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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?!

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?

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