Dawkins controversial again.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Let's ignore the Catholic view then

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.

and go with the generally accepted scientific definition of when life begins as at implantation.

Going to need a heck of a citation for that.

Then the two scenarios are still different as the embryo has already been implanted in natural conception, and hasn't been implanted in IVF.

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.

I'm not sure how you make the leap from early miscarriage to downs as 'natures mistakes' as that would imply that nature was sentient, when a 'mistake' in human evolution is merely a matter of perspective.

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

Your body and the way it functions could hardly be described as an accident. You evolved that way, in the very same way as if a person is born with downs, a 'genetic mistake of evolution' is merely a matter of perspective.

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.

You can see how Dawkins moral argument really doesn't hold up very well already under examination, and that's even before we've addressed the question of genetic mutations and disorders and whether it is ethical and logical to abort and try again, and the effect that would have on the balance of evolution.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not sure why you're egging to bring the religious perspective into this tbh.

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.

Now, because Dawkins only looked at the negative consequences concerning the welfare of a person born with downs

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

The only logical conclusion, that can be drawn from Dawkins point of view, is that humanity needs to stop procreating now, before we further add to the sum total of human suffering, because even attempting to procreate can be stressful, and add to the sum total of human suffering. If we do that though, human beings would eventually become extinct.

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

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

Here's a thought experiment that I've done before, in a very serious way, thinking about what would happen if I discovered that I was to be a parent to a DS child. This is purely from my own perspective, and not intended to be a template for anyone else.

I imagined many years into the future speaking to our as yet unconceived child. We were thinking of having one child only.

Option 1:
"Well, when your mother was pregnant the first time it turned out that the foetus had Downs syndrome. We thought really hard about, and decided to abort and try again. The second time she got pregnant you were the result, and fortunately you're a normal healthy child".

Child thinks: I might never have existed. Or I might be sitting here with Downs. Lucky for me that my parents decided to abort and try again.

Option 2:
"Well, when your mother was pregnant the first time it turned out that the foetus had Downs syndrome. We thought really hard about, and decided to go ahead with the pregnancy. It hasn't been easy but we wouldn't change it for the world."

Child thinks: I might never have existed. Lucky for me that my parents didn't abort and try again. Or maybe I might be sitting here without Downs? Is that so lucky?


In both options, the final outcome is only one child - but one child might go on to be an independent adult, maybe having a family of their own, and one won't. Either way, either I have to justify bringing a child into the world with a significant disability, or I have justify aborting a foetus so that another, separate foetus will have a chance of life. Because once the child is born (or the abortion performed), that's it, there's no going back and changing your mind.

Which is the moral choice? In my case, I agree with Dawkins - if it's a binary choice between a normal child and a DS child, why not create life in a way which gives the child the best chances, and which gives the parents what they really want?

That's the message I take from Dawkins in this particular instance, and while it may be controversial as it's such an emotive topic, I can't see how he is the monster he is being portrayed to be either.

.

I think this whole debate is just an extension of the usual pro life / pro choice argument. Most abortions are carried out for far less serious issues than the possability of a disabled child.

Easily the most rational comment made about him and his knack for stirring controversy as a major leader in the nu-atheist movement is that he really needs to understand that he's going to be seen as a crackpot if he keeps saying stupid things. This would obviously be dangerous, as disbelief is a rising, SOCIAL movement and him talking about things he doesn't understand are going to damage the reputation and beauty of denouncing religion.
To address what he actually said, perhaps it's logical from a biological standpoint. Not moral. This is not morality. If you derive your morality from books on evolution, then you are crazy. We learn morality from empathy with our fellows. I think I'm going to distance myself even further from the nu-atheist community, in hopes that humanism isn't represented by equally foolish leaders.