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

[chiguirre]

A lot are also talked into choosing sterilization, or in the old days had their family choose it for them. About half of the children of people with DS will have the condition as well.

I have several friends with adult female children with DS. They really struggle with feminine hygiene, so using Seasonale or other ways to suppress menstruation make everyone's life so much easier.

[Lady Florida.]

Read even more, from Richard Dawkins, not an edited version of some of what he said. 

 

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

 

Thank you. I knew there had to be more to the story but was in a hurry last night. The link I gave showed that he was taken out of context, but I couldn't find the full explanation.

[Lady Florida.]

Read even more, from Richard Dawkins, not an edited version of some of what he said. 

 

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

 

Thank you. I knew there had to be more to the story but was in a hurry last night. The link I gave showed that he was taken out of context, but I couldn't find the full explanation.

[maize]

I agree, but I would point out that Down syndrome is not preventable other than by not conceiving.

 

There has been some intriguing research into the possibility that DS is linked to folic acid deficiency; DS and neural tube defects both occur with increased frequency in families with an underlying problem processing folic acid. Folic acid supplementation in food has reduced the incidence of neural tube defects but not, so far, of DS, but one report I read suggested that the chromosomal abnormalities which lead to DS may arise when the mother herself is only a fetus and eggs are being formed; if folic acid supplementation has a positive effect there would be an entire generation time lag before it becomes evident.

 

Beyond that, there is some very promising research into gene therapy which might some day be able to at least mitigate the effects of DS. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/17/downs-syndrome-cells-fixed-chromosome-therapy

 

I would love to see more emphasis put on such research.

[TranquilMind]

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.

He is pretty even-handed in his disdain for human life and traditional morals. 

[Incognito]

"He also claimed that people shouldn't oppose abortion if they are meat eaters."

 

Interesting quote from one of the articles on Dawkins upthread.

 

He has a very different view on life and morality than a lot of people.

[Reefgazer]

Unless "valuing other humans" is exactly what makes us as a species strong and "fit" to begin with.  Remember, "fitness", in the evolutionary sense, is not about an individual; it is about a population as a whole.

Dawkins explains this very concept (in bold) in the book that brought him public attention, The Selfish Gene. I disagree with your conclusion, however. "Valuing each other" is a purely subjective comment that can't mean anything, since it means something different to each person. It's an emotional appeal, I suspect, that can't really be used in any practical way. What does it mean to "value" a person? Is terminating a pregnancy always a case of lacking value? Even at risk to the mother's life? What about at risk to the mother's emotional and mental health and well being? What about at risk to the family's resources? That's just one example of how vary amorphous this concept is. Your answer may be different from mine, which may be different from the next poster. Further, "fostering the biological underpinnings that goes with the social and culture shifts" may indeed include terminating the development of a fetus, depending on all kinds of circumstances (like the ones I suggested, but so many more). Lastly, I think the idea of people who "contribute directly to society" is a bit of a shadow belief, a take-away from a religious social moral code. According to many Christian apologists, each person is created with a "purpose" and that would be, ideally, to help contribute to society in one way or another. But, outside the religious context, in what way is this contribution identified? economically? socially? through the arts? entertainment? practical services and products only? It's a concept that plays on the emotion ("I value children!"), but contributes more questions than answers in my opinion.

 

But biology doesn't work like that. The egg and the sperm don't have intent when dividing and multiplying, the developing young don't have a "reason" to exist, a "purpose" or some direction that has been predetermined for them by virtue of an intelligent agent. Instead, life just... happens. There's no meaning save the meaning we determine for ourselves, and Dawkins is contributing his opinion from a particular philosophical point of view that rejects these traditional assumptions (what "purpose" "contribution" "value" mean). 

 

[Jasperstone]

The more person centered term would be "person with DS". Since you're advocating for people with disabilities, you should, at minimum, not use offensive ways of referring to them like "a DS".

No disrespect was intended. I'm posting on my phone and didn't read it back like that. Will be more careful in the future.

[kiana]

"He also claimed that people shouldn't oppose abortion if they are meat eaters."

 

Interesting quote from one of the articles on Dawkins upthread.

 

He has a very different view on life and morality than a lot of people.

I can understand that viewpoint although I disagree with it.

 

If you compare the relative cognitive ability and ability to feel pain of an early-stage fetus vs. an adult pig, I would bet the pig would win. It is an easy logical leap from there.

[LucyStoner]

Yes. Although I also think that medical issues should be separated into non-lifestyle acquired and lifestyle-acquired.

 

Those with lifestyle acquired diseases should be offered low cost treatment for factors like smoking. If they don't change their lifestyle after being able to access treatment, they should have to contribute to their health care over and above general taxes.

Determining what is lifestyle and not is not always easy or clearcut. Additionally certain lifestyle factors aren't purely choices, such as a genetic predisposition for addiction.

[IdahoHomeschooler]

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.

That person is an ignorant assclown. I've been a nurse for 15 years, and work with neonates. They fight harder to go on living, than most grown-ass adults do. Babies don't give up. They fight it to the end. Even Downs babies. By his logic, a fetus and newborn is the only stage we are a 'person.' When was the last time a fetus committed suicide? Or a newborn willed themselves to die? If a person = a being that wants to go on living, then I've lost personhood a few times, myself, over the years.

 

Dawkins may be a smart dude, I'll give him that. But flaunting these type of shock jock statements designed to whore himself some attention, makes him the Honey Boo Boo of intellectualism, IMNSHO.

[fraidycat]

I would put a cystic fibrosis sufferer ahead of smokers who have not accepted low cost treatment for their addiction every single time.

But, here's the thing. MANY "addicted" people are actually "self-medicated" (or at least attempting to self-medicate) via their addiction.

 

Who are you to say which addicted person made a lifestyle choice and which one is using nicotine/alcohol/drugs to try to treat depression or some other mental illness? Or as a coping mechanism.

 

And low-cost treatment for the addiction? Have you ever researched the long term success of the "treatment" (specifically nicotine/smoking) I can assure you, it's not great. Perhaps, chances are they have done it. It just didn't succeed long term. I have loved ones who smoke, all the while loathing themselves because they do. What they don't need is people like you making value judgements on their life. Thankyouverymuch.

[albeto.]

That person is an ignorant assclown. I've been a nurse for 15 years, and work with neonates. They fight harder to go on living, than most grown-ass adults do. Babies don't give up. They fight it to the end. Even Downs babies. By his logic, a fetus and newborn is the only stage we are a 'person.' When was the last time a fetus committed suicide? Or a newborn willed themselves to die? If a person = a being that wants to go on living, then I've lost personhood a few times, myself, over the years.

Following the link provided for the quote offers a more comprehensive look at a very complex issue. It's misleading to suggest Singer defines "person" as "a being that wants to go on living." Those who are interested can read more here, but of course reading his books and articles will offer a better understanding. 

 

III. The Sanctity of Human Life

 

 

Q. You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?

 

A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person†(which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.

Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.

http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html

 

Dawkins may be a smart dude, I'll give him that. But flaunting these type of shock jock statements designed to whore himself some attention, makes him the Honey Boo Boo of intellectualism, IMNSHO.

Perhaps you missed the link upthread that showed he explained he believed he was replying just to the person who asked this question. The answer, he believed, would only be read by her and people who follow both him and her twitter feed. It's not "whoring" of attention by any means.

 

Just putting it out there.

[SKL]

I feel sorry for atheists, with this guy out there being viewed as a spokesman for them.

[ThisIsTheDay]

I am a conservative, and I would *never* presume that Dawkins (or anyone else speaks for athiests as a whole.  Really, who would think that?  Sure, some people might share his opinions, on this or other topics, but that still does not make him any type of spokesman.

[Word Nerd]

I'm pretty sure twitter has never been set up to where @ directed you to a private conversation. Not in the three, plus years I've been on it any way. I know that's a bit of a digression, but its hard for me personally to believe he didnt know how twitter works.

That is how @ posts used to work. It wasn't a private message, but it wasn't broadcast to all the person's followers.

[albeto.]

I am a conservative, and I would *never* presume that Dawkins (or anyone else speaks for athiests as a whole.  Really, who would think that?  Sure, some people might share his opinions, on this or other topics, but that still does not make him any type of spokesman.

 

 

Apparently the pp does.

 

:p

[Moxie]

It doesn't matter who the intended audience was, it is still a repulsive sentiment.

[Word Nerd]

I'm not seeing anything online about it, but I'll take your word for it. But geez how long ago did it change?

It's been several years. I know people used to type a period before the @ (.@) so that direct replies could be seen by followers. Now Twitter is even showing some people tweets by people they don't follow but their friends do, so Dawkins can't believably claim he thought it was essentially a private conversation.

[albeto.]

It doesn't matter who the intended audience was, it is still a repulsive sentiment.

 

To a great many people, it's not a repulsive sentiment, but a practical and helpful one. An illustration of this is the fact that most women who find their fetuses are developing with DS opt to terminate the pregnancy, and do in fact "try again." 

[Slartibartfast]

I'm pretty sure twitter has never been set up to where @ directed you to a private conversation. Not in the three, plus years I've been on it any way. I know that's a bit of a digression, but its hard for me personally to believe he didnt know how twitter works.

 

It always had a private message option but tweeting @ someone wasn't private.

[Free]

I thought elevator-gate was a one-off incident of thoughtlessness. I was meh about the abortion tweet because his views on the morality of the act is irrelevant. Ultimately it is the parents' decision.

 

But then yesterday I came across his views on paedophilia and rape. Oh man, what is wrong with him?!

[phathui5]

 

 

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.)

 

They don't have to care for the child if it's too much for them:

 

http://www.bethany.org/main/down-syndrome

 

http://www.chask.org/

[Free]

They don't have to care for the child if it's too much for them:

 

http://www.bethany.org/main/down-syndrome

 

http://www.chask.org/

 

Giving a baby up for adoption is not the right choice for many either. Personally, I would rather not have a baby that I could not care for than give her up for adoption.

 

Like Rebekah said earlier different people can come to different conclusions on what is the "right" thing to do.

[VeritasMama]

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??

He won't kill himself, he'll have a doctor do it for him. That's what any moral person would do, after all.

[VeritasMama]

Giving a baby up for adoption is not the right choice for many either. Personally, I would rather not have a baby that I could not care for than give her up for adoption.

 

Like Rebekah said earlier different people can come to different conclusions on what is the "right" thing to do.

This is the heart of the issue, to the left abortion is about what is most convenient for the parents, and society as a whole. The problem is, many of is believe that the fetus is a person who deserves to live no matter how inconvenient it is, and that will never change. So comments like the one he made will always be highly offensive to a large swath of society. No amount of elitist rationalization or utilitarian "reasoning" will ever change that.

[Free]

This is the heart of the issue, to the left abortion is about what is most convenient for the parents, and society as a whole. The problem is, many of is believe that the fetus is a person who deserves to live no matter how inconvenient it is, and that will never change. So comments like the one he made will always be highly offensive to a large swath of society. No amount of elitist rationalization or utilitarian "reasoning" will ever change that.

 

You are making an assumption about the intent of those "on the left" (and I don't think being pro-choice is a purely leftist position by the way). You are assuming that a parent would abort only for utilitarian reasons or for the sake of convenience of the parents.

 

I wish you would take more care to assign kinder motivations. Why do you not assume that I actually do care about the child that will come onto this earth, and that I care not only about his birth and existence, but also about the quality of his life?

 

[VeritasMama]

You are making an assumption about the intent of those "on the left" (and I don't think being pro-choice is a purely leftist position by the way). You are assuming that a parent would abort only for utilitarian reasons or for the sake of convenience of the parents.

 

I wish you would take more care to assign kinder motivations. Why do you not assume that I actually do care about the child that will come onto this earth, and that I care not only about his birth and existence, but also about the quality of his life?

 

Because killing the child will prevent from having any quality of life, good or bad.

 

My brother in law has cognitive disabilities and can not live independently. He has a high quality of life in the opinion of his family. He has experienced joy, and has given joy to others as well. Surely this makes the struggles worth it.

 

I have a minor in special education, I have worked with individuals with sever disabilities. One student who I assisted with functioned on a 6 month level at the age of 7. She needed constant care, but her smile gave joy to her caretakers and she felt joy in the simple things as well. To me that's a life worth living.

 

You are basically saying that life might not be worth living if you are disabled, and the burden is too great on society. That is very insulting to all the disabled people I know who experience joy, and their caretakers who also experience joy as part of the experience. I know individuals with Down syndrome who have more rewarding lives that some of the able bodied people I know.

 

The Democratic Party recently changed it's platform when it comes to abortion. Those on the left have been working hard to make abortion an issue they can run on this election year, and they aren't running on a pro-life stance. That is why I can say with confidence that the "left" is pro-abortion, they proclaim it loudly themselves and disown those who claim to be pro-life. The only pro-life Democratic politicians are labelled as "moderates," or "centrists," not as leftists and not liberals. This is something the left has done all by itself and on purpose.

 

My mother and my sister have both had abortions. My mother did so to avoid the consequences of a one night stand. My sister to avoid being a teenage mother. Both abortions were for convenience, so they wouldn't have to deal with the disgrace society and our liberal family would place on them. Abortion was considered the responsible thing to do by my liberal family, it was thought to be a way out of shame for them. The life of the baby didn't really matter. In the long term, the abortions have scarred them both deeply.

 

When I got pregnant in college, I could have had an abortion. It would have made my life easier, it's not easy to finish a degree with a baby. I also didn't have much money or stability to ensure a very high "quality of life." Lucky for my son I decided that for him living was more important than living well.

 

So, I do have sympathy with women who feel that abortion is the humane thing to do. Some of them are nice people. But they are misguided, they are wrong, and people die and women are maimed as a result. They are the dupes of our utilitarian society, they are victims of the abortion culture along with their children.

 

My pro-life stance does not mean I don't have compassion for women in difficult circumstances, it just means that difficult circumstances don't negate the value of the life of the unborn child.

[VeritasMama]

To a great many people, it's not a repulsive sentiment, but a practical and helpful one. An illustration of this is the fact that most women who find their fetuses are developing with DS opt to terminate the pregnancy, and do in fact "try again."

He said it was the "only moral thing to do." In other words, having a child with Down syndrome is immoral, and you are an immoral person if you don't abort it.

 

He is saying that in a moral society, people with Down syndrome wouldn't exist.

 

This should be repugnant to those who value freedom of "choice." It's the woman's body, right? So how can her choice to have her DS baby be immoral?

 

Eugenicists always get heat when they let their true colors show because to the majority of rational human beings eugenics is abhorent.

[Moxie]

To a great many people, it's not a repulsive sentiment, but a practical and helpful one. An illustration of this is the fact that most women who find their fetuses are developing with DS opt to terminate the pregnancy, and do in fact "try again."

Encouraging the genocide of people with DS is repulsive to people on both sides of the abortion issue.

[Free]

You are basically saying that life might not be worth living if you are disabled, and the burden is too great on society. That is very insulting to all the disabled people I know who experience joy, and their caretakers who also experience joy as part of the experience. I know individuals with Down syndrome who have more rewarding lives that some of the able bodied people I know.

 

No, that is not what I am saying. Your words give an impression that you are not really interested in actually listening to what I am saying.

 

So, I do have sympathy with women who feel that abortion is the humane thing to do. Some of them are nice people. But they are misguided, they are wrong, and people die and women are maimed as a result. They are the dupes of our utilitarian society, they are victims of the abortion culture along with their children.

 

Some of them are nice people? But all of them are misguided, utilitarian dupes? Alright then.

 

It is clear you are right now more comfortable with demonizing pro-choice views. In my experience such vitriol is usually a defense mechanism. That is okay. I will not discuss this further with you.

 

[Free]

Encouraging the genocide of people with DS is repulsive to people on both sides of the abortion issue.

 

And that is why nobody is proposing genocide. And that is also why genocide is illegal.

 

[Moxie]

And that is why nobody is proposing genocide. And that is also why genocide is illegal.

 

Saying it is immoral to bring a person with DS into the world is encouraging genocide.

[Free]

Saying it is immoral to bring a person with DS into the world is encouraging genocide.

 

Your choice of the word genocide is misplaced.

 

But setting that aside, I think Rebekah said it so much better than I ever could, so I am just going to quote her in response.

 

I guess I can see elements of morality and immorality in either choice, to abort or to carry to term. Neither is without sacrifice or pain, comes without emotional and/ or other burdens, or both selfish and selfless motives.

 

If I were in the position to make that choice: to carry to term would satisfy my maternal drives to protect and cherish and prevent the guilt of ending a developing life. To abort would satisfy my need to protect my son from shouldering a tremendous burden, emotional and financial, protect my physical and emotional resources from being depleted beyond my abilities, and avoid burdening an already overtaxed health system.

 

I don't know. I see elements of good and bad in both, so I don't begrudge anyone their decision.

 

[unsinkable]

Encouraging the genocide of people with DS is repulsive to people on both sides of the abortion issue.

I'd anticipate that some people will argue with the use of genocide when talking about the unborn.

 

Be that as it may, if the statistics are accurate, most DS babies are already aborted.

[VeritasMama]

No, that is not what I am saying. Your words give an impression that you are not really interested in actually listening to what I am saying.

 

 

Some of them are nice people? But all of them are misguided, utilitarian dupes? Alright then.

 

It is clear you are right now more comfortable with demonizing pro-choice views. In my experience such vitriol is usually a defense mechanism. That is okay. I will not discuss this further with you.

 

I don't know every person that is pro-choice, I know quite a few. Some of them are pro-choice in the larger sense because they believe it is compassionate towards women. Some really are just utilitarians, I'm related to people who don't view the fetus as a person and so the decision is purely one of convenience. They are all wrong. The value of a life is not based on the quality of the life, or how much that life is wanted by other people, but by the fact that it is an individual human being with rights.

 

I'm not demonizing anyone's pro-choice views, I'm saying that they are wrong. You might not agree with me, but you should debate the actual issue and not just accuse me of being mean. I described abortion for what it truly is, and I have no reason to try to implement a defense mechanism. You didn't like it because it sounded awful, and you want to be nice. I'm sure you are a nice person, but abortion is simply not compassionate, and many of the women who are convinced by others that it is and them abort have deep emotional and mental scars.

 

ETA: I am astounded as to how you fail to see that abortion is utilitarian. It is used as a tool. Women use abortion because they think the pain of an abortion will be easier to bear than the pain of an unwanted/complicated/unhealthy pregnancy. Therefore, the value they place on the life of the fetus is dependent upon the impact, whether positive or negative, the baby will have on their own lives. This is utilitarian. Governments, such as China, use abortion as a way to control their population, they see fetuses as either a potential drain on society or as a worker cog to boost the society. This is utilitarian. To people like Dawkins, abortion is a tool used to ensure that we eliminate undesirables such as those with Down Syndrome. Their value in society is based on their ability to function. This is utilitarian. The fact that you support a women's right to approach the life of her child from a view point of utilitarianism out of a sense of compassion towards women doesn't make it less utilitarian.

[SKL]

I am a conservative, and I would *never* presume that Dawkins (or anyone else speaks for athiests as a whole.  Really, who would think that?  Sure, some people might share his opinions, on this or other topics, but that still does not make him any type of spokesman.

 

There's a reason his name is familiar to so many.  If he was just some kook that nobody took seriously, there would never have been a public discussion about his tweet.  Nobody would be following his tweets.  The lady asking about a DS fetus would not have asked his opinion.

 

Albeto, despite her snarky comment suggesting that *I* think this person speaks for all atheists (it is obvious by the post you quoted that I do not believe that), made a follow-up post that "many" people agree with his stance on aborting a DS child.  I think Albeto is overstating that but I could be wrong.  I don't hang in those circles.

 

But more on topic, I just wonder why didn't the man simply say "I don't believe in morality" or "I don't believe the life of a DS fetus is a moral issue" or "there are moral considerations on both sides with a DS fetus" if that is what he meant?  Is it really possible that he didn't realize how his comment would be taken?  I don't think so.  Or, if he really didn't mean that (though he never actually took it back), I would be thinking he's going senile and he'd be off my radar.

[SKL]

Be that as it may, if the statistics are accurate, most DS babies are already aborted.

 

Not to pick on you personally, because what you say is true.  But this brings up the question in my mind.  Why is that relevant to RD's opinion?  Does the standard for morality change once the people making decision xyz surpasses a certain point?  By that logic, it would have be immoral to NOT be racist in 1950.  And one could think of a whole list of similar examples.

 

[albeto.]

This is the heart of the issue, to the left abortion is about what is most convenient for the parents, and society as a whole. The problem is, many of is believe that the fetus is a person who deserves to live no matter how inconvenient it is, and that will never change. So comments like the one he made will always be highly offensive to a large swath of society. No amount of elitist rationalization or utilitarian "reasoning" will ever change that.

 

That's not the heart of the issue to many of us. Abortion is about purposefully terminating a pregnancy. It happens naturally all the time. We take all kinds of invasive means medically when "convenient." From extracting wisdom teeth to putting stints in a clogged heart artery, we manipulate our bodily environment to promote better health and well-being, and prevent further damage. Some 1 in 3 women will opt to terminate a pregnancy purposefully, and most will have no regrets. Those who believe a fetus is a person do so for religious reasons, not biological, as there is no biological moment at which one can point to the beginning of life. You might think of it like trying to find where the red turns into orange in the rainbow. There is no one point, a kind of demarcation line of colors, even if it is quite obvious to tell the difference between the two at a greater distance.

 

The size of the population offended with the practice of abortion notwithstanding, from the other side of the moral spectrum, the idea of knowingly continuing a developing fetus with a condition like DS might be argued to be akin to choosing to give a healthy baby DS. The process of development can be stopped without awareness from the as of yet undeveloped fetus, but is not done so for the emotional "convenience" of the parent. In other words, guilt wins out and a child is born with a life-long condition that will put him or her at greater risk for many problems that could have been avoided. These problems not only require emotional and mental attention, they require resources like time and money, resources that might be more justified supporting others. Dawkins' quote reflects that moral argument - don't knowingly do harm. 

 

What do you mean by "elitist rationalization"? 

[albeto.]

In the long term, the abortions have scarred them both deeply.

They are in the minority. Nevertheless, being emotionally scarred can be a difficult burden. Perhaps it would help others who feel regret to see they are not alone in having made a difficult choice. Here are some stories of people who have shared their experiences.

 

So, I do have sympathy with women who feel that abortion is the humane thing to do. Some of them are nice people. But they are misguided, they are wrong, and people die and women are maimed as a result. They are the dupes of our utilitarian society, they are victims of the abortion culture along with their children.

More women die from giving birth than from abortions. People are misguided when they've been handed erroneous information and led to believe opinions are facts (like the debunked claim of abortion and its supposed link to breast cancer). Nevertheless, some states require this misinformation be acknowledged before medical intervention. 32 states currently have mandates in effect that require providers to inform a woman of the nature of the procedure and the risks associated with it, and the "probable gestational age" of the fetus. In seven states, they mandate the provision of negative and unscientific information about abortion and its implications. In five other states, they require that the woman be told that the state favors childbirth over abortion (link). That doesn't support the accusation of an "abortion culture" to me. In any case, such claims that things are morally right or wrong are based on facts and a critical analysis of this information. The information that supports the claim that "abortion is murder," "abortion is dangerous," "most women are traumatized by abortions" or even "most women regret having abortions," are simply not factually supported. 

 

[unsinkable]

Not to pick on you personally, because what you say is true. But this brings up the question in my mind. Why is that relevant to RD's opinion? Does the standard for morality change once the people making decision xyz surpasses a certain point? By that logic, it would have be immoral to NOT be racist in 1950. And one could think of a whole list of similar examples.

 

I was saying that the genocide of unborn Down syndrome babies is already happening, not that it is OK. The morality doesn't change for me at all.

[albeto.]

He said it was the "only moral thing to do." In other words, having a child with Down syndrome is immoral, and you are an immoral person if you don't abort it.

 

He is saying that in a moral society, people with Down syndrome wouldn't exist.

 

This should be repugnant to those who value freedom of "choice." It's the woman's body, right? So how can her choice to have her DS baby be immoral?

 

Eugenicists always get heat when they let their true colors show because to the majority of rational human beings eugenics is abhorent.

 

Arguably, it's immoral to knowingly thrust a life long disability on someone when the option is to stop further development before any capability of self-awareness exists. It is no more immoral than not having a baby when the ovaries and uterus prepare an egg for fertilization. That egg is simply not cognizant of its surroundings in any way other than a most basic cause and effect molecular programming. It doesn't feel bad that it didn't get to be fertilized, develop, grow, blow out candles on a birthday cake, and dream of a white wedding. It just exists, without any mental interaction, until it no longer exists. 

 

In a moral society, as I understand the argument, resources would be allocated to those who are alive, who do feel pain and pleasure, who are aware of and interact with their surroundings. To take resources away from them for the purpose of appeasing the emotional guilt of those who can't bear to think of "murdering" a wee little babe, is the real immoral choice. Please note the exaggeration used here to make a point quickly, not to trivialize arguments to the contrary.

 

Dawkins' did address this. The link is in this thread in one of my posts.

 

"Eugenicists" is one wrung down the ladder from Goodwin's Law. This comment is silly in a serious, reasonable conversation. 

[albeto.]

Saying it is immoral to bring a person with DS into the world is encouraging genocide.

 

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. Down Syndrome does not qualify as such. 

[Mom-ninja.]

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. 

 

This 100x over. I actually can get past the knee jerk reaction of his statement, and understand what he is trying (albeit very very bluntly) to say. Dawkins is blunt. Very blunt. He does not sugar coat. At all. Get past that and the rationality and logic behind his blunt/harsh statements can be seen. 

 

Yep, I'm "sadly" one of those atheists who like Dawkins. It's okay though cause I can see past the out-of-context and get to the meat of what he is saying. So his comments don't offend me even if I don't agree. 

[albeto.]

ETA: I am astounded as to how you fail to see that abortion is utilitarian. It is used as a tool. Women use abortion because they think the pain of an abortion will be easier to bear than the pain of an unwanted/complicated/unhealthy pregnancy. Therefore, the value they place on the life of the fetus is dependent upon the impact, whether positive or negative, the baby will have on their own lives. This is utilitarian. Governments, such as China, use abortion as a way to control their population, they see fetuses as either a potential drain on society or as a worker cog to boost the society. This is utilitarian. To people like Dawkins, abortion is a tool used to ensure that we eliminate undesirables such as those with Down Syndrome. Their value in society is based on their ability to function. This is utilitarian. The fact that you support a women's right to approach the life of her child from a view point of utilitarianism out of a sense of compassion towards women doesn't make it less utilitarian.

 

Consider everything we choose, we do so in a utilitarian way, in a way. The brain makes decisions based on millions of variables at any one time, only a few of which we are cognizantly aware of at the time. These variables can be simplified to one of two options: pleasure and pain. Our brains seek pleasure, and avoid pain. All animals do, it's just that we have such an amazingly complex frontal cortex, that we can not only predict likely pleasure and pain, we can eve find pleasure in pain (ie, giving to the church even on a tight home budget). Our brains are amazing things, constantly taking in tons of data, from our perceptive organs to memories, all for the purpose of making the next choice as pleasant as possible when taking into consideration the pain that will also happen. Our brains make an executive decision to chose the "net gain," if you will. We choose that which gives us the most pleasure, or at the very least, the least amount of pain. Everything we do goes through this mental process, from deciding how to react to pregnancy, to deciding what career to invest in, to deciding which church to attend (or to attend at all).