Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dawkins controversial again.

Options
24567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    robindch wrote: »
    In all fairness, twitter is an opt-in poke.
    If only that was the case. Journalists don't have to chase down people for quotes anymore, they just log in to their twitter feed then quote them as part of a "real" article. You can't avoid it.

    I have a twitter account but rarely log in or post. It seems way too much like a way to reassure yourself of your importance to the universe. I think a lot of twitter users would benefit from being plugged into the Total Perspective Vortex.
    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    Which leads onto my next point, I don't agree with the "abort and try again" line, since in many cases time is running out for many women and that may be their last chance to conceive naturally.
    While DS has a higher likelihood of occurring the older the mother, it can happen at any age. I think his point was don't accept you have to have a handicapped child if you can try again and have a healthy one. The odds are still against having a DS child no matter what your age.

    I see where Dawkins is coming from, and what he's said is probably no different then what 1000's of prospective parents have convinced themselves and having a DS fetus aborted. According to wiki "About 92% of pregnancies in Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome are terminated".

    Check out these graphs of prevalence v live births from around Europe. In particular see the Irish graph.... very interesting.
    http://www.eurocat-network.eu/prevdata/resultsPdf.aspx?title=F1&allanom=false&allregf=true&allrega=true&anomalies=89&winx=1416&winy=692

    He's not alone in his opinion, but in an area like this you leave yourself open to public backlash, some with valid points and of course the Godwinners like we already had in this thread. I think he knows what he's saying, firmly believes it and therefore doesn't care the reaction.

    Lastly, the response from The Down’s Syndrome Association surprised me in its temperance. It was very calm and well made.


  • Options
    #33
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,502 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Dades wrote: »
    I see where Dawkins is coming from, and what he's said is probably no different then what 1000's of prospective parents have convinced themselves and having a DS fetus aborted. According to wiki "About 92% of pregnancies in Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome are terminated".
    but the problem is that what he said is not equivalent to a couple's choice to abort a down's affected foetus.
    what he said was that it would be immoral not to abort.
    the 'most people do it' point and 92% figure and surrounding stats is moot in this debate.

    and he's the master of the non-apology. and at blaming twitter, even though it's probably his biggest platform now, and he's had multiple issues with people 'misinterpreting' his badly phrased pronouncements.

    instead of coming out with a '****, sorry, that's not what i meant' statement, he came out with some nicely sarky comments about causing a ****storm on twitter, and then issued a mealy mouthed half formed apology.


  • Options
    #34
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    but the problem is that what he said is not equivalent to a couple's choice to abort a down's affected foetus.
    what he said was that it would be immoral not to abort.
    the 'most people do it' point and 92% figure and surrounding stats is moot in this debate.

    and he's the master of the non-apology. and at blaming twitter, even though it's probably his biggest platform now, and he's had multiple issues with people 'misinterpreting' his badly phrased pronouncements.

    instead of coming out with a '****, sorry, that's not what i meant' statement, he came out with some nicely sarky comments about causing a ****storm on twitter, and then issued a mealy mouthed half formed apology.

    Well, if you consider it a parent's duty to ensure that their child has the best chance possible at being successful in life, via work and then themselves having a family, then knowingly bringing a child into the world that is massively unlikely to be successful in that way, and is likely to have serious physical problems that will shorten their lifespan is, from a purely logical point of view, morally wrong.


  • Options
    #35
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    kylith wrote: »
    Well, if you consider it a parent's duty to ensure that their child has the best chance possible at being successful in life, via work and then themselves having a family, then knowingly bringing a child into the world that is massively unlikely to be successful in that way, and is likely to have serious physical problems that will shorten their lifespan is, from a purely logical point of view, morally wrong.

    That would depend on your definition of "success". There is a lot more to a real life than work and money.


  • Options
    #36
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    kylith wrote: »
    Well, if you consider it a parent's duty to ensure that their child has the best chance possible at being successful in life, via work and then themselves having a family, then knowingly bringing a child into the world that is massively unlikely to be successful in that way, and is likely to have serious physical problems that will shorten their lifespan is, from a purely logical point of view, morally wrong.
    And the burden you place on any siblings/relatives too, when you have the choice to ensure its a burden they won't have to have.

    Don't get me wrong - I think the motivation to abort a DS child is primarily 'selfish' - not wanting the burden as parents, but you can't deny there are other considerations to be factored in where 'morality' in respect of the child itself and other third parties is a factor.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,722 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    kylith wrote: »
    Well, if you consider it a parent's duty to ensure that their child has the best chance possible at being successful in life, via work and then themselves having a family, then knowingly bringing a child into the world that is massively unlikely to be successful in that way, and is likely to have serious physical problems that will shorten their lifespan is, from a purely logical point of view, morally wrong.

    In my opionion, there's a few rather questionable 'ifs' in there. Personally, I'd think of a successful life as being a happily led one, which is not necessarily predicated on having a good career or being a parent. As a parent myself, for example, my children's future happiness is far more important than their academic achievements or wealth. If potential parents are willing to take on the burden of a DS child, and they have a good opportunity in giving that child a happy life, I don't think there is anything morally reprehensible in letting them do so.

    Dawkins' suggestion to me also comes across as the first step on the slippery slope of eugenics, and may be morally questionable on that basis.


  • Options
    #38
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,468 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    That would depend on your definition of "success". There is a lot more to a real life than work and money.

    Indeed there is,

    However, It has to be hard when you have a child and the very very very best you can hope for your child is they "might" end up getting a job stacking shelfs sometime....and even that is a maybe.

    Having your child in nappy's in their teens, 20's, 30's etc because of massive developmental issues isn't for everyone and its wrong to force a mother/couple into this sort of existence if they don't want it.

    Not everyone "enjoys" these sort of children, for some it breaks them down and their lives. For others they love their child. There is no set rule and its unfair to expect everyone to just put up and shut up and deal with their lot in life.

    If somebody wants to have an abortion in such an instance its their choice because at the end of the day they will be the one's dealing with the child if it was born.

    Louis Theroux did a interesting documentary on Autism, while for some it was workable, for others they felt it was ruining their lives and relationships and they wanted the child taken into care.

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xs0bwq_extreme-love-autism_shortfilms


  • Options
    #39
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    That would depend on your definition of "success". There is a lot more to a real life than work and money.

    That is true. Health is one though, and DS comes with a myriad of health problems. To have a family of their own is generally considered another and it is not, I believe, generally considered a good idea for people with DS to procreate. The ability to live an independent life could be considered another, which is something which is difficult for people with DS, particularly if it is more severe.

    Any DS people I have encountered generally seem pretty happy, but who knows what really goes on inside another person's head?

    Personally I don't think that a foetus with DS should be aborted, I'm just saying that I can see where Dawkins is coming from.


  • Options
    #40
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    smacl wrote: »
    Dawkins' suggestion to me also comes across as the first step on the slippery slope of eugenics, and may be morally questionable on that basis.
    Most DS fetuses are already aborted, by parents who know nothing of Dawkins suggestion.

    Also, you can't eradicate DS, because its not hereditary. Until science finds a way to control chromosomes people will still conceive DS children. And every parent has the right to make their decisions at that point.


  • Options
    #41
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,722 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Dades wrote: »
    And the burden you place on any siblings/relatives too, when you have the choice to ensure its a burden they won't have to have.

    Don't get me wrong - I think the motivation to abort a DS child is primarily 'selfish' - not wanting the burden as parents, but you can't deny there are other considerations to be factored in where 'morality' in respect of the child itself and other third parties is a factor.

    Though you could equally well argue that having any child places a burden on family, society and the environment, albeit a smaller one. This burden potentially increases on the basis of any number of medical issues, both physical and mental. This raises the question of what cost burden involved in raising a child suggests that the foetus should be aborted? Bit of a minefield there, and again heading down the eugenics path.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,722 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Dades wrote: »
    Most DS fetuses are already aborted, by parents who know nothing of Dawkins suggestion.

    Also, you can't eradicate DS, because its not hereditary. Until science finds a way to control chromosomes people will still conceive DS children. And every parent has the right to make their decisions at that point.

    But it is a significant jump to say that it is morally acceptable to abort a DS foetus to saying it is immoral not to, as the latter takes context out of the equation.


  • Options
    #43
    GerB40
    Registered Users Posts: 2,047 ✭✭✭GerB40


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    All too often what he says is twisted by those with an anti-Dawkins agenda, think creationists and other fundamentalist religious people, in order to try and devalue what he does say.

    Now, granted, he often comes out with insensitive tosh, but I ask you, have you ever met anyone who has never said the wrong thing, or even the right thing in the wrong way?

    In the scientific community they tend to speak factually and more literally than in every day society when it comes to controversial topics.
    The general population will often sugar coat or even avoid such topics.

    What Dawkins does is speak in a scientific manner to the general population which sometimes doesn't translate well and makes him sound insensitive..


  • Options
    #44
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    smacl wrote: »
    But it is a significant jump to say that it is morally acceptable to abort a DS foetus to saying it is immoral not to, as the latter takes context out of the equation.

    I think once one accepts the idea that it is morally acceptable to abort a foetus one deems to be sub-optimal, it is a very small step to the point where one accepts that aborting a "sub-optimal" foetus is actively encouraged and one is considered immoral/anti-social for not doing so. It is very difficult to get the genie back in the lamp.


  • Options
    #45
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    kylith wrote: »
    That is true. Health is one though, and DS comes with a myriad of health problems. To have a family of their own is generally considered another and it is not, I believe, generally considered a good idea for people with DS to procreate. The ability to live an independent life could be considered another, which is something which is difficult for people with DS, particularly if it is more severe.

    Any DS people I have encountered generally seem pretty happy, but who knows what really goes on inside another person's head?

    Personally I don't think that a foetus with DS should be aborted, I'm just saying that I can see where Dawkins is coming from.

    Good health is temporary for everyone, who is Dawkins to pronouce from his ivory tower who should live or die like it's 1930's Germany ? Based on Dawkins 'suffering' criteria, why should Stephen Hawking be alive ? As if someone like Dawkings really gives a toss about anyone's elses health problems.


  • Options
    #46
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,722 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I think once one accepts the idea that it is morally acceptable to abort a foetus one deems to be sub-optimal, it is a very small step to the point where one accepts that aborting a "sub-optimal" foetus is actively encouraged and one is considered immoral/anti-social for not doing so. It is very difficult to get the genie back in the lamp.

    I don't agree. I think it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to decide to abort any foetus for whatever reason she sees fit, and would fully sympathise with anyone not wanting to have a DS child. That in my mind is a very long way from telling the same woman when she should abort a foetus.


  • Options
    #47
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    smacl wrote: »
    I don't agree. I think it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to decide to abort any foetus for whatever reason she sees fit, and would fully sympathise with anyone not wanting to have a DS child. That in my mind is a very long way from telling the same woman when she should abort a foetus.

    But arch bright Dawkins has pronouced it's imoral not to abort them


  • Options
    #48
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,719 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    But arch bright Dawkins has pronouced it's imoral not to abort them

    We're not living in the State of Dawkins. His opinion carries no legal obligation for pregnant women.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #49
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    SW wrote: »
    His opinion carries no legal obligation for pregnant women.
    But hey, it give lots of people a chance to get upset at Dawkins all over again - what's not to love?!


  • Options
    #50
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    smacl wrote: »
    I don't agree. I think it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to decide to abort any foetus for whatever reason she sees fit, and would fully sympathise with anyone not wanting to have a DS child. That in my mind is a very long way from telling the same woman when she should abort a foetus.

    Fair enough.

    On the highlighted point - I assume then you are comfortable with sex-selective abortion, abortion on the basis that a foetus is not of the desired gender?


  • Options
    #51
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    SW wrote: »
    We're not living in the State of Dawkins. His opinion carries no legal obligation for pregnant women.

    Tell his followers that


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,468 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Tell his followers that

    and they'll tell you anything he says still has no legal standing,.....


  • Options
    #53
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    Cabaal wrote: »
    and they'll tell you anything he says still has no legal standing,.....

    Untill they demand it has


  • Options
    #54
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,722 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Fair enough.

    On the highlighted point - I assume then you are comfortable with sex-selective abortion, abortion on the basis that a foetus is not of the desired gender?

    I'm comfortable with a woman having an abortion for whatever reason she sees fit. I'm equally not comfortable with the idea of other people dictating when a woman should or should not have an abortion.

    The sex selective issue therefore rather depends on whether the woman is coming under external pressure to have a child of a given gender, as was so often the case in China in the times of the one child policy.


  • Options
    #55
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,007 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Untill they demand it has

    What are you even on about at this stage?

    Its OK to be ambivalent about Dawkins. He has two public fields. One is biology in which he is a well respected contributor based on the merit of his work. Even if and when his works are disproved, his contributions will still be part of the progression of our understanding.

    His atheist stuff that relates to biology of evolution is pretty cool in my opinion. But his moralistic stuff is also public but hes just a guy with a twitter account. You can have a positive attitude towards one part of his career and have a negative attitude towards other parts. Not complicated

    Who in the name of Jaysus is going to demand that Dawkins' twitter feed be made law? Hands up lads... Anyone?


  • Options
    #56
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    smacl wrote: »
    I'm comfortable with a woman having an abortion for whatever reason she sees fit. I'm equally not comfortable with the idea of other people dictating when a woman should or should not have an abortion.

    The sex selective issue therefore rather depends on whether the woman is coming under external pressure to have a child of a given gender, as was so often the case in China in the times of the one child policy.

    Thanks.


  • Options
    #57
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,468 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Untill they demand it has

    Oh I get it,
    You have a problem with a few thousand followers in any given country that "might" demand something by changed based on what Dawkins has "instructed".

    But you've not real problem with followers of the catholic religion demanding a country do something that the Vatican says?

    After all we saw last year that the Vatican and its followers tried to pressure the Irish state into voting the way the Vatican wanted, they did this by trying to blackmail TD's.

    Now, care to show an example of where Dawkins demanded something be changed in a specific country and his followers tried to black mail the government in that country? No? No examples?


  • Options
    #58
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Oh I get it,
    You have a problem with a few thousand followers in any given country that "might" demand something by changed.

    But you've not real problem with followers of the catholic religion demanding a country do something that Vatican says?

    After all we saw last year that the Vatican and its followers tried to pressure the Irish state into voting the way the Vatican wanted, they did this by trying to blackmail TD's.

    Ah the religion card and straw man comes out, I'm not in the slighest bit religious and never have been. Religion has nothing whatsover to claiming it's imoral NOT to abort DS children, but I guess as long as you can somehow shoehorn religion in there to jusify killing DS children, it's A-OK


  • Options
    #59
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,719 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Tell his followers that
    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Untill they demand it has
    you're contradicting yourself.

    how can something have legal standing but people have yet to demand it be given legal standing?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #60
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,502 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Cabaal wrote: »
    and they'll tell you anything he says still has no legal standing,.....
    but it completely undermines his critique of the immorality arising from religion when he proves himself unable to vocalise his own morality without sounding like an idiot.

    FWIW, i do believe that his position is as he outlined in the more considered piece, that he would not suggest that someone have an abortion they do not want.

    but for someone working in the public eye, and willingly so, and claiming to have an analytical, intelligent and logical outlook on life, he has to accept that he's clumsy to the point that it's very detrimental for his own credibility.

    he wouldn't have let a bishop or a cardinal away with similarly clumsy comments.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    magicbastarder wrote: »

    he wouldn't have let a bishop or a cardinal away with similarly clumsy comments.

    Same goes for his remarks on child sex abuse. If a bishop (or any prominent catholic) had made those remarks they would be devoured in the court of public opinion. Dawkins does it and it's "silly old Richard, sure we knew what you meant!"


Advertisement