How long does it take to get to the bottom of a slippery slope? While the answer to that question depends on the issue and your definition of the "bottom", the Netherlands is conducting tests to help answer that question where it concerns the sanctity of life and marriage.

Within the past month we've seen news out of Europe's most progressive state demonstrating their acceptance of polygamous homosexual civil-unions and the euthanasia of new-born children with disabilities. How did they get to this point?

The Dutch journey towards the destruction of marriage began when they legalized homosexual civil unions in 1998. This was then followed in a mere three years time by the legalization of homosexual marriage and adoption of children. Now, just four years later, they passed another threshold when they certified the civil union of one man and two women. Currently, their marriage laws, (such as they are), don't allow polygamy, but the civil union laws do and now they have their first gay polygamous union to show for it.

The "husband" in this arrangement explained that a fourth person would not be allowed into the relationship, as they wanted to take their union "seriously".

Now that polygamous civil unions have been accepted can anyone doubt that polygamous marriage will be far behind? They have gone from the top of the slope with traditional marriage to their current position in just seven years. And given what they've allowed thus far, and the logic they have used to rationalize it, how could they justify slowing the wheels of "progress"?

And in such cases, who do the children belong to? The goal (or direction) would seem to be to eliminate marriage altogether, along with any notions of parentage or parental rights. Why not just pass a law saying that everyone is married to everyone and be done with it? Then everyone would be free from condemnation and we cold have the purely amoral socialist utopia these folks have been dreaming of. And only the fit will be allowed to be born and to live in this perfect world so long as everyone wants them to.

So where are we on the slope? ____ states have already legalized civil unions, and last year Massachusetts' state Supreme Court forced gay marriage on that state without so much as a vote of the people. And now many of those couples are returning home to sue other states to recognize their arrangements. The US Supreme Court will take the case up soon no doubt.

Currently even one of our own US Supreme Court members has suggested such arrangements should be legal. Her former employer, the ACLU, has even suggested that polygamy is a "fundamental right" and has defended pedophelia (?).

According to Justice Scalia, the 2004 Lawrence vs. Texas decision, which struck down that state's anti-sodomy law, opened the door for gay marriage and polygamy.

On the issue of the sanctity of life, the Dutch has done no better. In 2001 they began with purely voluntary euthanasia for people that were terminally ill, but moved rapidly to expanding the franchise to those who were disabled. By 2004 they had moved to the euthanasia of disabled and terminally ill newborn babies and granted twelve-year olds the right to assisted suicide without parental consent. In addition, they began allowing the euthanasia of the terminally ill who were mentally incapable of deciding for themselves whether they wanted to live or die.

Hospitals have also petitioned the government to allow the killing of terminal infants and young children, as well as the severely mentally retarded. They have also pushed ahead with establishing guidelines to euthanize newborns that are determined to be in paid associated with incurable diseases or severe physical deformities. So now you could say we've reached the point of "fourth trimester" abortions, or even "post-birth" abortion.

Given the rapid progress science is making in the field of genetics, how long until perfectly healthy children are subject to abortion or "mercy killing" due to detected genetic proclivity towards some specific illness?

Once you accept the arbitrary justification that it's OK to kill a child when it's on one side of the birth canal, it becomes merely a matter of time before progressive logic rationalizes doing so on the other side.

Life has become so cheap under this new regime that millions of Dutch citizens have taken to wearing bracelets indicating their desire NOT to be euthanized. Kind of like a perverted version of the Medic-Alert bracelet.

The infection of disrespect for life has spread to other countries. Lawmakers in Belgium have even considered a measure to expand euthanasia to allow for the killing of children against the wishes of the parents. Just this year in Great Britain, we have the case of a court ordered "mercy killing" were the parents of a brain damaged child lost an appeal to have their daughter resuscitated if she were to stop breathing.

This from countries that claim the death penalty for murderers is inhumane.

Within our own country, we first had Roe in 1973 which supposedly on legalized abortion up to the second trimester, but it routinely takes place beyond that point. And now, in recent years, we've been faced with the partial-birth abortion procedure; a procedure which the Congress and President moved to eradicate, but the courts have again intervened.

Even today, prospective parents of children with disabilities here in America are getting subtle (and sometimes more direct) pressure from doctors to have an abortion. In a recent study, mothers-to-be of children with Downs Syndrome reported that their physicians were overwhelmingly negative during their pregnancy, often advising abortion.

Giving the rising cost associated with health care, soon the arguments will no longer even pretend to revolve around the "choice" of the patients, or the parents in the case of children, but rather will be about who is fit or even worthy to live. Hard to imagine? Twenty years ago, I'm sure it would have been hard to imagine, much less convince someone we would be were we are today; sliding faster and farther down the slippery slope.

Once society starts down such slopes, how does it stop? And where? And what rationale do we use to defend stopping at any certain point against those who demand we go farther?

Like the cheap 70's sci-fi flick "Logan's Run", we'll all be genetically engineered (or selected) to be healthy and pretty, live in a marriagless, parentless, society with guiltless pleasure; but when we turn thirty, it will be our duty to society to allow ourselves to be snuffed out to avoid being a burden. Ah, brave new world.