I Am the 10%

This kid has a message we need to hear. I’m John Stonestreet, and this is The Point.

Listen Now | Download

When Andy Reigstad snapped a picture of his six-year old son holding a hand-written sign, he never imagined it would become an internet sensation. The photo, which Andy shot after watching the new pro-life film 180, shows his son Boaz holding a sign that parodies Occupy Wall Street:

“I may not be perfect but I’m happy,” says the sign. “I am God’s handiwork and I bear His image. I am blessed. I am the 10 percent of children born with Down syndrome who survived Roe v. Wade.”

More than 90% of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome in this country are aborted. Yet 99% of adults with the disorder say they’re “happy with their lives!”

The systematic identification and killing of unborn handicapped children is happening, and as the film 180 shows, it’s the same philosophy which led to the worst genocides of the 20th Century.

Come to ThePointRadio.org, and I’ll show you the photo and tell you how to watch the film that inspired it. For the Point, I’m John Stonestreet.

Latest Broadcast on YouTube

Further Reading

Toddler's Abortion Survival Photo, Inspired by '180 Movie,' Goes Viral on Facebook
Gina E. Ryder | The Christian Post | October 28, 2011

I am the 10%
Manhattan Declaration Blog | October 31, 2011

Watch 180 Film Online


Total: 36 << Previous Page     Next Page >>
Jerryh should clarify his argument. Why should Jesus be saved from suffering? Wasn't His purpose to come to suffer for us? I don't think, moreover, that Jesus ever faced the risk of eternal damnation? Am I wrong?

Stonestreet doesn't seem to understand Peter Singer. Peter Singer seems to be a favorite punching bag of evangelicals. I've never heard any evangelical communicate an accurate understanding of Singer's ideas. That's a shame because, among academic prose (and philosophical prose in particular), Singer's writings are among the most accessible.
Singer argues that lives have no inherent value, but acquire value based on certain traits societal elites determine matter the most. The traits he offers leads him to suggest we should legalize the killing of infants up to several months after birth, once we can determine the usefulness of the child in terms of meeting the criteria we decide matters.
This is the same idea that undergirds the eugenics platforms of American progressives in the early 20th century and were later embraced and practiced by the Nazis.
(Your question about if Singer's philosophy led to the Nazis is nonsensical since he is writing currently, decades after the Nazis. Not sure what to make of that. I would say he has embraced a utilitarian view of human value that the Nazis embraced - i.e. that a group of cultural elites should determine which characteristics makes life valuable. The difference lies only in which characteristics are considered to be the determining ones.)
I already spoke to the questions you ask in the third paragraph in my previous post.
Your last paragraph is comparing apples and oranges. I am talking about the systemic elimination of human life deemed not valuable. Science has come full circle to agree that fetal life is fully human. Science has not demonstrated that chicken life is human. My comparison is more valid than yours on that point alone. But the real similarity between our current view of human life and that of the Nazis (and other genocidal programs of the 20th century) is that in each case certain humans are not considered valuable human persons. Again, science now acknowledges fetal life as being human. The argument coming from pro-aborts is that not all human life should be granted the status of personhood.
John Stonestreet, your claim is that the killing of fetuses with Down Syndrome is "the same philosophy which led to the worst genocides of the 20th Century." Really?

Now you are saying that this is Peter Singer's philosophy. What philosophy would that be, exactly? Are you aware that Singer himself is a grandchild of Jews who were killed in the Holocaust? Please try to show how Singer's own philosophy led to the Holocaust and to other 20th century genocides.

Are you suggesting that most people who abort fetuses with Down Syndrome are guiding their decision by that same philosophy? Or is your claim only that some smaller proportion of people are guided by that philosophy in making these decisions? (Again, precisely what "philosophy" are you talking about?)

The sweeping claims that you are making are simply not credible. Think again about the animal rights zealot who claims that modern chicken egg production is guided by the same philosophy that led to the Holocaust. Asked for proof, the zealot simply says to go read Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation.

Again, I am not sure where you have read into the commentary what you have.
First, because I suggest that the systemic elimination of Down Syndrom babies by abortion mirrors the philosophy that has undergirded eugenics throughout history does not suggest that I somehow am ok with other abortions. I was just correcting your earlier statement that I had somewhere stated all abortions mirror that philosophy.
Second, my argument does not rest on every parent who chooses abortion for their disabled child understanding the philosophy that undergirds eugenics. It is the culturally embedded idea that some lives are not worth living, and that we have the right somehow to identify which are and are not worthy of life that makes this option available to them. It should not be available to them.
Third, those arguing for elective and selective abortions in cases of disability (i.e. Peter Singer, et al) are using the precise arguments that were used by early American progressives to present the eugenics platform. These were embraced by others (including the Nazis) to practice eugenics.
Essentially, it seems the way you have read my commentary and my subsequent comments have been irresponsibly shaped by a straw man version of the arguments that has been concocted by pro-abortion pundits.
Again, take some time to look through Edwin Black's The War Against the Weak, as well as the recent philosophical defense of life at all stages of development offered by Francis Beckwith. A more accessible version of the arguments can be found in Scott Klusendorf's The Case for Life.
People seem to have different concerns here, but let's avoid making two mistakes:

(1) From an evangelical perspective, it's a mistake to assume that we are acting in the interest of the unborn child when we oppose abortion. This is a general truth, but it may also arguably applies to those with Down Syndrome.

(2) Let's not be hasty in echoing Mr. Stonestreet's rash claims about "the philosophy of genocide". When an would-be parent discovers that the fetus (or, in the case of IVF, an early stage embryo) has a serious genetic disorder, the philosophy of genocide may very well not be what convinces the would-be parent to abort (or to discard the embryo). On this point, Mr. Stonestreet is simply irresponsible.
The Image of God
God made it very clear to me years ago that each of my children are made in His image, and have the characteristics that He intended, to enable them to perfectly fulfill His will for their lives. This applies equally to my son with Down Syndrome as to my other children. To suggest that a person with a mental or physical "differentability" has a lower quality of life is simply wrong and judgmental. The capacity to love God and other people, and to be loved in return, doesn't depend on one's "normalcy", but rather on the soul, which is not limited by the factors which affect intellectual or physical prowess.
Kostya, that is the bizarrest argument for abortion I have ever seen. Abortion is not a method of salvation, else God would never have placed us on this earth. He CLEARLY intended for us to live natural lives here before entering eternity.

I see where your heart is headed, but you are unequivocally wrong. That is in no way in God's plan. God brought us into this world with great forethought and deliberation, giving us free will to choose because that is the most loving thing He could do.

However NT authors regarded their earthly lives, they never EVER advocated killing people to send them to heaven. That's ... not sane.
John, I have read "War Against the Weak." It is absolutely chilling. Eugenics is about fear, arrogance, and convenience.

These children are not being selectively aborted because they will have difficult lives, but because the parents' lives will be inconvenienced by having a special needs child. It is the parents' fear and the hubris of the medical establishment that says anyone not of the statistical norm is an aberration and should be eliminated.

The truth is, we are ALL imperfect - some physically, some emotionally, some mentally....and yet we are all God's children and deserve life. He chose to create us - who do we think we are to refuse that gift?
that first sentence should read "...but some types of abortion are."
So, you are suggesting that abortion generally is not a consequence of the philosophy in question, but some abortions are.

This is a surprising claim John. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who accepts the permissibility abortion generally. Suddenly this person needs--in addition to her earlier grounds--a genocidal philosophy to now accept the permissibility of abortion in cases of serious genetic disorder? Explain that.

Please re-read the script. The argument was not that abortion generally is a consequence of the same philosophy which led to genocide, but that selective abortion of those with disability is (in particular those with Down Syndrome which the post was specifically about).

See Edwin Black's The War Against the Weak.

John: I'm not hearing anyone deny that we ought to protect those born with Down Syndrome. If, however, you want to claim that abortion generally is a consequence of the "same same philosophy which led to the worst genocides" then you should try to defend that claim. Without such a defense you sound like some radical animal rights activist who compares modern chicken egg production to the Holocaust. It's bad form, even for a Christian.

Ellen M.: You are making a serious error. Even if abortion is in an unborn baby's interest (which it probably is, from an evangelical perspective), this hardly means we should do it. Do you normally do whatever happens to be in someone's interest, regardless of the question of sin?
Kill Them All?
So, Kostya, let's abort all the unborn babies? Should I kill my children before the age of accountability?
On Happiness
The issue here wasn't happiness, as that is only an argument given by pro-eugenics "death with dignity" thinking. Happiness isn't decided by lack of disability.

These lives are valuable and worth protecting as lives per se.
The Eternal Perspective
Another OWS parady:

A sign seen in hell: "I Am the 100%."

100% of human souls facing an eternity of suffering and conscious separation from God would have been spared this horror had they only been aborted in the womb. This suggests that even if a person currently feels happy that he/she wasn't aborted, this happiness may in fact be misleadingly shortsighted. So let's not disregard the eternal perspective through an over-valuation of earthly happiness. For a helpful corrective, study how the New Testament authors regarded their earthly lives.
Total: 36 << Previous Page     Next Page >>