- This topic has 177 replies, 44 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by DrJ.
-
Dawkins latest comments
-
stoffelFree Member
You seem to be suggesting that he was critical of or insulting towards children with Down’s.
He is. Hes saying they;re not worthy of being born.
AdamWFree MemberThen barnsley we must agree to disagree. I believe the raped girl should have been allowed a termination.
stoffelFree Member“
994 human beings with Down’s Syndrome deliberately killed before birth in England and Wales in 2012. Is that civilised?” @AidanMcCourt asked.
“Yes, it is very civilised. These are fetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings,” Dawkins responded.
“I honestly don’t know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma,” @InYourFaceNYer chimed in.
“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,” he tweeted back.
**** hell.
JunkyardFree MemberIt is not immoral to have a child with DS it is immoral to abort a child due to Eugenics or because you perceive it to be genetically inferior
What a cock
FWIW i heard him speak at a conference years ago and he was verging on sociopathic and incredibly rude to any question that slighted him/disagreed with him. Arrogant bastard was my main memory tbh.
barnsleymitchFree MemberAdam – Dawsons comments regarding aborting Downs foetus’s weren’t made regarding the girl who was raped, he states himself that it was in response to a theoretical question from a woman that he knows. I’m not anti-abortion (pretty weird for a catholic, eh?), and feel that it’s largely the choice of the individual to make that decision, not church or state, not even shouty agnostic 😉
carbonfiendFree MemberClose family member chose to abort a DS foetus does that make her less morally superior to somebody who chose not to, I don’t think so. Does it make the person who chose not to abort a stronger person, I don’t think so. It was an incredibly difficult decision by her & her husband but it was there’s to make & nobody else’s.
Twitter isn’t the greatest medium to put across such points of view but I am sure as hell grateful for Richard Dawkins & others and the manner in which they deal with religion, I only wish Christopher Hitchens was still with us 🙁
AdamWFree Memberbarnsley – you’re mainly in agreement with him then. His original point (rape) was the *individual* choice and not the state poking its nose in. He answers what he personally would do regarding a foetus with DS (which he states is what the majority would do, but I’d like to see figures on that), but unless someone hasn’t dropped me the memo, I don’t think he is ruler of the universe yet and no-one has to do what he says! 😀
An interesting question that leads from the discussion would be therefore: “Why test a foetus for DS?”. I guess it is one of a battery of genetic tests done but if this should not be done for DS why should it be done for any other genetic disorder? Indeed, why do genetic testing at all? Surely that is ‘eugenics’?
Interesting philosophical questions.
barnsleymitchFree MemberAgain, what do his comments regarding this have to do with religion?
Adam – I can’t agree with his comments on aborting a foetus with downs. I find his use of the term ‘it’ appalling, and his opinion that having a child with downs as somehow immoral is, to me at least, baffling. Sorry, but as you said, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.nealgloverFree Member“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,”
How anyone can defend that comment is beyond me ?!
It’s nothing to do with religion
It’s nothing to do with rape
It’s nothing to do with the Irish girls situation.It’s a comment about people who choose not to abort a pregnancy under those circumstances, and he says those people are immoral to choose to have the baby.
**** arsehole.
Tom_W1987Free MemberHis line of reasoning is that it will suffer more if it enters into the world than if it’s aborted. Which, in terms of biology is probably true. He’s not making an argument that DS babies are undeserving of life.
His other arguments in regards to abortion center on the fact that we kill animals that are far more developed and capable of suffering than even new borns and so that whilst the baby is entirely dependent on it’s mothers body and incapable of feeling pain, then it cannot be thought of as an individual that has a right to life but as an extension of the mother. That one made me uneasy, but I couldn’t fault the logic in it.
nealgloverFree MemberHis line of reasoning is that it will suffer more if it enters into the world than if it’s aborted.Which, in terms of biology is probably true….
That would also be true for everybody ever born.
And it’s crap justification for a complete **** up of a statement made by Dawkins.
Tom_W1987Free MemberThat would also be true for everybody ever born.
True, some more than others though. And the 2nd point of his that I mentioned, makes that argument superfluous anyway.
Besides, this will all become mostly redundant when we’re all conceiving via laboratory. You probably won’t have to abort if you’ve made sure the gametes are healthy in the first place.
peterfileFree Memberwe kill animals that are far more developed and capable of suffering than even new borns and so that whilst the baby is entirely dependent on it’s mothers body and incapable of feeling pain, then it cannot be thought of as an individual that has a right to life but as an extension
One of the only things I found vaguely interesting at university was the discussions around right to life/pro choice and at what point that sperm/egg combination becomes a “person” in legal terms(this of course varies hugely depending on who you ask!). Then there’s the argument of what sort of protections the in utero “non person” should be afforded.
What occurred to me was that this was something almost impossible to prescribe by law from an moral perspective, yet the law must and does deal with it. One couple might feel that flushing the husband’s sperm down the toilet has ended their future child’s life, whereas others feel that until the baby’s head is poking out it’s still part of the woman, not yet a person and any choice regarding its life are hers. That’s because it’s very hard to look at a foetus/child as simply a biological process. We’re conditioned by millions of years of evolution to not think like that. Even in utero, we see them as needing protection, love and with limitless opportunities in front of them.
I’m hugely conflicted on this subject. I largely agree with the legal definition and that termination to a point should always be exclusively at the choice of the parents. Their reasons should require no justification. I’m not sure I know where that point should be though.
But in terms of foetuses that will become disabled children (especially those with manageable disabilities who will still have a good quality of life)…and that being the reason cited for termination…I struggle with this. My grandparents adopted a girl with Downs when I was a kid, she was one of my best pals when I was little, I can’t imagine my childhood without her in it, so the thought that someone may have terminated her late because of Downs is something I don’t like to think about too often…but…and it’s a huge but…she had demanding and special needs and luckily for her my grandparents were able to give her that. I dread to think what her life would have been like if she’d had parents who were not able to offer that. But then again, the same goes for any kid who has parents not up to the task.
There will never be a universally accepted right/wrong answer to this, but I am grateful to live in a country where we can discuss it and there is very little state involvement in such a private and personal matter.
gonefishinFree MemberQuite a few of the kids at Josh’s school have downs. They’re **** ace! How can anyone see immorality there? I really can’t understand how anyone can defend this dickheads comments.
There is a world of difference between interacting with kids with downs at a school and having to live with the condition every day of your life.
anagallis_arvensisFull Member“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,”
How anyone can defend that comment is beyond me ?!
It’s nothing to do with religion
It’s nothing to do with rape
It’s nothing to do with the Irish girls situation.It’s a comment about people who choose not to abort a pregnancy under those circumstances, and he says those people are immoral to choose to have the baby.
**** arsehole.
Is his position any worse than a pro lifer stating victims of rape should be forced to have babies… not at all imo. That was his point in addition to the fact that an early abortion causes no suffering. It is also a fact that Downs brings with it a whole load of painful and potentially distressing complication. Again I’m not sure I support his view but I welcome his opinion and his voicing of it and find it much less abhorrent than the widely voiced opinion of the catholic church for example.
thegreatapeFree MemberIf he had said that it’s justified and moral to abort a DS baby, then that’s one thing. What he said though, was that it’s immoral not to do so, which is very different.
If it’s immoral because the child will suffer in some way, which has been suggested as the reason for the comment, then you can logically extend that argument to say that unless a parent can absolutely guarantee that their child will never suffer in any way they are immoral for not aborting it. Clearly plenty of people with DS have an enjoyable and happy life, so that’s a pish argument if that is the reason.
bencooperFree MemberAs usual, Dawkins says something I basically agree with* but manages to say it in such a way that manages to offend just about everyone. It’s a special talent he has, to make even people who agree with him think he’s a ****.
*If you have basically one chance to bring a new person into the world, it’s better for that person to be as full and self-sufficient member of society as possible, so if it’s possible to test early for something and decide to abort and try again then it’s perfectly okay to do so.
toppers3933Free MemberI have thought for some time that he comes across as a sanctimonious prick. This is the first and last time I shall make comment on anything he says.
carbonfiendFree MemberAs better explained above by peterfile He is talking about the foetus not about a child, & I reckon there’s few better qualified to make this distinction than the worst most eminent evolutionary biologist.
We also seem to forget that the amniocentesis test for DS can’t show the spectrum of the problem just an high probability of the foetus developing it. We all speak of people with mild DS that can function in life with almost no problem but at the high end it can be a truly debilitating handicap with a shortened life span & heart problems that needs constant care and u will never know where on this spectrum the newborn will be until birth.
Using the word immoral is incredibly insensitive though.
barnsleymitchFree Membergonefishin – please see my other posts on this thread. My son has multiple learning difficulties, which he, his mother and I have to deal with every day. Cheap shot there mate.
ransosFree Member*If you have basically one chance to bring a new person into the world, it’s better for that person to be as full and self-sufficient member of society as possible, so if it’s possible to test early for something and decide to abort and try again then it’s perfectly okay to do so.
Except that’s not what he said – he said that if the foetus has DS, you should terminate it.
Of course, that leaves aside the fact that the standard non-invasive test only gives you a probability, and the invasive test carries its own risk of causing a miscarriage (i.e. you could end up aborting a non-DS foetus).
Even if it were possible to determine DS with 100% accuracy at no risk, it surely is personal choice. The people I’ve known with it seem to lead reasonably happy lives, so I fail to see where the immorality is here.
anagallis_arvensisFull MemberThe immorality is his view based on balancing probabilities of suffering. He thinks one thing is immoral, prolifers think abortion is immoral. I find I am further towards his view than the pro lifers.
deadlydarcyFree MemberI wonder if most people who abort a foetus (though one would imagine they were probably referring to it as a “baby” beforehand) with a high probability of being born with Downs Syndrome aren’t thinking about the baby’s life prospects at all.
ransosFree MemberThe immorality is his view based on balancing probabilities of suffering. He thinks one thing is immoral, prolifers think abortion is immoral. I find I am further towards his view than the pro lifers.
I’m pro-choice and always have been. In contrast, Dawkins is telling people how to live their lives. Sound familiar?
nemesisFree MemberWell the key to understanding his comment then is whether on average DS people do or don’t suffer.
If from a scientific POV it can be shown that they do then I can see his comment makes some sense from a purely logical POV though as has been said, it’d have been extremely badly worded regardless.
If not then he’s either phrased it badly or he’s a **** arsehole as stated above.
That’s a purely logic analysis of the situation which seems appropriate.
Anyone know about DS then or are we going to work on anecdote to decide whether to be outraged or not?
MrWoppitFree Memberthe baby is entirely dependent on it’s mothers body and incapable of feeling pain
Crucial point, there. If a woman who has been raped does not want the resultant child, then she should have the right to an abortion.
For whatever reason seems best to her.
If the foetus has no self awareness and cannot feel pain, you’re only harming what is essentially the idea of a future child, rather than something that exists in the here and now.
deadlydarcyFree MemberIf the foetus has no self awareness
Jaysus, you’re talking about half of STW there Wopster. 😉
anagallis_arvensisFull MemberHe’s not telling people what to do he’s saying what he thinks.
RustySpannerFull MemberI work with people with DS and learning difficulties.
I find they are equally as likely to be contented or discontented with their lives as people without DS or learning difficulties.
Which shouldn’t really be surprising, but seems to be.Once we take that as read, the argument comes down to this:
Someone with DS or learning difficulties is going to alter your life as a parent to a far greater extent than someone who does not.
They will take up much more of your time and resources, financial and otherwise than a child without these issues.
It will be difficult.
It will not fit into some peoples idealized version of what parenthood should be.
There is a greater chance you will outlive your child.So it’s not about the child.
It’s about the parents.nemesisFree Memberanagallis_arvensis – Member
He’s not telling people what to do he’s saying what he thinks.While I think you may be right that that was his intention, that’s not really what he said. If you say that something is immoral you are pretty much telling people what they should be doing. Very few people feel that immoral behaviour is acceptable.
pictonroadFull MemberAs someone with a bun in the oven and a best mate who’s just had a positive DS probability result from the scan it’s very pertinent. We had to ask ourselves the question what we’d do or there’s no point having the scan.
Dawkins forgets that the language used in the lecture theatre doesn’t translate to the public realm. I graduated in evolutionary biology, and for the purposes of education one must discuss topics in purely emotionless terms. I wouldn’t dream of talking to people at dinner the way I debated at university, it would alienate and offend and any good point I may have would be lost.
I doubt he’s evil/immoral etc, he’s just an egotistical twit who refuses to accept every argument isn’t binary.
anagallis_arvensisFull MemberThats not really the full picture Rusty and a bit disengenuous towards many parents. Downs comes with many further complications such as arthritis, heart conditions, very early dementia. Given that its a genetic disease which is not afaik likely to keep re occurring his comments and the decisions taken by many have weight. Its not as simple as you make out.
anagallis_arvensisFull MemberI doubt he’s evil/immoral etc, he’s just an egotistical twit who refuses to accept every argument isn’t binary.
You may be right. Part of his shtick is to take an opposite, logical view to god botherers who dont seem to take the battering he does when they tell us that boffing another man or having babies out of wedlock or abortion is immoral.
martinhutchFull MemberDawkins seems to find it difficult to express a more nuanced approach to ethics, which is precisely what we are left with if you remove god and religion from the equation, as he wishes.
The format of Twitter isn’t exactly helpful when it comes to complex ethical and moral arguments.
The tension between the needs and desires of parents, the likely quality of life of their unborn children, the creeping risk of eugenics, and the role of the state and religions in these issues can’t be resolved neatly in an exchange of a few dozen words.
You just end up sounding absolutist and unreasonable, which is great when you want to bash heads with other absolutists, but not so great here.
I personally think that these days, thanks to advances in heart defect surgery and other medical treatments, and better understanding of the condition, many people with DS can lead rich, fulfilling and satisfying lives. I also understand if parents feel they won’t be able to cope with a child who will be far more dependent on them throughout life. It can’t be boiled down to some kind of qualitative judgement based on ‘suffering’, as if that could be measured or predicted for any of us.
deadlydarcyFree Memberview to god botherers
Plenty of people who aren’t god botherers would be taking a view in opposition to his comments in this matter, and arguing whether he’s proscribing an action or merely giving his opinion on the action is useless anyway. Plenty of people who aren’t god botherers are pro-life. Plenty of people who are god botherers are pro-choice.
I’m with Rusty, I’m fairly convinced that most people take the decision to abort for themselves rather than for the sake of the baby, or “foetus” as it’s called when we decide that aborting it is ok. This, of course, is a matter of opinion – few would admit to such an attitude even if questioned for a survey.
anagallis_arvensisFull Member. It can’t be boiled down to some kind of qualitative judgement based on ‘suffering’, as if that could be measured or predicted for any of us.
Based on probabilities you can.
ransosFree MemberAs someone with a bun in the oven and a best mate who’s just had a positive DS probability result from the scan it’s very pertinent. We had to ask ourselves the question what we’d do or there’s no point having the scan.
We were in your situation 3.5 years ago and decided not to have the scan. Why? Because I think very few people are pro-choice or pro-life in every single situation, and for us we came to realise that there was no way we would have a termination based on a probability. That’s where our line is.
Plenty of people who aren’t god botherers would be taking a view in opposition to his comments in this matter, and arguing whether he’s proscribing an action or merely giving his opinion on the action is useless anyway.
I’m atheist and pro-choice. I think Dawkins is a complete tit.
martinhutchFull MemberBased on probabilities you can.
You can get a suffer score on Strava, I grant you. But there are so many variables in a DS screening ‘diagnosis’ to make any probability pretty unhelpful.
A foetus which tests ‘positive’ for DS does not necessarily have it. If it does, the degree of disability, including the presence and severity of heart defects, will not be apparent until much later in pregnancy or after birth. The degree and severity of learning disabilities and other health problems is also unknown and will fall on a wide spectrum from very mild to very severe.
These days you could test foetuses for a wide variety of genetic flaws. These range from a 100% certainty that you will develop cystic fibrosis through a greatly increased risk of breast cancer to mild increase in a variety of other serious diseases such as cancer and heart disease. Where exactly you draw the line in terms of acceptable and unacceptable likelihood of suffering is extremely difficult.
The topic ‘Dawkins latest comments’ is closed to new replies.