Commentaries
|
Who's Your Daddy? The Test of a CultureBy: Eric Metaxas|Published: July 9, 2012 7:00 AM Aha! Another technological breakthrough in pre-natal medicine. But what does it say about us? Stay tuned to BreakPoint. Listen Now | Download
Some scientific discoveries are timeless in that they transcend their age and cultural setting. For instance, no one thinks that Newton’s laws of motion give us insight into Stuart-era England or that e = mc2 tells us anything about life in pre-World War I Europe. But other discoveries perfectly reflect the tenor of their times. For example, as described in the New York Times, we now have new blood tests that enable pregnant women to identify the father of their unborn child “as early as the eighth or ninth week of pregnancy, without an invasive procedure that could cause a miscarriage.” In other words, the same technology that helps determine the sex of the unborn child and whether he or she has Down syndrome can now also answer the question, “Who’s your daddy?” Sorry, I couldn’t resist. But for $1,775, that question can be answered long before the child is born. One manufacturer claims to have sold “thousands” of the tests since they became available last August. But why exactly do we need such tests? Well, the New York Times provides the answer: “It is an uncomfortable question that, in today’s world, is often asked by expectant mothers who had more than one male partner at the time they became pregnant. Who is the father?” Now, the issue of “false paternity” is not new. Throughout human history, a small percentage of men have raised children they mistakenly believed to be their own. What is new is the cultural and moral setting where the supposed need for tests like the one described by the Times makes a twisted kind of sense. It’s a setting where having multiple sexual partners more or less simultaneously is taken for granted. The casualness in “casual sex,” as the Times acknowledges, makes questions of paternity increasingly more complicated. It gets even more complicated when you take into account that even if sex is “casual,” there’s nothing casual about pregnancy and child-rearing. Knowing who the father is has profound financial and emotional consequences for both mother and child. Or, perhaps not. Because another way in which the story definitely belongs to our age is summed up in another, more chilling, sentence from the Times article: “ . . . the test results might allow women to terminate a pregnancy if the preferred man is not the father — or to continue it if he is.” “Preferred man?” Talk about visiting the sins of the father upon his children! I’m not entirely sure which is more troubling: the idea of a woman using this test to kill her unborn child because he has the “wrong” father, or the nonchalant way the Times raises the possibility. One of the persistent myths of our age — one that many Christian subscribe to — is that technology is morally neutral and that it’s the way it is used which determines its rightness or wrongness. But there’s nothing neutral here. Unlike e = mc2 , these tests speak volumes about the times we live in, none of it very good. They meet a “need” that grows out of our era’s worldviews. Who’s your daddy? The culture. And by the way, if you ever miss BreakPoint, you can get it delivered to your mailbox every single day. Just click on BreakPoint.org, go to the little mailbox icon, and you can get it delivered to your in box via email every day. I don’t think you’ll regret it.Further Reading and Information
Before Birth, Dad’s ID |













Comments:
Hmmm... Are ethics "developed" or "discovered"? I don't think that the fundamental principles of a God-ward life are changing as we develop new technologies. They are the same principles (value of human life, etc), but, as you pointed out, technology is presenting us with new abilities, and, therefore, new choices that we've never had to face before (e.g., can vs. should). I think the danger is that when technology presents society with a moral dilemma and society in general goes in the wrong direction, then this wrong direction gets ingrained in the culture -- our sense of what is "normal" and what "makes sense" are altered and the fundamental principles are ignored. As these cultural degradations continue to occur, the fundamental principles are increasingly forgotten and must be taught explicitly. This is why we desperately need these world view resources that Chuck Colson was so passionate about. I think the new BreakPoint writers are doing a marvelous job. Their thought provoking emails have opened my eyes to many important ideas. Thanks guys!
The technology discussed in today's commentary could be used for morally positive ends: the aforementioned exoneration from rape charges, the testing of rape victims . . . not for the purpose of abortions, but to help the victim come to terms with whatever realities and decisions she must face, and also for the testing of genetic disorders, again, not for the purpose of abortion, but so that a couple (or individual) can prepare their hearts and lives for the world-changing child coming into their life.
Again, our technology is developing faster than our ethics. Science and technology (medical science in particular) can be a wonderful thing... in fact, it counters some of the damaging effects of The Fall, but like all of the gifts God gives us, we humans corrupt them and twist them into something dark ... something wicked.
Are there not good and legitimate uses of even this technology? Such as exonerating inmates wrongly charged with rape?
I don't think technology itself is any more to blame for the deterioration of culture than the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was to blame for the fall of man.
I do agree, though, that technology is a creation of humanity, and therefore reflects its creator. This is the engine that powers the downward spiral -- technology allows us to become more corrupt at a faster and faster rate. However, it is bot technology itself that is to blame, merely a misuse or mishandling of it. We chose whether or not we use it to further good of evil purposes.
How is it not neutral?