“Our opponents argued that it was a slippery slope; that our campaign would lead to demands for total equality of esteem; that homosexuality would burst out all over the place and prove contagious, even popular; and ‘spread’ as a lifestyle choice,” he argued. “Privately I rather agreed with them, but our campaign ducked such a scenario. All we wanted, we argued, was to be left alone. We played down the idea of noisily assertive gay pride, knowing it would hinder, not help, our campaign.”

This time, he said he would rather “go for honesty” and admit to the potential for a slippery slope rather than try to placate people.

Once (they say) the idea becomes normalised that those for whom the weight of suffering has become too heavy should be able to end it, there will follow an increase in pressure on the terminally ill to lift the burden that looking after them places on caring relatives. ‘Nobody’ (replies the campaign for assisted dying) ‘would be so cruel as to urge a sick, elderly loved one to consider suicide.’

‘Ah, maybe not,’ replies the opposition, ‘but even if nothing is said – even if the caring companions would not in fact want their loved one to do any such thing – the loved one will think it. How often do we hear people say they don’t want “to be a burden on others”? Once our national culture openly condones such an act, the terminally ill may put pressure on themselves to do the deed.’ Moral pressure is a thing that may be felt even if it is not being applied by others.

The “opposition,” Parris said, are likely right — but far from being horrified by the notion of someone committing suicide out of fear of being a burden on their loved ones, Parris argued this is a good thing.

READ: DISTURBING: Dutch poll finds majority support assisted suicide if life is seen as ‘complete’

“[A]s to adding pressure upon the terminally ill to lift the burden they’re placing on others… well, let me bite the bullet. In time, I think that the spread and acceptance of assisted dying may indeed do that. And let me bite deeper into the bullet. I think this would be a good thing,” he admitted. Why? Because advances in medicine have allowed people to live longer lives. He continued, “The option to foreshorten this will have to be more easily available and social mores will change to accommodate it. That includes the responsibilities the terminally ill feel towards those who must support them. We do feel these responsibilities now. We always have. It is natural. We are right to acknowledge their weight. To act upon these feelings will eventually be normalised in popular morality. That is where this legislative journey ends, and that is where it should.”

The problem with this mindset is that it essentially says the only people who deserve the right to life is those who are able-bodied and healthy. And this is a mindset that is already disgustingly prevalent, as people with disabilities have noted. Ben Mattlin, a 55-year-old man with spinal muscular atrophy, spoke out against assisted suicide in 2017.

“The value of my life has been discounted by medical professionals, and others, more often than I care to remember. That’s because even at my healthiest, I am what some would consider terminally ill,” he noted, concluding, “Conditions like [Brittany] Maynard’s and mine are expensive to treat on an ongoing basis. Death is cheaper. Sure, anybody who tries to push someone toward seeking death under this law is liable for felony prosecution. Yet a lack of adequate health insurance coverage alone sends a pretty strong signal. To me, just having the state condone the option of unburdening others is tantamount to more than a green light. To the most vulnerable, it’s a kick in the pants.”

The DOJ put a pro-life grandmother in jail for protesting the killing of preborn children. Please take 30-seconds to TELL CONGRESS: STOP THE DOJ FROM TARGETING PRO-LIFE AMERICANS.

This time, he said he would rather “go for honesty” and admit to the potential for a slippery slope rather than try to placate people.

Once (they say) the idea becomes normalised that those for whom the weight of suffering has become too heavy should be able to end it, there will follow an increase in pressure on the terminally ill to lift the burden that looking after them places on caring relatives. ‘Nobody’ (replies the campaign for assisted dying) ‘would be so cruel as to urge a sick, elderly loved one to consider suicide.’

‘Ah, maybe not,’ replies the opposition, ‘but even if nothing is said – even if the caring companions would not in fact want their loved one to do any such thing – the loved one will think it. How often do we hear people say they don’t want “to be a burden on others”? Once our national culture openly condones such an act, the terminally ill may put pressure on themselves to do the deed.’ Moral pressure is a thing that may be felt even if it is not being applied by others.

The “opposition,” Parris said, are likely right — but far from being horrified by the notion of someone committing suicide out of fear of being a burden on their loved ones, Parris argued this is a good thing.

READ: DISTURBING: Dutch poll finds majority support assisted suicide if life is seen as ‘complete’

“[A]s to adding pressure upon the terminally ill to lift the burden they’re placing on others… well, let me bite the bullet. In time, I think that the spread and acceptance of assisted dying may indeed do that. And let me bite deeper into the bullet. I think this would be a good thing,” he admitted. Why? Because advances in medicine have allowed people to live longer lives. He continued, “The option to foreshorten this will have to be more easily available and social mores will change to accommodate it. That includes the responsibilities the terminally ill feel towards those who must support them. We do feel these responsibilities now. We always have. It is natural. We are right to acknowledge their weight. To act upon these feelings will eventually be normalised in popular morality. That is where this legislative journey ends, and that is where it should.”

The problem with this mindset is that it essentially says the only people who deserve the right to life is those who are able-bodied and healthy. And this is a mindset that is already disgustingly prevalent, as people with disabilities have noted. Ben Mattlin, a 55-year-old man with spinal muscular atrophy, spoke out against assisted suicide in 2017.

“The value of my life has been discounted by medical professionals, and others, more often than I care to remember. That’s because even at my healthiest, I am what some would consider terminally ill,” he noted, concluding, “Conditions like [Brittany] Maynard’s and mine are expensive to treat on an ongoing basis. Death is cheaper. Sure, anybody who tries to push someone toward seeking death under this law is liable for felony prosecution. Yet a lack of adequate health insurance coverage alone sends a pretty strong signal. To me, just having the state condone the option of unburdening others is tantamount to more than a green light. To the most vulnerable, it’s a kick in the pants.”

The DOJ put a pro-life grandmother in jail for protesting the killing of preborn children. Please take 30-seconds to TELL CONGRESS: STOP THE DOJ FROM TARGETING PRO-LIFE AMERICANS.