Slippery slope arguments are flawed because they assume that the slope is slippery. But there is always a risk that people, with their various agendas, will gradually force change along that slope until they achieve their nefarious goals. And so, starting from Reagan’s logic, I explain using similarly flawed yet compelling logic (what really?) why abortion and birth control should be freely available to all in unlimited fashion.
According to Reagan’s slippery slope argument, allowing abortion for “arbitrary reasons” is a slippery slope that will inevitably lead to the denial of human rights. In other words, if we allow people to have abortions simply because having children is inconvenient, they will inevitably start to have abortions for other reasons.
Let’s look at the slippery slope side. How slippery is this slippery slope? At this time the overwhelming majority of abortions are accidental, unplanned pregnancies. Is it inevitable that allowing abortion of these pregnancies will result in other parents selectively aborting until they get just the right hair color? If we allow abortion, will parents inevitably begin breeding a master race in at the expense of aborted fetuses?
Well, maybe so. There are some abortions being performed right now because the child would be female–and that’s simply wrong. It is hard to disagree when you say “this fetus has the same right to a birth as other fetuses even though it is female and brown-eyed and has down’s syndrome and is the Antichrist and its parents are 12 years old crack addicts.” So to avoid this conundrum, we might consider denying access to abortion.
At this time, a number of religious people want to draw the line further back: by denying access to both abortion and birth control. In fact, there is a whole continuum of options here. In the middle of the continuum there is allowing abortion for rape victims. If we allow abortion with no ethical restraints, ultimately we have people aborting children because they are girls. In the other direction we have the birth control pill and IUDs, which technically cause the loss of fertilized ova no matter what its sex. And at the far end of the continuum we have people using condoms and abstinence to selectively prevent birth.
If an IUD is a crime against a “preborn child,” are other forms of birth control also a crime?
Successful, educated people choosing not to have children, is that not a crime against the children? We are harming the entire human race a tiny bit by allowing successful, educated people to go childless. And what about the human rights of all their children? That woman has perfectly good ova that get thrown away every month. Every month that man resorbs thousands, millions of sperm. By choosing not to have frequent, unprotected sex, they are denying the birthright of their children. Those unborn children deserve the same chance as children born to underprivileged crack addicts, don’t you think?
You want to think I’m being silly, but you know there are people who agree with what I just said. Don’t those children deserve a chance? (I’ve even half convinced myself, simply by using the words “unborn children” and “parents” to describe two people who don’t even have sex with each other.) This slippery slope starts with denying parents the use of birth control, and ends with forced parenthood, fertility drugs and artificial insemination.
Can we stop being silly, then? Lying between forced parenthood and “selectively breeding a master race” you will find an entire continuum of options. The best thing to do is draw the line where it provides the most good for the most people. And if you think that’s pretty easy, it is–if you can agree on your goals.
This is where the real problem lies. This all hinges on the disingenuous claim of wanting to protect the “human rights” of the “future child.” I claim that when we talk about abortion and birth control, none of us are interested in human rights.
Christians don’t care about human lives; they are interested in souls. This is how someone can simultaneously be in favor of pursuing a war in Afghanistan but call an abortion murder. It looks hypocritical, but from a Christian viewpoint it is not. An adult killed in combat is sad, but not a huge tragedy. He had a chance to accept Jesus, be saved, and go to heaven when he dies. Maybe he did not, but he has had his chance. His funeral is sad, but also a great opportunity to preach about salvation. A fetus has not had the chance to accept Jesus, and therefore its destruction is a great tragedy. (This is why they baptize aborted fetuses.) So, a Christian can not compromise on abortion; to him, the birth control pill causes a great tragedy nearly every month. From a Christian perspective it is best if you squeeze out as many babies as possible for God’s army.
Like the Christian, I have no respect for the sanctity of human life; unlike the Christian, I only care about people. I see the fetus and the combatant both as human life, but the combatant is a person. He is self aware, and has time to become an adult person. The fertilized ovum has potential, of course… but again we reach the slippery slope… if every ovum has potential, should every woman be perpetually pregnant? Why no respect for the unfertilized ova? If you have one that isn’t fertilized, I can find you literally thousands of men willing to help with that. But I digress…I respect the unfertilized ova, but I do not cry when they are thrown out, monthly, by the billions, worldwide.
The Christian and I both have no respect for human life: I see the day-old fetus as unimportant because it is not a person. The Christian sees people as unimportant as long as they go to heaven when they die. The Christian is more worried about the fetus than the mother or any other adult human. The death of a fetus is the worst thing in the world, because it did not have a chance to go to heaven. To a Christian, what happens after you die is much more important than what happens when you are alive; for many, it is the only thing. This is one way religion is a terrible thing: it allows people to disregard the suffering of others and at the same time think they are good. A true Christian believes the number of souls birthed and brought to Jesus should be maximized, even at the cost of human rights and dignity.
This difference of perspective means that while I would like to “draw the line” where it will do the most good for the most people, the Christian can only be satisfied when the line is drawn where it will cause the largest number of humans to be born and subsequently Christianized. Quality of life after finding Jesus is not an issue.
Conclusion: Limiting access to birth control is a slippery slope–unchecked, Christians will ultimately end up with a society where all adults exist for the sole purpose of breeding as fast as possible to produce more souls for God’s army.
Study questions
- Does drawing the line at “forbidding all contraception” result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people?
- Does your answer change if you define “good” differently?
- Why is it not a sin for married couples to be childless?
- How many cells must a fetus have before its rights outweigh those of an adult woman? Does this point occur at conception? Why not before conception?
Footnote: the executive summary
Slippery slope arguments are generally a waste of time, unless you are standing on an actual, physical ice-covered slope. This is more of a thought experiment: if conceptual slippery slopes really were a risk, wouldn’t they go in both directions? If smoking Marijuana inevitably leads to overdosing on Heroin, then logically not smoking Marijuana will eventually lead to refusing medical treatment and dying young. And so on.
There is a real flaw in Reagan’s argument: it depends entirely on the assumption that every fertilized ovum has human rights.
