[Sopater]

Related Story: Italy Investigates Botched Abortion of Healthy Twin, Disabled Brother Lives

[Coyoteman]

What does evolutionary theory have to tell us about the “positive aspects” of genetic defects? More importantly, what does it tell us about the human capacity for altruism and compassion—the very things Dr. Boehm is advocating? The answer is: nothing.

And what important information does Chuck Colson have to share with us about evolutionary theory? The answer is: nothing.

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

What makes Darwinism so destructive is NOT evolution, it's eugenics.

[trisham]

Earlier this year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended that all pregnant women, regardless of age, undergo amniocentesis. Obviously that’s to put them under increasing pressure to abort the child if a genetic defect is detected.

**********

It may also be a ploy to reduce lawsuits. There may be financial incentives as well.

[NYer]

Boehm has come to appreciate the often “unappreciated” “richness” in these children’s lives. He sees how their parents feel that their child offers “love, affection, happiness, laughter and joy” as well as teaching “compassion and acceptance.”

All of these attributes were demonstrated by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The world rejected Him. Is it any wonder it also rejects Down Syndrome children.

Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Social Darwinism seems to be making a comeback.

World War 2 should have destroyed that idea.

Apparently, that war was not strong enough.

[dwhole2th]

This is ridiculous. Evolution has nothing at all to do with the subject of Down Syndrome in the short frame of time implied in the article.

Chuck Colson apparently has an agenda against the theory of evolution. So apparently do many posters here.

[Coleus]

.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[higgmeister]

What Would Darwin Advise?

Chuck how about, don't commit heinous crimes for which the President would be held culpable.

[gondramB]

>>Darwin insisted that natural selection would “rigidly destroy” any variation—such as Down syndrome—that would hurt its possessor “in the struggle for life.” As much as we love kids with Down syndrome, it’s impossible to imagine how Down syndrome helps people in “the struggle for life.” Quite the contrary—it’s a variation that, if Darwin were right, should have been “rigidly destroyed” a long time ago.<<

This is serious topic but it sounds like Colson didn’t even do basic research before pontificating. Trisomy is an extra copy of a gene. If that gene is #21 then its called Downs syndrome.

But Colson says that if Darwin had been right there would be no downs syndrome. That implies he didn’t even look up what causes Downs Syndrome before going off.

[Old_Mil]

Quite the contrary—it’s a variation that, if Darwin were right, should have been “rigidly destroyed” a long time ago.

While I don't disagree with the philosophical premise of the author, Down's syndrome is a birth defect caused by maternal nondisjunction. That is, it's not an "inherited" chromosomal abnormality that can be passed in Mendalian (or even multifactorial) fashion. It happens post conception when the fertilized egg starts to divide...so to be fair, the fact that this hasn't been eliminated from the gene pool doesn't say anything about natural selection or Darwinism.

[Christopher Lincoln]

Darwin insisted that natural selection would “rigidly destroy” any variation—such as Down syndrome—that would hurt its possessor “in the struggle for life.”

That refers to inherited traits. People rarely inherit Down Syndrome because one of its effects is severely reduced fertility. Like it or not, people will continue to be born with Down Syndrome even if it is never inherited at all (which was essentially the case in Darwin's time).

And clearly evolutionary theory can’t explain the compassion and love that parents shower on their Down syndrome children.

In the first place, it is an enormous error to identify the love of family with altruism. Secondly, the "compassion and love" to which Mr. Colson refers are possible only because of our prosperity; in cultures which are on the edge of starvation anyway, things are surely quite different.

[RightWhale]

Of the five major threads of the concept of evolution, this would be Spencerian rather than Darwinian.

[Mr. Silverback]

Did Sopater post this to chat, or did it get moved there? If it’s the latter, I can’t see why.