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

[Frijj]

He doesn't mention suffering at all. He unambiguously makes the point that those with Downs do not contribute to society.

He makes a Tweet in reference to suffering according to the Telegraph, there's a print screen of the tweet. I've read the comment in regards to high-funcitoning autistics and have questioned you about evidence to the contrary above.

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.

What I'm asking you is what evidence is there to disprove Dawkins' statement in regards to individuals with DS not contributing?

 

[Kent_Mackem]

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

What he actually wrote was:

People on that spectrum have a great deal to contribute, Maybe even an enhanced ability in some respects. DS not enhanced.

Leaving aside the emotion that will inevitably be felt by parents of Down's Syndrome children, can you honestly argue that Down's Syndrome adults have "enhanced abilities" and a "great deal" to contribute to society?

It was a shitty way to say it and he'd have been better off not saying it at all. I think he is a fool for getting involved.

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.

Wow! That is quite a comparison.

 

[dangermows]

Spavin is nailing this thread like.

 

[Kent_Mackem]

Spavin is nailing this thread like.

He really isn't. His posts are littered with inaccuracies.

 

[dangermows]

He really isn't. His posts are littered with inaccuracies.

See, just like the bible. Spavin is very clever.

 

[not spavin]

He makes a Tweet in reference to suffering according to the Telegraph, there's a print screen of the tweet. I've read the comment in regards to high-funcitoning autistics and have questioned you about evidence to the contrary above.

What I'm asking you is what evidence is there to disprove Dawkins' statement in regards to individuals with DS not contributing?

Autistics can 'contribute' more, in the sense that they can add an interesting angle to cultural discourse etc., hold down a job etc. I'm not debating that at all.

But is that what defines morality and validity of life? If Dawkins has a stroke tomorrow and ends up in a wheelchair, it letting him live immoral? Is retirement immoral?

It's a ridiculous, childish way of gauging the validity of life. Suggesting in public that those who have disabled kids have made an immoral decision is about as repugnant a statement as you can make.

But it's Dawkins, so people will try and defend him regardless.

Leaving aside the emotion that will inevitably be felt by parents of Down's Syndrome children, can you honestly argue that Down's Syndrome adults have "enhanced abilities" and a "great deal" to contribute to society?

Accepting that's true, do you agree with Dawkins that those with Autism deserve to live and those with Downs do not?

 

[Frijj]

Autistics can 'contribute' more, in the sense that they can add an interesting angle to cultural discourse etc., hold down a job etc. I'm not debating that at all.

But is that what defines morality and validity of life? If Dawkins has a stroke tomorrow and ends up in a wheelchair, it letting him live immoral? Is retirement immoral?

It's a ridiculous, childish way of gauging the validity of life. Suggesting in public that those who have disabled kids have made an immoral decision is about as repugnant a statement as you can make.

But it's Dawkins, so people will try and defend him regardless.

Has RD made any comments about people already alive? Has he mentioned that all living DS individuals should be rounded up and killed?

He's saying that bringing disabled people into this world, when it can be prevented, might be beneficial for all parties concerned.

People who've retired have already contributed. People who become disabled later in life have already contributed.

There is, of course, more to life than just contributing to society.

I'm by no means agreeing with RD, but he makes very interesting points that should be discussed in regards to our attitude towards preventable disability.

 

[not spavin]

Has RD made any comments about people already alive? Has he mentioned that all living DS individuals should be rounded up and killed?

He's saying that bringing disabled people into this world, when it can be prevented, might be beneficial for all parties concerned.

People who've retired have already contributed. People who become disabled later in life have already contributed.

There is, of course, more to life than just contributing to society.

I'm by no means agreeing with RD, but he makes very interesting points that should be discussed in regards to our attitude towards preventable disability.

If it's immoral to allow someone with DS to be given life, then surely it's wrong for them to have life> Dawkins isn't explicitly advocating killing the living of course, but it's a there's no logical reason why the morality changes post-birth. They are born of their parents' immoral decision - that it Dawkins' position.

99% (actual figure, not an approximation) of Downs is not hereditary, in case you think the immorality stems from perpetuating a preventable disability. Aborting all Downs pregnancies would not eradicate Downs.

To reiterate, Dawkins' view is that it's immoral not to abort a Downs pregnancy, because Downs people do not contribute enough to society.

It's an abhorrent view.

 

[Kent_Mackem]

Accepting that's true, do you agree with Dawkins that those with Autism deserve to live and those with Downs do not?

No I don't agree with him and I think he is a dick for writing it.

Some of the assumptions and statements about on this thread what he wrote have been wrong though.

 

[not spavin]

No I don't agree with him and I think he is a dick for writing it.

Some of the assumptions and statements about on this thread what he wrote have been wrong though.

Fair enough.

Though you'd think, as an academic and professional writer, Dawkins would try and avoid ambiguity from his output. Poor guy is always getting in bother after writing one thing but actually meaning something else.

 

[Frijj]

If it's immoral to allow someone with DS to be given life, then surely it's wrong for them to have life> Dawkins isn't explicitly advocating killing the living of course, but it's a there's no logical reason why the morality changes post-birth. They are born of their parents' immoral decision - that it Dawkins' position.

99% (actual figure, not an approximation) of Downs is not hereditary, in case you think the immorality stems from perpetuating a preventable disability. Aborting all Downs pregnancies would not eradicate Downs.

To reiterate, Dawkins' view is that it's immoral not to abort a Downs pregnancy, because Downs people do not contribute enough to society.

It's an abhorrent view.

It wouldn't eradicate the disorder but it would prevent anyone from ever having it. I believe there is a fundamental difference between aborting a foetus with a genetic disability and killing a living person with the disability.

 

[Kent_Mackem]

Fair enough.

Though you'd think, as an academic and professional writer, Dawkins would try and avoid ambiguity from his output. Poor guy is always getting in bother after writing one thing but actually meaning something else.

I think what he wrote is quite clear. It's some of the posters on here that are doing the speculating.

I believe there is a fundamental difference between aborting a foetus with a genetic disability and killing a living person with the disability.

Ahem, well... yes.

 

[Frijj]

I think what he wrote is quite clear. It's some of the posters on here that are doing the speculating.



Ahem, well... yes.

Spav seems to equate the two when they're totally different matters.

 

[not spavin]

It wouldn't eradicate the disorder but it would prevent anyone from ever having it. I believe there is a fundamental difference between aborting a foetus with a genetic disability and killing a living person with the disability.

Well, yes.

But lots of people with Downs have great lives, and bring a lot of love and happiness to those around them.

But Dawkins doesn't want them to have the chance of life, and he believes this so strongly that he is happy to state in public that those who permit a Downs child to be born is behaving immorally.

 

[Occam's Razor]

What Dawkins said is indefensible, really. It's hardly the first time he's ended up in a Twitter shitstorm entirely of his own making. You'd think there would be people close to him who could just point out that he makes such an utter arse of himself so regularly on there that maybe social media isn't for him.

 

[not spavin]

Spav seems to equate the two when they're totally different matters.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that Dawkins is condemning a Downs child In Utero based on what they won't contribute in life. I'm not saying he's advocating murder, just that he's advocating terminating a pregnancy based on how disappointing a member of society the person would be.

It's not as if we're talking about risk to the mother in childbirth.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

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.

Missed the point Frijj. Dawkins didn't pose it as a question or say this was a dilemma, he said there is only one answer and that is to abort all foetuses that are known to be disabled.

 

[Frijj]

Well, yes.

But lots of people with Downs have great lives, and bring a lot of love and happiness to those around them.

But Dawkins doesn't want them to have the chance of life, and he believes this so strongly that he is happy to state in public that those who permit a Downs child to be born is behaving immorally.

Perhaps many do go on to have happy lives.

However, there are some key issues.

The first is that the life expectancy of an individual with DS is about 60 years, if the baby is born when the parents are about 28-30, based on life expectancies, that would mean the parents would retire when the child is about 35-40 and may have passed away by the time that the child is 50. This raises the question as to who will care for the individual with DS for the remaining twenty years of their life? It can't be easy either physically, emotionally or financially to do that.

The second issue is that there are a great deal of co-morbidities associated with DS - is it right to bring someone else into this world with the knowledge that they are far more likely than the average individual to suffer other conditions?

Missed the point Frijj. Dawkins didn't pose it as a question or say this was a dilemma, he said there is only one answer and that is to abort all foetuses that are known to be disabled.

I know what he said explicitly, I'm trying to bring out what he's saying implicitly.

 

[sonson]

1000s of cases of it happening in the UK. I hate Dawkins but he's only voicing the logic of many.

Personally I think it's repulsive. 99% of people asked who had DS describe themselves as " happy". It's not for us to project how happy they are or the worth of their life simply because they have a disability.

Hitler didn't have anything wrong with him at the stage of an ultra sound. Disability at birth tells absolutely nothing worthwhile about the value of a person's life.

 

[not spavin]

Perhaps many do go on to have happy lives.

However, there are some key issues.

The first is that the life expectancy of an individual with DS is about 60 years, if the baby is born when the parents are about 28-30, based on life expectancies, that would mean the parents would retire when the child is about 35-40 and may have passed away by the time that the child is 50. This raises the question as to who will care for the individual with DS for the remaining twenty years of their life? It can't be easy either physically, emotionally or financially to do that.

The second issue is that there are a great deal of co-morbidities associated with DS - is it right to bring someone else into this world with the knowledge that they are far more likely than the average individual to suffer other conditions?

Is it, after weighing up the options, to have a termination? No.

Is it immoral to bring them into the world? Is is fuck.

No more immoral then having a kid if you're poor, living in somewhere associated with low life expectancy (Gaza, Scotland), or if your family has a history of heart disease, diabetes or mental health issues.