fbpx
Articles

Why you should care about World Down Syndrome Day

/
March 21, 2018

“I have had two children . . . I can say without hesitation that, tragic as it would have felt and ghastly as a second-trimester abortion would have been, I would have terminated those pregnancies had the testing come back positive [for Down syndrome].”

With these words, The Washington Post opinion writer Ruth Marcus fired the latest salvo from the pro-abortion side of the life debate and, in doing so, revealed much about the priorities of those who agree with her and the stereotypes surrounding Down syndrome.

Abortion as a means to eliminating Down syndrome

To begin with, let’s be charitable. Marcus represents liberal viewpoints in her editorials. Her central idea that a Down syndrome diagnosis is cause for abortion is not original to her. Moreover, she takes care to note that those parents who raise a child with Down syndrome are praiseworthy. And, a basic reading of Marcus’ essay reveals that Down syndrome is actually just a useful tool for her larger point: Abortion should remain legal.

Marcus isn’t the only recent example of this line of thinking surfacing in a prominent way. Pro-life advocate Obianuju Ekeocha recently discovered a Dutch program where a researcher tells an individual with Down syndrome just how much he costs society. His cost is compared with that of “normal persons.” Renowned Christian ethicist and Princeton professor, Robert P. George, reacted with horror on Twitter.

Prior to that, CBS News profiled the work to make Down syndrome disappear in the country of Iceland through the systematic elimination of those with Down syndrome in the womb. A particularly disturbing statistic is glossed over in the reporting but should jump out at the reader: “Since prenatal screening tests were introduced in Iceland in the early 2000s, the vast majority of women—close to 100 percent—who received a positive test for Down syndrome terminated their pregnancy,” writes the journalist covering this story. A few paragraphs down, though, the author reports, “However, the screening test is only 85 percent accurate (emphasis mine).”

It’s clear that not only is Iceland eradicating people with Down syndrome, as my colleague Josh Wester observed here, but they are ending the lives of countless other children as well. It’s hard to read over these examples and not be angry with those who are essentially advocating child sacrifice. But, as Christians we should ask what we need to be doing to steer our fellow citizens away from this offensive view and help end this practice.

Seeing the Imago Dei in those with Down syndrome

One of the best ways to oppose those who fail to see the intrinsic dignity of individuals with Down syndrome is to tell stories of loved ones who have it. My sister-in-law, Amy, has Down syndrome. She’s full of an unconditional love, spunk, and knows every “I Love Lucy” episode by heart. She was the firstborn of three siblings and came along when her parents were in grad school. While there have been times of testing over the last 40 years, her parents would point out they experienced those with the other two children, as well. In fact, Amy has become her mom’s best friend and cherished companion.

We should never stop proclaiming that all people are made in God’s image and all who call on Christ have the promise of redemption.

In my own life, Amy has been a welcome addition. Her visits with us are a constant source of laughter and joy, especially for our three children who adore their Aunt Amy. Two years ago, Amy was able to star in a music video by the Christian group MercyMe for their hit song “Flawless.” The song has these words:

No matter what they say

Or what you think you are

The day you called his name

He made you flawless

I think those words reflect reality. Many people think those with Down syndrome are a burden on society and should be aborted before they take their first breath. But no matter what demeaning label society comes up with, we should never stop proclaiming that all people are made in God’s image and all who call on Christ have the promise of redemption.

We must also be firm in standing against this pro-abortion viewpoint because we are called to defend those who are marginalized by the world. We should rally to their defense to compel the culture to recognize the intrinsic worth of every person—past, present, and future—with Down syndrome. Thankfully, there is a date reserved each year on an international scale to do just that.

World Down Syndrome Day

Countries around the world mark World Down Syndrome Day on March 21. What began in 2005 as a yearly convention of researchers and medical specialists gathering to learn more about how to assess Down syndrome grew to catch the attention of the international community. The United Nations officially began recognizing this special day in 2012. World Down Syndrome Day was created as an effort to “create a single global voice for advocating for the rights, inclusion, and well being of people with Down syndrome.”

This date provides a natural opportunity for Christians to advocate for their neighbors. We should help our communities see that individuals with Down syndrome offer meaningful contributions to our society, are inherently valuable, and deserve to be protected.

So, as Christians, let’s commit to double our efforts to communicate what it means to be an image bearer of Christ to the outside world. Let’s be sure our actions in other areas aren’t inhibiting this message from being received. And let’s live in such a way that the unbeliever recognizes that we see the inherent dignity in every person regardless of health, status, and color.

F. Brent Leatherwood

Brent Leatherwood was elected as president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission in 2022, after a year of leading the organization as acting president. Previously, he served as chief of staff at the ERLC, as well as the entity’s director of strategic partnerships. He brings an expertise in public … Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24