QuoteRichard Dawkins: 'immoral' not to abort if foetus has Down's syndrome
Scientist says a mother has a responsibility to 'abort it and try again' if she knows her baby would have the disorder
Share 3601
Email
Press Association
theguardian.com, Thursday 21 August 2014 05.14 BST
Richard Dawkins says it would be immoral for a mother to continue with a pregnancy if the baby would be born with Down's syndrome. Photograph: Murdo Macleod
The scientist Richard Dawkins has become embroiled in another Twitter row, claiming it would be "immoral" to carry on with a pregnancy if the mother knew the foetus had Down's syndrome.
The British author made the comment in response to another user who said she would be faced with "a real ethical dilemma" if she became pregnant and learned that the baby would be born with the disorder.
Dawkins tweeted: "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."
QuoteInYourFaceNewYorker @InYourFaceNYer
@RichardDawkins @AidanMcCourt I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma.
Richard Dawkins ✔ @RichardDawkins
Follow
@InYourFaceNYer Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.
3:53 PM - 20 Aug 2014
He faced a backlash for his comment, with one mother, who has a child with the genetic condition, saying: "I would fight till my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma."
Dawkins later defended his view, saying he would not apologise "for approaching moral philosophic questions in a logical way". He went on to point out that Down's syndrome foetuses are aborted in many cases, and that abortion was a woman's choice.
QuoteRichard Dawkins ✔ @RichardDawkins
Follow
Apparently I'm a horrid monster for recommending WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS to the great majority of Down Syndrome fetuses. They are aborted.
Some users supported the God Delusion author, agreeing with his assertion that there is a difference in deciding on a termination before a child is born, and suggesting after the child is born that it should have been aborted.
The Down's Syndrome Association (DSA) issued a response to Dawkins's initial comment. "People with Down's syndrome can and do live full and rewarding lives, they also make a valuable contribution to our society.
"At the Down's Syndrome Association we do not believe Down's syndrome in itself should be a reason for termination, however we realise that families must make their own choice.
"The DSA strives to ensure that all prospective parents are given accurate and up to date information about the condition and what life might be like today for someone with Down's syndrome."
Previously Dawkins has caused controversy on Twitter by saying the world's Muslims had won fewer Nobel prizes than Trinity College Cambridge; and by arguing some types of rape or paedophilia are worse than others, then telling people who couldn't understand his logic to "go away and learn how to think".
And then gave a wonderfully modern apology:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-apologises-downs-syndrome-tweet
Time to abort Atheists. I'll get the wire hangers.
From the Daily Mash:
QuoteDawkins now just telling random strangers why he hates them
21-08-14
RICHARD Dawkins has taken to walking down the street saying horrible, unprovoked things to total strangers.
The former scientist leaves his house in Oxford at 11am and immediately begins hurling brief insults at anyone who comes within 10 feet of him.
According to local residents, a typical 30 second burst will include phrases such as 'please don't have children', 'you look like a baptist', 'everything about your shoes sickens me' and 'your face seems to be inside out'.
Neighbour Martin Bishop said: "If he sees a woman in a burka coming towards him he'll shout, 'oh fucking hell, here we go'."
After an hour of 'strolling abuse' Dawkins will then go into a local cafe and choose a table next to two people having a conversation.
Victim Jane Thomson revealed: "He listened to us for about a minute and then leaned over, apologised for interrupting and told me I was an 'evil cretin' and my friend Sarah was a 'scandalous waste of evolution'.
"I tried to explain to him that we were just talking about Sarah's eight year-old son starting judo classes, at which point he got very angry and said it was like talking to a pile of elephant dung."
Dawkins said last night: "Why do I do it? What an immensely stupid question.
"Go and pick the nits off one of your friends."
Dawkins makes arguing against Viking easy.
He is a bit of a tool isn't he.
edit:
We really Must invite him here.
Quote from: mongers on August 21, 2014, 05:37:29 PM
We really Must invite him here.
Viking? He's already here.
QuoteHe faced a backlash for his comment, with one mother, who has a child with the genetic condition, saying: "I would fight till my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma."
:bleeding:
I agree with him on this one. It does make sense if you know you're going to end up with a very disabled kid to start afresh.
Though his earlier rape analogy stuff was quite cringe inducing.
To sum up, "PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME! BUY MY BOOKS!"
Quote from: Tyr on August 21, 2014, 07:43:10 PM
QuoteHe faced a backlash for his comment, with one mother, who has a child with the genetic condition, saying: "I would fight till my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma."
:bleeding:
I agree with him on this one. It does make sense if you know you're going to end up with a very disabled kid to start afresh.
Though his earlier rape analogy stuff was quite cringe inducing.
You should tell people that when you meet them. "I think you mother should have aborted you, for the sake of human happiness".
After I had some law school under my belt, a good friend asked me if I thought he could sue his mother for not aborting him.
Well, I was doubtful at first, but hell, I put my mind to it and hit the books and with a whole lot of elbow grease and a lot of fancy talking, we argued the case in front of the US Supreme Court, and goshdarnit they ruled in our favor.
I told him it probably wasn't a recognized cause of action at this point.
The problem with Dawkins is that he is perfectly logical and completely insensitive at the same time. Human morality has developed so that there is a lot of grey areas and answers are not always internally consistent and binary.
Human history has shown pretty well that not every life is precious.
Though the instinct that it is a bad thing to harm/kill the innocent or those unable to defend themselves is something we should not cast off easily. Even if we think we're doing them, or society, a favor by not letting them live a life we see as crappy.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 22, 2014, 12:27:59 AM
Human history has shown pretty well that not every life is precious.
Though the instinct that it is a bad thing to harm/kill the innocent or those unable to defend themselves is something we should not cast off easily. Even if we think we're doing them, or society, a favor by not letting them live a life we see as crappy.
But then if you believed it, logically you should be against a right to abortion.
The thing is, we (by "we" I mean the mainstream liberal crowd) suspend our belief in "there is always a right decision" when it comes to abortion and decide to respect the mother's decision, whatever it is. People with absolutist minds (religious people, Dawkins) cannot cope with that.
Granted. Abortion is one of those nasty issues where one can argue that the rights of two lives are in conflict, and there are so many potential variables that it's hard not to be an absolutist one way or the other without being a complete waffle-case.
Or without, as "Yes Minister" aptly put it, "moral maneuverability".
Quote from: Tyr on August 21, 2014, 07:43:10 PM
QuoteHe faced a backlash for his comment, with one mother, who has a child with the genetic condition, saying: "I would fight till my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma."
:bleeding:
How does that statement in anyway justify that emoticon?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 22, 2014, 01:53:26 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 21, 2014, 07:43:10 PM
QuoteHe faced a backlash for his comment, with one mother, who has a child with the genetic condition, saying: "I would fight till my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma."
:bleeding:
How does that statement in anyway justify that emoticon?
The bitch was being overly dramatic?
Besides she is totally using anecdotal evidence ("my DS kid is great so noone should abort their") and appeal to emotion, which is always bad form. ;)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 22, 2014, 01:53:26 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 21, 2014, 07:43:10 PM
QuoteHe faced a backlash for his comment, with one mother, who has a child with the genetic condition, saying: "I would fight till my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma."
:bleeding:
How does that statement in anyway justify that emoticon?
Downs fetuses should be aborted != your son should be killed.
Not by a long stretch
yet another reason why 140 characters is only enough for bumper sticker slogans and not actual complex (as in having many parts) ideas.
from his website about what he would have said with more than 140 characters
Quote from: https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/"Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it's worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else."
Ok, now I perfectly 100% agree with what he said.
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2014, 03:03:14 AM
Ok, now I perfectly 100% agree with what he said.
This bit amused me
QuoteThose who thought I was advocating a eugenic policy and who therefore compared me to Hitler. That never entered my head, nor should it have. Down Syndrome has almost zero heritability. That means that, although it is a congenital condition – a chromosomal abnormality that babies are born with – there is very little tendency for susceptibility to trisomy to be inherited genetically. If you were eugenically inclined, you'd be wasting your time screening for Down syndrome. You'd screen for genuinely heritable conditions where your screening would make a difference to future generations.
Well, first of all if I ever faced this choice and agreed to abortion it would probably haunt me for the rest of my days. But I do agree with him.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 22, 2014, 01:53:26 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 21, 2014, 07:43:10 PM
QuoteHe faced a backlash for his comment, with one mother, who has a child with the genetic condition, saying: "I would fight till my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma.”
:bleeding:
How does that statement in anyway justify that emoticon?
Because Tyr's parents would never have said that.
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2014, 12:22:38 AM
The problem with Dawkins is that he is perfectly logical and completely insensitive at the same time. Human morality has developed so that there is a lot of grey areas and answers are not always internally consistent and binary.
So when is the real Martinus coming back?
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2014, 02:56:23 AM
yet another reason why 140 characters is only enough for bumper sticker slogans and not actual complex (as in having many parts) ideas.
from his website about what he would have said with more than 140 characters
No one forced him to tweet. If 140 characters wasn't enough to explain his nuanced view then he either should have said something like "it's a complex moral problem but my view is no" or just not address the matter through twitter.
Dawkins is pretty hilarious actually, crude and rude, but funny as heck. And he has a way with words with some of those ingenious insults he comes out with. Lol...
Quote from: Viking on August 22, 2014, 02:56:23 AM
yet another reason why 140 characters is only enough for bumper sticker slogans and not actual complex (as in having many parts) ideas.
from his website about what he would have said with more than 140 characters
Quote from: https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/"Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it's worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else."
I wonder if they could discover prenatally that the child will grow up to be gay if they should be aborted as well. Gays have higher rates of suicide, and from that we can probably conclude higher rates of unhappiness. So would aborting the gay child be the right thing to do if you were interested in increasing human happiness?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on August 21, 2014, 09:08:56 PM
After I had some law school under my belt, a good friend asked me if I thought he could sue his mother for not aborting him.
Well, I was doubtful at first, but hell, I put my mind to it and hit the books and with a whole lot of elbow grease and a lot of fancy talking, we argued the case in front of the US Supreme Court, and goshdarnit they ruled in our favor.
I told him it probably wasn't a recognized cause of action at this point.
Lol, with the US legal system and it's bizarre propensity for ease of lawsuits over anything, we shouldn't be surprised when a case like this comes up. :D
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2014, 09:26:34 AM
I wonder if they could discover prenatally that the child will grow up to be gay if they should be aborted as well. Gays have higher rates of suicide, and from that we can probably conclude higher rates of unhappiness. So would aborting the gay child be the right thing to do if you were interested in increasing human happiness?
On some level isn't that attacking the problem from the wrong direction? After all if gays are generally more unhappy, I'd assume most of that stems from society being intolerant. I wonder if rates of unhappiness will stay the same as we become more tolerant (allowing for life goal things like marriage, children, etc.).
Because, otherwise, yeah then we're heading down a path of well perhaps we can use abortion to increase human happiness by weeding out differences. Can't be picked on for being different if we're all the same. :(
Quote from: KRonn on August 22, 2014, 09:30:43 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on August 21, 2014, 09:08:56 PM
After I had some law school under my belt, a good friend asked me if I thought he could sue his mother for not aborting him.
Well, I was doubtful at first, but hell, I put my mind to it and hit the books and with a whole lot of elbow grease and a lot of fancy talking, we argued the case in front of the US Supreme Court, and goshdarnit they ruled in our favor.
I told him it probably wasn't a recognized cause of action at this point.
Lol, with the US legal system and it's bizarre propensity for ease of lawsuits over anything, we shouldn't be surprised when a case like this comes up. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_life
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2014, 09:32:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2014, 09:26:34 AM
I wonder if they could discover prenatally that the child will grow up to be gay if they should be aborted as well. Gays have higher rates of suicide, and from that we can probably conclude higher rates of unhappiness. So would aborting the gay child be the right thing to do if you were interested in increasing human happiness?
On some level isn't that attacking the problem from the wrong direction? After all if gays are generally more unhappy, I'd assume most of that stems from society being intolerant. I wonder if rates of unhappiness will stay the same as we become more tolerant (allowing for life goal things like marriage, children, etc.).
Because, otherwise, yeah then we're heading down a path of well perhaps we can use abortion to increase human happiness by weeding out differences. Can't be picked on for being different if we're all the same. :(
We don't know why gays commit suicide more, I'd assume nothing. Perhaps it's because of elevated rates of STDs. Either way, an abortion is much easier then changing society. And I agree weeding out human difference is not a good idea.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2014, 09:48:56 AM
We don't know why gays commit suicide more, I'd assume nothing. Perhaps it's because of elevated rates of STDs.
Certainly that is probably part of it, particularly when HIV was a death sentence / you people outlived all of their friends/romantic partners who died of HIV. At the same (particular for those my generation and upwards), it'd be foolish to discount the impact that having to hide one's sexuality / constant messages about how one's sexual preference is shameful/bad/immoral/evil could not have a significant impact on one's self-esteem...and thus happiness. Which we're talking about happiness, right, not just suicide?
On a side note in a PrEP world, HIV incidence/impact on life could likely be a mostly irrelevant factor for gay men.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2014, 09:48:56 AMEither way, an abortion is much easier then changing society.
The easiest method isn't always the best one.
Quote from: Tyr on August 22, 2014, 02:43:22 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 22, 2014, 01:53:26 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 21, 2014, 07:43:10 PM
QuoteHe faced a backlash for his comment, with one mother, who has a child with the genetic condition, saying: "I would fight till my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma."
:bleeding:
How does that statement in anyway justify that emoticon?
Downs fetuses should be aborted != your son should be killed.
Not by a long stretch
What made his tweet offensive is not that he was arguing for post-natal abortions, but that he was outright stating that people who chose not to abort their down's babies are immoral. That goes waay too far.
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2014, 09:32:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2014, 09:26:34 AM
I wonder if they could discover prenatally that the child will grow up to be gay if they should be aborted as well. Gays have higher rates of suicide, and from that we can probably conclude higher rates of unhappiness. So would aborting the gay child be the right thing to do if you were interested in increasing human happiness?
On some level isn't that attacking the problem from the wrong direction? After all if gays are generally more unhappy, I'd assume most of that stems from society being intolerant. I wonder if rates of unhappiness will stay the same as we become more tolerant (allowing for life goal things like marriage, children, etc.).
Because, otherwise, yeah then we're heading down a path of well perhaps we can use abortion to increase human happiness by weeding out differences. Can't be picked on for being different if we're all the same. :(
Don't stop Raz from deliberately missing the point just to continue being against something.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2014, 09:48:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2014, 09:32:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2014, 09:26:34 AM
I wonder if they could discover prenatally that the child will grow up to be gay if they should be aborted as well. Gays have higher rates of suicide, and from that we can probably conclude higher rates of unhappiness. So would aborting the gay child be the right thing to do if you were interested in increasing human happiness?
On some level isn't that attacking the problem from the wrong direction? After all if gays are generally more unhappy, I'd assume most of that stems from society being intolerant. I wonder if rates of unhappiness will stay the same as we become more tolerant (allowing for life goal things like marriage, children, etc.).
Because, otherwise, yeah then we're heading down a path of well perhaps we can use abortion to increase human happiness by weeding out differences. Can't be picked on for being different if we're all the same. :(
We don't know why gays commit suicide more, I'd assume nothing. Perhaps it's because of elevated rates of STDs. Either way, an abortion is much easier then changing society. And I agree weeding out human difference is not a good idea.
Well, FWIW, and having observed my gay and non-gay friends, I can honestly tell you that while I have never had any trouble with keeping the non-gay friends and maintaining good relationships with them, the gay ones are in a consent loop of throwing a fit and being offended about something and then reconciling with me, so I can tell you that gays are insane.
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2014, 10:00:21 AM
What made his tweet offensive is not that he was arguing for post-natal abortions, but that he was outright stating that people who chose not to abort their down's babies are immoral. That goes waay too far.
Well, yes and no. I mean, in terms of being offensive it went too far, but in terms of pure logic, you have to assume that one of the choices is the right one - so the wrong one, if taken consciously, must be immoral. :P
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2014, 10:10:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2014, 10:00:21 AM
What made his tweet offensive is not that he was arguing for post-natal abortions, but that he was outright stating that people who chose not to abort their down's babies are immoral. That goes waay too far.
Well, yes and no. I mean, in terms of being offensive it went too far, but in terms of pure logic, you have to assume that one of the choices is the right one - so the wrong one, if taken consciously, must be immoral. :P
This though is why Dawkins continually pisses people off (which I dunno, he may consider a
good thing ;) ). He takes morally absolute stands on complex issues in which there may not be "a" single correct answer.
Some moral questions can be answered with a yes/no: others have no simple yes/no approach. Dawkins seems to have difficulty with this concept.
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2014, 10:09:08 AM
Well, FWIW, and having observed my gay and non-gay friends, I can honestly tell you that while I have never had any trouble with keeping the non-gay friends and maintaining good relationships with them, the gay ones are in a consent loop of throwing a fit and being offended about something and then reconciling with me, so I can tell you that gays are insane.
That isn't the conclusion that I'd draw from your experiences. :P
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2014, 10:16:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2014, 10:10:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2014, 10:00:21 AM
What made his tweet offensive is not that he was arguing for post-natal abortions, but that he was outright stating that people who chose not to abort their down's babies are immoral. That goes waay too far.
Well, yes and no. I mean, in terms of being offensive it went too far, but in terms of pure logic, you have to assume that one of the choices is the right one - so the wrong one, if taken consciously, must be immoral. :P
This though is why Dawkins continually pisses people off (which I dunno, he may consider a good thing ;) ). He takes morally absolute stands on complex issues in which there may not be "a" single correct answer.
Some moral questions can be answered with a yes/no: others have no simple yes/no approach. Dawkins seems to have difficulty with this concept.
Oh yes - that's also what I said already. Humanity has evolved so well because it learned how to reside in this ambiguous grey zone between holding a view and drawing it to its ultimate logical conclusion. Highly intelligent people with low emotional IQ have a really big problem grasping that and often come across as dicks. ;)
Quote from: Tamas on August 22, 2014, 10:04:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2014, 09:32:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2014, 09:26:34 AM
I wonder if they could discover prenatally that the child will grow up to be gay if they should be aborted as well. Gays have higher rates of suicide, and from that we can probably conclude higher rates of unhappiness. So would aborting the gay child be the right thing to do if you were interested in increasing human happiness?
On some level isn't that attacking the problem from the wrong direction? After all if gays are generally more unhappy, I'd assume most of that stems from society being intolerant. I wonder if rates of unhappiness will stay the same as we become more tolerant (allowing for life goal things like marriage, children, etc.).
Because, otherwise, yeah then we're heading down a path of well perhaps we can use abortion to increase human happiness by weeding out differences. Can't be picked on for being different if we're all the same. :(
Don't stop Raz from deliberately missing the point just to continue being against something.
And what is the point? It seemed to me that Dawkins is taking a Utilitarian moral stance.
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2014, 09:56:13 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2014, 09:48:56 AM
We don't know why gays commit suicide more, I'd assume nothing. Perhaps it's because of elevated rates of STDs.
Certainly that is probably part of it, particularly when HIV was a death sentence / you people outlived all of their friends/romantic partners who died of HIV. At the same (particular for those my generation and upwards), it'd be foolish to discount the impact that having to hide one's sexuality / constant messages about how one's sexual preference is shameful/bad/immoral/evil could not have a significant impact on one's self-esteem...and thus happiness. Which we're talking about happiness, right, not just suicide?
On a side note in a PrEP world, HIV incidence/impact on life could likely be a mostly irrelevant factor for gay men.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2014, 09:48:56 AMEither way, an abortion is much easier then changing society.
The easiest method isn't always the best one.
I do not not disagree with you. I don't think it's a good idea to abort people because they may become unhappy later in life or that they are insufficiently useful in the opinion of Dawkins.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on August 21, 2014, 09:08:56 PM
After I had some law school under my belt, a good friend asked me if I thought he could sue his mother for not aborting him.
Well, I was doubtful at first, but hell, I put my mind to it and hit the books and with a whole lot of elbow grease and a lot of fancy talking, we argued the case in front of the US Supreme Court, and goshdarnit they ruled in our favor.
:lol:
What does "immoral" mean anyway? Cause I don't know. Whether a decision is good or bad seems much more interesting.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2014, 11:15:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2014, 09:56:13 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2014, 09:48:56 AM
We don't know why gays commit suicide more, I'd assume nothing. Perhaps it's because of elevated rates of STDs.
Certainly that is probably part of it, particularly when HIV was a death sentence / you people outlived all of their friends/romantic partners who died of HIV. At the same (particular for those my generation and upwards), it'd be foolish to discount the impact that having to hide one's sexuality / constant messages about how one's sexual preference is shameful/bad/immoral/evil could not have a significant impact on one's self-esteem...and thus happiness. Which we're talking about happiness, right, not just suicide?
On a side note in a PrEP world, HIV incidence/impact on life could likely be a mostly irrelevant factor for gay men.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2014, 09:48:56 AMEither way, an abortion is much easier then changing society.
The easiest method isn't always the best one.
I do not not disagree with you. I don't think it's a good idea to abort people because they may become unhappy later in life or that they are insufficiently useful in the opinion of Dawkins.
That's not what he said and you know it, Raz. You make a valid point, to an extent, but your analogies suck.
Quote from: The Brain on August 22, 2014, 12:53:24 PM
What does "immoral" mean anyway? Cause I don't know. Whether a decision is good or bad seems much more interesting.
Morality is one scale that you can use to determine if a decision is good or bad. :secret:
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2014, 01:15:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 22, 2014, 12:53:24 PM
What does "immoral" mean anyway? Cause I don't know. Whether a decision is good or bad seems much more interesting.
Morality is one scale that you can use to determine if a decision is good or bad. :secret:
In fact, depending on the type of morality adopted to measure that, you can really conflate "good" with "moral". For example, according to utilitarian morality, the most useful decision would also be most moral.
Quote from: Martinus on August 22, 2014, 01:38:48 PM
In fact, depending on the type of morality adopted to measure that, you can really conflate "good" with "moral". For example, according to utilitarian morality, the most useful decision would also be most moral.
I think that morality is probably the only way to measure "good" and "bad" in decision-making, given that you are thus limiting the choices to a binary outcome. Any non-moral evaluation will result in a mixed outcome virtually every time, and to reduce that to a binary outcome requires application of subjective values; i.e. morality.
Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2014, 10:00:21 AM
What made his tweet offensive is not that he was arguing for post-natal abortions, but that he was outright stating that people who chose not to abort their down's babies are immoral. That goes waay too far.
Most of the backlash though is based around people with downs syndrome and accusations that he is saying they should have been aborted.
Its a bit of a different thing to say that a current fetus should be aborted and an actual grown up person should have been aborted.
Quote from: Tyr on August 22, 2014, 05:32:46 PM
Most of the backlash though is based around people with downs syndrome and accusations that he is saying they should have been aborted.
Its a bit of a different thing to say that a current fetus should be aborted and an actual grown up person should have been aborted.
All English babies should be aborted because they're English. No offence to any Englishmen, of course.
Yah... I dunno if that flies.
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2014, 05:38:29 PM
All English babies should be aborted because they're English. No offence to any Englishmen, of course.
Yah... I dunno if that flies.
Well that's genocide. The parents can't really try again as the baby would still be English. Well. Unless they emigrate first.
With a gravely disabled fetus however they have a pretty clear choice of "Do you want a kid that is disabled or not disabled"
Quote from: Tyr on August 22, 2014, 05:45:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2014, 05:38:29 PM
All English babies should be aborted because they're English. No offence to any Englishmen, of course.
Yah... I dunno if that flies.
Well that's genocide. The parents can't really try again as the baby would still be English.
Nah, they can just each have babies with other people.
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2014, 05:38:29 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 22, 2014, 05:32:46 PM
Most of the backlash though is based around people with downs syndrome and accusations that he is saying they should have been aborted.
Its a bit of a different thing to say that a current fetus should be aborted and an actual grown up person should have been aborted.
All English babies should be aborted because they're English. No offence to any Englishmen, of course.
Yah... I dunno if that flies.
Is this really your argument? That being English is equivalent to suffering from Downs Syndrome?
I am taking it that you have never met a person with Downs. It is a horrifyingly debilitating condition. It is true that some (very small) percentage eventually lead a satisfactory life, but the vast majority seem to be either unhappy or else so crippled by the disease that they lack the capacity to be unhappy. I have a niece with the condition, and the great fear of my brother is what will happen to her after he and his wife die, because she will never lead an even convincing semblance of a real life. She is mentally about ten years old, at best.
So, like Tyr then?
Quote from: grumbler on August 22, 2014, 05:58:43 PM
Is this really your argument? That being English is equivalent to suffering from Downs Syndrome?
:lol: nope, that's not my argument, in spite of what we might think of Tyr sometimes.
My point was that people belonging to [category x] can reasonably take offence to statements saying that fetuses belonging to [category x] ought to be aborted, even if they themselves are not fetuses any more. And that the distinction between saying "the moral thing to do is to abort fetuses belonging to [category x]" and "those who belong to [category x] should have been aborted" is fairly minor.
QuoteI am taking it that you have never met a person with Downs. It is a horrifyingly debilitating condition. It is true that some (very small) percentage eventually lead a satisfactory life, but the vast majority seem to be either unhappy or else so crippled by the disease that they lack the capacity to be unhappy. I have a niece with the condition, and the great fear of my brother is what will happen to her after he and his wife die, because she will never lead an even convincing semblance of a real life. She is mentally about ten years old, at best.
I have met people with Down's Syndrome.
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2014, 06:10:09 PM
My point was that people belonging to [category x] can reasonably take offence to statements saying that fetuses belonging to [category x] ought to be aborted, even if they themselves are not fetuses any more. And that the distinction between saying "the moral thing to do is to abort fetuses belonging to [category x]" and "those who belong to [category x] should have been aborted" is fairly minor.
Wow. I can't respond to the bolded, because I can't see how that follows any logical pattern at all. We just have to agree to not understand each other posts on this.
Quote from: grumbler on August 22, 2014, 06:46:47 PM
Wow. I can't respond to the bolded, because I can't see how that follows any logical pattern at all. We just have to agree to not understand each other posts on this.
Have a great weekend, then :cheers:
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2014, 07:03:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 22, 2014, 06:46:47 PM
Wow. I can't respond to the bolded, because I can't see how that follows any logical pattern at all. We just have to agree to not understand each other posts on this.
Have a great weekend, then :cheers:
Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to start school on the next Monday, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2014, 06:10:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 22, 2014, 05:58:43 PM
Is this really your argument? That being English is equivalent to suffering from Downs Syndrome?
:lol: nope, that's not my argument, in spite of what we might think of Tyr sometimes.
:lol: When it comes to Tyr, I give the edge to Downs Syndrome.
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2014, 09:32:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2014, 09:26:34 AM
I wonder if they could discover prenatally that the child will grow up to be gay if they should be aborted as well. Gays have higher rates of suicide, and from that we can probably conclude higher rates of unhappiness. So would aborting the gay child be the right thing to do if you were interested in increasing human happiness?
On some level isn't that attacking the problem from the wrong direction? After all if gays are generally more unhappy, I'd assume most of that stems from society being intolerant. I wonder if rates of unhappiness will stay the same as we become more tolerant (allowing for life goal things like marriage, children, etc.).
Because, otherwise, yeah then we're heading down a path of well perhaps we can use abortion to increase human happiness by weeding out differences. Can't be picked on for being different if we're all the same. :(
Yeah, because the never-ending struggle to find a place in an overcrowded world is fucking awesome, and watching someone constitutionally incapable of achieving that goal fail time and time again is awesomer still. It's how God gets His kicks, and we can join in!
Dawkins is right. Eliminating merely negative traits is something we don't know how to do yet, but foreclosing the near-certainty of sadness for Down's sufferers--along with a host of other serious congenital conditions--is something we do know how to do, and something we should do.
The alternative is not a humanist utopia, after all, or a world where differences are embraced, kindness is the rule, and everything works out great. The alternative is the world we live in right now, where eugenics already exists, only privatized, with every possible excess, inefficiency, and inequity inherent to any free market system populated by actors of differing capabilities and degrees of rationality.
P.S.: if I were you, I would find Raz' gay analogy both spurious and offensive. In fact, I find it such without even being you. :P
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2014, 05:38:29 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 22, 2014, 05:32:46 PM
Most of the backlash though is based around people with downs syndrome and accusations that he is saying they should have been aborted.
Its a bit of a different thing to say that a current fetus should be aborted and an actual grown up person should have been aborted.
All English babies should be aborted because they're English. No offence to any Englishmen, of course.
Yah... I dunno if that flies.
I'm surprised to see you, a self-described leftist, refer to fetuses as "babies".
Also, you remind me of one of those people who want their kid to be deaf because they do not view deafness as a disability. Down's Syndrom is a disability - there is no ambiguity about it whatsoever. As opposed to being English or gay.
If you think this way, you should be pro-life. If you see fetuses as babies and yet believe there should be a right to kill babies, you must be a horrible human being.
Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2014, 06:10:09 PMMy point was that people belonging to [category x] can reasonably take offence to statements saying that fetuses belonging to [category x] ought to be aborted, even if they themselves are not fetuses any more.
Lucky, then, that the story does not report a single person with Down's Syndrome being offended by what Dawkins said. It does mention other people (and now you) being offended on those people's behalf though.
Winning friends and influencing people, the Marty way!
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2014, 11:37:26 AM
Winning friends and influencing people, the Marty way!
If there is one thing that still ticks me off, it's people who get offended on behalf of other people.
Empathy ticks you off?
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2014, 11:41:24 AM
Empathy ticks you off?
It's not empathy - it's the white knight syndrome - it's about making oneself feel better because you jump on someone saying something that, often, is not even offensive to the apparent "victim".
It's like all these people jumping on Louis CK for making a rape joke - a bunch of self-important faggots.
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2014, 11:38:53 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2014, 11:37:26 AM
Winning friends and influencing people, the Marty way!
If there is one thing that still ticks me off, it's people who get offended on behalf of other people.
I can think of a very good reason that Down's Syndrome sufferers aren't the ones expressing their offense to the media.
But to your point, I think the offense being discussed has more to do with more than hurt feelings on behalf of those with Down's Syndrome. It probably comes from a few places: caregivers often become informal advocates for people with the disease and a mentality of "they would be better off not being born" does not create a conducive environment to their self worth, lots of people are simply uncomfortable with abortion and this is a convenient way to lash out, and some people with downs syndrome in their families can't help but feel judged by the comments Dawkins made.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 23, 2014, 11:58:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2014, 11:38:53 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2014, 11:37:26 AM
Winning friends and influencing people, the Marty way!
If there is one thing that still ticks me off, it's people who get offended on behalf of other people.
I can think of a very good reason that Down's Syndrome sufferers aren't the ones expressing their offense to the media.
But to your point, I think the offense being discussed has more to do with hurt feelings on behalf of those with Down's Syndrome. It probably comes from a few places: caregivers often become informal advocates for people with the disease and a mentality of "they would be better off not being born" does not create a conducive environment to their self worth, lots of people are simply uncomfortable with abortion and this is a convenient way to lash out, and some people with downs syndrome in their families can't help but feel judged by the comments Dawkins made.
I know - and I expressed the ambiguity of the situation before. But if we are totally honest, Down's Syndrome *is* a disability (unlike being English or gay) and if it could be eliminated, so no more people are born with it, the world would be a better place, period. That does not mean we should feel contempt for or advocate killing off living people with Down's Syndrome or consider such people worthless or subhuman or anything like that. I would have the same attitude to people with dwarfism, or inborn blindness or deafness or suffering from the polio disease.
I would also say there is a fine difference between using the "would be better if not born" argument about a living person and a fetus. I mean, for god's sake, the argument is the reason why we support a right to abortion in the first place in cases other than the pregnancy threatening the life of the mother, right? So the concept is not offensive, unless you are a pro-life fundamentalist.
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2014, 12:20:31 PM
I would also say there is a fine difference between using the "would be better if not born" argument about a living person and a fetus.
The problem with phrasing it "would be better if not born" is that it implies the person with Down's Syndrome would be better off not existing. Hence we go down the rabbithole that Jacob brought up.
A better way of expressing it would be "if limiting your number of children, better to do what you can to have those children be healthy."
That isn't too far from what Dawkins actually said, fwiw.
QuoteI mean, for god's sake, the argument is the reason why we support a right to abortion in the first place in cases other than the pregnancy threatening the life of the mother, right? So the concept is not offensive, unless you are a pro-life fundamentalist.
At least in the US, it seems almost every politician is now opposed to abortion, at least officially. The difference is whether the government will allow a person to choose or not.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 23, 2014, 12:50:01 PM
At least in the US, it seems almost every politician is now opposed to abortion, at least officially. The difference is whether the government will allow a person to choose or not.
The right really won the language war on this one, didn't they? Hell, even Jacob is talking about aborting "babies".
At least the left won the language war on gay things.
Meh. I recall saying something similar in 2008, in the US prez election's thread.
The goal was to increase happiness, not avoid disability at least according to Dawkins. So long as the person with Down Syndrome is happy, their disability is irrelevant. Dawkins assumed that people with Down Syndrome are unhappy (I have no idea if that's true).
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2014, 11:33:52 AMLucky, then, that the story does not report a single person with Down's Syndrome being offended by what Dawkins said. It does mention other people (and now you) being offended on those people's behalf though.
I'm not offended by any of this :)
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2014, 12:20:31 PM
I would also say there is a fine difference between using the "would be better if not born" argument about a living person and a fetus. I mean, for god's sake, the argument is the reason why we support a right to abortion in the first place in cases other than the pregnancy threatening the life of the mother, right? So the concept is not offensive, unless you are a pro-life fundamentalist.
I'm pretty comfortable taking the same line on this as I do with abortion in general: it's up to the people directly involved - the potential parents, and ultimately the pregnant woman - to make the decision they feel is best for them, that they can live with. It is not for some sanctimonious jackass to make pronouncements about the ultimate morality about, to further his own PR profile.
Freedom really is slavery, then? But that's already been established.
It is a fine thing that you do not have the power of life and death over others. Half of us would be up against the wall in a week.
Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2014, 01:00:04 PM
At least the left won the language war on gay things.
The right won that one too. That's why gay men are queer.
You'd think they'd rather win the culture wars on gays and lose on abortion; that way, there's a greater chance of aborted gays.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2014, 07:14:42 PM
It is a fine thing that you do not have the power of life and death over others. Half of us would be up against the wall in a week.
Let's be real. Most of you wouldn't resist.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2014, 09:09:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2014, 07:14:42 PM
It is a fine thing that you do not have the power of life and death over others. Half of us would be up against the wall in a week.
Let's be real. Most of you wouldn't resist.
:hmm:
What exactly are we not resisting?
It's kinda amazing to me how it seems many people don't resist (at least with all their physical might until the very end) certain death/execution.
Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2014, 09:28:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2014, 09:09:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2014, 07:14:42 PM
It is a fine thing that you do not have the power of life and death over others. Half of us would be up against the wall in a week.
Let's be real. Most of you wouldn't resist.
:hmm:
Liquidation would be unnecessary. :P