I read the article and it admits to using a slippery slope argument. Translated, that means it is a weak argument.
The mortal sin aspect would depend on your religion. I am Jewish, and in Judaism, it is a murky matter, at best.
Perhaps it should be up to the individual and their particular beliefs.
“I read the article and it admits to using a slippery slope argument. Translated, that means it is a weak argument.”
What, somebody told you that slippery slope arguments are always weak arguments?
Sometimes they are a simple statement of first principles. Many slopes are, in fact, slippery. This makes it both difficult to climb upward, and easy to slide downward. That’s just the way things are.
“The mortal sin aspect would depend on your religion.”
Well, no, one’s belief in mortal sin might depend on one’s religion, but no man’s belief has the slightest effect on God’s nature.
“I am Jewish, and in Judaism, it is a murky matter, at best.”
Oh, I don’t know. I’d bet that there’s something in the Talmud that says it’s wrong to kill someone just because he’s sad, and I’m pretty sure that Rabbi Hillel would have had some choice words about the murder of Terri Schiavo.
“Perhaps it should be up to the individual and their particular beliefs.”
I don’t think so, any more than NAMBLA should be legitimized. Assisted suicide—murder—should be illegal. If a person takes his own life, well, he is beyond man’s laws.