Dawkins controversial again.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Wish we could do that next time we have an abortion referendum! 'The RCC says whatever' is still regarded as a powerful argument by some people.

The official catholic view is short, simple, absolutist, and completely bloody useless in real life which is much more complicated than black and white. The only people who can really live it are the old, celibate men who preach it and for whom it has no effect on their lives anyway.

I agree with you, hence I suggested it be left out of the discussion as it merely argues the morality point from another perspective, and what we're talking about here is Dawkins morality, which informs his opinion, and whether he misguidedly based his opinion on his morality when the question was one of ethics, not morality.

His own personal morals are just that - his own. He never should have introduced them when answering a question related to ethics, which are based on an objective world view.

The confusion and the frustration for me arises when he has not yet clarified whether he was speaking in a personal capacity as Richard Dawkins, or his professional capacity as an evolutionary biologist Dr. Richard Dawkins. He shouldn't get a free pass when he is broadcasting his opinion to such a wide audience who will undoubtedly be influenced by his opinion. We wouldn't be so forgiving of the men in frocks, so I see no reason to allow Richard Dawkins any latitude on this matter.

That may indeed be absolutionist in itself, but we're not talking about what flavour of ice-cream does Dawkins like here.

Going to need a heck of a citation for that.

Hmm, seems my info may be a little out of date (granted I cheated a little and used Google to check I wasn't completely misinformed, but here goes) -

At its 2004 Annual Meeting, The American Medical Association passed a resolution in favor of making "Plan B" emergency contraception available over-the-counter, and one of the claims in the resolution was that hormonal contraception that may affect implantation "cannot terminate an established pregnancy."[1] Similarly, the British Medical Association has defined an "established pregnancy" as beginning at implantation.[2] The legal definition in the United Kingdom is not clear.[3]

Other definitions exist. The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines "pregnancy" as "from conception until birth."[4] Definitions like this may add to a lay person's confusion, as "conception" in a scientific context may be defined as fertilization,[5][6] in a medical context can mean either fertilization[7][8] or implantation[9] but in lay terms may mean both.[10]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy

The American College of Paediatricians however states -

ABSTRACT. The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception—fertilization. This definition has been expounded since prior to Roe v. Wade, but was not made available to the US Supreme Court in 1973. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception. This statement reviews some of the associated historical, ethical and philosophical issues.

Source: http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

And their neighbours, the Canadian Medical Association states -

The Canadian Medical Association, the largest association of doctors in Canada, has redefined human life. On August 15, as reported by LifeNews, delegates to the CMA's general council voted to pass “a resolution supporting the current wording of the Criminal Code which states that a child ‘becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.’ ”

The CMA resolution is intended to support the nation’s criminal code, which defines an infant as a human being only after the infant is born.

Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/12510-canadian-medical-association-redefines-human-life

Irish legislation defines the beginning of life thusly -

The Act defines the "unborn" whose life is protected as existing from implantation in the uterus until "complete emergence ... from the body of the woman".[29] Beginning at implantation conforms to a 2009 Supreme Court judgment on the beginning of pregnancy,[30][31] rather than the Catholic view that personhood begins at conception. The aim of specifying the uterus is to avoid criminalising emergency contraception or treatment of ectopic pregnancy.[32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Life_During_Pregnancy_Act_2013

With IVF one can have the information much earlier. I don't see choosing not to implant a Downs embryo as at all immoral, but I don't see choosing to abort a Downs foetus as at all immoral either.

The whole point of this argument is that Dawkins espouses that choosing NOT to abort a foetus with Downs Syndrome might be seen as immoral. The question is - "By whom?". Dawkins then goes on to explain that it might be seen as immoral by him, given that it would be -

I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare.

Source: https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/

Interesting to note too that his "apology" is not for what he said, but for the fact that his twitter followers had to endure "fireballs of hatred" as he so eloquently puts it. Well if you opine like an ass, people are going to call you an ass. It's only logical -

Those who thought I was advocating a kind of mob rule, when I pointed out that a majority of women, when facing this dilemma, as a matter of fact do choose abortion. Wasn’t that like saying “Hanging is right because if you took a plebiscite most people would bring back hanging.”? No, I was not advocating mob rule. I was simply suggesting that those hurling accusations of Nazism, vile, monstrous fascistic callousness etc., should reflect that their fireballs of hatred might as well be aimed directly at the great majority of the women who have actually faced the dilemma. Might that not give you pause before you accuse one individual of being a brute simply because he spells out the thinking behind the majority choice?

See this here that I've bolded? This is when he crosses from his own subjective opinion based on his own morality, into wider society's objective opinion based on ethics. It wouldn't matter if birds did it, bees did it, educated fleas did it. The point is that Richard was asked for HIS opinion, not that opinion which he claims is "the majority choice" in the Western World.

If he wanted to remain objective, at least be bloody consistent about it!

No I was referring to what many people (when they speak of it at all, which is rarely) use to dismiss miscarriage - which is far more common than abortion. Yet the anti-choice crowd tell us how precious every fertilised egg is, which certainly isn't borne* out by how society treats women who miscarried, or how we historically treated stillbirth.

* no pun intended, etc

It's impossible to know what way to address this tbh because I'm sure you're aware of the difference between a termination of a pregnancy through no fault of the woman, and the deliberate ending of the pregnancy when the woman does not want to continue her pregnancy. You're aware that the anti-choice crowd are only a very small (albeit vocal) section of society, so really, how seriously should an individual regard their opinion after they've either miscarried or had an abortion?

I know of course plenty of women do, but given that we have no hard and fast figures for society's attitudes to women who experience early termination of a pregnancy, for whatever reason, it's impossible to quantify, a bit like that whole sum of all happiness/suffering fuzzy logic argument that Dawkins uses to justify his confusion between his morality, and ethics in the wider sense as it applies to society.

Downs has nothing to do with evolution, or indeed genetics as it is not heritable, it is an error of cell development in the fertilised egg.

Hmm, that's a bit like saying cell division and development has nothing to do with evolution. It is the very basis of evolution! While there is no hereditary gene as such, the error in cell development as you call it, is considered a genetic evolution -

A new treatment for Down Syndrome mirrors genetic evolution by hacking an already-existing hack of our genes.


Like drugs, genes can be harmful at the wrong dose. Down Syndrome is caused by a gene-dose problem: patients carry three copies of chromosome 21, instead of two, giving them toxic levels of hundreds of genes that are best had only in moderation. Last week, a team of scientists made headlines with a technical breakthrough that could potentially solve the gene dose problem in Down Syndrome. They found a way to shut down the entire extra copy of chromosome 21 in cells taken from a Down Syndrome patient. The scientists hacked a natural chromosome shut-down system that is itself an evolutionary hack of a previous system.

Source: http://www.psmag.com/science/gene-hacking-and-down-syndrome-63487/

Only because you've massively over-estimated the 'suffering' of the average trying to conceive couple, the vast majority of couples not using contraception will conceive within a year. It's not like most people find it unpleasant to have sex for another month.
IVF is chancy and very expensive and few couples can afford financially or emotionally to put themselves through it indefinitely.

Well, my point was not to over-estimate, but to purposely exaggerate to show that the whole sum of all happiness/suffering concept was merely a matter of perspective. I know you're going to find it nigh on impossible to back up your claim that the vast majority of couples not using contraception will conceive within a year, as it's impossible to quantify. It really is one of those "how long is a piece of string?" kind of questions. But here's some idea at least -

How long it takes to conceive

The majority of couples get pregnant within three months. Your own timeline could be longer if you're older, have certain fertility-unfriendly habits (like smoking), or have a condition that impairs fertility.
Of all couples trying to conceive, here's about how long it takes:

30 percent get pregnant the first cycle (about one month)
59 percent get pregnant within three cycles (about three months)
80 percent get pregnant within six cycles (about six months)
85 percent get pregnant within 12 cycles (about one year)
91 percent get pregnant within 36 cycles (about three years)
93 to 95 percent get pregnant within 48 cycles (about four years)

If you try for a year without success, it's smart to seek help from a fertility specialist. You might conceive on your own if you keep trying, but in case you have an underlying fertility problem, it's best to get help so you don't waste valuable years as your biological clock continues to tick.
If you're 35 or older, time is even more precious and you should get help sooner: Set up an appointment with a specialist if you're not pregnant within six months.

Source: http://www.babycenter.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-pregnant

Now if you asked Dawkins what he thought in that scenario (i.e. an IVF foetus is found to have a major genetic or developmental defect at 20 weeks or so) I doubt his answer would be the same, it's not the same question. A couple in that situation face the real prospect of not conceiving again and that will weigh into their decision.

Dawkins wasn't asked that though, IVF never even came into the equation. He was actually giving his opinion on abortion in Ireland initially (I'm not on Twitter, but I tried to get as much of a screengrab as I could, to provide context) -





I think I'm going to call such displays of arrogance and complete abandonment of common sense a "Dawkinism", as opposed to a "Darwinism". There really should be some sort of an award for people who so spectacularly manage to put their digital foot in their mouse.

As regards the question of IVF from a financial perspective and whether couples can afford to put themselves through it, I'm not sure either yourself nor Dawkins is aware of the practical implications of "abort and try again". It's not exactly the most sensible thing in the world when someone finds out they have wanted a baby and now are faced with the prospect of having a child with downs syndrome "abort and try again". How many times would Dawkins suggest one should repeat this procedure? It would indeed seem indefinitely as he doesn't qualify his remark on that score either.

The emotional cost of IVF is disregarded if Dawkins is allowed disregard the emotional cost of "Downs Syndrome? Abort and try again. It might be seen as immoral if you don't". That kind of judgement, that kind of burden, that kind of moral blackmail...

Well, it sounds familiar, doesn't it?

I don't see any relevance to what you call 'the balance of evolution' as those affected by Downs or similar serious genetic/developmental issues rarely reproduce or rarely even can.

Here's where ethics gets hinky -

Should IVF be offered to people who have a genetic disorder, or is it a breach of their Human Rights to deny them the procedure if they can afford to pay for it? If a person without a genetic disorder is able to avail of IVF, then why not a person with a genetic disorder?

People with Cystic Fibrosis for example?

I don't expect you to answer that question, it's just one of those things to mull over. In the interests of disclosure though, my brother has Cystic Fibrosis and he would give anything to have children. He just hasn't met the right girl yet, but he lives a full life otherwise, travelling the world entering archery competitions when he's not at home lecturing at third level. He's in his 30's now and his life expectancy is unknown, as he's pretty much baffled doctors so far. My other brother wasn't quite so fortunate, but in the 19 years he did live, I mean he REALLY lived, packing in a life full of adventure and his diary right up until his death was full of upcoming appointments for the year ahead.

To say that either of them has unduly suffered though, even on balance between what they achieved and what they suffered to achieve it... I couldn't possibly quantify it, but I know their quality of life wasn't so impeded by their condition that they weren't or aren't happy. The sum of all happiness does indeed by far and above outweigh the sum of their suffering as far as they are concerned, and the legacy they have left and will leave behind them through them having lived their lives is still very much in evidence today, and will be for some time to come.

I would say the balance tips pretty heavily in terms of adding to the sum of all happiness on that score.

Like it or not it still has a huge influence on many people in this society, even among some who would no longer be believers. Also claims were made (on twitter etc. not necessarily here) that he was trying to impose his views on society, etc. so it's only fair to compare and contrast with those organisations who actually DO try to impose their view on society.

I couldn't honestly say he was attempting to impose his views on society, simply because the majority in society don't even know who Richard Dawkins is, let alone are they aware of his existence, so I can be at least thankful for that much that his views can be somewhat contained. That may be his only saving grace (honestly, no pun intended), as the majority in society are certainly aware of the Catholic Church and their views on abortion and genetic conditions. I will admit that as a Roman Catholic I have been known on numerous occasions to utter the phrase "God's plan my ass!", not too often though! :pac:

No he didn't. You're only looking at the individual, you need to consider the family and society as a whole too i.e. the sum total

In case you missed it the first time -

I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare.

It is Dawkins who only looked as I said at the negative consequences for the individual and failed to consider the family and society as a whole too, even when he went about clarifying his original tweet. I think that's where a lot of the frustration comes from too, is from Dawkins claiming to have made a determination based on logic, without emotion, when in fact his whole bloody point seemed to be centred on the negative consequences for the child based on the balance of an emotional weighing scales!

His response was completely emotionally charged and lacking in even the most basic logic. If he had said something along the lines of "shorter life expectancy and higher risk of medical and social issues", and balanced that with "a contribution to society which can be quantified in terms of their achievements and their assisting other people in understanding humanity", THEN I don't think half the shítstorm that kicked off would've happened.

That would have fallen well within the guidelines of his moral parameters, and ethical guidelines.

As a parent of young kids I find this idea deliciously ironic :pac:
sure, we would have had a lot less stress, expense, and pain and suffering on my wife's part, if we'd decided to have no kids but then there'd be no upside either (I'm told there is one eventually ) Sure, choosing not to have any kids is a valid choice for the individual, not so much if we all do it, but the world population is growing strongly

You're basing your argument on emotion again there though, and it's completely understandable, but what you've actually done is considered that there IS an upside, and there is an upside to the existence of human beings with genetic disorders too in terms of their contribution to our understanding of humanity. They have achieved more in out understanding of humanity than Dawkins could ever hope to achieve in TEN of his lifetimes.

I'm not usually given to allowing the "as a parent" as a valid argument when we discuss ethics in terms of all humanity (no child was ever raised in a bubble by just their parents alone), but under the circumstances, I too am a parent, came home from work the other evening and was greeted by "Hey Knobhead Senior!". A moment like that you laugh, and you cherish it. I affectionately refer to him as "my little wallet squeezer", because that's exactly what he is for the most part. He gives me a pain in my face most days, but I wouldn't give him up for anything, because on the balance of the sum total of happiness/suffering, he has added to and enriched my life immensely.

Dawkins ideology seems to take none of this into account, which is completely illogical. Human beings are not robots, we are not devoid of emotion, and Richard Dawkins is not devoid of emotion. The fact that he is capable of empathy makes him a better scientist, not merely an average one, because it makes him human, as any of us are, and for an evolutionary biologist to attempt to ignore this basic fact is like me going into the bathroom and saying I don't need toilet paper. My efforts would be severely hampered without it.

What he was comparing was not Downs child vs. no child, but Downs child vs. going on to have a non-Downs child.

I suppose what it comes down to really is your experience of a condition like Downs Syndrome, and for me, as I said in another thread, I've spent most of my life around people with varying degrees of genetic, physical, intellectual and cognitive disabilities, both children and adults -

Czarcasm wrote: »

My point being anyway that I think it's the "pity stare" that gets on people's tits, or the "freak show" stare that Quazzie was getting at earlier when he tried to say I was saying that all physically and intellectually disabled people should stay at home or be locked up, etc. That sort of high horse nonsense pisses me off, but I wasn't going to get into a pissing contest about my experience working with people with physical and intellectual disabilities. I actually have some great memories going back over 20 years from the likes of the lads in St. Raphaels (tweedle dum and tweedle dee, two of the funniest fcukers who would talk the ears off an elephant, or one chap who put my head through a transit van window because I couldn't understand that he was happy with the taytos I'd just given him, didn't want an apple! My mate said "Leave him alone now Czarcasm, he'll get frustrated... did I listen? Did I fcuk! "Ah we're grand, he won't... *BOOM*, he punched my head through the window! :pac:), to the people I work with today with various physical and intellectual disabilities and helping them to use computers, tablets and phone apps to help them communicate with the world around them and express themselves.

So for me, I wouldn't have an issue with finding out that the foetus had Downs Syndrome if my wife were pregnant, as it's something I'm used to dealing with in other children and adults, and I've seen how on the balance of happiness/suffering with regard to the welfare of the person, with regard to the welfare of society; people born with genetic conditions/disorders, physical, intellectual and cognitive impairments, they contribute by far and above more to society and the sum of all happiness, than they could ever detract or take away from it.

Dawkins, on this occasion was wrong, only he's too cowardly and too arrogant to admit it, just like the men in the black frocks who are so despised for their assinine opinions. Dawkins it seems, is no different to them.

He is only human after all.

Dades wrote: »

Although I think I agree, Carl Sagan never had a twitter account or had to contend with snippets of his conversation being examined ad nauseum on the Internet! Hard to say what historical popular figures might have fallen from grace had the world access to their every thought.

Carl Sagan stuck to science and didn't claim it was immoral not to abort a person with Downs.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Abortion was founded on eugenics in Sangers attempt to cull the "feeble minded"' . So I'd say hardly hyperbole.

Edit: that was a response to nodin's apparently now deleted post

There was no deleted post.

Nodin wrote: »

Earlier you stated 'that kind of person is "ten a penny". Do you have anything to back that up, or was it just hyperbole?

He was talking about one of the most prominent and most important scientists of the last fifty years (and when I pulled him up on it, he got all defensive and hurt). Don't be silly, of course he's got nothing to back it up.

Dades wrote: »

If you'd read, for example, The Demon-Haunted World, you'd know Carl Sagan consistently addressed issues of gods and spirituality, going beyond his remit as a scientist to speculate on metaphysical claims. But we just don't know Carl Sagan's opinions about everything as the thoughts of public figures could only be found on TV, books and paper publications.

And none of us can state what he would have thought about this issue, given the same tests for DS didn't even exist when Carl was a public figure.

I'd put him ahead of Dawkins anyday.