Slippery slopes

From Cor ad Cor
Revision as of 16:44, 1 January 2015 by Mxmsj (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cloning bad arguments.

Setting precedents.

Shared premises?

Contraception, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia

"What Next in the Marriage Debate?"
“It’s going to get worse before it gets a lot worse.”
"‘Gay’ Marriage and Contraception."
In every nation, bar none, contraception has led to abortion—and from abortion to infanticide, the prelude to full-blown euthanasia! Once the purposes of sex are torn loose from procreation and the family, the homosexual thrust rears its ugly head, teen pregnancies and abortions sky-rocket, VD burgeons out of control, the divorce rate escalates, the birthrate falls, while the barnyard approach to birth control called sterilization becomes commonplace. Soon we see the swift disintegration of the family.
At this point in our history as a nation, and particularly as Catholics, we should be able to see clearly, based on what has already transpired in the culture and the law, that Wednesday’s Supreme Court decisions are not really a surprise at all. In fact, they represent a natural progression in man’s desire to denigrate the natural law, distort it, and otherwise trample on truth in deference to politically popular buzzwords such as “freedom of choice” or “personal rights.”

Sexual morality

  • If contraception is acceptable, why not same sex marriages? Sterile sex is sterile sex; all that matters is pleasure (hedonism).
  • If same sex marriages are acceptable, why not polygamy (multiple wives)? It's a natural arrangement in many human cultures (most especially in Islam and Mormonism).
  • If polygamy is acceptable, why not polandry (multiple husbands)? Some tribes allow this.
  • If polygamy and polyandry are acceptable, why not polyamorous marriages (any combination agreed to by the partners)? It's all a private matter; the state has no interest in what happens between consenting adults behind closed doors.
  • If prostitution and swinging are OK, what's wrong with adultery?
  • If polyamory is acceptable, why not swinging (couples engaging in sex with multiple partners)?
  • If it is legal for same-sex couples to adopt children, why not same sex marriage?
  • If contraception in marriage is acceptable, why not prostitution?
  • If contraception in marriage is acceptable, why not incest?
  • If pleasure is all that matters, what is wrong with oral sex or anal sex?
  • If pleasure is all that matters, what is wrong with bestiality?

See also the article on the crisis of chastity in our culture.


  • If abortion is a right, what right do doctors have not to provide abortions?
  • If abortion is a right, what is wrong with infanticide? Diagnosis of birth defects and murdering the child are both easier once the baby's body is extracted from the mother's body.
  • If abortion is morally acceptable, what's wrong with breeding babies to provide body parts for adults?
  • If abortion is morally acceptable, what's wrong with using the unborn human being as a lab rat? What's wrong with running experiments on the unborn, then murdering them in the womb?


  • If humans have a right to die, then what right do doctors have not to murder them?
Shortly after Hitler’s army invaded Poland in 1939, he empowered German doctors to employ involuntary assisted-suicide measures. Six euthanasia centers were opened and given the euphemistic designation, Charitable Foundations for Institutional Care. As the name of the centers suggests, killing was rationalized as a compassionate act.
The Nuremberg Trials revealed that this initial program, confined to Germany, was responsible for the deaths of at least 70,000 adults and 5,000 children, although other estimates are as high as 400,000. The program was terminated by Hitler’s orders in 1941 because there was genuine opposition throughout the Reich. ...
The Nazi’s answer was to move the programs to the conquered eastern nations where they folded into the Final Solution. Involuntary assisted suicide became the prescribed “medical means” to eliminate not only the actually infirm, but also Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs who were considered “diseased” races.
After World War II, the assisted-suicide movement went underground. By the 1960s and 1970s, however, it was making a comeback, prompting Malcolm Muggeridge to say: “For the Guinness Book of Records, you can submit this: that it takes about thirty years in our humane society to transform a war crime into an act of compassion.”
Dutch courts have ruled that when a doctor’s conscience is in conflict with the law he is permitted to prescribe euthanasia to relieve suffering. This is justified as an example of a force majeure – an unforeseen course of events that abrogates the usual legal necessities. ...
If we fail to maintain a sense of the sacredness of human life until its natural end – and right now Obamacare seems to be tending in that direction – don’t be surprised if our own hospitals and nursing homes turn into “compassionate” slaughterhouses.