Immoral to let foetuses with Down's Syndrome be born?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cockney Mackem said:
Blowjobs only eliminate one more sperm (in an average situation) than a successful conception. Just like atheists only deny the existence of one more God than Christians do



That's what baffles me. The principal reason that most people stopped believing in literal creationism is good old fashioned scientific discovery. Imagine if Darwin had come back from the Galapagos Islands and instead of publishing The Origin Of The Species, he just wrote a pamphlet saying "Religious People Are Dicks." Dawkins should have left his contribution to the debate at the point he produced his fairly eminent biological studies. Or at least a Hawkingesque popularised version for mass consumption.
Click to expand...

It is a common Freudian Slip to call it that (implying it was written about our species) but the book is about ALL species.
 


f***ing eugenics, so 1930's.

Just cos' Dawkins doesn't believe in God doesn't mean he gets to make all Gods decisions for him.

What a cretin.
 
I would have preferred Richard Dawkins to have been aborted!! My 14 year old daughter has special needs as she was born with a rare chromosome disorder, she goes to Portland School. There are lots of children there who have Downs Syndrome and they are amazing, lovely kids. Some of them have gone all the way through school with her so I have seen them grow up. They don't have a bad bone in their body.
 
Everybody deserves a chance to live. I'm glad my mother didnt go down that route when she found out my sister may have had cerebral palsy during pregnancy. A would have missed out on some of the best shared experiences of me life.
 
addicted_to_safc said:
I would have preferred Richard Dawkins to have been aborted!! My 14 year old daughter has special needs as she was born with a rare chromosome disorder, she goes to Portland School. There are lots of children there who have Downs Syndrome and they are amazing, lovely kids. Some of them have gone all the way through school with her so I have seen them grow up. They don't have a bad bone in their body.
Click to expand...

That's not what he's saying.

He isn't saying that people with Down's are bad, or that they aren't amazing or lovely.

I think what he's saying is that if you have the choice to bring a child into this world, and you know that that child will be disabled, is it morally right to knowingly inflict disability upon someone else?

I don't mean to offend you (as I know my opinions on abortion and such have offended others in the past) but I think his argument needs to be considered and there are obviously a large amount of people who agree with him, in particular the medical profession themselves.
 
It's hard enough raising a healthy kid isn't it? For the vast majority, creating a life isn't difficult if you have a bit of planning.

Ideally, people want a healthy baby. If that's not going to happen then in this case, they know they will be raising that 'baby' all it's life and that's a lot to accept.

I'd abort it without hesitation.
 
Dawkins is an awful, awful person.

He seems genuinely incapable of accepting that people who aren't exactly him are in anyway valid.

His skill is dressing up obnoxious bigotry as academic discourse. Strip all the garnish away and Dawkins' perspective is;

Disabled people don't contribute to society, so it's immoral to let them live.

It's astonishing to me that otherwise normal people tolerate him.
 
Frijj said:
That's not what he's saying.

He isn't saying that people with Down's are bad, or that they aren't amazing or lovely.

I think what he's saying is that if you have the choice to bring a child into this world, and you know that that child will be disabled, is it morally right to knowingly inflict disability upon someone else?

I don't mean to offend you (as I know my opinions on abortion and such have offended others in the past) but I think his argument needs to be considered and there are obviously a large amount of people who agree with him, in particular the medical profession themselves.
Click to expand...

It's a gunpowder discussion, bound to offend people. You're right, he did not say Down's children are bad etc. His comments will cause outrage though. Perhaps he expected it, perhaps he was naive and didn't. Perhaps he has a book out and just wanted any publicity.

not spavin said:
Dawkins is an awful, awful person.

He seems genuinely incapable of accepting that people who aren't exactly him are in anyway valid.

His skill is dressing up obnoxious bigotry as academic discourse. Strip all the garnish away and Dawkins' perspective is;

Disabled people don't contribute to society, so it's immoral to let them live.

It's astonishing to me that otherwise normal people tolerate him.
Click to expand...


Would you choose to have Down's Syndrome or choose not to have it, assuming hypothetically that you had the choice.
His point is that the foetus has no feeling or awareness of life at that stage and it is legal to abort. Therefore is it any different to taking a morning after pill?

I'm not saying I agree with that, and it is bound to offend parents of Down's Syndrome children because the obvious inference is that their children are worthless (although Dawkins did not actually say that).
 
not spavin said:
Dawkins is an awful, awful person.

He seems genuinely incapable of accepting that people who aren't exactly him are in anyway valid.

His skill is dressing up obnoxious bigotry as academic discourse. Strip all the garnish away and Dawkins' perspective is;

Disabled people don't contribute to society, so it's immoral to let them live.

It's astonishing to me that otherwise normal people tolerate him.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that's what he's saying at all.

I believe Dawkin's issue is that many severely disabled people suffer in life due to their disability.

Kent_Mackem said:
It's a gunpowder discussion, bound to offend people. You're right, he did not say Down's children are bad etc. His comments will cause outrage though. Perhaps he expected it, perhaps he was naive and didn't. Perhaps he has a book out and just wanted any publicity.
Click to expand...

True, but should we be afraid of discussing things because people may be offended?

This discussion itself, I bet there are people who would like to chip in but won't, for fear of gravely offending someone who has a disabled child.
 
Kent_Mackem said:
Would you choose to have Down's Syndrome or choose not to have it, assuming hypothetically that you had the choice.
His point is that the foetus has no feeling or awareness of life at that stage and it is legal to abort. Therefore is it any different to taking a morning after pill?

I'm not saying I agree with that, and it is bound to offend parents of Down's Syndrome children because the obvious inference is that their children are worthless (although Dawkins did not actually say that).
Click to expand...

He did though.

He said that those with Autism contribute, those with Downs don't.

I have no issue with abortion, I don't think it's really a moral decision (though I respect the opinion of those who disagree - it's a complex issue).

However, Dawkins' point is that it'd be immoral not to have the abortion - that giving birth to someone who cannot contribute to society is harmful to society.

It's an extraordinary thing to say. Indefensible.

And why is he a moral arbiter? For an atheist, he sure is keen on casting shame and judgement based on some rules written in a book.

I absolutely detest the bloke. He's one of the very worst people in the public eye. I'd put him on the same level as Nick Griffin.
 
not spavin said:
He did though.

He said that those with Autism contribute, those with Downs don't.

I have no issue with abortion, I don't think it's really a moral decision (though I respect the opinion of those who disagree - it's a complex issue).

However, Dawkins' point is that it'd be immoral not to have the abortion - that giving birth to someone who cannot contribute to society is harmful to society.

It's an extraordinary thing to say. Indefensible.

And why is he a moral arbiter? For an atheist, he sure is keen on casting shame and judgement based on some rules written in a book.

I absolutely detest the bloke. He's one of the very worst people in the public eye. I'd put him on the same level as Nick Griffin.
Click to expand...

What evidence is there against that statement?

I'm not calling him right or wrong for saying it, but on the face of it, it is easy to see the contribution made to society by certain high-functioning autistic individuals but not Downs syndrome individuals.
 
Frijj said:
I don't believe that's what he's saying at all.

I believe Dawkin's issue is that many severely disabled people suffer in life due to their disability.
Click to expand...

He doesn't mention suffering at all. He unambiguously makes the point that those with Downs do not contribute to society.
 
Frijj said:
True, but should we be afraid of discussing things because people may be offended?

This discussion itself, I bet there are people who would like to chip in but won't, for fear of gravely offending someone who has a disabled child.
Click to expand...

well I think there has to be a certain amount of tact displayed yes. quite clearly it's an extremely emotive subject which is why folk are understandably being careful with what they say.

I think we're all clear that dawkins ahs been at best crass and worst offensive.

i'll lay it on the line and say (without experience) that I'm currently erring to abort if I/we knew. I can't say that with any certainty though.
 
Frijj said:
What evidence is there against that statement?
Click to expand...

On the moral dilemma;
"Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

On why the same moral judgement doesn't apply to autism;
"People on that spectrum have a great deal to contribute, Maybe even an enhanced ability in some respects. DS not enhanced."

Dawkin's own written word. Couldn't really be any clearer.
 
addicted_to_safc said:
I would have preferred Richard Dawkins to have been aborted!! My 14 year old daughter has special needs as she was born with a rare chromosome disorder, she goes to Portland School. There are lots of children there who have Downs Syndrome and they are amazing, lovely kids. Some of them have gone all the way through school with her so I have seen them grow up. They don't have a bad bone in their body.
Click to expand...

Fair play to you marra. Perhaps id get rid cos Im selfish (well that doesnt explain why my missus agrees). Also, until the baby is actually born I dont see 'it' as a person (rightly or wrongly, probably wrongly knowing me).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top