Case Study on Moral Status

Based on “Case Study: Fetal Abnormality” and the required topic study materials, write a 750-1,000-word reflection that answers the following questions:

What is the Christian view of the nature of human persons, and which theory of moral status is it compatible with? How is this related to the intrinsic human value and dignity?
Which theory or theories are being used by Jessica, Marco, Maria, and Dr. Wilson to determine the moral status of the fetus? What from the case study specifically leads you to believe that they hold the theory you selected?
How does the theory determine or influence each of their recommendations for action?
What theory do you agree with? Why? How would that theory determine or influence the recommendation for action?

Remember to support your responses with the topic study materials.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

This youtube video might be helpful in answering the question

Use the file that I uploaded to answer the question. 

This reading material might be helpful in answering the question as it is part of the instructions to utilize the study materials. 
19

The Image of God, Bioethics,

and Persons with Profound

Intellectual Disabilities

D

evan

S

tahl

Michigan State University

J

ohn

F. K

ilner

Trinity International University

Abstract

All people are created in the image of God, which gives every human being a

dignity that can never be lost or diminished. This article develops a biblically

sound understanding of what it means to be in God’s image. Next, it explores

how important such an understanding is for people with disabilities. Finally,

it traces out a number of implications of that understanding for people with

profound intellectual disability.

Keywords:

 agency, destiny, dignity, image of God, intellectual disability,

justice, relationality

Devan Stahl, Ph.D.

(St. Louis University),

M.Div.

(Vanderbilt Divinity School) is Assistant Professor of

Clinical Ethics at the Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Michigan State University.

She chairs the Bioethics and Christian Theology Affinity Group of the American Society for Bioethics

and Humanities and has published on genetics and disability. stahldev@msu.edu

John  F.  Kilner,  Ph.D.    

and

A.M

.  (Harvard  University),  

M.Div.

 (Gordon-Conwell  Theological  Semi

–

nary) is the Forman Chair of Theology and Ethics, Professor of Bioethics & Contemporary Culture, and

Director of Bioethics Programs at Trinity International University. His 20+ books include the recent

award-winning

Dignity and Destiny: Humanity in the Image of God

(Eerdmans, 2015).

19

© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.

All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.

20

© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.

All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.

The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual Disabilities

From The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017

The biblical affirmation that all people are created in God’s image has long

been  a  liberating  force  in  the  world,  as  documented  in  

Dignity  and  Destiny  

and

Why People Matter

(Kilner 2015, 2017).

1

It has inspired people to respect

and protect the dignity of every human being. The creation of humanity in

God’s image, rightly understood, makes a huge difference for people with

profound intellectual disabilities (PID)

2

in particular. It endows them with a

dignity that demands humanity’s attention and best efforts in support. It re-

quires of others—who are also created in God’s image—that they reflect such

divine attributes as love and justice in their individual and societal response

to the needs of those with such disabilities. If this is the case regarding the

most readily-disparaged people with profound disabilities, then people with

disabilities of all sorts stand to benefit as well. The problem is that misun-

derstandings  related  to  the  image  of  God  have  too  frequently  neutralized  

its liberating power and even fostered oppression. Identifying and guarding

against such misunderstandings must first take place if humanity’s creation

in God’s image is to foster humanity’s flourishing, to God’s glory.

The  common,  basic  misconception  here  is  that  being  in  God’s  image  

is  about  how  people  are  (actually)  “like  God”  and  “unlike  animals.”  This  

view understands being in God’s image in terms of attributes that people

have  now,  most  commonly  people’s  ability  to  reason,  rule  over  (manage)  

creation,  be  righteous,  or  be  in  relationship.  In  this  view,  sin  can  damage  

such attributes and thus damage God’s image. Accordingly, people vary in

the extent to which they have these attributes—and are in God’s image. For

many, that means how much people warrant respect and protection as those

in God’s image varies from person to person. The door to devastation is open

as soon as people begin to define being in God’s image in terms of currently

having God’s attributes. People who are lowest on the reason, righteousness,

 1.

The present essay draws upon some of the material presented in Kilner 2017, which is a chap

–

ter-length summary of parts of the fuller account in Kilner 2015—the fuller account providing

substantially more documentation and illustration than space here permits. Material from Kilner

2017 used by permission of Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group.

 2.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and the American Associa-

tion on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) agree that “[i]ntellectual disability is

a disability characterized by significant limitations both in

intellectual functioning

(reasoning,

learning, problem solving) and in

adaptive behavior

, which covers a range of everyday social and

practical skills” (AAIDD 2017). DSM-5 classifies the severity levels of intellectual disability, also

known as intellectual developmental disorder, as mild, moderate, severe and profound, based on

adaptive functioning conceptual, social and practical domains (APA 2013, 318.2 F73). Generally,

persons with profound intellectual disabilities have an IQ score of 20 or below as well as poor

adaptive functioning, such as extreme difficulty with language development, social skills and

performing daily tasks.

21

© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.

All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.

The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual Disabilities

From The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017

rulership, relationship, or similar scale are deemed least like God and least

worthy of respect and protection. This way of thinking has put people with

disabilities in great jeopardy, particularly people with PID.

The problem here is not that a biblical idea has proven to be destructive,

but  that  an  unbiblical  idea  masquerading  as  a  biblical  idea  has  proven  to  

be destructive. This unbiblical idea is at odds with what the Bible’s authors

mean by being created in God’s image and how they employ this concept in

life situations. Accordingly, this article will first develop a biblically sound

understanding of what it means to be in God’s image. Next, it will explore

how important such an understanding is for people with PID. Finally, it will

trace out a number of implications of that understanding for people with

such disabilities.

What It Means to Be in God’s Image

When the Bible talks about something being an “image,” that means it has a

connection

with something else in a way that may also involve a

reflection

of it. Being the image “of God,” in particular, means having a special con-

nection with God as well as being a substantial reflection of God. Having a

special connection is significant, because mistreating the image means one

is mistreating the original. Being a substantial reflection is significant, since

that means the image displays attributes (capacities, traits, abilities, etc.) of

the original to the extent that it is able. The idea that being an image sig-

nifies having a special

connection

is evident, for example, in Daniel 3:1-7,

which reports the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar erecting a large image

in the province of Babylonia. Kings in the ancient Near East would periodi-

cally erect an image to establish their presence as rulers where they were not

physically present (Clines 1968; Middleton 2005, 104-7).

The other element often present in an image is the way that it provides

a

reflection

of certain attributes of the original. In Old Testament times,

images often displayed something about a king. In Daniel 3, the great height

and gold surface of the image reflected the king’s grandeur and wealth. When

the  New  Testament  refers  to  Christ  as  God’s  image,  both  connection  and  

reflection are in view. In Colossians 1:15, for instance, Paul straightforwardly

affirms that Christ “is the image of the invisible God.”

3

Christ’s special con-

nection with God is so close here as to constitute oneness. Moreover, Jesus is

a substantial reflection of God—someone who can be seen, in contrast with

 3.

Unless indicated otherwise, all quotations of the Bible are from the New Revised Standard Version.

22

© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.

All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.

The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual Disabilities

From The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017

the “invisible God” (Kelsey 2009, 966). The text surrounding 2 Corinthians

4:4 similarly communicates that Christ’s image-of-God status involves con-

nection with, and reflection of, God.

Being vs. Being in God’s Image

Whereas Christ “is” God’s image, the Bible states people are “in” or “accord-

ing to” God’s image. The insertion of a preposition indicates people stand in

some relationship with God’s image. The image-related passages in Genesis

(1:26; 1:27; 5:1; 9:6) consistently insert a preposition between people and the

image. Image-related passages in the New Testament directly or indirectly

referring to Genesis (e.g., James 3:9; Col. 3:10) also insert a preposition.

It’s  not  plausible  that  in  each  of  these  passages  the  author  is  simply  

saying that people

are

God’s image, as if there were no prepositions there,

and no need to add them.

4

In fact, prepositions such as “in” or “according

to” make quite a difference. Saying that someone

is in

the water is quite dif-

ferent from saying that someone

is

the water. Saying that a violin

is according

to

a paper blueprint is quite different from saying that the violin

is

a paper

blueprint.

The Bible’s authors use prepositions to distinguish the rest of humanity

from Christ. With Christ not overtly in view as a reference point in the Old

Testament, the recognition there would simply have been that people are not

yet God’s image but are created “according to”

5

the standard of who God is

(in order to reflect God’s attributes to God’s glory).

6

In the New Testament

it becomes clearer that Christ as God’s image is the standard to which people

need to conform. James 3:9 is particularly significant on this point since it

conveys a New Testament author’s summary of how the Genesis idea should

be understood.

7

The Impact of Sin

Failing to take seriously the distinction between Christ being God’s image

and humanity being

in

God’s image has contributed to overlooking a second

important  distinction—that  sin  has  damaged  people,  not  damaged  God’s  

image.  If  people  were  God’s  image,  then  by  damaging  people,  sin  would  

 4.

For further explanation, see Hughes (1989, 21).

 5.

The standard

Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

by Ludwig Koehler and Walter

Baumgartner (2001, 104) specifies that “according to” is the best rendering of both prepositions,

be

and

ke

, in image-of-God passages in Genesis 1 and 5.

 6.

On the importance of this distinction see McDonough (2009, 91).

  7.

On the harmony of 1 Cor. 11:7 with this understanding, see Kilner (2015, ch. 3) and Hughes (1989, 22).

23

© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.

All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.

The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual Disabilities

From The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017

plausibly damage God’s image. However, if people are created in (i.e., accord-

ing to the standard of) God’s image, there is no damage done to the standard

just because people are later damaged.

There  is  ample  discussion  and  documentation  in  the  Bible  regarding  

the destructive impact of sin on people. Yet, at the same time, there is every

indication  people  remain  “in  God’s  image”—that  no  harm  has  been  done  

to this status or to the image on which it is based (see Gen. 5:1; 9:6). People

retain a special connection with God (though their relationship with God

is badly damaged), and God still intends for people to reflect likenesses to

God (though in actuality they largely fail to do so). The image of God is the

standard of who people are created to be—embodied in the person of Christ—

and that standard is not diminished in any way because of sin. Similarly, in

sanctification it is people who are being renewed. God’s unchanging image

is the standard for that renewal (see Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18: Col. 3:10).

What Exactly Is in God’s Image?

People, then, are created in (according to) God’s image, in a way unaffected

by their fallenness. “People” (the “

adam

” of Genesis 1:27) refers not only to

a single man named Adam but also to humanity as a whole. Contemporary

readers  can  easily  miss  this  point  if  they  are  located  in  societies  like  the  

United States that emphasize individuals, personal freedom, and autonomy.

Connecting God’s image both to humankind as a whole and to each of the

humans who constitute that “kind” of creation guards against a destructive

over-emphasis on individuals

or

collectives.

Equally important, being in God’s image has to do with people as entire

beings (whether humanity as a whole or its component members are in view).

There is no suggestion that being in God’s image is constituted by particular

“attributes” people have or once had (i.e., abilities, traits, capacities, or other

things that people are, do, etc.). Select attributes (even if God-like) are not

what are in God’s image—persons as a whole are.

As we will see in the following sections, people with disabilities are espe-

cially at risk of being demeaned and oppressed when particular attributes

rather  than  persons  are  considered  to  be  in  God’s  image.  The  (generally  

unspoken)  logic  is  that  since  attributes  like  reason,  sensory  abilities,  and  

strength are what make people in the likeness of God and worthy of protec-

tion, those deficient in such attributes are not as valuable as others. A similar

logic is at work concerning one’s degree of wealth, skin color, etc.

8

Biblical

 8.

Regarding this logic, see Cortez (2010, 282-83).

24

© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.

All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.

The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual Disabilities

From The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017

affirmations that all people are created in the image of God provide a ringing

denunciation of basing people’s significance on their particular attributes.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. (2000, 88) has observed, “there are no gradations

in the image of God.”

Image and Likeness

Being  “in  God’s  image”  is  actually  an  abbreviated  way  of  referring  to  the  

biblical idea of being “in God’s image and likeness.” Because two terms are

involved here, some people have mistakenly thought they refer to two differ

–

ent ideas. However, there is ample biblical and external evidence to confirm

there is a single idea here that falls within the range of meaning of each term.

Either term alone is sufficient to refer to this idea.

9

Nevertheless, that idea

does have two aspects, related to connection and reflection.

First, some sort of special

connection

between God and people is in view

here, as previously explained. However, an image may or may not have any-

thing to do with being like (i.e., sharing the traits or other attributes of) the

original. Including “likeness” with “image” communicates the kind of im-

age in view here somehow has to do with likeness to the original. It ensures

reflection

 as  well  as  connection  are  a  part  of  the  concept.  The  reflection  

cannot be referring to people’s actual reflection of God’s attributes today,

however, because that is damaged by sin and varies in degree from person to

person. Rather, the focus here is on God’s

intention

—who God wanted people

to be at creation and still wants them to be today. Being created in the image

and likeness of God—or in the image of God, for short—is thus about

special

connection

and

intended reflection

. People have a special connection with

God and God intends them to reflect God’s own attributes to the extent that

they are able. The tremendous significance of human beings is completely

secure, rooted in God’s unwavering intentions rather than in variable current

human capacities.

Being in God’s image is not unrelated to the actual capacities, relation-

ships, and functions that people have—but having those things is what nor

–

mally flows from being in God’s image, it is not what defines it. People who

lack those things are not any less “in God’s image” than anyone else, because

of what it means to be “in” (i.e., “according to”) God’s image. It means that

God’s image (revealed to be Christ in the New Testament) provides the stan-

dard for their existence and their growth. To whatever extent they fall short

 9.

See Kilner (2015, 124-28).

25

© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.

All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.

The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual Disabilities

From The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017

of fulfilling that standard, God intends more for them and offers them the

means now and eternally to become more.

Why Being in God’s Image Matters

The  implications  this  understanding  of  God’s  image  has  for  how  best  to  

view and treat people are extensive. Every person matters precisely because

each has a special significance that comes from being in God’s image. This

is  not  the  dignity  that  varies  according  to  circumstances,  but  the  dignity  

that  necessarily  accompanies  being  human.  Since  God’s  image  has  a  cor

–

porate dimension to it and is not just something true of particular people

by  themselves,  humanity’s  existence  in  God’s  image  entails  that  everyone  

has  this  special  significance.  There  is  a  basic  equality  among  members  of  

the  human  community.  This  does  not  mean  that  people  should  consider  

everyone to be equal or identical in every respect; rather, it suggests “that

they deal with each person as uniquely sacred and ignore all claims to special

sanctity” (Niebuhr 1996, 155). As ethicist Hans Reinders observes, human-

ity’s creation in God’s image signifies “in the loving eyes of God… there are

no marginal cases of being ‘human’” (Reinders 2006, 124). People who are

socially marginalized need not define themselves by their circumstances or

the demeaning viewpoint of those who would oppress them.

Such  dignity  is  the  foundation  for  the  often-misunderstood  concept  

of human rights. Tying rights closely to a clear sense of the dignity of all

people is important. Otherwise, rights claims can degenerate into mere as-

sertion  of  self  with  no  regard  for  others.  Human  rights  are  really  God’s  

rights over humanity more than one person’s rights over another. God is

every  person’s  creator,  so  God  is  the  one  to  direct  how  people  treat  one  

another.  People  have  rights;  but  contrary  to  much  secular  thinking,  they  

do not have a right to those rights. Those rights flow from the God-given

dignity rooted in creation in God’s image. Moreover, just as humanity is not

merely a collection of separate people but is also an interrelated whole, so

humanity’s status as created in God’s image has implications for the whole

of humanity. God intends justice to be a hallmark of human society, as it is

of God’s own character. How the weakest people in a community are treated

is an indicator of the extent to which a community is living out its status

as created in God’s image.

People never warrant less than what justice requires, but they frequently

warrant  more—they  warrant  love.  Love  is  essential  to  who  God  is,  and  is  

God’s ultimate intention for relationships of people with one another and

26

© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.

All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.

The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual Disabilities

From The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017

with the natural world as well. Love involves giving more than the minimum

required and requires more than utilitarian maximizing of social benefit. It

generates true solidarity and communion. Such social blessings are as much

human  rights  as  are  personal  protections  and  provisions.  Not  only  do  all  

warrant receiving love because they are in God’s image—they also must love

others for the same reason. People can empower others to love themselves—

and their neighbors as themselves—by helping them to recognize everyone

as created in God’s image.

Implications for Persons with PID

Persons with PID are among those created in God’s image and, as a result,

warrant  special  care  and  welcome.  They  have  an  image-based  dignity  that  

does not waver, regardless of their ability or potential ability (Yong 2007, 173;

Rodriguez 2008, 50). Persons with disabilities have a special connection with

God, and God intends them to become a reflection of God as well. For per

–

sons with disabilities, as for others, God’s intention must await resurrection

after death before it can be completely fulfilled. Humanity’s creation in the

image of God can make one of its most powerful differences in this world

long before then, however, as people live out their image-related status by

caring for those with PID.

Apart from the biblical affirmation that all are created in God’s image,

the  rights  of  all  individuals  are  not  secured  and  our  duties  toward  other  

persons remain unclear. If people do not believe human worth is externally

conferred, then they must look to internal characteristics to establish what

about human beings makes them unique and, therefore, worthy of respect.

For  centuries,  philosophers  and  theologians  have  tried  to  discover  which  

human characteristics set “persons” apart from “non-persons” and give the

former a unique dignity. Unfortunately, regardless of the characteristics se-

lected, some humans are necessarily left out of the “personhood” category

as a result. They are thereby considered devoid of human dignity and so not

due the respect and protections that such dignity requires.

Past Mistreatment

Where people have understood being in God’s image (and thus human worth)

in terms of the rational capacities that humans possess, persons with PID are

often deemed less worthy of respect and protection (Hall 1986, 108-9; Brink

2001, 93). Some Christian leaders in the history of the church, such as Thom-

as  Aquinas,  have  considered  the  image  of  God  in  mentally-compromised  

27

© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.

All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.

The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual Disabilities

From The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017

people to be “practically nonexistent” (1947, I.93.8).

10

The result has been a

degrading of all people with intellectual disabilities—a denial of their dignity

(Primavesi 2003, 187; Hilkert 2002, 78). This has led to their exclusion from

activities  and  communities  in  which  they  ought  to  be  able  to  participate  

(Moore 2003, 106). They have been viewed at best as “marred images,” re-

sulting in “perilous” outcomes (Reynolds 2008, 177).

Given this background, it is not surprising that when disabled people

gathered at a symposium in Sheffield, England to compare their experienc-

es, they repeatedly reported not being viewed or treated as “made in God’s

image”  the  way  that  other  people  are.

11

 As  one  participant  painfully  tried  

to  understand  the  source  of  the  discrimination  that  she  regularly  experi-

ences:  “I  became  disabled—so  was  I  once  in  God’s  image,  but  am  no  lon-

ger?” (Davies-John 2003, 124). Her experience participates in a long history

in  which  some  Christian  leaders  such  as  Emil  Brunner  have  denied  that  

normal  protections  apply  to  people  with  profound  disabilities  (e.g.,  those  

who are “grossly retarded”) because of the compromise to God’s image that

they consider to have occurred.

12

Apparently Martin Luther even advocated

drowning  a  “feebleminded”  12-year-old  child  because  his  severely  limited  

mental capacities appeared to evidence corruption of his reason and soul.

13

Such treatment of people with disabilities was characteristic of the culture

in which the early church developed,

14

and has offered an influential pattern

for the church’s treatment of people with disabilities whenever Christians

have reduced being in God’s image to particular attributes.

The  Nazi  holocaust  is  another  powerful  historical  illustration  of  how  

the idea of humanity in God’s image invites destructive misuse when people

understand it to be referring to current human attributes. Adolf Hitler, as

part of developing his approach to the weaker members of society in his 1927

book

Mein Kampf

, identifies the stronger members of society as “images of

the Lord.” In contrast, the weaker members for Hitler are mere “deformities”

10.

See discussion in Hoekema (1994, 37).

11.

 This symposium, a fruit of a World Council of Churches initiative, is discussed in Mayland (2003, 211).

12.

For Brunner (1952, 57), the protection of being in the image of God “ceases where true hu-

man living ceases—on the borderline of imbecility or madness.” Wennberg (1985, 131), reflecting

on whether all people are fully in God’s image and so have full moral standing, concludes: “the

grossly retarded… need not be assumed to possess a moral standing as full as that of a normal

human adult.”

13.

Luther (1952, 387) reports this in a write-up of one of his famous “Table Talks.” See discussions in

Kanner (1964, 7); Towns & Groff (1972, 38-39).

14.

As Seneca (1995, 32) affirmed in the first century: “We destroy abnormal offspring at birth; chil-

dren, too, if they are born weak or deformed, we drown.” Cf. discussion in Ferngren (2009, 101).

28

© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.

All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.

The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual Disabilities

From The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017

of that image to be “cleansed” from society (Hitler 1939, 606). What resulted

in Nazi Germany were categories of people who were

untermenschen

(subhu-

man), those in whom the attributes that constituted God’s image were most

deformed, marred, distorted, etc. They became the targets of Nazi efforts to

eliminate people with disabilities or other frailties through neglect, forced

sterilization, or killing.

15

Dietrich von Hildebrand was one of a relative few in Germany at the time

who recognized that it was precisely the biblical teaching that all of humani-

ty continues in the

undeformed

image of God that offered the greatest defense

against Hitler’s destructive initiatives. As he wrote, soon after being forced to

flee Nazi Germany in 1933: “All of Western Christian civilization stands and

falls with the words of Genesis, ‘God made man in His image.’”

16

Hildebrand

was exceptional among Christians in his recognition of the importance of

understanding God’s image in a way that excluded the possibility of it being

diminished. Sad, laments ethicist Lisa Cahill (2006, 58), has been “the dev-

astating refusal by Christian theology to attribute the fullness of the imago

Dei” to groups such as the millions exterminated in Nazi Germany.

The Current Challenge

Today, Christians must be cautious in assuming biology alone informs the

abilities, capacities, and potentialities of groups of people. What is deemed

“natural,” “normal,” and deserving of moral attention may be dictated by

persons in power whose interests are self-serving. The dignity of persons with

PID remains precarious. Within the arena of bioethics, which is a field that

helps to shape medical responses to persons with disabilities, debates con-

tinue over the need for prenatal screenings to detect and potentially abort

fetuses with genetic disabilities (Buchanan et al. 2000). Similar debates ad-

dress the ethical rights of parents to euthanize newborns with disabilities

that are expected to be profound (Giubilini and Minerva 2013). Naturally,

secular bioethicists do not appeal to the image of God when determining

whether  disabled  newborns  lack  personhood,  but  the  logic  is  analogous.  

Much like those who claim the image of God is damaged in some persons,

15.

Many influences helped to shape Hitler’s thinking, including the government-run program

of forced sterilizations of intellectually disabled people in the United States. During the Nurem-

burg Trials, that program was a primary precedent to which those defending the actions of Hitler

and his followers appealed. See http:/buckvbell.com and Lombardo (2008). Others have noted the

very same idea so captivating to Hitler—that God’s image can be damaged—has continued to be

influential up to the present, to the detriment of the weakest people in society (Yong 2007, 173)

16.

As translated in Crosby (2006, 9).

Please use all material uploaded and whatever I was able to copy for material to be used in the paper. And whatever references you can find on your own, noting that it has to be no more than 6 years old. Thanks