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

[Frijj]

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.

Some people would argue that it is immoral to have a child if you do not have the resources to take care of it. As for life expectancy that's an entirely environmental factor. You can alter life expectancy through individual behaviour or by changing environment.

Having a child with a history of inherited diseases is another issue, yes. However what's worse, having a child when there's a chance of heart disease or diabetes (neither of which are, on their own, entirely debilitating) or having a child when there's a 100% chance of being severely mentally and physically disabled?

 

[Cockney Mackem]

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.

With respect, one has to have a completely moronic viewpoint on what constitutes a contribution to society to hold the opinion. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law it is a view held by the Nazis and universally recognised as the opinion of a deranged arsehole.

 

[Frijj]

With respect, one has to have a completely moronic viewpoint on what constitutes a contribution to society to hold the opinion. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law it is a view held by the Nazis and universally recognised as the opinion of a deranged arsehole.

Eugenics is not exclusive to Nazi Germany and to simply say that because a view was held by a group of nutters the view is incorrect, is a fallacy.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

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

Firstly, Dawkins is a professor and a published author, so I think it's quite possible to take his explicit statements at face value to determine what he's trying to say.

Secondly, it seems counter-intuitive at best to try and suggest that someone is trying to stimulate a debate and ask questions by making a statement to the effect that this is a clear cut point and not debatable.

 

[sonson]

Survey here of 286 children over 12 questioned with DS-99 % declared themselves happy, 97% liked who they were and 96% how they looked. On that basis there's more chance of giving birth to someone who will live a full life than there is if you have a "normal" kid

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21910246/

Not only is Dawkin's assertion ghoulish, it's not even scientific

 

[not spavin]

Some people would argue that it is immoral to have a child if you do not have the resources to take care of it. As for life expectancy that's an entirely environmental factor. You can alter life expectancy through individual behaviour or by changing environment.

Having a child with a history of inherited diseases is another issue, yes. However what's worse, having a child when there's a chance of heart disease or diabetes (neither of which are, on their own, entirely debilitating) or having a child when there's a 100% chance of being severely mentally and physically disabled?

None of those situations are immoral. It's not a moral call. It makes me profoundly uncomfortable to see Dawkins - a novelty tabloid academic - acting as moral arbiter as to who should and shouldn't be allowed to be born.

 

[Occam's Razor]

We're now at the clarification blog post bit of the merry-go-round.

Logon or register to see this image

 

[Frijj]

Firstly, Dawkins is a professor and a published author, so I think it's quite possible to take his explicit statements at face value to determine what he's trying to say.

Secondly, it seems counter-intuitive at best to try and suggest that someone is trying to stimulate a debate and ask questions by making a statement to the effect that this is a clear cut point and not debatable.

Academics and professors are typically engage in, and stimulate debate though. Surely.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

Eugenics is not exclusive to Nazi Germany and to simply say that because a view was held by a group of nutters the view is incorrect, is a fallacy.

I didn't say that it was exclusive to Nazi Germany, I said it was "a view held by Nazi Germany." That in itself is enough to raise a bit of a red flag. The second part of my post was that Eugenics is universally recognised as not only incorrect but the viewpoint of deranged arseholes. Over to you.

Academics and professors are typically engage in, and stimulate debate though. Surely.

Not everything they say is to stimulate a debate though, is it? That would be very tiring.

 

[Frijj]

None of those situations are immoral. It's not a moral call. It makes me profoundly uncomfortable to see Dawkins - a novelty tabloid academic - acting as moral arbiter as to who should and shouldn't be allowed to be born.

A novelty academic at arguably the best university in the world?

So it's not a moral issue considering whether or not to have a child?

 

[not spavin]

So that's that.

All that's left to say, I suppose, is that I'd pay £1,000 to see Richard Dawkins set upon by a big monkey.

 

[Frijj]

I didn't say that it was exclusive to Nazi Germany, I said it was "a view held by Nazi Germany." That in itself is enough to raise a bit of a red flag. The second part of my post was that Eugenics is universally recognised as not only incorrect but the viewpoint of deranged arseholes. Over to you.



Not everything they say is to stimulate a debate though, is it? That would be very tiring.

The Nazis were also against animal cruelty, smoking in public and had a pretty good welfare program.

Just because the Nazis did terrible things does not mean that everything they did was a terrible thing.

I see the link you've made though and I can see why associating something with Nazi Germany can raise flags.

And no, not everything they say is trying to start a debate, but that must have been in his mind when he raised a hugely controversial issue with thousands of followers.

 

[not spavin]

We're now at the clarification blog post bit of the merry-go-round.

This comment nails it.

"I’m afraid I find your response a tad mealy mouthed and disingenuous. One of those apologies that’s not an apology at all. Your continued insistence that it is immoral to bring a Downs child into the world is still the thing that offends – and frankly makes you appear out of touch. You talk about the reduction of suffering and increasing the sum of happiness. Well, your assumption that: Downs = suffering/unhappiness is just plain wrong. It has been the moral choice of society to make sure that the days of shame, isolation, rejection, maltreatment, asylum etc are largely long gone. Perhaps you need to broaden your horizons a little bit, and educate yourself as to the lives of young Downs people in Britain today. As it stands, your somewhat patronising classification of all those disagree with you, does you no service. A little humility and humanity is in order perhaps, and an attempt to understand the subject you are talking about a little better….
When you calculate morality in this ill informed way, it still comes over, even in the long form, as absolutist and the kind of moral authoritarianism that those who eschew religion are trying to liberate themselves from."

 

[Cockney Mackem]

The Nazis were also against animal cruelty, smoking in public and had a pretty good welfare program.

Just because the Nazis did terrible things does not mean that everything they did was a terrible thing.

I see the link you've made though and I can see why associating something with Nazi Germany can raise flags.

And no, not everything they say is trying to start a debate, but that must have been in his mind when he raised a hugely controversial issue with thousands of followers.

I did say, didn't I, that the Nazis agreeing with something raises a flag, and then combined that with Eugenics being universally discredited by anyone who's not an arsehole. So the fact they were also against animal cruelty because even a stopped clock is right twice a day is irrelevant.

And why should we assume that someone who presumably knows how to use language properly is trying to start a debate when his words do the opposite? If he can't be bothered to use consecutive language why should anyone else? On that score responding that Richard Dawkins is a twattish little clitgoblin is an equally constructive comment and stimulates debate. Obviously I was trying to further the discussion and look into the ethical complexities.


Incidentally the Nazi welfare programme was horseshit.

 

[not spavin]

Though this comment is better.

"Sir Gregory Tufton Balls
Shared publicly – 10:50 AM

Mr. Dawkins,

There is certainly no need, sir, for any explanation or atonement from you. Why, just a day or so ago the boys and I were conferring on something a shared professor mentioned to us all some two decades past – that there was some scientific correlation between an enlarged hypothalamus and homosexuality. Being that this selfsame professor was himself a proud and potent homosexual – and a man truly beloved of us all – we took him at his word. It was during a Nature v. nurture contest wherein all sensible sorts agreed that Nature should win out. The professor’s proclamation and personal proclivities gave heft and legitimacy to the Nature side. All well and good there. Well, some five or so years later the new bride comes to me and says that she is with fetus. Elation, sir, I will tell you. We go and have the pictures made of our fetus in utero. The doctor tells us that it is a healthy fetus, strong, that it will be a male if left alone, and would you believe, informs us of an enlarged hypothalamus. The doctor goes on to tell us that the fetus will be a bright child as a result. Well, you might imagine, Mr. Dawkins, that was not my first thought. I immediately concluded – the boy…will be a gay. Of course, I had no personal problem with this possibility. But society being as it is – cruel and most brutal to the gay – I thought it best to be done with this experiment and for the wife and I to try again. We agreed that abortion was best, lest the sometime zygote be one day subjected to the harsh realities of an ugly world. We have never regretted our decision. We heard of your travails and wanted you to know that you are not alone. We, all of us, should have the child we want."

 

[Guinness Guzzler]

I did say, didn't I, that the Nazis agreeing with something raises a flag, and then combined that with Eugenics being universally discredited by anyone who's not an arsehole. So the fact they were also against animal cruelty because even a stopped clock is right twice a day is irrelevant.

And why should we assume that someone who presumably knows how to use language properly is trying to start a debate when his words do the opposite? If he can't be bothered to use consecutive language why should anyone else? On that score responding that Richard Dawkins is a twattish little clitgoblin is an equally constructive comment and stimulates debate. Obviously I was trying to further the discussion and look into the ethical complexities.


Incidentally the Nazi welfare programme was horseshit.

Liked especially for the use of "clitgoblin"

 

[Frijj]

I did say, didn't I, that the Nazis agreeing with something raises a flag, and then combined that with Eugenics being universally discredited by anyone who's not an arsehole. So the fact they were also against animal cruelty because even a stopped clock is right twice a day is irrelevant.

And why should we assume that someone who presumably knows how to use language properly is trying to start a debate when his words do the opposite? If he can't be bothered to use consecutive language why should anyone else? On that score responding that Richard Dawkins is a twattish little clitgoblin is an equally constructive comment and stimulates debate. Obviously I was trying to further the discussion and look into the ethical complexities.


Incidentally the Nazi welfare programme was horseshit.

It might be a bit hard to have a well-worded discussion on a platform only allowing 140 characters.

Clitgoblin is a canny one mind.

 

[Occam's Razor]

This comment nails it.

Agreed.

His "apology" - and for me his statement falls far short of that - seems to be based on

a) Not understanding how Twitter works, in which case as someone in the public eye he should stay the fuck off it,
b) Blaming everyone else for an "eagerness to misunderstand" when his original tweet was explicit and unambiguous and
c) Hiding behind the "only 140 characters" restriction of Twitter. Again, if that's the case then don't f***ing post things which require more than 140 characters to properly express. Also, he could have posted "my own choice would be to abort, but I would never dream of trying to impose my views on anyone else", which is taken from his "clarification" and comfortably fewer than 140 characters. Unfortunately it is also completely different to what he actually tweeted.

 

[Guinness Guzzler]

Survey here of 286 children over 12 questioned with DS-99 % declared themselves happy, 97% liked who they were and 96% how they looked. On that basis there's more chance of giving birth to someone who will live a full life than there is if you have a "normal" kid

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21910246/

Not only is Dawkin's assertion ghoulish, it's not even scientific

Spot on. Do downs children contribute in a major way to the advancement of the human race, to making groundbreaking scientific advances? No. But then how many people do? I know i dont.

Most people simply exist and want to be happy. Can children with downs be happy? Looks like a yes. Can they bring pleasure to their parents and relatives who love them as much as they would love a "normal" child? Yes.

Therefore in my opinion a child with downs is capable of experiencing and providing as much happiness as anyone else. Maybe Dawkins should keep his f***ing mouth shut.

 

[Frijj]

Spot on. Do downs children contribute in a major way to the advancement of the human race, to making groundbreaking scientific advances? No. But then how many people do? I know i dont.

Most people simply exist and want to be happy. Can children with downs be happy? Looks like a yes. Can they bring pleasure to their parents and relatives who love them as much as they would love a "normal" child? Yes.

Therefore in my opinion a child with downs is capable of experiencing and providing as much happiness as anyone else. Maybe Dawkins should keep his f***ing mouth shut.

Is he not entitled to his opinion? I know you're absolutely anti-abortion. He is absolutely pro-abortion.