Slippery Slopes

Progressive Christians often decry the use of the “slippery slope” argument when it suits them.  One example here.  On the one hand, I see their point.  I recall the old line from my early days that one drink necessarily leads to alcoholism or one rock and roll riff leads inevitably to Satan worship.  

There is a problem with such arguments that progressives would be correct in opposing if they stated the problem correctly.  It is fallacious to say that because some who have taken step A wind up at point Z, it is true that taking step A will always and inevitably lead to step Z.   Of course that is not the case, but I don’t think anybody ever said it was.

The slippery slope argument does hold true when the slippery slope is defined the way a common man would think of a slippery slope – simply a dangerous place to be.  You may not fall, but better to avoid the situation altogether.

Anyone who has been on a steep roof or the face of a glacier understands a slippery slope.  It is not a question of whether everyone falls to their death that most ask.  It is a question of whether there is legitimate risk – specifically, is there something to hang on to if one starts to slide?  So, Slippery slope arguments actually go something like this:

Position A, if held consistently and logically leads to positions B, C and D in succession.  If there is no logical barrier between A and D, someone, perhaps many, will inevitably fall to position D.  Not all will, but those who do not avoid position D by essentially getting off the slope and onto some other surface, like grabbing a tree branch as one slides down the glacier. 

So the question is what exactly prevents the unsuspecting from falling once they assume position A?

To say slippery slope arguments are bogus, one has to completely ignore the history of the abortion debate.   Pro-abortion folks often suggested the slippery slope arguments were naive and alarmist.  But look where we are.

Pro-life advocates said shortly after Roe v Wade in 1973 that the logical conclusion to abortion would be infanticide and euthanasia.   Stating, as position A, that an unborn fetus whose heart rate is measureable within 3-4 weeks of conception and whose brain function can be measured at 7-8 weeks is not a "person" necessarily allows that other living beings who also have a heart beat and brain function could also be classified as non-persons and killed.  The nebulous notion of "personhood" lacked sufficient definition to be a barrier to infanticide and euthanisia.

Within a few short years we had cases of non-terminally ill patients being denied food and water as the Euthanasia movement gained momentum.  By the Clinton administration, late term abortions that involved removing a viable child feet first from the uterus until the skull was exposed and then inserting a sharp object into the back of the skull were being defended as consistent with the constitutional right to abortion. 

Now we have the grisly realities of the Gosnell case where fetuses are fully delivered and either left to die in toilets or terminated by the severing of the spinal cord or some other measure necessary to stop the "non-person" from behaving as if it was very much alive.  Prior trials of similar "Dr. Death" actors led to acquittals based on the "legal" precedent of Roe v Wade.

The logical connection between abortion as a legal right and Gosnell's brutal practice were apparently so obvious that the overwhelmingly pro-abortion media had to be shamed into even covering the trial.  Working backwards, if the public becomes outraged at the visuals of tiny body parts being the result of a medical procedure, the whole rationale for legalized abortion (non-personhood) might come into question.

I could offer several other examples of slippery slope arguments that have proven to be accurate. 

No, not all who hold position A (advocacy of first trimester abortions) will fall to position D (full scale infanticide), but that is not the point.  The point is that if nothing in position A prevents one who is logically consistent from sliding to position D, then position A is questionable footing, likely dangerous and unwise.  

But to listen to some, unless position A always and inevitably leads to position Z, the slippery slope argument is nonsense.  That is like saying because not everyone falls off of the steep roof or slides over a glacial cliff our children should feel safe playing on roofs or glaciers. No normal “man on the street” would suggest that because not all children fall off the roof parents are over protective if they tell their children to stay on the ground. 

Of course the roof is dangerous.  And the slippery slope argument is no different.  It is pointing out that there are dangerous places to stand.  Those who ignore the warning or criticize those who proclaim the warning place unsuspecting innocents at risk. 

And that is irresponsible.