalized.
You know, exactly as we anti-abortionists had argued they eventually would and must.
Here is an exchange from Facebook occasioned by the post at Shadow to Light --
Ian Bibby: The "Slippery Slope Fallacy" - the one "fallacy" that somehow results in correct predictions 100% of the time.
Bradley Nartowt: Strictly speaking, the slippery slope States that A does not mandate B as a consequence.
Often, people will misuse this and think "because slippery slope, if A, then B is prohibited." Which, of course, is nonsense.
Ilíon: There is also a Slippery Slope which can be stated as "He who says 'A' must say 'B'", and that's the one that the people who want 'A' and don't really object to 'B' always pooh-pooh.
"He who says 'A' must say 'B'" -- that is, given that 'A' entails 'B', if someone asserts 'A', then ultimately he will assert 'B'.
Here, 'A" is abortion (because that is the moral outrage that our society accepted first), and 'B' can be either euthanasia or infanticide. Here, the Slippery Slope does indeed apply. As Ian said, "he "Slippery Slope Fallacy" - the one "fallacy" that somehow results in correct predictions 100% of the time." The Slippery Slope applies becasue the same *premise* that justifies any one of euthanasia or infanticide or abortion -- denial of the Imago Dei, and thus denial that all persons possess the inalienable right to life -- also justifies all of the others.
5 comments:
"denial of the Imago Dei, and thus denial that all persons possess the inalienable right to life -- also justifies all of the others."
Without objective, fixed first principles you can end up wherever you want.
Well, the Charlie Gard case in Britain ought to be a wake up call to all those who thought there was no slippery slope between abortion and infanticide.
People manage to not see what they don't want to see.
BTW, welcome to my dusty little corner of the 'net.
That's a really fun exercise for people.
Given arguments [1] for position A, what are the counters that would prevent 1 from also applying to B?
I had that once with a good friend when were debating about human/AI relationships (hey, we're geeks, what did you expect?). I pointed out that a lot of his reasoning and arguments for that were nearly identical to those for homosexual relationships and why should one be permitted and not the other?
Another example would be the Left's will and efforts to power, and why can't the Right adopt them as well? The alt-right is proving the slipper slope can work against you as well as for you. (I'm sure we can play a game of more of these.)
Slippery slopes CAN be prevented, but typically it takes a lot of effort and discipline. Something I never bet on when it comes to people.
Post a Comment