by John Ellis
Contemporary Western Society has proven that it is willing to sacrifice babies on the altars of convenience, fiscal pragmatism, and sexual freedom. Gussied up with the name of “abortion” and defended as a woman’s rights issue, Western governments have sanctioned the murder of babies for decades. By God’s grace, His people have courageously fought back, though, defending the oppressed and “the least of these.” Throughout the battle, the protectors of babies who have invoked the name of Peter Singer as a warning have been accused of using a “slippery slope” argument. Well, the murder of Charlie Gard by the hands of the State demonstrate that Western culture may very well be nearing the bottom of that slippery slope.
During this past year, the back-and-forth over the fate of Charlie Gard has revealed a lot about the priorities and beliefs of those who look to the State for solutions. It has also unmasked the satanic evil of the pro-choice crowd. For them, the value of a person’s life is dependent on utilitarian definitions provided by the State. The State has the final authority over whether or not an individual provides enough value to justify life. This is the end game of utilitarian ethics, of Peter Singer. Slippery slope, indeed.
But don’t take my word for it. Bio-ethics professor Charles Camosy explains it all more eloquently and persuasively than I am able. I encourage you to read his article in First Things, an article that I’ve linked to below.