Down's Syndrome is "Immoral"

RobertKK

krudler wrote: »

Who are you to tell people they should have a disabled child? Having a child is hard enough work, having one with a disability, be it mild or severe is a whole other amount of work. Nobody here has the right to tell someone they have to go through with that.

I am a human being who accepts we are all not perfect, yet some think they are perfect and can make choices for other lives who they deem to be not as good as they are and therefore disposable via abortion.

Awkward Badger

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Isn't there a very real risk of people who view you as having made an immoral choice to have your child, whether you got that choice or not, shunning your extra needs as a parent of a disabled child, feeling you made your bed consciously and now you must accept the consequences? Wouldn't those feelings translate into less willingness to provide for disabled children's educational and medical needs through tax contributions? Introducing the topic as moral v's immoral is sowing the seeds for discrimination against the people in our society who most need our help.

I really don't see how viewing the decision of whether or not to carry a pregnancy as immoral would affect peoples willingness to provide for the educational and medical needs of disabled children. That's a hell of a jump.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

Some use this logic for gendercide abortions.

Please explain how.

super_furry

Dawkins is a nasty, arrogant and wilfully ignorant man who has ironically bought into the messiah complex that his followers have thrust upon him.

My name is URL

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I don't dispute that. But the risk is higher that they will suffer from certain conditions as well as experiencing more issues in relation to social development.

The risk of abject poverty, criminality, lack of social development and a whole array of other things are far higher for black people than for white.. but I don't think you'd get away with saying that because of that higher degree of risk, bringing a child into that world is immoral.

I know that's not comparing apples with apples, but it's a slippery slope to dictate to others what is or isn't 'moral' based on risk alone.

That's just my take on it. Personally I don't care what parents decide to do.. but Dawkins isn't in any position to be pontificating about morals. He just comes across as an old drunk who is losing his wits at this stage.

gctest50

RobertKK wrote: »

I am a human being who accepts we are all not perfect, yet some think they are perfect and can make choices for other lives who they deem to be not as good as they are and therefore disposable via abortion.

i would doubt that is why the 93% go through with it

or you are deliberately missing the point because you want someone to talk to

http://www.irc.org/

Penn

The trouble with Dawkins is that he tends to look at some things too much like a scientist, and doesn't take into consideration subjectivity from free thinking.

krudler

RobertKK wrote: »

I am a human being who accepts we are all not perfect, yet some think they are perfect and can make choices for other lives who they deem to be not as good as they are and therefore disposable via abortion.

I doubt any couple who decided to terminate a pregnancy for any reason thought they were perfect, so cop on with the nonsense statements. Like I said, who are you to tell people they should have a disabled child?

Ave Sodalis

RobertKK wrote: »

I am a human being who accepts we are all not perfect, yet some think they are perfect and can make choices for other lives who they deem to be not as good as they are and therefore disposable via abortion.

You are aware that the majority of people (I mean the vast majority) don't think that people with DS are not as good as they are? That most of the abortions are because of the huge amount of work and dedication it takes to raise a child with DS, and that some people don't have the means to do this. Nobody on this thread said that people with DS are lesser people.

Turtyturd

RobertKK wrote: »

It would be a human life, and we know humans have many prejudices, another area where humans are not perfect.

All depends on when you think 'life' begins.

Shenshen

Penn wrote: »

The trouble with Dawkins is that he tends to look at some things too much like a scientist, and doesn't take into consideration subjectivity from free thinking.

While I would agree that this may well be where his thinking is coming from, I still feel it was a bit over the top for him to call the choice "immoral" either way.
I can't help thinking he knew how this would rub people the wrong way, and chose his words for that purpose.

The Cool

suicide_circus wrote: »

Essentially what Dawkins is saying is that it is better to be dead than to be disabled.

This is what I take from it, too: that life with Downs is not worth living.

Now I will admit that I don't personally know anyone affected by Downs and I went straight to have a quick read of the wiki page because I thought there must be something that I don't know about that makes Downs truly, truly awful. I understand that there are health issues that they have to deal with for life etc etc but does it really mean that they'd be better off dead?

I'm pro-choice and all that and would like to have the option of abortion should I ever need it but I can't see this ever being a reason why I'd resort to it.

Aside from that - this comment today, the "levels of rape" last month - he's turning into the sciencey version of Katie hopkins.

RobertKK

kylith wrote: »

Please explain how.

They use the logic it is a choice.

Awkward Badger

My name is URL wrote: »

The risk of abject poverty, criminality, lack of social development and a whole array of other things are far higher for black people than for white.. but I don't think you'd get away with saying that because of that higher degree of risk, bringing a child into that world is immoral.

I know that's not comparing apples with apples, but it's a slippery slope to dictate to others what is or isn't 'moral' based on risk alone.

That's just my take on it. Personally I don't care what parents decide to do.. but Dawkins isn't in any position to be pontificating about morals. He just comes across as an old drunk who is losing his wits at this stage.

I don't think the black/white thing really has any relevance whatsoever. The point Dawkins made was "Abort and try again" in relation to a foetus with a disorder that increases the risk of illness and issues. As I see it the objective is to have a baby and a healthy baby at that. Given there is the option to have an abortion and "try again" I personally think that's the best option. Being black isn't a genetic disorder nor is it something a black parent can hope isn't an "issue" with the next pregnancy.

Czarcasm

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Perhaps I missed some of the exchange then, I'm just going off what was reported that it was a reply to a post about the ethical dilemma. Not simply Dawkins introducing morality into a discussion on down syndrome.

"The British scientist made the comment in reply to a user who said they would face a "real ethical dilemma" if they conceived a baby with the syndrome."

In case you missed it, from the news report linked in the OP -

The British scientist made the comment in reply to a user who said they would face a "real ethical dilemma" if they conceived a baby with the syndrome.

Professor Dawkins tweeted: "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

Now, either he's an evolutionary biologist (in which case he shouldn't have based his opinion on his morality, in order to remain objective), or he's nothing but a charlatan and a wind-up merchant of the highest order who knew his subjective opinion would spark outrage across the twittersphere and gain him much needed attention and validation....

It really doesn't need someone with an IQ above 70 to reach the obvious conclusion.

I don't see how its contradictory. The question is about the morality of carrying a pregnancy full term when the foetus has down syndrome not about rights of abortion to terminate a pregnancy. They are two different things. And saying "parents know best" and that that nullifies any discussion of morality make little sense.

It makes perfect sense actually if you really think about it in rational terms -

The parents simply weigh up the pros and cons with the best scientific and medical information available to hand, and then decide upon their ability to afford the child or children the quality of life that is within their means and within the scope of current medical and scientific knowledge.

Morality hasn't entered the equation.

And imo if those things that are being foisted on the child have a negative impact on or are not in the best interest of the child I'd see it as immoral to do so. Again we are talking about morality in relation to carrying a down syndrome foetus full term when there is an option to terminate the pregnancy. Its not eugenics and its not designer babies. Its the decision to bring a child with down syndrome into the world and the morality of that decision.

Again, that negative impact, and what you deem is in the best interests of the child, is merely subjective opinion, understandably based on your current medical and scientific knowledge. I'm sure you're also aware that downs syndrome can vary in degrees of severity, like any cognitive or intellectual disorder or physical disability, but for now we'll stick with downs syndrome.

Morality doesn't need to enter the equation as I pointed out above, as there are a number of other criteria that potential parents can gauge themselves by, and their suitability to raise a child, let alone a child with downs syndrome.

I just think that for a man who proclaims himself to be an evolutionary biologist, he has, on this occasion, yet again, allowed his own cognitive and personal bias cloud his objective judgement when he gave his subjective opinion on the matter.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

They use the logic it is a choice.

I know of no place where it is legal to terminate because of gender. Also, what does disability have to do with gender?

_Whimsical_

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I really don't see how viewing the decision of whether or not to carry a pregnancy as immoral would affect peoples willingness to provide for the educational and medical needs of disabled children. That's a hell of a jump.

Why is it a hell of a jump?Because it's never happened before?
It has happened in Ireland in the not too distant past. Only very basic human provisions were made for children of parents who made immoral choices.

Ask anyone with a disability or a disabled person in their family and they'll tell you that disabled people have faced some of the cruelest cuts in recent budgets. Cuts in direct income, cuts in services like medical care (physio,occupational therapy etc), cuts in provision for special education sectors, cuts in grants and services that make basic life possible with a disability such as travel payment assistance. Then there have been cuts in carers pay and provisions.

There's already quite a bit of apathy in the general discourse about addressing these peoples needs, the toll taken on that sector has gone largely unheeded.Do you really think that if disability begins to be looked at as a moral choice a parent makes that there'll be an appetite for the taxpayer to continue to cough up to provide those services and improve these services?

ou're in dreamland if you don't see an inherent danger with serious consequences in making it a moral issue.

take everything

What an attention-starved fcukwit. I suppose he hasn't been in the news for a while. I'm sure all parents of Down syndrome children will be delighted to hear of their wickedness.

Czarcasm

Dawkins should've been aware too, that when a question is based on ethics, the answer shouldn't have be based on morality. There is a difference -

http://www.ianwelsh.net/ethics-101-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals/


His answer was merely a straw-man.

FloatingVoter

Dawkins is a fundamentalist noticebox. Like most religious leaders he has fanatical followers who think he's something special. Best ignored...there's usually something better on.

Awkward Badger

Czarcasm wrote: »

In case you missed it, from the news report linked in the OP -

Now, either he's an evolutionary biologist (in which case he shouldn't have based his opinion on his morality, in order to remain objective), or he's nothing but a charlatan and a wind-up merchant of the highest order who knew his subjective opinion would spark outrage across the twittersphere and gain him much needed attention and validation....

It really doesn't need someone with an IQ above 70 to reach the obvious conclusion.

This shíte in bold doesn't exactly help your argument.

And I'll state again seeing as you seemed to have missed it. The discussion was about The Ethical Dilemma. He was giving his opinion on The Ethical Dilemma. How exactly does one discuss an ethical dilemma without the mention of morality ?

It makes perfect sense actually if you really think about it in rational terms -

The parents simply weigh up the pros and cons with the best scientific and medical information available to hand, and then decide upon their ability to afford the child or children the quality of life that is within their means and within the scope of current medical and scientific knowledge.

Morality hasn't entered the equation.

I've thought about it in rational terms. Its simply stating parents decisions in relation to their children cannot ever be immoral. Which is an absurd statement. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the issue is the decision to have a child with certain issues when they do not need to have that child and where an abortion is a valid option. Your argument is based on finances and whether or not they can afford to make the best of issues that will face a child they are deciding to have with those issues.

Again, that negative impact, and what you deem is in the best interests of the child, is merely subjective opinion, understandably based on your current medical and scientific knowledge. I'm sure you're also aware that downs syndrome can vary in degrees of severity, like any cognitive or intellectual disorder or physical disability, but for now we'll stick with downs syndrome.

Morality doesn't need to enter the equation as I pointed out above, as there are a number of other criteria that potential parents can gauge themselves by, and their suitability to raise a child, let alone a child with downs syndrome.

I just think that for a man who proclaims himself to be an evolutionary biologist, he has, on this occasion, yet again, allowed his own cognitive and personal bias cloud his objective judgement when he gave his subjective opinion on the matter.

Morality doesn't need to enter anything someone doesn't want to question the ethics of. But for people such as Dawkins, the person he was responding to and me for that matter morality does come into it. And that is what we are discussing. Its not about gauging parents on anything its about the morality of the decision to have a child with down syndrome rather than not have a child with down syndrome.

I think your dislike of Dawkins has clouded your judgement on the matter tbh.

Godge

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Britain's angriest man Richard Dawkins has sparked a lot of controversy with comments he has made about Down's Syndrome.

Personally I think he has stepped over the line here.

http://news.sky.com/story/1322290/richard-dawkins-sparks-downs-syndrome-row

In the article itself, there is the following:

"In a statement, the Down's Syndrome Association (DSA) said: "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."

Now Dawkins said that it should be aborted if you have the choice.

Now DSA says families should make their own choice and Dawkins says you should make your own choice but they differ on which option should be chosen. What is the issue??

Zillah

You're going to create a person. You can create a person that is healthy and has the best chance in life, or you can create a person with a severe mental and physical disability. I don't think I'd go so far as to say it is immoral to choose the latter, but it is certainly short-sighted.

Awkward Badger

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Why is it a hell of a jump?Because it's never happened before?
It has happened in Ireland in the not too distant past. Only very basic human provisions were made for children of parents who made immoral choices.

Ask anyone with a disability or a disabled person in their family and they'll tell you that disabled people have faced some of the cruelest cuts in recent budgets. Cuts in direct income, cuts in services like medical care (physio,occupational therapy etc), cuts in provision for special education sectors, cuts in grants and services that make basic life possible with a disability such as travel payment assistance. Then there have been cuts in carers pay and provisions.

There's already quite a bit of apathy in the general discourse about addressing these peoples needs, the toll taken on that sector has gone largely unheeded.Do you really think that if disability begins to be looked at as a moral choice a parent makes that there'll be an appetite for the taxpayer to continue to cough up to provide those services and improve these services?

ou're in dreamland if you don't see an inherent danger with serious consequences in making it a moral issue.

Its a hell of a jump because you are going from a discussion on the ethics of a decision about whether or not to have a child with a disability to people denying disabled children the right to a decent standard of education and medical care. When the discussion isn't about disabled children, its about pregnancy and whether or not to terminate it.

The ability to make that choice is based on a woman's right to do what they want with their own body. While I think it would be immoral to unnecessarily have a child with such a condition I don't deny them the right to do so given its their body and not mine.

How my view of the morality of the decision could ever change my or anyone else's view on human beings being afforded the standard of education and medical care the need is beyond me. In fact given I think its not in the best interest of the child to be born with such conditions I'd be even more aware of and willing to ensure those children got the education and medical care they needed.

Awkward Badger

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Dawkins is a fundamentalist noticebox. Like most religious leaders he has fanatical followers who think he's something special. Best ignored...there's usually something better on.

I sometimes wonder do people actually believe this nonsense ? Or is it just an angry outburst a public figure having the gall to have an opinion and people having the gall to listen to or agree with them ?

Are you truly deluded or just full of anger and hatred because the man that does be on the telly and the internet doesn't see the world the way you do ?

FloatingVoter

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I sometimes wonder do people actually believe this nonsense ? Or is it just an angry outburst a public figure having the gall to have an opinion and people having the gall to listen to or agree with them ?

Are you truly deluded or just full of anger and hatred because the man that does be on the telly and the internet doesn't see the world the way you do ?

Are you referring to me or Dawkins ?

Colonialboy

Godge wrote: »

In the article itself, there is the following:

"In a statement, the Down's Syndrome Association (DSA) said: "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."

Now Dawkins said that it should be aborted if you have the choice.

Now DSA says families should make their own choice and Dawkins says you should make your own choice but they differ on which option should be chosen. What is the issue??

another Dawkins apologist obfuscating the discussion by clearly ignoring what the man said and defending him based on watering down the comments he actually made....
where exactly did Dawkins say you should make your own choice?

Awkward Badger

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Are you referring to me or Dawkins ?

I'd have thought the "You" would have clarified that. Unless he's there beside you.

faceman

Dawkins always baffles me. For a man who gets angry about religious organisations who like to ram their views down our necks, Dawkins is a man who certainly likes to ram his view down our necks.

The One Doctor

He's the Jeremy Clarkson of philosophy. He says whatever he needs to say to promote his next book/show/conference.

Awkward Badger

faceman wrote: »

Dawkins always baffles me. For a man who gets angry about religious organisations who like to ram their views down our necks, Dawkins is a man who certainly likes to ram his view down our necks.

In fairness it was a post on twitter. He's not exactly taking out banner adds on boards. He was no more ramming his opinion down our necks than anyone here is ramming it down others by posting it in the public domain.

Gbear

faceman wrote: »

Dawkins always baffles me. For a man who gets angry about religious organisations who like to ram their views down our necks, Dawkins is a man who certainly likes to ram his view down our necks.

Yeah. The ****er.

He went into your home, logged onto twitter and mashed your face into the screen.

WHY DOES HE KEEP DOING THAT?!?!?!

In a free society you have to accept that others have opinions. That doesn't mean they're being rammed down your throat.

FloatingVoter

I don't give a toss about him. I've never met the man. The Atheists have their forum. The Christians have theirs. There may be a fence and they get together for weddings and funerals. I don't know. And that's where RD belongs.
Until he starts spouting rubbish about unborn babies that haven't had time to figure out whether you go with God or god. Or a drink instead.

Czarcasm

Awkward Badger wrote: »

This shíte in bold doesn't exactly help your argument.

I apologise if you misunderstood the reference and misinterpreted my comment as a personal insult. It certainly wasn't meant that way -

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_disability

An IQ of 70 or less has been the historical definition standard of quantifying intellectual disability.

And I'll state again seeing as you seemed to have missed it. The discussion was about The Ethical Dilemma. He was giving his opinion on The Ethical Dilemma. How exactly does one discuss an ethical dilemma without the mention of morality ?

Quite easily in fact -


http://www.ianwelsh.net/ethics-101-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals/


And for an evolutionary biologist, it should've been even easier, as one would be expected to know the difference if they are talking about evolution, abortion and intellectual disorders and disabilities from an objective perspective (y'know, an opinion that isn't based on his own subjective morals and what he decides for himself is or isn't immoral).

I'd honestly have to question the intellectual capacity of anyone basing their parenting decisions on the word of one man (sounds familiar, doesn't it?).

I've thought about it in rational terms. Its simply stating parents decisions in relation to their children cannot ever be immoral. Which is an absurd statement. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the issue is the decision to have a child with certain issues when they do not need to have that child and where an abortion is a valid option. Your argument is based on finances and whether or not they can afford to make the best of issues that will face a child they are deciding to have with those issues.

They can't be immoral, but they can certainly be unethical in terms of wider society's objective opinion. For society's objective opinion, we usually defer to the law, and so far, it's not been decided that it's unethical for a woman to give birth to a child with a genetic disorder. When you get down to it on an individual level, that's where it may become a question of morality, but at that level, whether it is or isn't moral or immoral, is down to the individual in question - they have the final say, no matter what you or I, or even Ricky D might consider it morally dubious, or not.

I'm not ignoring anything either. It is in fact you who are ignoring the fact that some people will choose to have a child with a disorder or disability despite, as you quite rightly point out, the availability of abortion. That decision may be based in part on their own morality, or it may be solely based on their quality of life analysis that they may be able to provide for themselves, and for the child (in terms of 'quality of life' in this context, I'm not merely talking about the financial implications, but also accounting for time and logistics involved). My point is that any potential parent would do that same analysis before even conceiving a child, let alone choosing whether to give birth or opt for an abortion. The time to be deciding on an abortion or not, should ideally be as early into the pregnancy as possible, so these possibilities should be discussed long before conception.

Morality doesn't need to enter anything someone doesn't want to question the ethics of. But for people such as Dawkins, the person he was responding to and me for that matter morality does come into it. And that is what we are discussing. Its not about gauging parents on anything its about the morality of the decision to have a child with down syndrome rather than not have a child with down syndrome.

Actually the person asked Dawkins about the ethics of their decision, not the morality of it, so both Dawkins, and yourself, with all due respect to you Badger, have misunderstood the question posed. I can understand Dawkins need to do it willfully, but I'm genuinely struggling to see why you would make the same error.

Ethics are not the same concept as morals. An ethical question deserves an ethical answer. Darwin gave an answer based on his own subjective morality, as opposed to his scientific ethical viewpoint as an evolutionary biologist.

I think your dislike of Dawkins has clouded your judgement on the matter tbh.

I had formed my opinions on the matter a long time before I ever encountered Dawkins and his merry band of myopic misanthropes.

ScumLord

sup_dude wrote: »

I think it should be down to the parents.

The thing is though the parents are making a choice for another person. While it's certainly going to be tough on parents, it's going to be hard for the person that has to live with the condition. It would be very hard to let go of pregnancy you've gotten so excited about, their emotionally invested in the child and want to bring it into the world. Could it be considered selfish to force a person (the child) to live with such a condition when they didn't have too?


Dawkins is someone who's controlled by logic, he's blunt and unforgiving. What makes it harder is deep down we know he's probably right or has valid points, it's just he won't debate or relent in arguments where he believes he's right.

I would sort of agree with him, I wouldn't call it immoral but I wouldn't force that live on someone if it could be avoided.

faceman

Awkward Badger wrote: »

In fairness it was a post on twitter. He's not exactly taking out banner adds on boards. He was no more ramming his opinion down our necks than anyone here is ramming it down others by posting it in the public domain.

The difference being that Dawkins is a public figure. Its going to garner attention.

Putting it Twitter is somewhat worse as there is no room for context and its all about sensationalism.

Awkward Badger

faceman wrote: »

The difference being that Dawkins is a public figure. Its going to garner attention.

Putting it Twitter is somewhat worse as there is no room for context and its all about sensationalism.

Yeah but on twitter only those who follow him see what he is writing and this specific thing was a reply to one person. I wasn't aware he said anything until the media started reporting it and someone posted it here. And I probably follow him on twitter.

The fact it gets attention doesn't make it Dawkins ramming it down our necks.

steddyeddy

Dawkins comes only after Darwin for his contributions to our understanding of evolution. His books the Selfish Gene and the Blindwatch maker are excellent but unfortunately he now seems to prefer being a troll.

Ave Sodalis

ScumLord wrote: »

The thing is though the parents are making a choice for another person. While it's certainly going to be tough on parents, it's going to be hard for the person that has to live with the condition. It would be very hard to let go of pregnancy you've gotten so excited about, their emotionally invested in the child and want to bring it into the world. Could it be considered selfish to force a person (the child) to live with such a condition when they didn't have too?


Dawkins is someone who's controlled by logic, he's blunt and unforgiving. What makes it harder is deep down we know he's probably right or has valid points, it's just he won't debate or relent in arguments where he believes he's right.

I would sort of agree with him, I wouldn't call it immoral but I wouldn't force that live on someone if it could be avoided.

That's a good point but I think that's getting into whether assisted suicide should be allowed.

ScumLord

steddyeddy wrote: »

but unfortunately he now seems to prefer being a troll.

I don't see how he's a troll, if people follow him on twitter just because they don't like him then that's their own problem.

sup_dude wrote: »

That's a good point but I think that's getting into whether assisted suicide should be allowed.

There's no way in hell a person with downs would be allowed to decide their own fate, they'd never be allowed an assisted suicide even if it was legal.

Ave Sodalis

ScumLord wrote: »

There's no way in hell a person with downs would be allowed to decide their own fate, they'd never be allowed an assisted suicide even if it was legal.

No, but there's no way to tell whether or not a fetus will want to live with their condition when they're older either.

steddyeddy

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see how he's a troll, if people follow him on twitter just because they don't like him then that's their own problem.

There's no way in hell a person with downs would be allowed to decide their own fate, they'd never be allowed an assisted suicide even if it was legal.

He previously described his sexual abuse as mild and the perpetrator as a mild pedophile. He is an angry man

Czarcasm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Dawkins comes only after Darwin for his contributions to our understanding of evolution. His books the Selfish Gene and the Blindwatch maker are excellent but unfortunately he now seems to prefer being a troll.

I think you may just... Actually you ARE over-estimating his contributions to our understanding of evolution there eddy.

Your opinion that he's a troll is a much more accurate assessment. He was always a troll, full of his own aggrandising self-importance.

Snickers Man

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I agree with his position. It is or should be the choice of the parent whether or not the pregnancy will result in a child and to chose to allow the pregnancy to go full term knowing the child will have to live with such a condition doesn't seem like the best option.

Two sentences here. The first is definitive and unambiguous.
The second is meandering and mealy mouthed. Is it the parent's choice to allow the pregnancy to go to full term" or must that be choice be impaired by the knowledge that the child will have Down's Syndrome?

If the basic position is that the choice lies with the parent then leave it at that. Don't bring in this judgmental and subjective qualification that their freely exercised choice is immoral.

ScumLord

sup_dude wrote: »

No, but there's no way to tell whether or not a fetus will want to live with their condition when they're older either.

I don't really know too much about downs, I'd guess they could live a pretty happy life up until they realise the limitations of their condition.

The only thing that could really hurt them as a child is other peoples reactions and seeing their friends progress faster than they do. Adulthood would be where they start hitting walls and begin to realise why and know there's probably little they can do about it without a hell of a lot of struggle. At some point in a downs persons life they're probably going to come to the realisation that their parents would have had to make a choice and they choose to put them through that life.

A fetus is pure potential, but it's just not a person in my books the way a sperm or egg isn't a person but has potential. It can't make decisions and won't be put out by others decisions, what if's are really here nor there.

My name is URL

steddyeddy wrote: »

He previously described his sexual abuse as mild and the perpetrator as a mild pedophile. He is an angry man

Between his tacit defense of pedophilia and his disrespect for women over the last couple of years, you'd almost mistake him for a bat**** crazy religious fundamentalist.

I reckon he's going senile.

Czarcasm

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't really know too much about downs, I'd guess they could live a pretty happy life up until they realise the limitations of their condition.

The same could be said of any human being.

The only thing that could really hurt them as a child is other peoples reactions and seeing their friends progress faster than they do. Adulthood would be where they start hitting walls and begin to realise why and know there's probably little they can do about it without a hell of a lot of struggle.At some point in a downs persons life they're probably going to come to the realisation that their parents would have had to make a choice and they choose to put them through that life.

Again, show me any adult that hasn't encountered this particular barrier to progression. In fact, show me any human being that hasn't encountered barriers to their growth and development. Encountering barriers and overcoming them is exactly how human beings learn, develop, grow and evolve. It's a process that's served us well for millennia.

I may have missed the memo that said we no longer adapt our environment to suit ourselves, but now we adapt ourselves to suit our environment. That seems like a backwards step in human evolution if you ask me, and smacks of a desperate need to control not just our environment, but now other people who don't fit with our road map for evolution. In fact, sounds very much like the kind of crap that bastion of bitter resentment at the lack of appreciation for his intellectual prowess Dawkins would come out with -

"Damn those stupid people for reproducing, they're totally fcuking with my master plan for humanity".

A fetus is pure potential, but it's just not a person in my books the way a sperm or egg isn't a person but has potential. It can't make decisions and won't be put out by others decisions, what if's are really here nor there.

"What ifs?" are exactly what sparked this discussion in the first place. While the foetus isn't able to make decisions, the parents make their decisions for them, until such a point as they are deemed eligible and capable and have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. That's what being a parent means. It doesn't mean "Ah shure we'll see what happens". It's best for the person if these decisions are made well in advance and plans and provisions are put in place for the person.

Awkward Badger

Snickers Man wrote: »

Two sentences here. The first is definitive and unambiguous.
The second is meandering and mealy mouthed. Is it the parent's choice to allow the pregnancy to go to full term" or must that be choice be impaired by the knowledge that the child will have Down's Syndrome?

If the basic position is that the choice lies with the parent then leave it at that. Don't bring in this judgmental and subjective qualification that their freely exercised choice is immoral.

How is it mealy mouthed ? The choice of whether or not to abort a pregnancy can only be made by the parent. That doesn't mean the decision not to cannot be immoral. The child does not exist at the time the decision is made. The decision to carry it full term is a decision to bring that child into existence and the negative aspects of the decision will only become realised once the child is born, not before. To be aware of certain things that will result in and increase the risk of negative affects for the child and still bring that child into existence is in my opinion immoral.

Now maybe there some sort of confusion on my part over the use of the word immoral as Czarcasms last post seemed to be entirely based on semantics. I used and I took Dawkins use of the word immoral in relation to an ethical dilemma to mean unethical, wrong, morally unjustifiable etc.

ScumLord

Czarcasm wrote: »

The same could be said of any human being.

It could be, I'm sure there are many people with downs that work very hard for their quality of life but it is going to be harder and no matter how hard they try there are going to be some limitations they can never overcome.

I just wouldn't want to put a person through that kind of life if I could help it, although put in that position I could see actually going through with a termination as borderline impossible, it would be one of the hardest decisions a potential parent could make. I wouldn't hold it against anyone that went through with the pregnancy but the fact is aborting and starting again avoids a lot of suffering for all those involved.

Lyaiera

Czarcasm wrote: »

The same could be said of any human being.

I think Boards can be definitive proof that that's unlikely to happen.


By my reckoning the Dawkin Fanboys hit around Page 4?


What got to me earlier was the discussion of Down's Syndrome as "wrong." "There is something "wrong" with that human." At what point does a human become not-average-human enough to be wrong?* You eventually have to draw a line that points to something about a human as "wrong." Is it just deviation from the average point? Is it when this deviation becomes noticeable that they're wrong? Is it when it begins to impair that person's life that it becomes "wrong?" Is it when that human declares themselves to be wrong? Is it a pure mathematical calculation, when that person is 7% genetically/biologically/chemically different? Is it when the person is not capable of looking after themselves? Is it when someone is not aware that they are wrong?

At what point is someone "wrong?" And what do morals have to do with it?