Comments on: Michael Gerson on Eugenics http://www.dennyburk.com/michael-gerson-on-eugenics/ A commentary on theology, politics, and culture Sat, 11 Feb 2012 07:44:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Carlito http://www.dennyburk.com/michael-gerson-on-eugenics/#comment-20547 Carlito Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:19:47 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=920#comment-20547 Great post, Julia!!! Great post, Julia!!!

]]> By: Julia http://www.dennyburk.com/michael-gerson-on-eugenics/#comment-20527 Julia Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:00:11 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=920#comment-20527 OH, how I wish I were wise enough to make those choices!!! My husband, whom I love dearly, would have certainly never made the cut if I had gone by some list of what I deemed "perfect". Instead of having a brood of "perfect" children, I have a wonderfully, albeit at times frustrating, diverse collection that gives me joy ever single day - One of which happens to have an extra chromosone. Personally, I would have never, ever chosen to have a "defective" child. Now that I have lived it, I am not courageous; I am blessed! Funny how life works isn't it. Makes you think there might be an Almighty out there just a bit smarter than us ;) OH, how I wish I were wise enough to make those choices!!!

My husband, whom I love dearly, would have certainly never made the cut if I had gone by some list of what I deemed “perfect”.

Instead of having a brood of “perfect” children, I have a wonderfully, albeit at times frustrating, diverse collection that gives me joy ever single day – One of which happens to have an extra chromosone.

Personally, I would have never, ever chosen to have a “defective” child. Now that I have lived it, I am not courageous; I am blessed!

Funny how life works isn’t it. Makes you think there might be an Almighty out there just a bit smarter than us ;)

]]> By: rf2r2 http://www.dennyburk.com/michael-gerson-on-eugenics/#comment-20517 rf2r2 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:33:26 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=920#comment-20517 <b>If you start with one gene where does it end? Are we eventually throwing the need for the holy spirit out since we can take care of everything by altering genes? Are we eventually going to find an original sin gene so that that the disposition towards any sin at all is eliminated and the need for salvation is as well?</b> Original sin is not a physical defect - it is a spiritual state. That said, the creation is cursed, and with it our fleshly bodies. I see no problem with using gene therapies and modern medicine to alleviate suffering in those bodies. If a gene therapy could cure down syndrome, that would be great, but raising a child with down syndrome in the fear and admonition of the Lord is great too. My point is that my ethical attitude towards gene medicine in general is neutral. Medicine is a good thing that god likes. However, medicine is not going to cure the human condition. All it can do is alleviate suffering, which is a good and very christian thing. If my cursed body carries a genetic predisposition towards anger, I see no spiritual conflict in using some therapy to correct that predisposition. Genes a person do make, but they can certainly complicate our lives, and anything that removes barriers to good health is, in my opinion, removing a barrier to the Gospel truth. If you start with one gene where does it end? Are we eventually throwing the need for the holy spirit out since we can take care of everything by altering genes? Are we eventually going to find an original sin gene so that that the disposition towards any sin at all is eliminated and the need for salvation is as well?

Original sin is not a physical defect – it is a spiritual state. That said, the creation is cursed, and with it our fleshly bodies. I see no problem with using gene therapies and modern medicine to alleviate suffering in those bodies. If a gene therapy could cure down syndrome, that would be great, but raising a child with down syndrome in the fear and admonition of the Lord is great too. My point is that my ethical attitude towards gene medicine in general is neutral. Medicine is a good thing that god likes. However, medicine is not going to cure the human condition. All it can do is alleviate suffering, which is a good and very christian thing. If my cursed body carries a genetic predisposition towards anger, I see no spiritual conflict in using some therapy to correct that predisposition. Genes a person do make, but they can certainly complicate our lives, and anything that removes barriers to good health is, in my opinion, removing a barrier to the Gospel truth.

]]> By: Bryan L http://www.dennyburk.com/michael-gerson-on-eugenics/#comment-20512 Bryan L Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:56:34 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=920#comment-20512 I didn't say you did Denny. I was a bit unclear whether you were agreeing with Mohler. In saying someone was trying to help someone who is predisposed to a sinful behavior, I didn't know if you were agreeing that they were in fact helping them. But thanks for clearing that up. Blessings, Bryan L I didn’t say you did Denny. I was a bit unclear whether you were agreeing with Mohler. In saying someone was trying to help someone who is predisposed to a sinful behavior, I didn’t know if you were agreeing that they were in fact helping them. But thanks for clearing that up.

Blessings,
Bryan L

]]> By: Yvette http://www.dennyburk.com/michael-gerson-on-eugenics/#comment-20508 Yvette Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:34:55 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=920#comment-20508 I for one would have been happy to have something done about my "short" gene. :) I for one would have been happy to have something done about my “short” gene. :)

]]> By: Denny Burk http://www.dennyburk.com/michael-gerson-on-eugenics/#comment-20497 Denny Burk Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:47:37 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=920#comment-20497 I didn't say that I agreed with Mohler. I didn’t say that I agreed with Mohler.

]]> By: Bryan L http://www.dennyburk.com/michael-gerson-on-eugenics/#comment-20495 Bryan L Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:39:05 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=920#comment-20495 Denny, If you agree with Mohler (and I don't know if you do) would you then advocate altering any other genes that we could see that predisposed someone toward other sinful behavior? What about "pride genes" or "greedy genes", or "anger genes", or "sexual genes" (since our sexual desires do cause other sins), or "divisiveness genes" or "anxiety genes" or any other gene we could possible think of that we believe lead to sinful behavior? If you start with one gene where does it end? Are we eventually throwing the need for the holy spirit out since we can take care of everything by altering genes? Are we eventually going to find an original sin gene so that that the disposition towards any sin at all is eliminated and the need for salvation is as well? Blessings, Bryan L Denny,

If you agree with Mohler (and I don’t know if you do) would you then advocate altering any other genes that we could see that predisposed someone toward other sinful behavior? What about “pride genes” or “greedy genes”, or “anger genes”, or “sexual genes” (since our sexual desires do cause other sins), or “divisiveness genes” or “anxiety genes” or any other gene we could possible think of that we believe lead to sinful behavior?

If you start with one gene where does it end? Are we eventually throwing the need for the holy spirit out since we can take care of everything by altering genes? Are we eventually going to find an original sin gene so that that the disposition towards any sin at all is eliminated and the need for salvation is as well?

Blessings,
Bryan L

]]> By: Bryan L http://www.dennyburk.com/michael-gerson-on-eugenics/#comment-20493 Bryan L Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:24:06 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=920#comment-20493 Faimon, I think the difference is between saying a parent should be able to abort a fetus with Down Syndrome or saying they should be able to change the DS gene in the baby so that it doesn't cause down syndrome. I think there is a big difference between those 2 alternatives. The real question is what are the ethics behind altering the genetic makeup of a child in any way before it's born to produce whatever desired effect we want, whether it be altering a gay gene or a stupid gene or an ugly gene or a religious gene or a short gene or a skin color gene or a hair gene or any other gene we could possible identify. Blessings, Bryan L Faimon,
I think the difference is between saying a parent should be able to abort a fetus with Down Syndrome or saying they should be able to change the DS gene in the baby so that it doesn’t cause down syndrome. I think there is a big difference between those 2 alternatives.

The real question is what are the ethics behind altering the genetic makeup of a child in any way before it’s born to produce whatever desired effect we want, whether it be altering a gay gene or a stupid gene or an ugly gene or a religious gene or a short gene or a skin color gene or a hair gene or any other gene we could possible identify.

Blessings,
Bryan L

]]> By: Denny Burk http://www.dennyburk.com/michael-gerson-on-eugenics/#comment-20490 Denny Burk Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:13:41 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=920#comment-20490 Faimon, The difference is that in the first instance, one is killing an innocent person. In the second instance, one is trying to help a person so that they won't be as predisposed toward a certain kind of sinful behavior. If you're suggesting a moral equivalence, I'm just not seeing it. Thanks, Denny Faimon,

The difference is that in the first instance, one is killing an innocent person. In the second instance, one is trying to help a person so that they won’t be as predisposed toward a certain kind of sinful behavior.

If you’re suggesting a moral equivalence, I’m just not seeing it.

Thanks,
Denny

]]> By: faimon http://www.dennyburk.com/michael-gerson-on-eugenics/#comment-20488 faimon Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:09:12 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=920#comment-20488 What is the difference between Watson saying that parents should be able to abort a fetus with the 'gay' gene and Al Mohler saying that people should be able change the genetic makeup of a child with the 'gay' gene? What is the difference between Watson saying that parents should be able to abort a fetus with the ‘gay’ gene and Al Mohler saying that people should be able change the genetic makeup of a child with the ‘gay’ gene?

]]>