All hail science and “diversity”—except when they cramp our style

An article on Down Syndrome on the NY Times website stimulated a thought about the great present-day mantras of “diversity” and the promise of science to explain all of reality.

It’s well known that diversity is being pushed by the academic elites of the nation as a kind of panacea. Diversity will keep us from the deadening effects of parochialism. It’s better to be a citizen of the world than a patriotic American, after all.

And everyone knows that the key to true peace, freedom, and all other good things is unrestricted funding for every kind of scientific research. In technology, biology, engineering, and all the rest, scienctific knowledge is reliable and objective, setting us free from superstition and irrational prejudices.

But to return to this article on Down Syndrome: the author notes that there is a great push to screen all pregnant women for indicators that their baby might be born with Down Syndrome, and that 90% of women positively diagnosed choose to have an abortion. The author rightly notes:

But as prenatal tests become available for a range of other perceived genetic imperfections, they may also be heralding a broader cultural skirmish over where to draw the line between preventing disability and accepting human diversity.

Yes, where does “diversity” enter the picture? Are we interested in diversity of skin color and sexuality only? Or are we prepared to admit that living with people who have “genetic imperfections” might be a positive thing, for ourselves as well as for those with those genetic conditions? And if we tend to abort those babies, does that mean we are committed to diversity only when it costs us nothing? (I’m not saying I have a committment to diversity—only that it’s undeniable that many who favor abortion, and favor aborting genetically imperfect babies, also are on board the diversity bandwagon, and probably favor other positions primarily favored by the Left.)

And this is where science comes in. Why is it that some people will claim in one breath that science can explain religion, morals, “the mind,” and so much else . . . but then claim in the next that science can’t tell us when life begins?

It seems to me that in both cases, there are those who choose to worship diversity and science when it is convenient for their lifestyles to do so. Not out of any committment to truth—a committment to their own comfort and autonomy.

P.S. Another thing that puzzles me is how many of those who tout “diversity” and its synonym, “multiculturalism,” as great goods, consider Globalization to be a great evil. Are we somehow to become citizens of the world, but limit our buying and selling to our own backyard? There seems to be a contradiction here.


2 Responses to “All hail science and “diversity”—except when they cramp our style”

  1. HeroicLife Says:

    Choosing to have a child with severe mental and physical problems is a moral atrocity. There’s no way to get around the fact that Down syndrome causes suffering in everyone involved, especially the child. The parents who support bringing more people burdened with this illness into the world only want to extend their and their children’s suffering to everyone else. They should be named for what they are – evil.

    Every child should be loved and valued – but a fetus is not a child until he or she is born – and what kind of perverted monster do you have to be to want children to suffer their entire life? Only the religious dogma behind the hypocritical “culture of life” is capable of sinking people to this level.

  2. Curly Says:

    I’ll tell you what’s a moral atrocity: deciding that you have the right to kill someone simply because they are less mentally or physically capable than yourself, or because they make your life less pleasurable. Based on your name, HeroicLife, you probably favor killing everyone who falls short of Superman status.

    And it’s downright arrogant to think that you have the ability to judge the quality of someone else’s life, let alone dictate whether they should be denied existence entirely.

    There’s value in suffering, HeroicLife, though you see it only as evil. And there’s a difference between arranging for someone to suffer, and standing by them in solidarity while they are suffering. IF DS children in fact are suffering to the extent you claim.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: