The 'slippery' slope and beyond.

Few things in the world are more irritating to me than the debate between the so called "pro-life" adherents and the "pro-choice" advocates. I say irritating because both sides are being dishonest. They both are using the 'slippery slope' fallacy to "prove" their point. That is, they are assuming a strict necessity of progress from point A to Point Z without offering any proof that all the interceding 'letters' must follow from their start at A. In a practical sense they assume the POSSIBLE final outcome and then try to show how A always leads to B, B to C, and on to their hoped for conclusion. I am dealing here with how the Church plays this fallacy, but am just as critical of the pro-choice extremist who say "It's my body and I can do anything I want with it, including choosing to have an abortion at any time." This is blatant nonsense. No one has the right, except in the most extraordinay and rare circumstances to kill an unborn child 10 minutes before its delivery. But whydo they argue such a fantasy? The 'slippery slope' fallacy. If I can't control my peproductive rights, the Church will 'run in' and say: We will legally control your reproductive rights.

Now the Church is the same. Looking at the current scene over the Nancy Pelosy abortion statement, the hierarchy is in a veritable feeding frenzy, trying to use the Church's vague if not false terminology . The church plays word games either deliberately, as I believe, or out of ignorance. Yes, the bishops were responding directly to the Church's position on abortion, but ALSO trying to slip in some anti-choice arguments.

Let's take the"wisdom" of Cardinal Egan who 'bolsters' his argument against abortion by saying that anyone who does not know a fetus is a person need only look at a sonogram and see the fetus "waving and smiling to us". What? Can the good(bad) Cardinal tell me how or show me a one cell waving and smiling. Sheer nonsense. But you say he was talking about abortion. It makes no difference. His statement, fully in line with his position that this one cell is a person like a two month old baby, makes no sense to the basic argument.

Looking further, I notice our mighty bishops talking about "Human life" (I agree the fertilized egg is human life, but so are my fingernails) "life", "human beings" "human species" "when the human fetus becomes a human being in the strictist sense" (why not at the one cell stage?) and yes, one reference to "person".

From over 50 years debating the abortion issue, I say with some certainty, that all serious discussions from both sides comes down to the idea of "person". This is the term used in science, philosophy, ethics and legal fields to identify what all want to protect. Some Church spokesmen, including Cardinals, like to wax over our guarantee of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, trying to argue that since a fertilized egg is "life" (as is sperm) our founding fathers desired to protect the first fertilized cell. One might ask does that single cell also have the right to "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness?" What does that mean when we say a single cell is a person? Our laws and speech are not simply normative, but descriptive; and nowhere do I find a single cell 'called' a person. Take that back. A handfull of catholic theologians, philosophers, do use "person" to describe that one cell. But the overwhelming evidence of usage is that a single cell is not a person, or for that matter a human being or a child, or a baby.

Now where are we. A few Christian (mainly Catholic) clerics and theologians say the impregnated egg is a person. Almost all others say "no." And I shall show later how even most catholics cannot accept a single cell as a person. These Christian/Catholics (most of them) realize the issue of what is a "person" is a theological/philosophcial question. That is fine, if the cleric, theologian, philosopher or devout Catholic sincerely believes this is a theological/philosophical issue.I think people know what I think on this issue. To the sincere believer in the one cell as person doctrine I say fine. There are arguments to be made. People disagree.

BUT, and this is the thrust of those who reject the 'slippery slope' "arguments" of the pro-life and pro-choice factions, even those who are not using the 'slippery slope' argument intentionally:

WE HAVE HERE A HIGHLY DISPUTED ISSUE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE CHURCH SHOULD ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE ITS THEOLOGICAL POSITION ON THOSE WITH DIFFERENT THEOLOGICAL POSITIONS. I THOUGHT THE CHURCH HAD GONE BEYOND THAT. ENFORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON ANY OF YOUR MEMBERS AS A CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP. DO NOT FORCE ALL TO ACCEPT YOUR POSITION BY LAW.