That particular slippery slope, the devaluing of human life, started somewhere back around Abel and Cain
One of the differences I see though, Ron, aside from it being the first murder of passion (committed in the throes of anger produced by jealousy), is that Cain's act was not enshrined as an acceptable practice in the ridding oneself of an incovenience. It was murder and was viewed and recorded as murder, and as an unacceptable behavior.
The slippery slope comes into play when something previously not condoned by society, and the laws of a society, becomes acceptable, and then from that, even more things that were previously unacceptable become acceptable. It's a snowball effect.
From the decree of judges that States could not pass laws against abortion, we started with abortions being acceptable in the first trimester only back in the 70's, and then 25 years later we had degenerated to the point of partial birth abortions, that are performed at or around the expected time of delivery...doctors just have to reach in to turn the baby around to ensure that the head is inside the womb when they kill it with their instruments, then it isn't considered murder, otherwise it is. Same baby, same healthy condition, same viability, just a different positioning of the baby's head makes the difference between an accepted surgical procedure and murder.
And now one country (Denmark, I think) has legalized the killing of infants and children who are in one way or another disabled, physically or mentally. And now we in this country are at the point where judges are decreeing that a woman can be legally starved to death because she is brain damaged and on no life-supporting machines whatsover other than a feeding tube.
In my opinion, this is what happens when a society forsakes the revealed standards of God (that God says in the Bible that He reveals to every person, innately, we don't have to be taught them), and prefer instead to turn away from that knowledge that God has implanted within and become our own gods, to do what seems expedient in our own eyes (relativistic morality).
What about a living woman? She is unable to speak or interact. So are many autistic children. Do they deserve to die? She can't walk or stand on her own. Neither can my cousin, the pastor of a church and father of two. Does he deserve to die? Are their lives worth any less than ours?
Sadly, some people seem to think so, LoveBug.
But this particular woman does interact. Her eyes follow people and moving objects. She reacts to sounds, she can sit in a chair. She attempts to communicate by making gutteral sounds. She smiles, laughs and cries. She isn't the 'vegetable' that some try to make her out to be. She is brain-damaged, yes, and operates at a different level of consciousness, and several doctors have testified on her behalf that there is every reason to expect her to improve, with the therapy that the jury awarded money was intended to provide for her. But the courts keep ruling in favor of the husband's position, and the doctor's hired by his lawyer that depict her as a hopeless vegetable, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary.