Dawkins controversial again.

Czarcasm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Wish we could do that next time we have an abortion referendum! 'The RCC says whatever' is still regarded as a powerful argument by some people.

The official catholic view is short, simple, absolutist, and completely bloody useless in real life which is much more complicated than black and white. The only people who can really live it are the old, celibate men who preach it and for whom it has no effect on their lives anyway.

I agree with you, hence I suggested it be left out of the discussion as it merely argues the morality point from another perspective, and what we're talking about here is Dawkins morality, which informs his opinion, and whether he misguidedly based his opinion on his morality when the question was one of ethics, not morality.

His own personal morals are just that - his own. He never should have introduced them when answering a question related to ethics, which are based on an objective world view.

The confusion and the frustration for me arises when he has not yet clarified whether he was speaking in a personal capacity as Richard Dawkins, or his professional capacity as an evolutionary biologist Dr. Richard Dawkins. He shouldn't get a free pass when he is broadcasting his opinion to such a wide audience who will undoubtedly be influenced by his opinion. We wouldn't be so forgiving of the men in frocks, so I see no reason to allow Richard Dawkins any latitude on this matter.

That may indeed be absolutionist in itself, but we're not talking about what flavour of ice-cream does Dawkins like here.

Going to need a heck of a citation for that.

Hmm, seems my info may be a little out of date (granted I cheated a little and used Google to check I wasn't completely misinformed, but here goes) -

At its 2004 Annual Meeting, The American Medical Association passed a resolution in favor of making "Plan B" emergency contraception available over-the-counter, and one of the claims in the resolution was that hormonal contraception that may affect implantation "cannot terminate an established pregnancy."[1] Similarly, the British Medical Association has defined an "established pregnancy" as beginning at implantation.[2] The legal definition in the United Kingdom is not clear.[3]

Other definitions exist. The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines "pregnancy" as "from conception until birth."[4] Definitions like this may add to a lay person's confusion, as "conception" in a scientific context may be defined as fertilization,[5][6] in a medical context can mean either fertilization[7][8] or implantation[9] but in lay terms may mean both.[10]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy

The American College of Paediatricians however states -

ABSTRACT. The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception—fertilization. This definition has been expounded since prior to Roe v. Wade, but was not made available to the US Supreme Court in 1973. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception. This statement reviews some of the associated historical, ethical and philosophical issues.

Source: http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

And their neighbours, the Canadian Medical Association states -

The Canadian Medical Association, the largest association of doctors in Canada, has redefined human life. On August 15, as reported by LifeNews, delegates to the CMA's general council voted to pass “a resolution supporting the current wording of the Criminal Code which states that a child ‘becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.’ ”

The CMA resolution is intended to support the nation’s criminal code, which defines an infant as a human being only after the infant is born.

Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/12510-canadian-medical-association-redefines-human-life

Irish legislation defines the beginning of life thusly -

The Act defines the "unborn" whose life is protected as existing from implantation in the uterus until "complete emergence ... from the body of the woman".[29] Beginning at implantation conforms to a 2009 Supreme Court judgment on the beginning of pregnancy,[30][31] rather than the Catholic view that personhood begins at conception. The aim of specifying the uterus is to avoid criminalising emergency contraception or treatment of ectopic pregnancy.[32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Life_During_Pregnancy_Act_2013

With IVF one can have the information much earlier. I don't see choosing not to implant a Downs embryo as at all immoral, but I don't see choosing to abort a Downs foetus as at all immoral either.

The whole point of this argument is that Dawkins espouses that choosing NOT to abort a foetus with Downs Syndrome might be seen as immoral. The question is - "By whom?". Dawkins then goes on to explain that it might be seen as immoral by him, given that it would be -

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.

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

Interesting to note too that his "apology" is not for what he said, but for the fact that his twitter followers had to endure "fireballs of hatred" as he so eloquently puts it. Well if you opine like an ass, people are going to call you an ass. It's only logical -

Those who thought I was advocating a kind of mob rule, when I pointed out that a majority of women, when facing this dilemma, as a matter of fact do choose abortion. Wasn’t that like saying “Hanging is right because if you took a plebiscite most people would bring back hanging.”? No, I was not advocating mob rule. I was simply suggesting that those hurling accusations of Nazism, vile, monstrous fascistic callousness etc., should reflect that their fireballs of hatred might as well be aimed directly at the great majority of the women who have actually faced the dilemma. Might that not give you pause before you accuse one individual of being a brute simply because he spells out the thinking behind the majority choice?

See this here that I've bolded? This is when he crosses from his own subjective opinion based on his own morality, into wider society's objective opinion based on ethics. It wouldn't matter if birds did it, bees did it, educated fleas did it. The point is that Richard was asked for HIS opinion, not that opinion which he claims is "the majority choice" in the Western World.

If he wanted to remain objective, at least be bloody consistent about it!

No I was referring to what many people (when they speak of it at all, which is rarely) use to dismiss miscarriage - which is far more common than abortion. Yet the anti-choice crowd tell us how precious every fertilised egg is, which certainly isn't borne* out by how society treats women who miscarried, or how we historically treated stillbirth.

* no pun intended, etc

It's impossible to know what way to address this tbh because I'm sure you're aware of the difference between a termination of a pregnancy through no fault of the woman, and the deliberate ending of the pregnancy when the woman does not want to continue her pregnancy. You're aware that the anti-choice crowd are only a very small (albeit vocal) section of society, so really, how seriously should an individual regard their opinion after they've either miscarried or had an abortion?

I know of course plenty of women do, but given that we have no hard and fast figures for society's attitudes to women who experience early termination of a pregnancy, for whatever reason, it's impossible to quantify, a bit like that whole sum of all happiness/suffering fuzzy logic argument that Dawkins uses to justify his confusion between his morality, and ethics in the wider sense as it applies to society.

Downs has nothing to do with evolution, or indeed genetics as it is not heritable, it is an error of cell development in the fertilised egg.

Hmm, that's a bit like saying cell division and development has nothing to do with evolution. It is the very basis of evolution! While there is no hereditary gene as such, the error in cell development as you call it, is considered a genetic evolution -

A new treatment for Down Syndrome mirrors genetic evolution by hacking an already-existing hack of our genes.


Like drugs, genes can be harmful at the wrong dose. Down Syndrome is caused by a gene-dose problem: patients carry three copies of chromosome 21, instead of two, giving them toxic levels of hundreds of genes that are best had only in moderation. Last week, a team of scientists made headlines with a technical breakthrough that could potentially solve the gene dose problem in Down Syndrome. They found a way to shut down the entire extra copy of chromosome 21 in cells taken from a Down Syndrome patient. The scientists hacked a natural chromosome shut-down system that is itself an evolutionary hack of a previous system.

Source: http://www.psmag.com/science/gene-hacking-and-down-syndrome-63487/

Only because you've massively over-estimated the 'suffering' of the average trying to conceive couple, the vast majority of couples not using contraception will conceive within a year. It's not like most people find it unpleasant to have sex for another month.
IVF is chancy and very expensive and few couples can afford financially or emotionally to put themselves through it indefinitely.

Well, my point was not to over-estimate, but to purposely exaggerate to show that the whole sum of all happiness/suffering concept was merely a matter of perspective. I know you're going to find it nigh on impossible to back up your claim that the vast majority of couples not using contraception will conceive within a year, as it's impossible to quantify. It really is one of those "how long is a piece of string?" kind of questions. But here's some idea at least -

How long it takes to conceive

The majority of couples get pregnant within three months. Your own timeline could be longer if you're older, have certain fertility-unfriendly habits (like smoking), or have a condition that impairs fertility.
Of all couples trying to conceive, here's about how long it takes:

30 percent get pregnant the first cycle (about one month)
59 percent get pregnant within three cycles (about three months)
80 percent get pregnant within six cycles (about six months)
85 percent get pregnant within 12 cycles (about one year)
91 percent get pregnant within 36 cycles (about three years)
93 to 95 percent get pregnant within 48 cycles (about four years)

If you try for a year without success, it's smart to seek help from a fertility specialist. You might conceive on your own if you keep trying, but in case you have an underlying fertility problem, it's best to get help so you don't waste valuable years as your biological clock continues to tick.
If you're 35 or older, time is even more precious and you should get help sooner: Set up an appointment with a specialist if you're not pregnant within six months.

Source: http://www.babycenter.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-pregnant

Now if you asked Dawkins what he thought in that scenario (i.e. an IVF foetus is found to have a major genetic or developmental defect at 20 weeks or so) I doubt his answer would be the same, it's not the same question. A couple in that situation face the real prospect of not conceiving again and that will weigh into their decision.

Dawkins wasn't asked that though, IVF never even came into the equation. He was actually giving his opinion on abortion in Ireland initially (I'm not on Twitter, but I tried to get as much of a screengrab as I could, to provide context) -





I think I'm going to call such displays of arrogance and complete abandonment of common sense a "Dawkinism", as opposed to a "Darwinism". There really should be some sort of an award for people who so spectacularly manage to put their digital foot in their mouse.

As regards the question of IVF from a financial perspective and whether couples can afford to put themselves through it, I'm not sure either yourself nor Dawkins is aware of the practical implications of "abort and try again". It's not exactly the most sensible thing in the world when someone finds out they have wanted a baby and now are faced with the prospect of having a child with downs syndrome "abort and try again". How many times would Dawkins suggest one should repeat this procedure? It would indeed seem indefinitely as he doesn't qualify his remark on that score either.

The emotional cost of IVF is disregarded if Dawkins is allowed disregard the emotional cost of "Downs Syndrome? Abort and try again. It might be seen as immoral if you don't". That kind of judgement, that kind of burden, that kind of moral blackmail...

Well, it sounds familiar, doesn't it?

I don't see any relevance to what you call 'the balance of evolution' as those affected by Downs or similar serious genetic/developmental issues rarely reproduce or rarely even can.

Here's where ethics gets hinky -

Should IVF be offered to people who have a genetic disorder, or is it a breach of their Human Rights to deny them the procedure if they can afford to pay for it? If a person without a genetic disorder is able to avail of IVF, then why not a person with a genetic disorder?

People with Cystic Fibrosis for example?

I don't expect you to answer that question, it's just one of those things to mull over. In the interests of disclosure though, my brother has Cystic Fibrosis and he would give anything to have children. He just hasn't met the right girl yet, but he lives a full life otherwise, travelling the world entering archery competitions when he's not at home lecturing at third level. He's in his 30's now and his life expectancy is unknown, as he's pretty much baffled doctors so far. My other brother wasn't quite so fortunate, but in the 19 years he did live, I mean he REALLY lived, packing in a life full of adventure and his diary right up until his death was full of upcoming appointments for the year ahead.

To say that either of them has unduly suffered though, even on balance between what they achieved and what they suffered to achieve it... I couldn't possibly quantify it, but I know their quality of life wasn't so impeded by their condition that they weren't or aren't happy. The sum of all happiness does indeed by far and above outweigh the sum of their suffering as far as they are concerned, and the legacy they have left and will leave behind them through them having lived their lives is still very much in evidence today, and will be for some time to come.

I would say the balance tips pretty heavily in terms of adding to the sum of all happiness on that score.

Like it or not it still has a huge influence on many people in this society, even among some who would no longer be believers. Also claims were made (on twitter etc. not necessarily here) that he was trying to impose his views on society, etc. so it's only fair to compare and contrast with those organisations who actually DO try to impose their view on society.

I couldn't honestly say he was attempting to impose his views on society, simply because the majority in society don't even know who Richard Dawkins is, let alone are they aware of his existence, so I can be at least thankful for that much that his views can be somewhat contained. That may be his only saving grace (honestly, no pun intended), as the majority in society are certainly aware of the Catholic Church and their views on abortion and genetic conditions. I will admit that as a Roman Catholic I have been known on numerous occasions to utter the phrase "God's plan my ass!", not too often though! :pac:

No he didn't. You're only looking at the individual, you need to consider the family and society as a whole too i.e. the sum total

In case you missed it the first time -

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.

It is Dawkins who only looked as I said at the negative consequences for the individual and failed to consider the family and society as a whole too, even when he went about clarifying his original tweet. I think that's where a lot of the frustration comes from too, is from Dawkins claiming to have made a determination based on logic, without emotion, when in fact his whole bloody point seemed to be centred on the negative consequences for the child based on the balance of an emotional weighing scales!

His response was completely emotionally charged and lacking in even the most basic logic. If he had said something along the lines of "shorter life expectancy and higher risk of medical and social issues", and balanced that with "a contribution to society which can be quantified in terms of their achievements and their assisting other people in understanding humanity", THEN I don't think half the shítstorm that kicked off would've happened.

That would have fallen well within the guidelines of his moral parameters, and ethical guidelines.

As a parent of young kids I find this idea deliciously ironic :pac:
sure, we would have had a lot less stress, expense, and pain and suffering on my wife's part, if we'd decided to have no kids but then there'd be no upside either (I'm told there is one eventually ) Sure, choosing not to have any kids is a valid choice for the individual, not so much if we all do it, but the world population is growing strongly

You're basing your argument on emotion again there though, and it's completely understandable, but what you've actually done is considered that there IS an upside, and there is an upside to the existence of human beings with genetic disorders too in terms of their contribution to our understanding of humanity. They have achieved more in out understanding of humanity than Dawkins could ever hope to achieve in TEN of his lifetimes.

I'm not usually given to allowing the "as a parent" as a valid argument when we discuss ethics in terms of all humanity (no child was ever raised in a bubble by just their parents alone), but under the circumstances, I too am a parent, came home from work the other evening and was greeted by "Hey Knobhead Senior!". A moment like that you laugh, and you cherish it. I affectionately refer to him as "my little wallet squeezer", because that's exactly what he is for the most part. He gives me a pain in my face most days, but I wouldn't give him up for anything, because on the balance of the sum total of happiness/suffering, he has added to and enriched my life immensely.

Dawkins ideology seems to take none of this into account, which is completely illogical. Human beings are not robots, we are not devoid of emotion, and Richard Dawkins is not devoid of emotion. The fact that he is capable of empathy makes him a better scientist, not merely an average one, because it makes him human, as any of us are, and for an evolutionary biologist to attempt to ignore this basic fact is like me going into the bathroom and saying I don't need toilet paper. My efforts would be severely hampered without it.

What he was comparing was not Downs child vs. no child, but Downs child vs. going on to have a non-Downs child.

I suppose what it comes down to really is your experience of a condition like Downs Syndrome, and for me, as I said in another thread, I've spent most of my life around people with varying degrees of genetic, physical, intellectual and cognitive disabilities, both children and adults -

Czarcasm wrote: »

My point being anyway that I think it's the "pity stare" that gets on people's tits, or the "freak show" stare that Quazzie was getting at earlier when he tried to say I was saying that all physically and intellectually disabled people should stay at home or be locked up, etc. That sort of high horse nonsense pisses me off, but I wasn't going to get into a pissing contest about my experience working with people with physical and intellectual disabilities. I actually have some great memories going back over 20 years from the likes of the lads in St. Raphaels (tweedle dum and tweedle dee, two of the funniest fcukers who would talk the ears off an elephant, or one chap who put my head through a transit van window because I couldn't understand that he was happy with the taytos I'd just given him, didn't want an apple! My mate said "Leave him alone now Czarcasm, he'll get frustrated... did I listen? Did I fcuk! "Ah we're grand, he won't... *BOOM*, he punched my head through the window! :pac:), to the people I work with today with various physical and intellectual disabilities and helping them to use computers, tablets and phone apps to help them communicate with the world around them and express themselves.

So for me, I wouldn't have an issue with finding out that the foetus had Downs Syndrome if my wife were pregnant, as it's something I'm used to dealing with in other children and adults, and I've seen how on the balance of happiness/suffering with regard to the welfare of the person, with regard to the welfare of society; people born with genetic conditions/disorders, physical, intellectual and cognitive impairments, they contribute by far and above more to society and the sum of all happiness, than they could ever detract or take away from it.

Dawkins, on this occasion was wrong, only he's too cowardly and too arrogant to admit it, just like the men in the black frocks who are so despised for their assinine opinions. Dawkins it seems, is no different to them.

He is only human after all.

Mardy Bum

What this comes down to is how people perceive the "self". There seems to be this idea that little John and Mary with all their personal complexities are already present in the womb from conception. As well as this there seems to be this idea that from the moment of conception they have human emotions and memories exactly like an 80 year old and therefore they cannot be aborted morally speaking. In reality this is not the case and they are merely empty vessels in terms of self formation. Now obviously some will shout straw man but for me this is what the abortion debate comes down too. Dawkins reminds me of the Network scientists in Utopia at times.

smacl

icecold1066 wrote: »

Most sane and sensible and I would call moral people when told by their doctor that the unborn child will be mentally or physically handicapped would abort the pregnancy and indeed this is in fact what occurs in the vast majority of cases.

Why not go the whole hog and insist on mandatory abortion for children who aren't born with blond hair and blue eyes? :rolleyes:

What you're advocating above is negative eugenics, which carries numerous problems, both ethical and practical. For example, eliminating genetic diversity based on perceived negative traits is not good for the race as a whole, where traits that might be considered negative in one context are positive in another. From wikipedia;

Some diseases such as sickle-cell disease and cystic fibrosis respectively confer immunity to malaria and resistance to cholera when a single copy of the recessive allele is contained within the genotype of the individual. Reducing the instance of sickle-cell disease in Africa where malaria is a common and deadly disease could indeed have extremely negative net consequences.

Then again, blond hair and blue eyes aren't going to do you much good in Africa either

smacl

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Dawkins reminds me of the Network scientists in Utopia at times.

Just finished watching it on Netflix, great fun, and as you say Dawkins would fit right in.

Dades

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well, one in ten at least anyway, in America and Europe, if Dawkins is to be believed.

One in ten pregnant women abort the foetus on finding out that it has Downs Syndrome.

I think you have that backward. Only one in 10 diagnosed babies are born.

Dades wrote: »

According to wiki "About 92% of pregnancies in Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome are terminated".

Check out these graphs of prevalence v live births from around Europe. In particular see the Irish graph.... very interesting.
http://www.eurocat-network.eu/prevdata/resultsPdf.aspx?title=F1&allanom=false&allregf=true&allrega=true&anomalies=89&winx=1416&winy=692.

Ireland being the sore thumb in those graphs. Though those results could well be skewed by due to mothers travelling overseas.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Jamie Carragher's mother had been pressured into having an abortion due to illnesses he was wrongly pre-natal diagnosed with. He went on to represent his country at the highest level, was a European champion and has given far more happiness to the world than that bitter, spiteful little bigot Dawkins ever has.

Just for clarity, there are tests now that give definitive results for DS, rather then whatever guesswork Mrs Carraher's doctors were making in the 70's.

We had our third (and final) child last year, and paid for a more basic test each time. I know what I would have wanted to do had we got a bad result, though it's impossible to say what would have actually happened now. For 6 years while we were having our kids I couldn't even read articles about DS I was in such fear that we might have one. I only read Brendan O'Carroll's amazing post-baby article after our last was born - and I had been neutered.

Brian Shanahan

Jeremiahh wrote: »

nu-atheist movement

Please elaborate the nature and structure of this movement, because as a committed atheist of at least ten years standing, I have never heard of it.

Well outside of religious fundamentalists fulminating over how anybody could think differently than them in even the most minutest matters, anyways.

Michael OBrien

Czarcasm wrote: »

Hmm, that's a bit like saying cell division and development has nothing to do with evolution. It is the very basis of evolution! While there is no hereditary gene as such, the error in cell development as you call it, is considered a genetic evolution -

No it is not. Cell division is a part of the development of that individual. Populations evolve, not individuals.
So if having Translocation DS (ONLY 4 to 5% of DS qualify) was shown to have an advantage in some way so that people with DS were more likely to reproduce than people without it, then perhaps it could be argued it would be an example of evolution. Since 95% of types of DS are not carried on genetically that also discounts it as evolutionary trait.

A mutation might be part of evolutionary processes, but that does not make it evolution, that may be a fallacy of division on your part.

DS is not any form of evolution, unlike some other mutations like the sickle cell trait.

Michael OBrien

Jeremiahh wrote: »

Easily the most rational comment made about him and his knack for stirring controversy as a major leader in the nu-atheist movement is that he really needs to understand that he's going to be seen as a crackpot if he keeps saying stupid things. This would obviously be dangerous, as disbelief is a rising, SOCIAL movement and him talking about things he doesn't understand are going to damage the reputation and beauty of denouncing religion.
To address what he actually said, perhaps it's logical from a biological standpoint. Not moral. This is not morality. If you derive your morality from books on evolution, then you are crazy. We learn morality from empathy with our fellows. I think I'm going to distance myself even further from the nu-atheist community, in hopes that humanism isn't represented by equally foolish leaders.

Dawkins is not a major leader, he is just a well known atheist. There are no 'leaders', only some celebrities. You may have heads of organisations, but they are still not 'leaders' in the sense you are pushing.
People talk about things they are not expert in all the time. He has every right to voice his opinion. Just as you have to disagree with him.
He never mentioned evolution once in his statements about this issue, did he? He repeatedly states he does not take his morality from evolution, as that process is, like gravity, amoral by default.
If you cannot live beside people that disagree with you on a topic, even after you admit his opinion is logical from a biological standpoint, then you are gonna have problems with any group. If you want a hive-mind, then you don't understand humanity.

Morality is not purely derived from empathy. A purely emotionally driven society would be as dangerous and destructive as one based only on reason. Only a balance has any chance to survive and prosper, and that requires accepting viewpoints you don't share in any debate.

Michael OBrien

Czarcasm wrote: »

Dawkins, on this occasion was wrong, only he's too cowardly and too arrogant to admit it, just like the men in the black frocks who are so despised for their assinine opinions. Dawkins it seems, is no different to them.

This is outrageous. Priests claim to be getting their morality from the creator of the universe and lay down the law, often demanding that the government make it mandatory.
Dawkins did not do this, never claimed any of this, only offered his own opinion, which he clarified in a later statement, including that he would never force anyone to do anything they did not want to do.

There is no comparison at all.
If anyone views Dawkins in that light it tells more about their own issues than it does say anything about Dawkins.

Delirium

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Please elaborate the nature and structure of this movement, because as a committed atheist of at least ten years standing, I have never heard of it.

Well outside of religious fundamentalists fulminating over how anybody could think differently than them in even the most minutest matters, anyways.

Nu-atheism relies heavily on rapping, turntables and loud guitars :P

smacl

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Please elaborate the nature and structure of this movement, because as a committed atheist of at least ten years standing, I have never heard of it.

Well outside of religious fundamentalists fulminating over how anybody could think differently than them in even the most minutest matters, anyways.

New Atheism at a guess. As an atheist for some 48 years, I'm pleased to report I'm still standing and have yet to be committed

Czarcasm

Michael OBrien wrote: »

This is outrageous. Priests claim to be getting their morality from the creator of the universe and lay down the law, often demanding that the government make it mandatory.
Dawkins did not do this, never claimed any of this, only offered his own opinion, which he clarified in a later statement, including that he would never force anyone to do anything they did not want to do.

There is no comparison at all.
If anyone views Dawkins in that light it tells more about their own issues than it does say anything about Dawkins.

The comparison is valid in that Dawkins has a wide following on Twitter and people are influenced by his opinion. He is a notable figure of influence in forming many people's world views. He's no different than religious figureheads claiming God gives them free will, but they're better people if they live their lives according to his moral standards.

He calls himself a philosopher, but he ignores the basics of Humanity when it suits him. This is why, in my opinion, he will never be held in the same regard as someone like Carl Sagan, who truly influenced society in a positive way, and truly increased the sum of all knowledge with regard to our Humanity and tthe Universe.

In your opinion that may say more about my issues than it says about Dawkins, but I'm OK with that. Dawkins wouldn't be though. He'd accuse me of directing my fireballs of hatred at him and tell me to aim therm at women having abortions instead.

Dades

Czarcasm wrote: »

He calls himself a philosopher, but he ignores the basics of Humanity when it suits him. This is why, in my opinion, he will never be held in the same regard as someone like Carl Sagan, who truly influenced society in a positive way, and truly increased the sum of all knowledge with regard to our Humanity and tthe Universe.

Although I think I agree, Carl Sagan never had a twitter account or had to contend with snippets of his conversation being examined ad nauseum on the Internet! Hard to say what historical popular figures might have fallen from grace had the world access to their every thought.

Czarcasm

Dades wrote: »

Although I think I agree, Carl Sagan never had a twitter account or had to contend with snippets of his conversation being examined ad nauseum on the Internet! Hard to say what historical popular figures might have fallen from grace had the world access to their every thought.

That's something I actually commented on in another thread recently -

Czarcasm wrote: »

Seek and ye shall find, as they say.

Tbh I'd largely agree with newmug's chronically badly worded post (sorry newmug, you're in front of the firing squad on your own for that one! ), but the reason I say that is because Ireland is still as conservative, and as liberal (don't fall off your chairs just yet!) as it always was! You're always going to graduate towards those people who share your point of view, and by that same token, you're always going to be surrounded by those that don't. That's why "keep your opinions to yourself" used be such a powerful way to silence people before the prevalence of the Internet in our lives - It means that nowadays, nobody has to keep their opinions to themselves. In some ways that's a good thing, in some ways that's a fcuking tragedy :pac:

Depends on your perspective.

As for access to the thoughts of popular historical figures, I would have loved to have seen the Facebook pages of both members of the Medici family or the Borgia family . Dawkins would positively be a choir boy in comparison! :pac:

Ralphdejones

Dades wrote: »

Although I think I agree, Carl Sagan never had a twitter account or had to contend with snippets of his conversation being examined ad nauseum on the Internet! Hard to say what historical popular figures might have fallen from grace had the world access to their every thought.

Carl Sagan stuck to science and didn't claim it was immoral not to abort a person with Downs.

Nodin

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Carl Sagan stuck to science and didn't claim it was immoral not to abort a person with Downs.

Earlier you stated 'that kind of person is "ten a penny". Do you have anything to back that up, or was it just hyperbole?

Brown Bomber

Abortion was founded on eugenics in Sangers attempt to cull the "feeble minded"' . So I'd say hardly hyperbole.

Edit: that was a response to nodin's apparently now deleted post

JackGM

I can't find his angle. It can't be reasoned debate, seeing as he's made similar comments in the same vein before and hasn't changed his method. I can only see it as attention-seeking by poking at sensitive areas, far below a man of his credentials. Is he trying to stay relevant in a world where atheism is becoming more and more popular? I do not know -_-

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Abortion was founded on eugenics in Sangers attempt to cull the "feeble minded"' . So I'd say hardly hyperbole.

Edit: that was a response to nodin's apparently now deleted post

There was no deleted post.

Brian Shanahan

SW wrote: »

Nu-atheism relies heavily on rapping, turntables and loud guitars :P

At least it's better than the Tubercolosis Bacilli's Nu Labor in any case.

Brian Shanahan

Nodin wrote: »

Earlier you stated 'that kind of person is "ten a penny". Do you have anything to back that up, or was it just hyperbole?

He was talking about one of the most prominent and most important scientists of the last fifty years (and when I pulled him up on it, he got all defensive and hurt). Don't be silly, of course he's got nothing to back it up.

Czarcasm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

He was talking about one of the most prominent and most important scientists of the last fifty years(and when I pulled him up on it, he got all defensive and hurt). Don't be silly, of course he's got nothing to back it up.

Ohh come on!

Undoubtedly Richard Dawkins has contributed to his scientific field of study, but "most prominent and important scientists of the last 50 years"? That's pushing it, and that's exactly the sort of adulation I'm talking about that Dawkins doesn't deserve.

Dawkins is more well known for his efforts to promote Atheism, and given his numerous faux pas on social media of late, I think people are beginning to see the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, and they are beginning to distance themselves from Dawkins as he is doing more damage to the public perception of Atheism than any good he has done over the last 40 years.

Akrasia

Or, maybe he's provoking conversations that are usually never had.

Currently if a woman is pregnant and the scans show that there is an abnormality, the conventional social expectation is that the morally couragous thing to do is to go ahead with the pregnancy and deal with the outcome afterwards.

There is an unspoken acceptance that it's ok to abort the pregnancy on humanitarian or pragmatic grounds, but that the truly moral people, are those brave selfless people who deliver the baby and 'give it a chance to have a life'

Have we ever had the conversation about this attitude?

Does such an unspoken convention put pressure on women to continue with pregnancies where the foetus is not viable, or there are fetal abnormalities of various degrees of severity? Is it actually morally good to deliver a baby that will suffer a great deal due to developmental abnormalities before dying young?

Is it morally good to deliver a baby that is almost guaranteed to die a few minutes or hours after the delivery?

If the convention was changed so that the morally good thing to do would be to terminate pregnancies where the foetus was deformed, would this spare a great deal of anguish for pregnant women who would otherwise feel pressured into continuing with the pregnancy with life altering consequences?

For those people who say a foetus with Downs Syndrome is just as valuable as a foetus with no developmental abnormalities, imagine there is a treatment that can be given to the embryo at an early stage that corrects the chromosomal abnormality and cures the condition before it takes effect, would you be in favour of this treatment? Remember, treating Downs Syndrome would fundamentally alter the character of the 'potential child' so that almost every aspect of it's life and personality would be different to a baby born with Downs Syndrome...

Morally, if it was possible to cure DS in an embryo, would it be immoral to deny the cure to a developing child? I certainly think so

Morally, if conducting IFV and there are 2 fertilised embryos, one with the chromosomal abnormality, and one without, would it be immoral to choose to implant the healthy embryo and not the abnormal embryo?

Morally, if you are trying to conceive a child, and your first pregnancy results in an embryo with DS, is it immoral to abort this pregnancy and try again knowing that the next pregnancy will probably not be affected by this condition? The end result of trying again is that you give birth to a healthy baby without developmental and physical disabilities that will hamper his life opportunities and possibly result in him living in residential care for much of his life...

The conversation is worthwhile and while twitter is a stupid place to have it, it is now past twitter and into the wider public discourse.

The sad thing is that the self richeous and the simple minded are happy to shut down the conversation with glib remarks without putting any thought into what the conversation is actually about.

Michael OBrien

Czarcasm wrote: »

The comparison is valid in that Dawkins has a wide following on Twitter and people are influenced by his opinion. He is a notable figure of influence in forming many people's world views. He's no different than religious figureheads claiming God gives them free will, but they're better people if they live their lives according to his moral standards.

He calls himself a philosopher, but he ignores the basics of Humanity when it suits him. This is why, in my opinion, he will never be held in the same regard as someone like Carl Sagan, who truly influenced society in a positive way, and truly increased the sum of all knowledge with regard to our Humanity and tthe Universe.

In your opinion that may say more about my issues than it says about Dawkins, but I'm OK with that. Dawkins wouldn't be though. He'd accuse me of directing my fireballs of hatred at him and tell me to aim therm at women having abortions instead.

Being a notable figure in no way compares him to priests. Yes you will have idiots out there that will be influenced by whoever they cling to, but Dawkins does not claim any such authority, unlike priests.
He never called himself a philosopher. He goes out of his way to say he is not one, does not know the lingo and admits he is only a layman in any field outside of biology, in both books and speeches. So that is a strawman right there.

Perhaps he may not be held in the same regard as Sagan, he never tried to be another Sagan. I like both for different reasons.
I bet Dawkins would not say what you are saying he would. Perhaps PZ Myers might react like that in a related issue, but Dawkins has repeatedly been polite.

I have listened to others, more level headed than you, and I agree Dawkins could have phrased it better, perhaps said that it was not immoral to abort, rather than it was immoral not to abort.

Dades

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Carl Sagan stuck to science and didn't claim it was immoral not to abort a person with Downs.

If you'd read, for example, The Demon-Haunted World, you'd know Carl Sagan consistently addressed issues of gods and spirituality, going beyond his remit as a scientist to speculate on metaphysical claims. But we just don't know Carl Sagan's opinions about everything as the thoughts of public figures could only be found on TV, books and paper publications.

And none of us can state what he would have thought about this issue, given the same tests for DS didn't even exist when Carl was a public figure.

smacl

Akrasia wrote: »

Morally, if ...

While I agree almost entirely with what you're saying, if you re-read your post you'll note that any morality you apply is dependant on context. So morally, it is fair to say we should examine circumstances on a case by case basis. I agree that the sensible option for most people in the majority of cases would be to terminate a DS pregnancy, and that morally there is a duty of care is to make the prospective parents aware of exactly what they are undertaking should they decide to go ahead and have a DS baby. I still don't believe this equates to telling them they are wrong to do so, independently of circumstance.

I do think it is dangerous to put external pressure on anyone to keep or terminate a pregnancy on grounds of morality. Once people are made fully aware of the consequences of their actions, the choice should be theirs.

kylith

Akrasia wrote: »

Currently if a woman is pregnant and the scans show that there is an abnormality, the conventional social expectation is that the morally couragous thing to do is to go ahead with the pregnancy and deal with the outcome afterwards.

I think that it's telling that, if I found I was carrying a DS foetus I would terminate because I don't want a DS child, I honestly don't know if I would tell anyone. I think I would even tell family members that I had miscarried, or that there was a FFA, and this is because I feel that I would be judged as somehow immoral, wrong, or bad because I don't want a DS child, even though I know it would be the right thing for me to do. And I wonder how many women have had DS children simply because they feel that way too.

smacl

Dades wrote: »

Hard to say what historical popular figures might have fallen from grace had the world access to their every thought.

Most of them at a guess. I have no problem greatly admiring and respecting someone's work or achievements yet still disagreeing with the views that person holds or even disliking the person themselves. Doing this separates a rational person from one of the flock of faithful, where celebrity is often its own cult. Most very driven people that I know tend to have an arrogant, selfish and/or often ruthless streak. Goes with the territory.

Ralphdejones

Dades wrote: »

If you'd read, for example, The Demon-Haunted World, you'd know Carl Sagan consistently addressed issues of gods and spirituality, going beyond his remit as a scientist to speculate on metaphysical claims. But we just don't know Carl Sagan's opinions about everything as the thoughts of public figures could only be found on TV, books and paper publications.

And none of us can state what he would have thought about this issue, given the same tests for DS didn't even exist when Carl was a public figure.

I'd put him ahead of Dawkins anyday.

recedite

kylith wrote: »

I think that it's telling that, if I found I was carrying a DS foetus I would terminate because I don't want a DS child, I honestly don't know if I would tell anyone. I think I would even tell family members that I had miscarried, or that there was a FFA, and this is because I feel that I would be judged as somehow immoral, wrong, or bad because I don't want a DS child, even though I know it would be the right thing for me to do. And I wonder how many women have had DS children simply because they feel that way too.

Yes, I think this is probably the reason Dawkins used the term "immoral" when he originally tweeted it that it would be immoral not to abort. It was more to provide some sort of "counter balance" to the generally accepted wisdom, which lacks balance. Generally he is not in the habit of making pronouncements on morality; he would tend to speak more of ethics instead. The term "morality" has religious connotations, but as they say, fight fire with fire.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

The term "morality" has religious connotations, but as they say, fight fire with fire.

Eye for an eye...

Akrasia

smacl wrote: »

While I agree almost entirely with what you're saying, if you re-read your post you'll note that any morality you apply is dependant on context. So morally, it is fair to say we should examine circumstances on a case by case basis. I agree that the sensible option for most people in the majority of cases would be to terminate a DS pregnancy, and that morally there is a duty of care is to make the prospective parents aware of exactly what they are undertaking should they decide to go ahead and have a DS baby. I still don't believe this equates to telling them they are wrong to do so, independently of circumstance.

I do think it is dangerous to put external pressure on anyone to keep or terminate a pregnancy on grounds of morality. Once people are made fully aware of the consequences of their actions, the choice should be theirs.

Of course you're right. Morality is totally context dependent (unless you're a Kantian)

I don't think it would be a good thing to put social pressure on women to abort their pregnancies if there is an abnormality. That could be just as damaging as pressuring women to carry pregnancies to term regardless of the circumstances.

In my opinion, the social pressure should be to respect the decision made by the woman in these extremely sensitive matters, without second guessing her motives or debating with her, whether or not she did the right thing.

Regardless of what the woman decides, the world will continue to turn and the rest of us will move on with our lives. The woman and her family are the ones who will have to deal with the consequences of her decision either way, and therefore, we should respect her choice

smacl

kylith wrote: »

I think that it's telling that, if I found I was carrying a DS foetus I would terminate because I don't want a DS child, I honestly don't know if I would tell anyone. I think I would even tell family members that I had miscarried, or that there was a FFA, and this is because I feel that I would be judged as somehow immoral, wrong, or bad because I don't want a DS child, even though I know it would be the right thing for me to do. And I wonder how many women have had DS children simply because they feel that way too.

Unfortunately, in this country if you were carrying any foetus you didn't want and got an abortion on that basis, people would tend to judge you left right and centre anyway. Don't know whether they'd judge you less or more if the foetus was DS or had some other serious problem.

Pro-lifers and other religious nut jobs tend to cloud the issue from a local perspective.

kylith

smacl wrote: »

Unfortunately, in this country if you were carrying any foetus you didn't want and got an abortion on that basis, people would tend to judge you left right and centre anyway. Don't know whether they'd judge you less or more if the foetus was DS or had some other serious problem.

Pro-lifers and other religious nut jobs tend to cloud the issue from a local perspective.

I think they would judge more. I think that 'I'm not ready to have a child' is, for a lot of people, more understandable that 'I want to have a child, but not this one'. There's a feeling that if you decide to have a child then you have to take what you're given, so to speak.

smacl

kylith wrote: »

I think they would judge more. I think that 'I'm not ready to have a child' is, for a lot of people, more understandable that 'I want to have a child, but not this one'. There's a feeling that if you decide to have a child then you have to take what you're given, so to speak.

Fair enough, but the moral fault there is with those who pass judgement on you, whichever decision you make, where basically it is not their business. While Dawkins' comments may have been made in an attempt to redress a perceived imbalance, they're nonetheless similarly judgemental. If you flipped the coin and decided to keep the DS baby, you wouldn't want to be judged as being immoral on that basis any more than you might currently be judged as immoral for having the abortion.

Czarcasm

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Being a notable figure in no way compares him to priests. Yes you will have idiots out there that will be influenced by whoever they cling to, but Dawkins does not claim any such authority, unlike priests.
He never called himself a philosopher. He goes out of his way to say he is not one, does not know the lingo and admits he is only a layman in any field outside of biology, in both books and speeches. So that is a strawman right there.

Moralising, reason, critical thinking, are these not all parts of philosophy? I don't think it's a straw-man when he sets himself against a philosophy that he doesn't agree with and actively tries to discourage that philosophy in other people, going so far as to question their intellect on the basis of their philosophy. For an educated man, he knows it's a cheap shot. I mean, you can make it as literal as you like in that within religious organisations there is a hierarchy and deference to authority, and Dawkins doesn't see himself that way, but undoubtedly similarities can be drawn from the way he is viewed by those who see him as an authority on philosophical matters (not his fault, I know, etc. He would never acknowledge that fact either).

He he may not be held in the same regard as Sagan, he never tried to be another Sagan. I like both for different reasons.
I bet Dawkins would not say what you are saying he would. Perhaps PZ Myers might react like that in a related issue, but Dawkins has repeatedly been polite.

"Fireballs of hatred" was his expression, not mine, and suggesting that those who disagree with his opinion should aim their fireballs of hatred at women who have abortions was his suggestion, not mine. It was classic deflection onto those who do not ask to be judged, who do not hold themselves up to be judged, who unlike Richard didn't come out and say that it would be immoral not to abort in those circumstances. "I'm only saying what everyone else is thinking" is no justification for being an ass. We might be forgiven for thinking these were the words of an immature teenager who knew nothing about the complexities of life, but a man in Richard Dawkins position? Really?

As I said, if we wouldn't excuse religious leaders for such asinine utterances, I don't see why Richard Dawkins should get a free pass. He has a responsibility in his position of influence and to suggest that he is "just a layman", laymen don't usually have such a following on social media. He has handled the matter poorly in my opinion, and continues to handle the matter poorly. Akrasia above put forward a far more reasonable framework for discussion than the blase and laissez-faire attitude that influenced Dawkins latest rather unfortunate brain fart.

I have listened to others, more level headed than you, and I agree Dawkins could have phrased it better, perhaps said that it was not immoral to abort, rather than it was immoral not to abort.

Given that your indicative baseline for who may be level headed and who isn't is Richard Dawkins, you will understand when I say I'm not going to be too perturbed by that remark. Perhaps instead of offering his layman's opinion on something which he clearly has no knowledge or understanding, Dawkins could have kept his opinions to himself.

Too much to ask? It doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.

lazygal

There are women who've undergone IVF (which I'm sure anti choicers also oppose) and then terminated for medical reasons or fatal abnormalities. There's many, many shades of grey in reproductive choices. I know myself when I would and wouldn't terminate a pregnancy and we discussed this before I had anomaly scans during my pregnancies. I'm in the lucky position of being able to afford to have choices during pregnancy. Many women are not, and the pro life solution to every single pregnancy is to remain pregnant, regardless of anything else.

Michael OBrien

Czarcasm wrote: »

"Moralising, reason, critical thinking, are these not all parts of philosophy? I don't think it's a straw-man.."

Czarcasm wrote: »

"He calls himself a philosopher, but he ignores the basics of Humanity when it suits him."

Please view both quotes and note the difference.
Everyone uses philosophy when discussing anything, it is how we work, but that does not make us philosophers, anymore than if I discuss science, makes me a scientist.
I was bringing up the fact you said "he CALLS himself a philosopher". He does not.

Czarcasm wrote: »

He'd accuse me of directing my fireballs of hatred at him and tell me to aim therm at women having abortions instead.

OK, I read the article, he does use the term "fireballs of hatred" but the context you presented in your post to me was misleading and inflamatory. His explanation is perfectly clear that all he feels he did was voice an opinion that many women with a similar dilemma held. It was also in response to SOME comments about him appealing to mob rule, which he denies. You make it out as some kind of glib response to all criticism. He never said he wanted people to hurl hatred at those facing the dilemma, only that they should reflect on why they were hitting him with hatred for agreeing with those that chose that option.

Czarcasm wrote: »

..suggesting that those who disagree with his opinion should aim their fireballs of hatred at women who have abortions was his suggestion, not mine.

Therefore you misunderstood what he was saying by posting this stuff.

Czarcasm wrote: »

..didn't come out and say that it would be immoral not to abort in those circumstances.

So you think you know their minds on the topic, if they chose to abort, do you think they considered themselves doing the right thing? Most people generally do think they are doing the right thing, in some context, when they take a serious action like abortion.
All Dawkins did was open it up for debate, rather than hide it in shadows, which is seemingly what you prefer.

Czarcasm wrote: »

if we wouldn't excuse religious leaders for such asinine utterances, I don't see why Richard Dawkins should get a free pass.

Religious leaders mandate morality from their supposed god, with a threat of hellfire if disobeyed, Richard gave his opinion, and clarified that was all it was, and that he would never force it on anyone. There is a huge difference.
Atheists don't have leaders in that sense whatsoever.

Czarcasm wrote: »

laymen don't usually have such a following on social media.

Are you serious? Just because people 'follow' his twitter feeds does not mean they 'follow' Richard like people do with priests and popes. There are loads of popular twitterers out there, some with much bigger followers, are they exempt from expressing their opinion on any area outside their own field of expertise. Is there a twitter limit perhaps? Is 1000 follows low but 1001 too much? Where does free speech end?

Czarcasm wrote: »

Dawkins could have kept his opinions to himself.

Well so much for open discourse then. While it might be a heated topic, it is great it gets aired and discussed. Far too many times people want to keep such issues under lock and key because it is uncomfortable.
Dawkins may indeed have been clumsy in how he handled it, but it's worth it if it gets discussed and perhaps people gain a better understanding of the condition than ever before. I certainly did when I looked up the condition. I might never have if Dawkins never stuck his foot in his mouth.

Dades

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I'd put him ahead of Dawkins anyday.

Likewise. Not least because Sagan wrote one of my favourite SF novels of all time.

Pherekydes

Dades wrote: »

If you'd read, for example, The Demon-Haunted World, you'd know Carl Sagan consistently addressed issues of gods and spirituality, going beyond his remit as a scientist to speculate on metaphysical claims. But we just don't know Carl Sagan's opinions about everything as the thoughts of public figures could only be found on TV, books and paper publications.

And none of us can state what he would have thought about this issue, given the same tests for DS didn't even exist when Carl was a public figure.

Sagan considered the question of abortion and he came to the conclusion that he agreed with the central tenet of Roe Vs Wade, that abortion should be freely available until the foetus reaches viability.

The test for Down Syndrome via amniocentesis has been available since the early 70s.

To wit:

Nadler and Gerbie published the important article "Role of amniocentesis in the intra-uterine diagnosis of genetic defects" in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1970. This was the real impetus in genetic amniocentesis and diagnosis, and from then on, genetic laboratories for analysis of amniotic fluid had become prevalent and indications for genetic amniocentesis included the detection of chromosomal abnormalities, X-Iinked conditons, inborn errors of metabolism, and the neural tube defects.

From http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/amniocentesis.html

Pherekydes

Addendum to the above post:

Sagan and Druyan wrote:

Since, on average, fetal thinking occurs even later than fetal lung development, we find Roe v. Wade to be a good and prudent decision addressing a complex and difficult issue. With prohibitions on abortion in the last trimester--except in cases of grave medical necessity--it strikes a fair balance between the conflicting claims of freedom and life.

The full essay is here.

MrPudding

Ralphdejones wrote: »

No he's saying it's imoral not to abort someone with Downs. Do you agree ?

That is not quite what he is saying though. What he is saying is slightly more nuanced than how you are representing it, which is understandable as you are clearly trying to make a particular point. He is saying that 'if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering' then having the child 'might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare'

So, he has not made a blanket declaration that all you parents with DS kids have been immoral in having them. He is limiting this idea to where a person's morality is based on a particular world view, even then it is not an absolute proclamation, he does not say it is immoral, only that it might be. Further, he also admits that the idea needs to be argued further and, after that argument, may need to be withdrawn completely.

I appreciate that there is a clamour to jump on anything remotely controversial that Dawkins might say, but in reality, is what he has said really that controversial? I am kind of ignoring the tweet, as 140 characters does not really allow for a nuanced argument, but if you look at it full statement on the matter it is heavily qualified and he even admits it may not stand up to scrutiny. Seriously, what is the big deal?

We all have opinions that will offend other people. Many of the anti-choice crowd think that women who have abortions are child murderers. Do they not understand that, to a woman that feels she had no choice but to have an abortion, that this is a highly offensive viewpoint? Again, this viewpoint is dependent on the particular beliefs of the person holding or arguing against it. If you believe that a handful of cells is a person then you might think abortion is murder. On the other hand, if you think that personhood requires a little more then you won't.

My own view on FFA would be offensive to some. I think it is immoral to continue a pregnancy, where there is an option not to, simply for 'closure' or some other spurious, IMO, reason. This is based on my viewpoint that quality of life is almost as important as life, I don't believe in life at any cost. I don't believe that there is anything 'in it' for a child that will only know suffering to be born. it will not know it is being held, it will not know it was loved. I personally think that these births are for the parent's benefit rather than the child's, and that offends me.

But, and this is the big point, like Dawkins and his DS view, I would not try to impose my view on someone else because, like Dawkins and his view, I appreciate that my opinion on this is based on my particular view of the world and my particular beliefs. Someone that has a different view of the world or a different set of beliefs may find my opinion abhorrent and offensive and think me a monster for even typing it, and that is fine. I take no offence from that, because I know that opinion is based on their world view.

Clearly this is a very emotive subject, and, if you feel it is directed at you, it can be very difficult not to take offence, but i think perhaps we take offence too easily. Everyone is entitled to hold an opinion, and sometimes that opinion can be offensive to some. Whilst it is difficult I think we need to try, even when it is an emotive subject, to try not to take offence so easily and look behind to the reasons for the opinion. Granted, there are some opinions that it is perfectly ok to be offended about. If you are a black person and someone tells you that they genuinely believe you are sub-human, then I think few would argue that taking offence is justified. However, where the opinion is more nuanced perhaps we need to be a little more objective.

MrP

El_Duderino 09

Fair argument Mr P.

One outstanding point though, that the main thrust in the tweet is that 'it might be immoral...' but the main thrust of the full argument is about personal choice. The main point has changed. Why the hell is that a problem? Sequence of events;
1 The guy was in conversation with someone.
2 He makes a tentative claim based on a series of premises.
3 Receives feedback.
4 Modifies his position.

This is good dialectic. IMHO the reason this is such a big deal is that some people understand ALL people are fallible while some people believe that SOME people are infallible and have authority as a result. Those in the second category think some people can't possibly be wrong and they believe there are some people who can't possibly change their position. They also tend to be religious.

Ralphdejones might not be religious but I think he is closer to the second category than the first. If you look back over the last few pages of this thread and you will notice that people who engage Ralph are at cross purposes because they have a fundamentally different outlook on What Dawkins is. One sees him as a guy with interesting opinions (not always right but interesting), the other sees him as some kind of authority figure who has the power to speak on others behalf.

It's called 'flip-flopping' in politics, and it's called recognizing when you are wrong in science.

SharkWhale

Czarcasm wrote: »

Let's ignore the Catholic view then (as many people DO actually believe this that aren't even Catholic, but that again brings morality into the discussion, and I personally would try and steer clear of it, as Dawkins should have done in order to answer objectively as an evolutionary biologist), and go with the generally accepted scientific definition of when life begins as at implantation.

Then the two scenarios are still different as the embryo has already been implanted in natural conception, and hasn't been implanted in IVF.

I'm not sure how you make the leap from early miscarriage to downs as 'natures mistakes' as that would imply that nature was sentient, when a 'mistake' in human evolution is merely a matter of perspective. Your body and the way it functions could hardly be described as an accident. You evolved that way, in the very same way as if a person is born with downs, a 'genetic mistake of evolution' is merely a matter of perspective.





I'm not sure why you're egging to bring the religious perspective into this tbh. I know we're in the A&A forum but no mention of religion was made. Dawkins didn't claim anything other than a personal view, and he based his personal view upon his morality, and he bases his morality on the balance of the sum of happiness and suffering in the world. He made no claims as to the power of eternal damnation, but he made claims if you want to look at it that way that failing to abort a downs foetus would be condemning that person to a life of eternal suffering, adding to the sum of all suffering in the world, thereby logically (by Dawkins logic anyway), reducing the sum of happiness in the world.The equation has to balance on both sides.

Now, because Dawkins only looked at the negative consequences concerning the welfare of a person born with downs, basing his opinion on his own personal morality, it doesn't follow any reasonable line of logic that he wouldn't also look at the whole person and examine whether his perception of downs as a genetic mistake in terms of the greater picture of evolution, might actually be a mistake in itself.

The only logical conclusion, that can be drawn from Dawkins point of view, is that humanity needs to stop procreating now, before we further add to the sum total of human suffering, because even attempting to procreate can be stressful, and add to the sum total of human suffering. If we do that though, human beings would eventually become extinct.

How would that sound coming from any other evolutionary biologist than Dawkins? Would you say it was complete horse manure? I certainly would.

Your horse manure, jesus what is wrong with you? not only are now completely off topic but do you now know Dawkins to be an atheist? really?

smacl

MrPudding wrote: »

That is not quite what he is saying though. What he is saying is slightly more nuanced than how you are representing it, which is understandable as you are clearly trying to make a particular point. He is saying that 'if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering' then having the child 'might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare'

Quantifying the decreased happiness and increased suffering seems extremely difficult on the one hand, and highly variable on a cases by case basis on the other. I think that having a DS child represents undertaking a severe burden on financial, social, and emotional levels, and for many may also be a source of stress. I'm less sure that this necessarily amounts to decreased net happiness either for parents or child in all cases. For example, in the case where the option is a DS baby or no baby at all for a couple that desperately want a child, the former may entail greater happiness and less suffering than the latter. In this case, to apply Dawkins' moral world view you also have to net off happiness against suffering, where in many cases suffering actually leads to increased happiness. As such, Dawkins could be seen as unreasonably judgemental even in terms of his own moral criteria, which to me seem shaky. While the 'might actually' is a small nod to context, given the original tweet, I think he needs to be a lot clearer.

Dades

SharkWhale wrote: »

Your horse manure, jesus what is wrong with you?

"Your horse manure"? Killer reply, man.

Next time address the post and not attempt (badly) to insult the poster.

MrPudding

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Fair argument Mr P.

One outstanding point though, that the main thrust in the tweet is that 'it might be immoral...' but the main thrust of the full argument is about personal choice. The main point has changed. Why the hell is that a problem? Sequence of events;
1 The guy was in conversation with someone.
2 He makes a tentative claim based on a series of premises.
3 Receives feedback.
4 Modifies his position.

This is good dialectic. IMHO the reason this is such a big deal is that some people understand ALL people are fallible while some people believe that SOME people are infallible and have authority as a result. Those in the second category think some people can't possibly be wrong and they believe there are some people who can't possibly change their position. They also tend to be religious.

Ralphdejones might not be religious but I think he is closer to the second category than the first. If you look back over the last few pages of this thread and you will notice that people who engage Ralph are at cross purposes because they have a fundamentally different outlook on What Dawkins is. One sees him as a guy with interesting opinions (not always right but interesting), the other sees him as some kind of authority figure who has the power to speak on others behalf.

It's called 'flip-flopping' in politics, and it's called recognizing when you are wrong in science.

This is always something I have found strange in politics. I don't want someone that will never change their mind on something, irrespective of the evidence laid before them. That is stupid. Inability to changes one's position in light of new information is not a virtue.

I think it is inevitable, in this case, that the thrust of the argument changed. it is hard to get everything into 140 characters. Also, as someone said earlier (Nodin?) what he said originally and what he said in the fuller explanation are not mutually exclusive. So we have people getting out of joint because he may have changed his main point, but even doing that he has not really 'filp-flopped', he is still saying the same thing.

Whilst I agree with your post, for the general point it makes, I personally don't think the 'main thrust' changed between the tweet and the fuller post. The idea that choosing to have a DS baby is immoral is not withdrawn in the fuller post. It isn't even really modified, it is simply qualified. The underlying idea is still there, he is simply saying this is how it would appear if you believed 'x', like he does, but at the end of the day it is down to a personal choice. The thrust is, IMO, still the same.

smacl wrote: »

Quantifying the decreased happiness and increased suffering seems extremely difficult on the one hand, and highly variable on a cases by case basis on the other. I think that having a DS child represents undertaking a severe burden on financial, social, and emotional levels, and for many may also be a source of stress. I'm less sure that this necessarily amounts to decreased net happiness either for parents or child in all cases. For example, in the case where the option is a DS baby or no baby at all for a couple that desperately want a child, the former may entail greater happiness and less suffering than the latter. In this case, to apply Dawkins' moral world view you also have to net off happiness against suffering, where in many cases suffering actually leads to increased happiness. As such, Dawkins could be seen as unreasonably judgemental even in terms of his own moral criteria, which to me seem shaky. While the 'might actually' is a small nod to context, given the original tweet, I think he needs to be a lot clearer.

I think this is something that is going to be extremely subjective. Whether one approves of it or not, the figures for pregnancies that are aborted after a positive DS test do, I feel, speak for themselves. I have known many DS children and grownups, some of them very close, and like all families, there are ups and downs. Unfortunately, in many cases, I think there are more downs. I personally would not have a DS child. I know I would not be able to cope. I also agree, somewhat, with what Dawkins is saying here. I don't agree with bringing a child into the world where you know it will struggle more than it necessarily needs to. I appreciate that this might sound callous, particularly to anyone that has DS or relatives that have DS, but that is the way it is, and it appears to be the overwhelming consensus on this subject, whether people want to admit it or not.

You point about a couple having trouble conceiving is a good one, I have been very lucky(?) in the sense that I think all I needed to do was look at my GF and say 'how you doin' and she seems to get pregnant, so we had no concerns there. Our concerns would have been around how we would cope and how having a DS child would effect our already born children. Thankfully, we have four healthy kids and never had to make that choice.

MrP

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

This is always something I have found strange in politics. I don't want someone that will never change their mind on something, irrespective of the evidence laid before them. That is stupid. Inability to changes one's position in light of new information is not a virtue.

I think it is inevitable, in this case, that the thrust of the argument changed. it is hard to get everything into 140 characters. Also, as someone said earlier (Nodin?) what he said originally and what he said in the fuller explanation are not mutually exclusive. So we have people getting out of joint because he may have changed his main point, but even doing that he has not really 'filp-flopped', he is still saying the same thing.

Whilst I agree with your post, for the general point it makes, I personally don't think the 'main thrust' changed between the tweet and the fuller post. The idea that choosing to have a DS baby is immoral is not withdrawn in the fuller post. It isn't even really modified, it is simply qualified. The underlying idea is still there, he is simply saying this is how it would appear if you believed 'x', like he does, but at the end of the day it is down to a personal choice. The thrust is, IMO, still the same.



I think this is something that is going to be extremely subjective. Whether one approves of it or not, the figures for pregnancies that are aborted after a positive DS test do, I feel, speak for themselves. I have known many DS children and grownups, some of them very close, and like all families, there are ups and downs. Unfortunately, in many cases, I think there are more downs. I personally would not have a DS child. I know I would not be able to cope. I also agree, somewhat, with what Dawkins is saying here. I don't agree with bringing a child into the world where you know it will struggle more than it necessarily needs to. I appreciate that this might sound callous, particularly to anyone that has DS or relatives that have DS, but that is the way it is, and it appears to be the overwhelming consensus on this subject, whether people want to admit it or not.

You point about a couple having trouble conceiving is a good one, I have been very lucky(?) in the sense that I think all I needed to do was look at my GF and say 'how you doin' and she seems to get pregnant, so we had no concerns there. Our concerns would have been around how we would cope and how having a DS child would effect our already born children. Thankfully, we have four healthy kids and never had to make that choice.

MrP

As logical Human Beings we want to be as 'perfect as possible' ourselves and we have the same desire for our children.
However, because we live in a Fallen and therefore hazardous World ... our relative 'perfection' (and that of our children) can be 'impacted' in myriad ways. If or when it is 'impacted' ... the solution is surely not to reject ourselves or our children?
The same also surely applies to any society worthy of the name 'civilized'.
I'd have thought that such sentiments are held by practically everyone ... irrespective of their being persons of faith ... or none.
Indeed, without being presumptuous, I think you also share these sentiments.

Perhaps there is something we can agree on after all???

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

However, because we live in a Fallen and therefore hazardous World ...

I find it laughable when religionists decry the world we live in, the one they claim their perfect god created.

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I find it laughable when religionists decry the world we live in, the one they claim their perfect god created.

I'm not decrying the World ... and I'm very grateful and happy to have been born into it.

However, it shows all of the signs of being 'Fallen' ... and the blame for that lies with Adam and Eve ... and not God.

Equally, despite our now-fallen nature, all Humans have the potential for great love and great achievements ... and that greatly inspires me.

On the substantive point at issue ... do you agree with me that we should love, respect and support people who are less 'perfect' than we are ... and we should never suggest deliberately killing them, just because they are not as 'perfect' as we (and they) might wish them to be?