Down's Syndrome is "Immoral"

The_Valeyard

Britain's angriest man Richard Dawkins has sparked a lot of controversy with comments he has made about Down's Syndrome.

Personally I think he has stepped over the line here.

http://news.sky.com/story/1322290/richard-dawkins-sparks-downs-syndrome-row

kylith

He does have a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease.

It is for the parents to decide, in my opinion. I can see both sides.

frozenfrozen

He's giving his own opinion on his twitter and isn't backing down. He stepped over the line? Because he would abort in the case that the child would have downs syndrome? Hardly overstepping the line. It's a touchy subject sure, but you can't exactly pussyfoot around it with 160 characters limit

IvyTheTerrible

Ugh. Bit of a brainfart from Mr Dawkins there.

Turtwig

Thread title is very misleading. He said it would be immoral not to abort, he didn't say the condition is immoral. I'm sure if asked to clarify he would state his utmost support for sufferers with down syndrome.

I don't agree with his ethical position. I do however think parents should be allowed decide freely for themselves. There is no black or white either way.

Roger_007

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Britain's angriest man Richard Dawkins has sparked a lot of controversy with comments he has made about Down's Syndrome.

Personally I think he has stepped over the line here.

http://news.sky.com/story/1322290/richard-dawkins-sparks-downs-syndrome-row

He says that in countries where abortion is available, it is the norm to abort where Down's Syndrome is detected. If this is true, it is the parents who are making that choice and therefore agree with Dawkins.
Another 'inconvenient truth', I suppose.

takamichinoku

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Ugh. Bit of a brainfart from Mr Dawkins there.

I've never delved at all deeply into Dawkins, but I get the impression he's one of those people who shouldn't have been let near Twitter.


... at least he doesn't resort to "my account was hacked" type tactics when it blows up in his face, I guess.

Ave Sodalis

He didn't say Down's Syndrome is immoral. He said bring a child into the world, knowing it will have Down's Syndrome is immoral. I think it's a small but important distinction.
I dunno, I can kinda see both sides. On the one hand, Down's Syndrome is caused by an issue with genes. A cure is nowhere in sight and in many cases in nature, such problems won't even go to term.
On the other hand, Down's Syndrome is fairly well handled and supported these days. Most people's standard of life isn't hugely diminished due to it.

I think it should be down to the parents. If they have the support systems there to raise a child with Down's Syndrome then I cannot see why they shouldn't. However, it will take a lot of work and time with people having to dedicate their whole lives to their children and with that in mind, I don't think it's right to judge those who choose not to go ahead with it. I don't see it being a morality issue in the way Mr Dawkins implies. Over all, it was definitely badly worded.

sbsquarepants

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Britain's angriest man Richard Dawkins has sparked a lot of controversy with comments he has made about Down's Syndrome.

Personally I think he has stepped over the line here.

http://news.sky.com/story/1322290/richard-dawkins-sparks-downs-syndrome-row

In all the dozens and dozens of times I've seen him interviewed and what not I don't think I've ever seen him angry! Personally I agree with him, my choice would be to abort (I think, you never really know what you'd do in hypothetical situations). Whether it's moral or immoral is a matter for each individual to decide for themselves, but what is most definitely immoral is to tell others they must live by your moral code while you disregard theirs. That much is certain.

IvyTheTerrible

sup_dude wrote: »

He didn't say Down's Syndrome is immoral. He said bring a child into the world, knowing it will have Down's Syndrome is immoral. I think it's a small but important distinction.
I dunno, I can kinda see both sides. On the one hand, Down's Syndrome is caused by an issue with genes. A cure is nowhere in sight and in many cases in nature, such problems won't even go to term.
On the other hand, Down's Syndrome is fairly well handled and supported these days. Most people's standard of life isn't hugely diminished due to it.

I think it should be down to the parents. If they have the support systems there to raise a child with Down's Syndrome then I cannot see why they shouldn't. However, it will take a lot of work and time with people having to dedicate their whole lives to their children and with that in mind, I don't think it's right to judge those who choose not to go ahead with it. I don't see it being a morality issue in the way Mr Dawkins implies. Over all, it was definitely badly worded.

I don't judge people who decide to go ahead or not with whatever pregnancy they have, it's just that it sounds to me like Dawkins is saying Down Syndrome babies SHOULD be aborted, which is denying people choice, and pretty offensive tbh.

Shiraz 4.99

Roger_007 wrote: »

He says that in countries where abortion is available, it is the norm to abort where Down's Syndrome is detected. If this is true, it is the parents who are making that choice and therefore agree with Dawkins.
Another 'inconvenient truth', I suppose.

Correct, Dawkins view may seem controversial but is indeed the norm.
Some Scandinavian countries hope to "eradicate" the condition soon due to earlier & more accurate screening.

Read about Denmark here http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2011/08/denmark-sets-eugenics-goal-for-2030.html

Whether we like the truth or not the vast majority of parents when given the choice choose to abort.
Dawkins is correct to defend his position here.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

frozenfrozen wrote: »

He's giving his own opinion on his twitter and isn't backing down. He stepped over the line? Because he would abort in the case that the child would have downs syndrome? Hardly overstepping the line. It's a touchy subject sure, but you can't exactly pussyfoot around it with 160 characters limit

Almost like it's not the appropriate medium for such a complex subject, isn't it? Almost as if Dawkins LIKES making controversial comments which he knows full well are going to kick off a fight?

Riskymove

Turtwig wrote: »

Thread title is very misleading.

as per usual in AH unfortunately

He just strikes me as somone not caring if people don't agree

I don't think the idea is that outlandish ...as the stats show...and he is merely voicing his opinion

he is not suggesting it is mandatory!

It is still up to individuals to choose

KungPao

From the thread title, I thought Glen Hoddle was up to his old tricks.

sbsquarepants

Just thought of something, when I was in school there was a family up my way who had 4 or maybe 5 fairly severely disabled kids. Even as pre teen kid I always remember thinking "why did they just keep having more kids". Surely, most people agree it is wrong to knowingly go on having kids in such circumstances? What's controversial about that? It's a very similar argument.
The "Christian" stance seems to be, well you've made your bed now you may lie in it, and just like the Christian stance on most sensitive issues, it's not very Christian!

c_man

Doesn't seem that out of whack with the majority of parents confronting this choice.

I'm sure the media are well on their way to blowing this up though.

ireland.man

Firstly, Dawkins should not be using twitter, with its 160 character limit, to make a pronouncement on such an emotive and nuanced issue. It shows a lack of respect at best.

Secondly, taking a social model of disability approach, there's far more that can be changed in society to 'mitigate' any problems families and individuals face when it comes to Down Syndrome. If he was really trying to be both humane and logical, he should be explaining how it's immoral for Cameron to be cutting respite care in the UK and for a lack of support for children born with disabilities.

Amirani

I thought the Daily Mail had finally been given a verified rep account when I read the thread title.

sbsquarepants

Janiyah Poor Axle wrote: »

Almost like it's not the appropriate medium for such a complex subject, isn't it? Almost as if Dawkins LIKES making controversial comments which he knows full well are going to kick off a fight?

I think it's called sparking a debate. It's a good thing. There is no harm in hearing points of view different from your own, not hearing them can be very destructive in the long term.

Glock Lesnar

The figure for down syndrome fetuses aborted is around 90%, the figure when people are asked would they abort a down syndrome fetus is significantly lower, we have an honesty issue not a morality issue.

KungPao

I think if it is detected very early on, the humane thing to do is abort. I know some sufferers can have it "mild" and lead decent lives, but if it is severe...what kind of life will he/she have? And also the effects on the parents and family...

kylith

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Just thought of something, when I was in school there was a family up my way who had 4 or maybe 5 fairly severely disabled kids. Even as pre teen kid I always remember thinking "why did they just keep having more kids". Surely, most people agree it is wrong to knowingly go on having kids in such circumstances? What's controversial about that? It's a very similar argument.
The "Christian" stance seems to be, well you've made your bed now you may lie in it, and just like the Christian stance on most sensitive issues, it's not very Christian!

They may have kept going in the hope that the next child would be ok.

I seem to remember hearing a while ago that some woman saw her disabled child as a trial given to her by god. I mean, by all means don't abort a child you know will be disabled, that is your right and your choice, but to keep a child because you believe that you have no choice as they are a Divine punishment - that can't be a mentally well woman.

Eponymous

I read this last night and was pretty annoyed by it.

Simply put, I would never judge a couple (or a lone parent) for deciding to terminate a pregnancy for any reason, least of all for terminating a DS pregnancy. However to pronounce on Twitter that it's immoral NOT to abort in this circumstance is absolutely disgraceful.

The choice is, and must remain, for the parents to make and it is not for the likes of him to decide on the morality of it.

Czarcasm

This is hardly anything new? Dawkins has been peddling this unscientific crap for the last 30 odd years since he wrote "The Selfish Gene". He took a scientific theory and added his own misguided PR spin to it, and he's doing no different here.

He knows well what at though, using recent media stories about downs syndrome to whip up a media frenzy to sell more books and bump up his appearance fees.

I never had any time for him before, and this, his most recent insidious PR stunt, has not enamoured me to him any more than I wasn't already.

Amirani

ireland.man wrote: »

Secondly, taking a social model of disability approach, there's far more that can be changed in society to 'mitigate' any problems families and individuals face when it comes to Down Syndrome. If he was really trying to be both humane and logical, he should be explaining how it's immoral for Cameron to be cutting respite care in the UK and for a lack of support for children born with disabilities.

Yeah, and there's kids starving in Africa.

The topic was abortion, not UK fiscal decisions. You should take a read up on the fallacy of relative privation if you haven't heard of it, it highlights the problem with your argument here.

Davarus Walrus

As screening becomes more accurate it will be possible to detect a far wider range of disabilities and handicaps. It could reach a stage that if a child wasn't going to be 'perfect' then it could be aborted.

Glock Lesnar

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

As screening becomes more accurate it will be possible to detect a far wider range of disabilities and handicaps. It could reach a stage that if a child wasn't going to be 'perfect' then it could be aborted.

What's the issue with that though?

Eponymous

Glock Lesnar wrote: »

What's the issue with that though?

The definition of "perfect" in this context.

IvyTheTerrible

Course, it's a fairly moot point in Ireland, seeing as scans aren't routinely done in Ireland until 20 weeks.

Lone Stone

i miss read the title as immortal, and got all excited.. sigh.

Glock Lesnar

Eponymous wrote: »

The definition of "perfect" in this context.

The only thing he could have meant by 'perfect' was disability free.

4zn76tysfajdxp

These days, Dawkins is just Jeremy Clarkson with a PhD.

Davarus Walrus

Glock Lesnar wrote: »

The only thing he could have meant by 'perfect' was disability free.

The parents definition of perfect.

Conor Bourke

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

Correct, Dawkins view may seem controversial but is indeed the norm.
Some Scandinavian countries hope to "eradicate" the condition soon due to earlier & more accurate screening.

Read about Denmark here http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2011/08/denmark-sets-eugenics-goal-for-2030.html

Whether we like the truth or not the vast majority of parents when given the choice choose to abort.
Dawkins is correct to defend his position here.

In order to truly eradicate Down Syndrome, would they not have to eliminate the parents who's genes were at fault? Or police high risk couples to prevent them conceiving a DS baby? Relying soley on abortion just seems so... Harsh? The idea of eliminating an entire subset of humans because they're deemed less valuable because of their disability absolutely turns my stomach.

I'm not anti abortion or anti choice, but I worked for years in the learning disability services and know first hand that there are so many worse conditions than DS, so it makes me really sad to read the above article.

Awkward Badger

I think the reaction is kind of indicative of the entire abortion debate tbh. People get worked up and emotive and can't view or discuss it in a reasonable way.

I agree with his position. It is or should be the choice of the parent whether or not the pregnancy will result in a child and to chose to allow the pregnancy to go full term knowing the child will have to live with such a condition doesn't seem like the best option. Its foisting such a life and the consequences of living a life with such a condition on another being because of your own views. Its a life at all costs kind of outlook which I think while done in the best interests of the child that will be isn't actually in the best interests of the child to be at all.

ireland.man

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Yeah, and there's kids starving in Africa.

The topic was abortion, not UK fiscal decisions. You should take a read up on the fallacy of relative privation if you haven't heard of it, it highlights the problem with your argument here.

Then you don't understand the social model of disability I guess. If Dawkins feels it's immoral to have a child with Down Syndrome because of the problems he or she will face and their families will face, then he should be dealing with the source of those problems, society, UK fiscal decisions as you put it.

takamichinoku

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think it's called sparking a debate. It's a good thing. There is no harm in hearing points of view different from your own, not hearing them can be very destructive in the long term.

I dunno, with Twitter I'd imagine it's shockingly easy and extremely addictive to just start them for the sake of occupying your time. Dawkins is presumably going to waste his whole day/week reading 140 character retorts that can't possibly offer any new insight on the matter.

Stinicker

He just says what alot of people think but are too embarrassed or dishonest to admit.

Shenshen

I can't say I agree with him on that one - I don't think it would be immoral to carry such a pregnancy to term.
I wouldn't see it as immoral to terminate it either, though. I think morality in this case is very much a grey area, and at best case-by-case.

I really like Dawkins work on genetics, evolution and biology. I also like "The God Delusion", he makes some very good arguments in that book.

But it seems to me he's on a bit of a slippery slope, getting more and more convinced by his own opinions... which is rather sad, as it might end up discrediting all his previous work.

BeerWolf

I can understand what he's saying, but the way he said it is incredibly insensitive.

Once screening to remove defective genes, and always have a perfectly healthy baby, becomes common... I'm sure the majority of people would opt to use that option.

No one wilfully wants to have a child that will remain dependent for the rest of it's life.

sbsquarepants

kylith wrote: »

They may have kept going in the hope that the next child would be ok..

Seems like a very shítty thing to do if you ask me.

kylith wrote: »

but to keep a child because you believe that you have no choice as they are a Divine punishment - that can't be a mentally well woman.

Definitely not, doesn't sound like the recipe for a happy childhood either. How could you possibly feel anything but resentment for a child you believe was sent to punish you? And why you possible respect a being that would doing something so cruel as to specifically create a disabled child, born only as a punishment for someone the sins of it's mother. If that's where you take your moral lead from, you're a fúcking sick person!

The One Doctor

Interesting. We're due a baby in December and have just had an anomaly scan, which included looking for signs of Down's Syndrome.The sonographer spent quite a while searching for signs of DS (usually the nasal bone is undeveloped and is a excellent predictor). Luckily everything is fine and there's no sign of any trisomy.

But what would have happened if DS had been spotted? We're currently in Week 22 of gestation. An abortion can technically be carried out at any time up to birth with evidence of DS in the UK. So that's fairly clear. The issue would have been between me and my girlfriend. I would probably have been in favour of a termination but it's unlikely that my girlfriend would have agreed. The problem with DS is not the syndrome itself, it's the severity of the condition and the health implications that come with it. However, I don't know anyone who has DS, but the few people I have met with the condition seemed very happy - happier than many people with just the two sets of chromosomes. So it's likely that if we had a child with DS I wouldn't have minded too much and indeed would have ended up glad they were born.

So after reflection I would argue counter to Dawkins - it's immoral to terminate a fetus with DS. However, I'm sure his ivory tower will protect him from the slings and arrows.

One thing to note is that the incidence of DS in the population is currently dropping rapidly. Why? Because a large proportion of DS fetuses are terminated.

Amirani

ireland.man wrote: »

Then you don't understand the social model of disability I guess. If Dawkins feels it's immoral to have a child with Down Syndrome because of the problems he or she will face and their families will face, then he should be dealing with the source of those problems, society, UK fiscal decisions as you put it.

Maybe he should, but not during a discussion on abortion.

Shenshen

Alaskimo-cake wrote: »

In order to truly eradicate Down Syndrome, would they not have to eliminate the parents who's genes were at fault? Or police high risk couples to prevent them conceiving a DS baby? Relying soley on abortion just seems so... Harsh? The idea of eliminating an entire subset of humans because they're deemed less valuable because of their disability absolutely turns my stomach.

I'm not anti abortion or anti choice, but I worked for years in the learning disability services and know first hand that there are so many worse conditions than DS, so it makes me really sad to read the above article.

I'm no doctor, but I think that Down's syndrom is genetic disorder, but not hereditary. The parents usually are genentically perfectly normal.
The syndrom " is caused by a failure of the 21st chromosome to separate during egg or sperm development. As a result, a sperm or egg cell is produced with an extra copy of chromosome 21; this cell thus has 24 chromosomes. When combined with a normal cell from the other parent, the baby has 47 chromosomes, with three copies of chromosome 21" (from wikipedia).
So it's only one cell separating incorrecly which causes it.

gctest50

ireland.man wrote: »

Then you don't understand the social model of disability I guess. If Dawkins feels it's immoral to have a child with Down Syndrome because of the problems he or she will face and their families will face, then he should be dealing with the source of those problems, society, UK fiscal decisions as you put it.

please explain how to remove the extra chromosome they carry unfortuneatly

seems some people ( not the DS kids parents ) object solely because they

fantasize about keeping them as pets or something

About one in five pregnancies worldwide end in abortion ?

http://www.numberofabortions.com/

RobertKK

No one is perfect, there is no one with perfect genes.

To say it is immoral to continue a pregnancy due to Down Syndrome is hurtful to families, parents and friends who love someone who has or was born with Down Syndrome.

There is nothing wrong with someone who has Down syndrome, yes they look different but they give love and receive love from those who matter.

The problem is not the person with Down Syndrome, it is others who see that person and make judgements about their right to life.

sbsquarepants

Glock Lesnar wrote: »

What's the issue with that though?

I'm damned if can see one. Surely eradicating defects is a positive, there is nothing to be said for propagating flaws and diseases. That has to be a no brainer doesn't it?

Awkward Badger

BeerWolf wrote: »

I can understand what he's saying, but the way he said it is incredibly insensitive.

Once screening to remove defective genes, and always have a perfectly healthy baby, becomes common... I'm sure the majority of people would opt to use that option.

In his defence he said the following:

Professor Dawkins wrote: "In point of fact, a majority of Down Syndrome fetuses in Europe and USA are aborted. What I recommended is not outlandish but the norm.

"I do not for one moment apologise for approaching moral philosophic questions in a logical way. There's a place for emotion and this isn't it."

And he's right imo. If people accept abortion is a valid option or think it should absolutely be a valid option and its not ending a life but terminating a pregnancy. Then "Abort it and try again" isn't actually an insensitive remark at all. Its what happens, its what's acceptable so if you're going to discuss it in a reasonable and logical way then you can't really hide from that fact. You also can't really hide from morality in relation to a discussion about and ethical dilemma.

I know twitter isn't the ideal platform for these discussions but he was simply responding on twitter to someone who asked him a question.

The One Doctor

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm damned if can see one. Surely eradicating defects is a positive, there is nothing to be said for propagating flaws and diseases. That has to be a no brainer doesn't it?

So your view is that any fetus with a congenital defect should be terminated?

Frankly it's a bit late for me to be terminated now.

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm damned if can see one. Surely eradicating defects is a positive, there is nothing to be said for propagating flaws and diseases. That has to be a no brainer doesn't it?

A person with downs syndrome is not flawed and diseased they are people just like anyone else.

Turtyturd

RobertKK wrote: »

No one is perfect, there is no one with perfect genes.

To say it is immoral to continue a pregnancy due to Down Syndrome is hurtful to families, parents and friends who love someone who has or was born with Down Syndrome.

There is nothing wrong with someone who has Down syndrome, yes they look different but they give love and receive love from those who matter.

The problem is not the person with Down Syndrome, it is others who see that person and make judgements about their right to life.

That would sound good in an opinion piece in a paper, but it's just not true, there is something wrong with them besides their looks.