I have never disliked Richard Dawkins...until now.

[maize]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11047072/Richard-Dawkins-immoral-to-allow-Downs-syndrome-babies-to-be-born.html

 

Dawkins on Down syndrome:

 

"One participant said they would suffer a real ethical dilemma if they were carrying a child with the condition.

Prof Dawkins replied: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.â€

Regardless of where you stand on abortion, or what decision you might make if faced with such a dilemma, the callousness of Dawkins retort is--just unfathomable to me.

 

[kitten18]

:(

[Moxie]

I'm curious if he'll kill himself when he becomes too old to be useful to society?? Isn't he in his 70's??

[Tangerine]

He's made some unfortunate comments about "mild pedophilia" as well that are way weird.

[LucyStoner]

I am an athiest and generally am politically pro-choice but I think the attitude that it is "immoral" to bring a child into the world with Downs is disgusting. Lest anyone think he is speaking for anyone but himself.

[maize]

I am an athiest and generally am politically pro-choice but I think the attitude that it is "immoral" to bring a child into the world with Downs is disgusting. Lest anyone think he is speaking for anyone but himself.

 

I'm pretty sure most pro-choice people do not share his viewpoint on this.

 

Ugh.

 

I really cannot think of the last time I was so disgusted by anything :(  I would imagine most couples who do choose to abort under such circumstances do so with a great deal of heart-searching and probably mourning, and while it is not a decision I would make I do not think people who do are heartless.

[Farrar]

I feel like some of the comments he has made really cast atheists in a poor light.  I appreciate what he's trying to do and I think some of the "in your face" attitude may be necessary to overcome some of the prejudice that atheists have faced, but every once in awhile he says something like that which is just so insensitive and wrong.

[maize]

I have known and loved more than one person with Down syndrome. The idea that someone finds their lives to be worse than meaningless...that just makes me cry :(

[mommymilkies]

I feel like some of the comments he has made really cast atheists in a poor light.  I appreciate what he's trying to do and I think some of the "in your face" attitude may be necessary to overcome some of the prejudice that atheists have faced, but every once in awhile he says something like that which is just so insensitive and wrong.

This!  He's also quite sexist.  I am not a fan of Dawkins at all. 

[Alice]

This isn't really a new idea. It's really Utilitarianism of which Peter Singer at Princeton is probably the best known proponent although not the first or the only person wit these views.  Singer has argued that abortion is right not because it isn't killing a human but because killing a human isn't always wrong. He also argues for killing newborns with disabilities because he argues that they don't have the consciousness to desire life and that by ending their lives you decrease their suffering. In his view, all suffering is bad, therefore ending it is the better thing, even if it involves infanticide. 

 

I don't even remotely agree with Singer or Dawkins, but I'm not at all surprised by the Dawkins' quote. 

 

ETA: edited to remove quote from other website

[umsami]

Yes, I saw that.  I was very disappointed.  Honestly, it reminds me of the Muslim clerics who say things precisely because they are so ridiculous, so hateful, so prejudicial, that they know they'll get press.

 

I think it was his ego talking, nothing more.  He needed some more attention from the media…and this was a good way to do it.

 

Luckily, I know many IRL atheists…and I don't have to confuse his hateful remarks with them.

[Snow]

This isn't really a new idea. It's really Utilitarianism of which Peter Singer at Princeton is probably the best known proponent although not the first or the only person wit these views. Singer has argued that abortion is right not because it isn't killing a human but because killing a human isn't always wrong. He also argues for killing newborns with disabilities because he argues that they don't have the consciousness to desire life and that by ending their lives you decrease their suffering. In his view, all suffering is bad, therefore ending it is the better thing, even if it involves infanticide.

 

One quote:

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"^[26]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."^[27]

 

I don't even remotely agree with Singer or Dawkins, but I'm not at all surprised by the Dawkins' quote.

Wow, this is just so appalling.

[Guest submarines]

I worked for several years with older individuals with Down syndrome and their very elderly parents or remaining relatives. Their reality at the end of their lives when there's no family available to take care of them is devastating. Conditions in the best groups homes were far from ideal.

 

I don't think I would be able to abort my own Down syndrome child, but I don't think those who decide to abort are making the wrong choice either.

 

I wonder if those with Asperger's trends, and especially males, tend to have a more black-and-white view of the issue. When we discussed Down syndrome with DH when I was newly pregnant with our first, he was surprised that aborting a compromised child would be difficult, if not impossible, for me. He grew up with the idea that if it is known that a child has Down syndrome, abortion should follow. This is also very typical for Eastern Europeans, at least those who are now in their 40s and older.

 

 

[SadieMarie]

I dislike anyone who believes their own personal moral compass is the one everyone should be using.  I also find this particular statement to be particularly nasty.  I wish he would shut up but I think he is probably too much in love with himself and the sound of his own voice to ever do that.

[Farrar]

Yes, I saw that.  I was very disappointed.  Honestly, it reminds me of the Muslim clerics who say things precisely because they are so ridiculous, so hateful, so prejudicial, that they know they'll get press.

 

I think it was his ego talking, nothing more.  He needed some more attention from the media…and this was a good way to do it.

 

Luckily, I know many IRL atheists…and I don't have to confuse his hateful remarks with them.

 

Yes, that's exactly it, right?  I feel like there are Christian evangelicals who take a similar tactic in order to draw attention.  I think Dawkins decided that if religious leaders can do it and get away with it, atheists should be able to as well.  But is it really helping any of them?  Surely Muslim clerics who say hateful things and Christian evangelicals that say hateful things are driving people away from their religions or simply riling up the faithful, not winning support from the general public.  So if you're an intelligent person like Dawkins, why do it?  Is it just that strategically useful to the cause somehow?  It riles up your faithful?

[Anne in CA]

I know several wonderful atheists, sadly some of them love Richard Dawkins. He really is a symptom of what is wrong with western culture. The willingness to say anything to get attention for his views, the willingness to demonize people he doesn't agree with, he is just yucky. He and Doug Phillips are the same cloth cut into different suits.

[Guest inoubliable]

 

 

Luckily, I know many IRL atheists…and I don't have to confuse his hateful remarks with them.

 

Thank you for saying this. Dawkins is actually a bit of a tool. He doesn't speak for atheists, he speaks for himself. And most atheists I know do think he's an egotistical jerkbag, tbh.

[AlmiraGulch]

Wow.  That's just incredibly disgusting.  

 

 

[SemiSweet]

This isn't really a new idea. It's really Utilitarianism of which Peter Singer at Princeton is probably the best known proponent although not the first or the only person wit these views.  Singer has argued that abortion is right not because it isn't killing a human but because killing a human isn't always wrong. He also argues for killing newborns with disabilities because he argues that they don't have the consciousness to desire life and that by ending their lives you decrease their suffering. In his view, all suffering is bad, therefore ending it is the better thing, even if it involves infanticide. 

 

One quote: 

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"^[26]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."^[27]

 

I don't even remotely agree with Singer or Dawkins, but I'm not at all surprised by the Dawkins' quote.

 

 

 

This makes me sick to my stomach. :(

 

 

 

I am an athiest and generally am politically pro-choice but I think the attitude that it is "immoral" to bring a child into the world with Downs is disgusting. Lest anyone think he is speaking for anyone but himself.

Only so far as WBC speaks for all Christians. I would hope that most people would understand that.

 

We actually thought dd had Downs, she had 5/6 positive markers on ultrasound, we had amnio just so exh could be prepared but I would never have aborted if it had been positive.

[MistyMountain]

That is a very yucky disgusting thing to say. I am an atheist but I don't believe like that at all. I am horrified by it.

[maize]

I've really never paid any attention to the guy, I mostly knew him a someone who wrote books about evolution.

[kiana]

I've really never paid any attention to the guy, I mostly knew him a someone who wrote books about evolution.

 

He's said a lot of really repulsive rubbish (although not specifically on the ethics of abortion before, iirc) over the years.

 

It's actually sort of ridiculous, he damages his own cause as much as the WBC and similar extremist groups damage Christianity.

 

I think a lot of people who are inclined towards atheism look at him and people like him and say "ugh, if that's an atheist, I'm not one".

[Guest inoubliable]

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/

Apparently he was trying to respond to one person, who had asked him a question. 

[Word Nerd]

I think it's a horrid thing to say, but the reality is that many couples in that same situation do "abort it and try again." I can definitely see his point here:

 

But faced with a stream of dissenting comments, he wrote: “Apparently I'm a horrid monster for recommending what actually happens to the great majority of Down Syndrome foetuses. They are aborted.â€

[maize]

I think it's a horrid thing to say, but the reality is that many couples in that same situation do "abort it and try again." I can definitely see his point here:

 

But faced with a stream of dissenting comments, he wrote: “Apparently I'm a horrid monster for recommending what actually happens to the great majority of Down Syndrome foetuses. They are aborted.â€

People were not outraged that he recommended abortion but that he stated it would be immoral to choose to bring the child into the world.

[Farrar]

People were not outraged that he recommended abortion but that he stated it would be immoral to choose to bring the child into the world.

 

Right.  No one is immoral.  If you have to make that decision, it's potentially heart-breaking either way.  I don't judge the people who keep the child or the ones who choose not too.  There are good arguments for both sides, including from an atheist perspective.

[albeto.]

People were not outraged that he recommended abortion but that he stated it would be immoral to choose to bring the child into the world.

 

But can you see how that follows, logically I mean? If, like 67_others' post suggests, one had reason to believe that the new life they were bringing into the world would be faced with great suffering, the moral option would be to avoid that suffering. Further, if a couple has reason to believe their income or free time couldn't adequately support the kind of care they might desire for that child, but could expect with a typically developed child, the moral option would be to avoid that expense, have another child, and invest the time and money into a child who can expect different prospects in their life. When one takes away the emotions from such an equation, the recommendation makes sense, especially to one who doesn't accept certain ideas made popular through religious communities, like "life begins at conception," or "all life is sacred," etc. 

[Reefgazer]

Dawkins has no redeeming social value and never has, IMO.  Every once in a while he confirms that in a spectacular way.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11047072/Richard-Dawkins-immoral-to-allow-Downs-syndrome-babies-to-be-born.html

 

Dawkins on Down syndrome:

 

"One participant said they would suffer a real ethical dilemma if they were carrying a child with the condition.

Prof Dawkins replied: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.â€

Regardless of where you stand on abortion, or what decision you might make if faced with such a dilemma, the callousness of Dawkins retort is--just unfathomable to me.

 

[maize]

But can you see how that follows, logically I mean? If, like 67_others' post suggests, one had reason to believe that the new life they were bringing into the world would be faced with great suffering, the moral option would be to avoid that suffering. Further, if a couple has reason to believe their income or free time couldn't adequately support the kind of care they might desire for that child, but could expect with a typically developed child, the moral option would be to avoid that expense, have another child, and invest the time and money into a child who can expect different prospects in their life. When one takes away the emotions from such an equation, the recommendation makes sense, especially to one who doesn't accept certain ideas made popular through religious communities, like "life begins at conception," or "all life is sacred," etc. 

 

 

I am not sure logic can ever dictate morality.

 

Should people in countries with widespread hunger and illness be sterilized to prevent the birth of children and therfor further suffering? Perhaps their lives should simply be terminated to prevent suffering? Should the life of an infant with cerebral palsy be terminated to prevent suffering and expense? Should euthanasia be mandated for all terminal cancer patients? 

 

If a life has potential for both suffering and hardship, and growth and joy (as the life of a child with Down syndrome most definitely does, for both the child and the family) is the suffering the only important part of the equation?

 

You said "the recommendation makes sense" but does that mean that making the opposite choice is immoral? Would you tell a parent who chooses not to abort a child with Down syndrome that their choice is immoral? Do you believe that choice is immoral, that you can logically make such a determination for someone else?

 

I'm  guessing the answer to the above questions is no. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[stripe]

I think it's a horrid thing to say, but the reality is that many couples in that same situation do "abort it and try again." I can definitely see his point here:

 

But faced with a stream of dissenting comments, he wrote: “Apparently I'm a horrid monster for recommending what actually happens to the great majority of Down Syndrome foetuses. They are aborted.â€

I agree with maize; I think there are two issues.

 

1) The vast majority of the time, when someone finds out the fetus has Down syndrome, they choose to terminate (and perhaps try again). The figures I've seen (such as on ABC news) are 92% in the US.

2) The claim that giving birth to a child with Down syndrome is "immoral," or the claim that they shouldn't exist & have no value.

 

I suspect that at least some of the people who abort a fetus with Down syndrome, do so because they believe they could not care for a child with such a condition, or some variation, not because they are morally opposed to the existence of people with that condition. (Now, I am sure someone is going to say that their choice to abort means that, but I think it doesn't necessarily mean anything more than the decision that couple/woman is making. It is not necessary for their statement to be part of some larger belief about society.)

 

I also think as a society we are not aware of statistics about who actually gets abortions. We tend to think it's scared young teens or whatever. I've done research into it myself, and that's not the case. There's a much wider segment of society affected by the issue of unwanted pregnancies and the decision to obtain an abortion. We tend to overlook those abortions where the decision is made after, or should I say, because of what is seen in the ultrasound.

[unsinkable]

It's like an atheist bat signal went off...

 

Anyhoo, there is a thread here about kids who suck the life out of you. Those parents know there are no guarantees for easy kids with compliant personalities and no issues. some paths are more difficult than others. Some kids are fine at birth, and become disabled during their childhoods. Some kids get seriously ill when they're one or three or five.

 

A disabled one year old is...what? More human than a disabled newborn?

[Reefgazer]

I don't think any of us can make an assumption that a Down syndrome child suffers any more or less than the rest of us.  If the correct  moral option is to avoid "suffering", we should all commit collective suicide now.

But can you see how that follows, logically I mean? If, like 67_others' post suggests, one had reason to believe that the new life they were bringing into the world would be faced with great suffering, the moral option would be to avoid that suffering. Further, if a couple has reason to believe their income or free time couldn't adequately support the kind of care they might desire for that child, but could expect with a typically developed child, the moral option would be to avoid that expense, have another child, and invest the time and money into a child who can expect different prospects in their life. When one takes away the emotions from such an equation, the recommendation makes sense, especially to one who doesn't accept certain ideas made popular through religious communities, like "life begins at conception," or "all life is sacred," etc. 

 

[gardenmom5]

considering the things he has said over the years, I'm not the slightest surprised.

[stripe]

But can you see how that follows, logically I mean? If, like 67_others' post suggests, one had reason to believe that the new life they were bringing into the world would be faced with great suffering, the moral option would be to avoid that suffering. Further, if a couple has reason to believe their income or free time couldn't adequately support the kind of care they might desire for that child, but could expect with a typically developed child, the moral option would be to avoid that expense, have another child, and invest the time and money into a child who can expect different prospects in their life. When one takes away the emotions from such an equation, the recommendation makes sense, especially to one who doesn't accept certain ideas made popular through religious communities, like "life begins at conception," or "all life is sacred," etc. 

One doesn't have to believe life begins at conception. One might just be opposed to unnecessary medical procedures, for example.

 

There have been plenty of people whose children will face suffering. For example, those living under oppression or as members of a minority ethnic/religious group. Or those who are just plain ugly; who better than an ugly parent to dread all the torment of other children? 

 

As to their income not being sufficient, I have two words for you: universal healthcare. 

 

It's a very different story in countries with guaranteed coverage for children and adults with severe health issues, or in countries with affordable domestic help. I have read on several occasions about people with some connection to Europe (e.g. one spouse is a citizen) who have moved there in order to get their child care for autism that they cannot afford in the US.

Here is some advice on why one might wish to do so: http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/autistic-finance.shtml

[albeto.]

I am not sure logic can ever dictate morality.

 

I don't see how you can have morality without logic. If I were to tell you that a society that believes every third child born should undergo a ritual eye-plucking, that by living in practical blindness helps the entire society be spared from spiritual blindness, and therefor create a more moral society, would you agree with me just on my say so? Would you really have no logical arguments to add to the equation to develop your side as more, well, moral?

 

Should people in countries with widespread hunger and illness be sterilized to prevent the birth of children and therfor further suffering? Perhaps their lives should simply be terminated to prevent suffering? Should the life of an infant with cerebral palsy be terminated to prevent suffering and expense? Should euthanasia be mandated for all terminal cancer patients?

 

Good questions. I would suggest resisting the temptation to jump to all or nothing thinking. I suspect most of us here share the same logical thoughts on this. Forced sterilization would be difficult to support logically, for example, but access to birth control and encouraging a limited family size is not. There's a choice here, like with most moral dilemmas, and in a free society individuals are free to make their own personal choice.

 

If a life has potential for both suffering and hardship, and growth and joy (as the life of a child with Down syndrome most definitely does, for both the child and the family) is the suffering the only important part of the equation?

 

Again, this all or nothing thinking is a logical fallacy. It prevents one from seeing the many other options available. It should go without saying that suffering is not the only important part of the equation. People will consider this differently when making a decision for or against such an action. Dawkins was offering his personal advice when asked, clearly he places the component of suffering in different measure than you. That should come as no surprise either, as we all do so with different moral beliefs.

 

You said "the recommendation makes sense" but does that mean that making the opposite choice is immoral? Would you tell a parent who chooses not to abort a child with Down syndrome that their choice is immoral? Do you believe that choice is immoral, that you can logically make such a determination for someone else?

 

I'm  guessing the answer to the above questions is no. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Your questions are full of all or nothing thinking, and I think that's distracting from the point. It's a false dichotomy you're presenting, and a diversion from what I said. First of all, Dawkins didn't go up to a random person and tell her that the only moral thing to do is terminate the pregnancy when DS is identified. Nor did he say every woman on the face of the earth facing such a dilemma is immoral for not terminating their pregnancies. Why would you think I would do that myself? Why do you think I should think I should do that? What did I actually say that could support this idea [that I should feel justified going up to random people and telling them a parent who chooses not to terminate a pregnancy when DS is identified is being immoral]? 

[goldberry]

INor did he say every woman on the face of the earth facing such a dilemma is immoral for not terminating their pregnancies.

 

It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice

 

That is what he said.  He did in fact make a judgment about the morality of carrying out a Downs pregnancy.  How is that supposed to not apply to other women?

[Chris in VA]

Seems like Dawkins is engaging in his own all-or-nothing thinking.

One must define terms here--what is suffering? Downs is not all one way, either--I mean, there are degrees of it and different Downs folks have different challenges.

 

I think he is quite narrow in his thinking.

[maize]

I don't see how you can have morality without logic. If I were to tell you that a society that believes every third child born should undergo a ritual eye-plucking, that by living in practical blindness helps the entire society be spared from spiritual blindness, and therefor create a more moral society, would you agree with me just on my say so? Would you really have no logical arguments to add to the equation to develop your side as more, well, moral?

 

 

Good questions. I would suggest resisting the temptation to jump to all or nothing thinking. I suspect most of us here share the same logical thoughts on this. Forced sterilization would be difficult to support logically, for example, but access to birth control and encouraging a limited family size is not. There's a choice here, like with most moral dilemmas, and in a free society individuals are free to make their own personal choice.

 

 

Again, this all or nothing thinking is a logical fallacy. It prevents one from seeing the many other options available. It should go without saying that suffering is not the only important part of the equation. People will consider this differently when making a decision for or against such an action. Dawkins was offering his personal advice when asked, clearly he places the component of suffering in different measure than you. That should come as no surprise either, as we all do so with different moral beliefs.

 

Your questions are full of all or nothing thinking, and I think that's distracting from the point. It's a false dichotomy you're presenting, and a diversion from what I said. First of all, Dawkins didn't go up to a random person and tell her that the only moral thing to do is terminate the pregnancy when DS is identified. Nor did he say every woman on the face of the earth facing such a dilemma is immoral for not terminating their pregnancies. Why would you think I would do that myself? Why do you think I should think I should do that? What did I actually say that could support this idea [that I should feel justified going up to random people and telling them a parent who chooses not to terminate a pregnancy when DS is identified is being immoral]? 

 

I find this post very hard to follow. You find Dawkin's statement to not be all-or-nothing but my comparisons are? Morality is logically dictated but we all come at a situation with different moral beliefs? I said I thought you would not agree with the statements in my questions and you are asking why I think you would do or agree with those things? 

 

Dawkins said (of a hypothetical child with DS): "It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.†You argued that this is a logical stance because "But can you see how that follows, logically I mean? If, like 67_others' post suggests, one had reason to believe that the new life they were bringing into the world would be faced with great suffering, the moral option would be to avoid that suffering." 

 

Together these come across to me as sweeping generalizations about some kind of logically dictated morality that calls terminating or avoiding new life a moral imperative in order to avoid suffering. I do not see that Dawkins opinion, expressed publicly, should be seen as limited to a single (hypothetical) situation--if I say to you on this forum that it is immoral to eat meat, would you not assume that I think anyone who eats meat is making an immoral choice??? 

 

I am really not understanding why you seem to be defending Dawkins unless you agree with him that it is immoral to choose not to abort a child with Down Syndrome. 

 

 

I really am sorry, but on the whole this post just did not make sense to me.

[Alexigail]

Albeto, are you arguing that what he said is true ("It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."), or that it is logical? 

[maize]

Albeto, are you arguing that what he said is true ("It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."), or that it is logical? 

 

It seemed to me she was arguing it expressed a logical morality, but when I tried to extend that morality using the same logic she said that was all-or-nothing thinking. Perhaps morality can be logically determined only in a very limited context to be with limitations to be defined by Albeto?

 

I don't think she actually agrees with him, but she has me very confused about what she is actually trying to say.

 

Albeto, I am not trying to mis-frame what you are saying in case anything comes across that way. I just really don't follow your reasoning.

[Catwoman]

One thing that struck me as I read this thread is that more than one atheist has made a point of mentioning that they are atheist, but they disagree with Dawkins.

 

I would hope that no one would assume that one atheist speaks for all atheists, any more than anyone should assume that one loudmouthed Christian represents the views of all other Christians, or that one person of any nationality or religion speaks for the whole population.

 

It's unfair that anyone should feel the need to clarify their position, out of concern that other people might think that Dawkins' idiotic statements would represent how "all atheists" feel.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm curious if he'll kill himself when he becomes too old to be useful to society?? Isn't he in his 70's??

 

If we are going on his usefulness he should have expired years ago.  He is truly a dreadful person.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's like an atheist bat signal went off...

 

Yeah, it is almost like a prominent atheist's name is in a thread title or something.

[Ausmumof3]

It may be logical but it is based on a wrong idea. Of the three downs people, I know, I wouldn't say suffering would be the way I'd define their lives. They are happy and engaged people who deeply love their families and take a lot of joy from every day stuff. Two of these are children and one is a much older lady.

[Amira]

One thing that struck me as I read this thread is that more than one atheist has made a point of mentioning that they are atheist, but they disagree with Dawkins.

 

I would hope that no one would assume that one atheist speaks for all atheists, any more than anyone should assume that one loudmouthed Christian represents the views of all other Christians, or that one person of any nationality or religion speaks for the whole population.

 

It's unfair that anyone should feel the need to clarify their position, out of concern that other people might think that Dawkins' idiotic statements would represent how "all atheists" feel.

I completely agree that no one should assume that Dawkins speaks for atheists, but any time a prominiment figure makes a crazy statement, people tangentially associated with that person do get associated with the crazy.

 

I spend a lot of time telling people that certain Mormons are wacko and don't think like me even though I'm a Mormon too, and defending Muslims when a certain Muslims say or do something abhorrent (especially when they claim that abhorrence is informed by their religion). We all lump and get lumped together.

 

I'd love it if no one felt that they had to defend themselves when someone in their circles is wrong, and that we wouldn't demand that people (especially Muslims) must defend themselves when that happens.

[SKL]

There is suffering in everyone's life.  The smarter you are, the more aware you are of the suffering in this world, and therefore the more you suffer.  Therefore by the "logic" expressed by some, every pregnant woman should abort, especially if there is a likelihood that she might give birth to an intelligent child.

 

I have had only positive connections with people with Down syndrome.  They tend to be happier and more pleasant than average.

 

But why was that dude even using the world "immoral" in the first place?  He doesn't seem to have much of a grasp on the concept of "morality."

[elegantlion]

But can you see how that follows, logically I mean? If, like 67_others' post suggests, one had reason to believe that the new life they were bringing into the world would be faced with great suffering, the moral option would be to avoid that suffering. Further, if a couple has reason to believe their income or free time couldn't adequately support the kind of care they might desire for that child, but could expect with a typically developed child, the moral option would be to avoid that expense, have another child, and invest the time and money into a child who can expect different prospects in their life. When one takes away the emotions from such an equation, the recommendation makes sense, especially to one who doesn't accept certain ideas made popular through religious communities, like "life begins at conception," or "all life is sacred," etc. 

 

but logically, you cannot define suffering as limited to Down's syndrome. If you use that logic, then it's okay to off yourself when the world gets to be too much - regardless of mental state. People suffer at all stages with all kind of maladies. It sucks, but it doesn't mean their lives are worth nothing. Especially with conception, there is no guarantee the next child will be developmentally perfect either. But then I think life is just a crap shoot in many ways. It would be a horrendous choice to make as parent-to-be, but it's not immoral to bring that child into the world. 

 

For me, the logic waters get muddy when you put a price tag on an issue. Then it becomes a societal issue, not a solely moral issue, at least in my opinion. 

[livetoread]

Another non-believer here.

 

I've defended him on some issues in the past, but this isn't just wrong, it's scary, eugenics wrong. I'm all for reducing suffering, but my goodness, does he not understand the complexity of what he's charging into? What a horrible thing to say.

 

As I read on another thread elsewhere, "Dawkins, don't you have some research to go do? Quietly?"

[Myeightkiddies]

The old movie, Logan's Run, came into my mind.  Everyone is beautiful, perfect, and young (killed at 30).  I don't want to live in that world.

 

His logic is ridiculous.  

[albeto.]

but logically, you cannot define suffering as limited to Down's syndrome. If you use that logic, then it's okay to off yourself when the world gets to be too much - regardless of mental state. People suffer at all stages with all kind of maladies. It sucks, but it doesn't mean their lives are worth nothing. Especially with conception, there is no guarantee the next child will be developmentally perfect either. But then I think life is just a crap shoot in many ways. It would be a horrendous choice to make as parent-to-be, but it's not immoral to bring that child into the world. 

 

For me, the logic waters get muddy when you put a price tag on an issue. Then it becomes a societal issue, not a solely moral issue, at least in my opinion.

 

Can you show me how you read RD as defining suffering as limited to DS? I don't mean that as a sarcastic comment, I can't see it myself. Maybe you can walk me through it.