Dawkins controversial again.

Turtwig

This time he implied it would be immoral not to abort a foetus if you know it has down syndrome.

He certainly does like pissing people off.

magicbastarder

i had seen some tweets about this, hadn't heard exactly what he'd said.

does he seriously not have someone who can act as a sounding board, before he trots out horse**** like this?

Gbear

I'm fairly sure a lot of people were making similar arguments in the abortion threads, albeit, not necessarily for the same disease.

If you're going to bring a child into the world and he faces constant suffering because of the condition he's born with, then you can certainly see Dawkins' point of view.

Most people who are in favour of allowing mothers the choice to abort would decide that some level of suffering would be too much and the baby ought to be aborted. Maybe Down's isn't serious enough but it's certainly open to debate.

Not sure it does Dawkins much good to actually talk about it but there's no particular reason you should avoid debate just because it's controversial.

magicbastarder

i genuinely believe dawkins is somewhere on the autism spectrum.
he seems blind to how people might react to his comments.

it's one thing to argue that being pregnant with a foetus with down's syndrome could (or should) be a factor in a woman's decision relating to an abortion.
it's a *hell* of another thing to suggest it's immoral not to proceed with an abortion.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus

Cabaal

The way I see it is,

If a women becomes pregnant and she finds out the fetus will face constant pain and suffering when it comes to term and given she's the one that will have to raise and care for it she decides that an abortion is the best way to proceed then this is her decision.

Its not my place to say no to such a women or couple because at the end of the day I won't be the person caring for it for the rest of my life,

Some people might be fine in such a situation but not everyone,

I can see where he's coming from, perhaps he hasn't worded things the best.

Links234

I've lost all respect I had for him quite a while ago now, don't care if he digs himself any deeper or not

Nodin

Turtwig wrote: »

This time he implied it would be immoral not to abort a foetus if you know it has down syndrome.

He certainly does like pissing people off.

Time was a narky oul codger was limited in the people he could poke by the reach of his walking stick. Now with twitter, the worlds his oyster.

hinault

Dawkins isn't fit to pontificate on what is moral, or what isn't moral.

robindch

Nodin wrote: »

Time was a narky oul codger was limited in the people he could poke by the reach of his walking stick.

In all fairness, twitter is an opt-in poke.

magicbastarder

Cabaal wrote: »

perhaps he hasn't worded things the best.

'perhaps he hasn't worded things the best' = 'he's an insensitive prick'.

when in a hole, mr. dawkins; this was a followup tweet:
"Apparently I'm a horrid monster for recommending WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS to the great majority of Down Syndrome fetuses. They are aborted."

which did not address his immorality claim.
claiming or implying that 'a lifetime of constant pain and suffering' is inevitable is wrong and does not help the debate.

unseenfootage

Hitler would've been proud of Dawkins.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

In all fairness, twitter is an opt-in poke.

True, though I've opted out and still hear the highlights.

Turtwig

Simply put every parent should be allowed make the choice without any form of judgment either way. The condition can range in severity, everyone's circumstances are different. You can't really force a moral position on this issue. Doing so is immoral imo.

magicbastarder

i googled the claim about the 'great majority' being aborted. apparently there are approx. 700 births and 1,100 abortions every year in the UK; so a majority, but not as great a one as implied.

Brian Shanahan

Turtwig wrote: »

This time he implied it would be immoral not to abort a foetus if you know it has down syndrome.

He certainly does like pissing people off.

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?

thomas anderson.

I can see his point

El_Duderino 09

hinault wrote: »

Dawkins isn't fit to pontificate on what is moral, or what isn't moral.

Who is?
What constitutes fitness?

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

Dawkins isn't fit to pontificate on what is moral, or what isn't moral.

Who please do tell, who is fit to decide such things?.

magicbastarder

i don't think that claiming dawkins is not fit to pronounce on morality necessarily implies that you think a committee should be convened to do so.
or else we should insist on an 'IN MY OPINION' disclaimer before every post.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

i googled the claim about the 'great majority' being aborted. apparently there are approx. 700 births and 1,100 abortions every year in the UK; so a majority, but not as great a one as implied.

Where are those stats from? I'd say it would be very easy to under-count the number aborted for any particular reason in the UK since little if any reason has to be given for a termination.

El_Duderino 09

hinault wrote: »

Dawkins isn't fit to pontificate on what is moral, or what isn't moral.

The clue was in the title all along lads. Don't you worry your dirty, sinful head by thinking thoughts about morality.

Your morality will be given to you by an old man who isn't biased by having any idea about the real world.

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

Where are those stats from? I'd say it would be very easy to under-count the number aborted for any particular reason in the UK since little if any reason has to be given for a termination.

the births from a website belonging to a DS pressure group, the abortions from a torygraph article, IIRC. hence the use of the word 'apparently'.

smacl

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The clue was in the title all along lads. Don't you worry your dirty, sinful head by thinking thoughts about morality.

Your morality will be given to you by an old man who isn't biased by having any idea about the real world.

Given to you at such a time when he can tear himself away from the alter boys that is....

Not a huge fan of Dawkins, nor would I care too much about what he says as I've never felt I've shared his outlook on life.

magicbastarder wrote: »

'perhaps he hasn't worded things the best' = 'he's an insensitive prick'.

Insensitive prick pretty much sums up my view of the man, which doesn't dismiss the contribution he's made with some of his work.

magicbastarder

as a public figure/commentator, i suspect he's really jumped the shark with this one. i know people who have been happy to ignore him up till now who have completely written him off as an asshole.
he's managed to co-opt the notion of choice relating to abortion and applied an odious moral judgement on those who choose not to, which is the polar opposite of what choice implies.

Corkfeen

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?

He does it a lot and if you're going to state it's immoral not to abort a fetus with DS. You'd better think about it long and hard before you do it. It's going to hurt a lot of families tbh.

Jimoslimos

I see the point he is trying to make, and although I don't fully agree, it isn't completely baseless.

First of all he is correct that aborting DS foetuses is considered morally acceptable in the West, however just because that is true doesn't necessarily mean that the opposite applies.

However you can't fully deny that there are issues raised. Bringing a child into the world that will need at least some level of constant support and care throughout their life, the burden being put on siblings and other family members usually.

That situation will only escalate as more and more women have children later in life (whether by choice or due to financial pressure). The risk of DS is greatly increased for mothers over 40. 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.

magicbastarder

he probably doesn't realise the damage he may have done to the pro-choice movement. because the stance he has espoused has given pro-lifers exactly what they've been waiting for - a well known public figure who is propounding a pro-abortion as opposed to a pro-choice position.

Cabaal

I really hate the term pro-life, its utter nonsense and its misleading.

As Penn Juilett said

it's like 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life', I mean- c'mon! Everyone is pro-choice and pro-life. It's for or against abortion that your group is about.

Pro-life can't claim they want to save lives when they are happy to put a women's life at risk, its a misleading term for them to use. At the end of the day they are anti-choice when it comes to abortion and the other side is pro-choice when it comes to allowing women to choose abortion.

If somebody says a women must abort in xyz cases then that's also a person that wants to take choice away from a women and imho that person is anti-choice as well.

So magicbastarder, I see where you are coming from but even if we take his initial comments at face value he in no way represents the pro-choice movement as such comments actually equate to anti-choice which is exactly what the other anti-choice people want (women not being allowed to choose what happens to their bodies).

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

I really hate the term pro-life, its utter nonsense and its misleading.

Neither am I a fan of the term "pro-choice".

That's one of the reasons I avoid the entire abortion debate - I don't very often feel that either side listens to each other all that carefully. And, in general (though not always), instead of discussing the issues carefully and picking through the ethical issues involved, giving due respect to each person's experience and views, instead, each side paints itself as the defender of the precious, the other as the destroyer - a binary, black and white, dialog of the deaf.

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

Neither am I a fan of the term "pro-choice".

Its certainly a more accurate description of what people want though,

Pro-choice = if you want a abortion for xyz reason then you can avail of it. If however for example you are raped and decide to keep the fetus then that is your decision.

Ralphdejones

Turtwig wrote: »

Dawkins controversial again

This time he implied it would be immoral not to abort a foetus if you know it has down syndrome.

That's 'the brights' for you