“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.
Perhaps you should do some more reading by Jewish scholars on the matter.
When the Talmud was written, we could not keep people alive beyond their normal life cycle. You could not pump air into lungs and feed unconscious people. You could not force someone who no longer wants to live, to live.
Slippery slope arguments are always used by people who can’t otherwise justify their current position, and people who live in a fearful and paranoid state.