Dawkins controversial again.

magicbastarder

FWIW, I had a relative with DS who family legend has it was one of the longest lived people with DS in the country (which I've since come to realise is not that uncommon a claim), but he lived to his late 60s. He was the happiest guy you could ever meet, and i think most of the issues he faced came from being disabled in a not very affluent part of the country in a time where Ireland was not best described as enlightened.

Hotblack Desiato

Resorting to anecdotes is kinda proving the point really; appeal to emotion if all else fails.

How about we put it this way. We have a couple doing IVF and they have two embryos which can be implanted, one with Downs and one without, but both are otherwise equally healthy. Now should the clinic tell the couple and allow them to implant only the non-Downs embryo? How is that scenario any different at all from doing an amniocentesis and then having to decide on whether to have an abortion?

Czarcasm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Resorting to anecdotes is kinda proving the point really; appeal to emotion if all else fails.

How about we put it this way. We have a couple doing IVF and they have two embryos which can be implanted, one with Downs and one without, but both are otherwise equally healthy. Now should the clinic tell the couple and allow them to implant only the non-Downs embryo? How is that scenario any different at all from doing an amniocentesis and then having to decide on whether to have an abortion?

Because the egg is already implanted?

Hotblack Desiato

Oh, I thought conception was when the magic happened?

Czarcasm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Oh, I thought conception was when the magic happened?

Well I had thought to edit my post and say embryo, but I figured you'd get the idea (anything Dawkins can do... ), but yeah, the embryo is already implanted, whereas with IVF, the embryo hasn't been implanted already.

The two situations aren't really comparable in that respect. I understand what you're saying, but your argument, like Dawkins, fails to take account of any emotional attachment at an individual level. It's far too simplistic to compare natural conception with IVF as if they're exactly the same thing.

Pre-implantation screening can take place before, as the name suggests, implantation; whereas with natural conception, the embryo is already there from the time the fertilised embryo has implanted in the wall of the womb, and if the parents actually want a pregnancy, flippantly recommending to them that they abort and try again if downs is detected, I personally would sink Dawkins teeth back into his lungs if he were to say to me that it would be immoral not to abort and save adding any more suffering to humanity!

Individual morality is no basis on which to decide ethics for humanity, and twitter is probably the worst medium to even try and have that discussion.

Hotblack Desiato

Czarcasm wrote: »

but yeah, the embryo is already implanted, whereas with IVF, the embryo hasn't been implanted already.

The two situations aren't really comparable in that respect.

Well, that depends... if one takes the 'life begins at conception' view then there is no difference, in either scenario a life is ended. You don't need me to tell you that this is the official catholic line. In practice nobody really seems to believe this. We don't have homicide investigations when the morning after pill is used. We don't have funerals and headstones for miscarried embryos, early miscarriages are quite common but all you get in hospital is a shrug and 'try again'. If an early miscarriage can be so commonly and glibly dismissed as one of 'nature's mistakes' then isn't Down's one of nature's mistakes?

I understand what you're saying, but your argument, like Dawkins, fails to take account of any emotional attachment at an individual level. It's far too simplistic to compare natural conception with IVF as if they're exactly the same thing.

The intended result is exactly the same. Couples going through IVF have it worse than the average trying-to-conceive couple who think little of it if nothing happened this month and know they can try again.

Pre-implantation screening can take place before, as the name suggests, implantation; whereas with natural conception, the embryo is already there from the time the fertilised embryo has implanted in the wall of the womb, and if the parents actually want a pregnancy, flippantly recommending to them that they abort and try again if downs is detected, I personally would sink Dawkins teeth back into his lungs if he were to say to me that it would be immoral not to abort and save adding any more suffering to humanity!

Individual morality is no basis on which to decide ethics for humanity, and twitter is probably the worst medium to even try and have that discussion.

Did he claim anything other than the expression of a personal view? At least he doesn't claim to have the power of eternal damnation or some such. Churches are very fond of deciding they know what the ethics of all humanity should be.

Czarcasm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well, that depends... if one takes the 'life begins at conception' view then there is no difference, in either scenario a life is ended. You don't need me to tell you that this is the official catholic line. In practice nobody really seems to believe this. We don't have homicide investigations when the morning after pill is used. We don't have funerals and headstones for miscarried embryos, early miscarriages are quite common but all you get in hospital is a shrug and 'try again'. If an early miscarriage can be so commonly and glibly dismissed as one of 'nature's mistakes' then isn't Down's one of nature's mistakes?

Let's ignore the Catholic view then (as many people DO actually believe this that aren't even Catholic, but that again brings morality into the discussion, and I personally would try and steer clear of it, as Dawkins should have done in order to answer objectively as an evolutionary biologist), and go with the generally accepted scientific definition of when life begins as at implantation.

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

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. 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.

The intended result is exactly the same. Couples going through IVF have it worse than the average trying-to-conceive couple who think little of it if nothing happened this month and know they can try again.

Again, whichever couple has it worse is merely a matter of perspective. There are numerous factors involved in both methods when trying to conceive, and either method could be viewed as 'adding to the sum of human suffering'. To glibly remark that a couple would think little of it if nothing was happening and try again is the same argument Dawkins makes that ignores the emotional investment and the feeling of failure and the stress involved that again 'adds to the sum of human suffering'.

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.

Did he claim anything other than the expression of a personal view? At least he doesn't claim to have the power of eternal damnation or some such. Churches are very fond of deciding they know what the ethics of all humanity should be.

I'm not sure why you're egging to bring the religious perspective into this tbh. I know we're in the A&A forum but no mention of religion was made. Dawkins didn't claim anything other than a personal view, and he based his personal view upon his morality, and he bases his morality on the balance of the sum of happiness and suffering in the world. He made no claims as to the power of eternal damnation, but he made claims if you want to look at it that way that failing to abort a downs foetus would be condemning that person to a life of eternal suffering, adding to the sum of all suffering in the world, thereby logically (by Dawkins logic anyway), reducing the sum of happiness in the world.The equation has to balance on both sides.

Now, because Dawkins only looked at the negative consequences concerning the welfare of a person born with downs, basing his opinion on his own personal morality, it doesn't follow any reasonable line of logic that he wouldn't also look at the whole person and examine whether his perception of downs as a genetic mistake in terms of the greater picture of evolution, might actually be a mistake in itself.

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.

How would that sound coming from any other evolutionary biologist than Dawkins? Would you say it was complete horse manure? I certainly would.

jank

Dades wrote: »

There's a difference between lobbying and threatening.

The Iona Institute lobby the government, and while we bitch about them, that is their right. However threatening to excommunicate politicians whose primary responsibility is to the people who elected them, is not acceptable.

How is it different? Stakeholders lobby government in the promise of support in the next general election. If those who promised during an election fail to live up to their expectations while in Government then there will be consequences in the form of strikes, bad press, votes going to other parties and so on.

The threat of excommunication (which was withdrawn) from the RCC is no different from the threat of strikes from SIPTU if the government cut their members pay or loud and noisy protests from OAP's if the government touch their luxurious benefits. Its all the same game.

Esel

I have to stop clicking New Posts, but anyway...

hinault wrote: »

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

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Who is?
What constitutes fitness?

Cabaal wrote: »

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

The current pope, when talking bull.

It is a mystery, but one must believe. Because one does not understand. That is why it is a mystery.

magicbastarder

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Resorting to anecdotes is kinda proving the point really; appeal to emotion if all else fails.

Calling a FWIW post 'resorting to anecdotes' would seem to imply i am making my argument based on the anecdotes. I'm not.

magicbastarder

jank wrote: »

The threat of excommunication (which was withdrawn) from the RCC is no different from the threat of strikes from SIPTU if the government cut their members pay or loud and noisy protests from OAP's if the government touch their luxurious benefits. Its all the same game.

My take on this is that if you want to be a TD and be party to making important decisions about how our society is shaped, you automatically assume that some people will take a position at extreme opposition to you. If the threat of excommunication is too much for you to handle, don't enter politics.

kylith

Esel wrote: »

I have to stop clicking New Posts, but anyway...



The current pope, when talking bull.

It is a mystery, but one must believe. Because one does not understand. That is why it is a mystery.

The pope is fit to say what is moral? The man who won't comply with requests to open Vatican files on child abuse to investigators, fit to say what is moral? Really?

magicbastarder

I wasn't sure if that post was tongue in cheek. The 'talking bull' reference didn't help.

El_Duderino 09

Interesting thread so far.

Has anyone found Dawkins making this argument in more than 140 characters? Like a reasoned argument.

The reason I ask is because I'm conflicted. Generally speaking I like Dawkins. I disagree that it is immoral to have a DS baby. So i would like to read his argument even if I ultimately disagree.

There is another possibility, it could be a devils advocate 'consciousness raiser'. In the past DS and other disabilities were seen as a 'gift from god' (Whatever the hell that means). No doubt that was using cognitive dissonance to the advantage of the parents. The fact that over half of DS foetuses are terminated lends evidence to the view that DS babies are at least undesirable to over half of parents. The 'gift from god' line is rubbish and so too is Dawkins' 'Immoral to have DS baby' line.

The reasoned answer is to leave it to the choice of the parents.

Dawkins is over correcting but it might help move the conversation along. Granted he is doing it at the expense of his own name and potential offence to parents of DS people. Conversation often moves on, causing offence to people along the way.

stevejazzx

He should have just left the word immoral out of it completely. That's where the whole thing not only falls down but makes a statement that it doesn't even seem he intended; if he did intend its clear he's just getting old and grumpy and rather clueless.

magicbastarder

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Has anyone found Dawkins making this argument in more than 140 characters? Like a reasoned argument.

yep, he uploaded a longer article about it to his website in which he took a bit more time to set out his stall.

El_Duderino 09

magicbastarder wrote: »

yep, he uploaded a longer article about it to his website in which he took a bit more time to set out his stall.

This is Dawkins' argument his tweet was based on.

You can read Dawkins' response HERE


“Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else.”

Seems reasonable enough. I don't agree that it is necessarily immoral to have a DS baby. Reading the response above it seems he wasn't saying it is necessarily immoral either. Ultimately he says it is a choice for the parents.

What do you think?

Pwindedd

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is Dawkins' argument his tweet was based on.

You can read Dawkins' response HERE


“Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else.”

Seems reasonable enough. I don't agree that it is necessarily immoral to have a DS baby. Reading the response above it seems he wasn't saying it is necessarily immoral either. Ultimately he says it is a choice for the parents.

What do you think?

I think people love getting their knickers in a twist over Dawkins.

I do follow him on twitter, but I'm not a follower as such if you get me. I actually agree with what he said in this instance, immoral probably being the contentious word here though.

If babies were chosen pre-packed in the supermarket, you can bet the DS babies would be left on the shelf way more often than not. It's human nature to desire perfection in our offspring. Yes most people have gone on to have wonderful relationships with their Downs children, and they have led fullfilling lives etc. but is it preferable to full health?

He's not saying we should kill all the imperfect babies, he's saying you don't have to have one if you don't want to. He's being practical, in a somewhat detached manner, but his point is valid IMO.

bnt

stevejazzx wrote: »

He should have just left the word immoral out of it completely. That's where the whole thing not only falls down but makes a statement that it doesn't even seem he intended; if he did intend its clear he's just getting old and grumpy and rather clueless.

I agree - it's one thing to have an opinion and express it, it's quite another to bring in a term such as "immoral" which has authoritarian overtones.

The God Delusion has a good chapter on "the roots of morality". I wonder if he's read it recently?

Ralphdejones

Pwindedd wrote: »

He's not saying we should kill all the imperfect babies, he's saying you don't have to have one if you don't want to. He's being practical, in a somewhat detached manner, but his point is valid IMO.

No he's saying it's imoral not to abort someone with Downs. Do you agree ?

Pwindedd

Ralphdejones wrote: »

No he's saying it's imoral not to abort someone with Downs. Do you agree ?

No I don't agree, I think ultimately he's saying it's a moral quandry and it's up to the individual to decide. In his eyes it "might actually" be immoral, but he's not saying if you don't abort it's immoral. I think this is quite clear from the quote.

(I'm addressing his response here and not the original tweet btw)

Ralphdejones

Pwindedd wrote: »

No I don't agree, I think ultimately he's saying it's a moral quandry and it's up to the individual to decide. In his eyes it "might actually" be immoral, but he's not saying if you don't abort it's immoral. I think this is quite clear from the quote.

But again, that's not what he said :

According to Dawkins It's immoral not to abort someone with Downs.

“I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma,” @InYourFaceNYer

“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice” - Dawkins

NIMAN

For me Dawkins is turning into a bit of an attention seeker.

I'm happy enough to let him believe whatever he believes, but he seems to have an issue letting others do this.

I read his God Delusion on holidays once, and I found it strange that a clever man like him would believe in alternate/parallel universes covering every possibility yet refuses to believe in the concept of a God-like being?

Pwindedd

Ralphdejones wrote: »

But again, that's not what he said :

According to Dawkins It's immoral not to abort someone with Downs.

“I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma,” @InYourFaceNYer

“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice” - Dawkins

So your first post in a thread is the only one we should pay attention to yes? Modification and elaboration on your original post are not an option. We must only quote and talk about what you said in your first post. No redress permitted.

El_Duderino 09

NIMAN wrote: »

For me Dawkins is turning into a bit of an attention seeker.

I'm happy enough to let him believe whatever he believes, but he seems to have an issue letting others do this.

I read his God Delusion on holidays once, and I found it strange that a clever man like him would believe in alternate/parallel universes covering every possibility yet refuses to believe in the concept of a God-like being?

To be fair that would be strange had he actually said that. He talks about the possibility of there being alternate/parallel universes. He points out that they are fascinating and real brain teasers to think about and the can be fun to speculate about. Who knows what will turn out to be testable in the near future. But if you blindly believe 'god done it' then you are cut off from hypothesizing about alternate concepts of reality. But he doesn't believe in alternate/parallel universes because there is not enough evidence. Surely you read that. He didn't hide it in the text he states it explicitly

Nodin

Ralphdejones wrote: »

But again, that's not what he said :

....

When Dawkins eventually dies, who are you and the rest going to use as an excuse to get a dig in?

Esel

kylith wrote: »

The pope is fit to say what is moral? The man who won't comply with requests to open Vatican files on child abuse to investigators, fit to say what is moral? Really?

Whoosh. Maybe I should have used a smilie.

Ralphdejones

Nodin wrote: »

When Dawkins eventually dies, who are you and the rest going to use as an excuse to get a dig in?

Dawkins types are ten a penny, it's not as if they have some rare exclusive quality or talent.

kylith

Esel wrote: »

Whoosh. Maybe I should have used a smilie.

It is hard to pick up on sarcasm without one.

Nodin

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Dawkins types are ten a penny, it's not as if they have some rare exclusive quality or talent.

What are his "type" might I ask?