The Morality of Reproduction (Dawkins & Down Syndrome)

Awkward Badger

You are probably aware of the controversy surrounding a statement by Richard Dawkins today where he stated it was immoral not to abort a pregnancy when the foetus had down syndrome.

There's two points I'd like to discuss in relation to this. Firstly, the point he made and whether or not people see it as immoral to carry the pregnancy full term when an alternative option is available in having an abortion and try again. The argument as I take it is that it would be immoral to bring a being into existence when that being would face certain difficulties due to conditions it may have.

Secondly, the question of whether reproduction itself is morally justified. This one might seem a bit odd but its something I've been trying to get my head around. I can't get away from the view that its an option to have a child. Nobody necessarily needs to have a child. Its done for mostly selfish reasons, people want children. But to me its such a huge thing, to bring a self aware being into existence and to do so simply because you want a child. Its a tough thing for me to personally justify tbh and given Dawkins comments I thought it might be a good time to broach the subject.

In relation to the above I don't think the species as a whole should come into it. This is simply the morality of the decision we are discussing. I guess one point either makes or breaks the next. If it is always morally justified for a human to reproduce then what limits can be placed on that ? Then again if its not always morally justified to have a child due to the difficulties it will face then how can having any child be morally justified as there is no guarantee it will not face difficulties in some form or another ?

Black Swan

Awkward Badger wrote: »

The argument as I take it is that it would be immoral to bring a being into existence when that being would face certain difficulties due to conditions it may have.

I doubt that there is such a thing as a perfect human being at conception, during prenatal development, and at birth. There seems to be great variety associated with differential reproduction. Such variety may contribute to the adaptation of the species to environmental change. This notion you mention falls into the domain of eugenics, using today's measurements to detect and eliminate down syndrome. If this were adopted as a group norm, religious edict, or state policy, what is to prevent extending this rationale to other variations from today's normal distribution of human characteristics, and perhaps threatening the variety typical of a species and its ability to adapt to environmental change? Eugenics is a scary proposition and problematic in its practical application to a population (regardless if you base it on morality or science).

ONLY ANECDOTAL: Having said this, if I decide to have children someday, I will more than likely have them way before approaching age 40, where there appears to be an increased incidence of down syndrome and other age-related problems. I will also have all the screening tests available at the time, including blood tests for PAPP-A and HCG, ultrasound, amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling, and cordocentesis. If the child is down syndrome, or some other very serious condition, more than likely I would sadly terminate pregnancy. I see this as a case-by-case PERSONAL decision, not one of compliance to some group norm, religious edict, or political mandate. And if the state gets in the way, I will vacation in southern France and visit my relatives.

Of course this raises the issue of whom owns the conception, pregnancy, and future child? I would expect that the father would want to be involved in the decision making, which seems fair (Obviously, the unborn child cannot be consulted). Then again, there may be long term consequences for our relationship should we be in strong disagreement. Life decisions can be difficult, and it's easy to distance oneself now, and be coldly objective in this discussion (and ignore the very personal feelings that would occur if such a decision were to be made by me in the future).

Awkward Badger wrote: »

...then what limits can be placed on that ?

Does this imply a religion and/or the state stepping in and placing limits on reproduction? With population growth out of control, the PRC attempted the One Child policy not too long ago, with problematic consequences for this population distribution. It appears that their culture prefers males over females when forced to one child per couple, and there is evidence of female abortions and infanticide to have that one male. The PRC population pyramid evidences a disproportion of males to females during the impact of this state policy, and now there is a substantial surplus of males. What will be the consequences?

Awkward Badger

Black Swan wrote: »

I doubt that there is such a thing as a perfect human being at conception, during prenatal development, and at birth. There seems to be great variety associated with differential reproduction. Such variety may contribute to the adaptation of the species to environmental change. This notion you mention falls into the domain of eugenics, using today's measurements to detect and eliminate down syndrome. If this were adopted as a group norm, religious edict, or state policy, what is to prevent extending this rationale to other variations from today's normal distribution of human characteristics, and perhaps threatening the variety typical of a species and its ability to adapt to environmental change? Eugenics is a scary proposition and problematic in its practical application to a population (regardless if you base it on morality or science).

Does it fall into the domain of eugenics though ? Would eugenics need an orchestrated effort to change the genetics of a population ? I don't know for sure but I recall Dawkins making the point that most foetuses with down syndrome in Europe and the US are aborted. So I guess it may already be the norm in that regard in states with abortion. Personally I don't think it does fall into that domain though as its not an attempt (at least not as far as the parent will see it) to alter the genetics of the population. Simply a choice as to whether or not to continue with the pregnancy knowing what the result will be.

ONLY ANECDOTAL: Having said this, if I decide to have children someday, I will more than likely have them way before approaching age 40, where there appears to be an increased incidence of down syndrome and other age-related problems. I will also have all the screening tests available at the time, including blood tests for PAPP-A and HCG, ultrasound, amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling, and cordocentesis. If the child is down syndrome, or some other very serious condition, more than likely I would sadly terminate pregnancy. I see this as a case-by-case PERSONAL decision, not one of compliance to some group norm, religious edict, or political mandate. And if the state gets in the way, I will vacation in southern France and visit my relatives.

Would your personal reasons be based in any part of ethics or morality ? I take the point that its a personal decision but is that simply because its not a decision anyone can take away from someone rather than a decision that's not right or wrong ? I'll try clarify that. I mean if the option of abortion is there then its only that, an option. It cannot be forced on anyone. And if someone decided to go ahead with the pregnancy it would be the decision that would be wrong, with the consequences of that decision only being realised when the child is born. So as far as morality, its a bit confusing as usually if its deemed immoral its something that people think can and should be stopped. So in this circumstance does that mean it cannot be immoral or it cannot be stopped even if it is ?

Of course this raises the issue of whom owns the conception, pregnancy, and future child? I would expect that the father would want to be involved in the decision making, which seems fair (Obviously, the unborn child cannot be consulted). Then again, there may be long term consequences for our relationship should we be in strong disagreement. Life decisions can be difficult, and it's easy to distance oneself now, and be coldly objective in this discussion (and ignore the very personal feelings that would occur if such a decision were to be made by me in the future).

Indeed it is easy to distance oneself in discussion and quite another thing to be faced with these decisions in reality. For the sake of discussion though perhaps its better to be coldly objective rather than emotive. As for who "owns the conception, pregnancy and future child" I think its the pregnant woman and it would be her prerogative as to how much input the other parent has. Again you cannot force the woman to give control of her body to someone else. Yet to not give any say to the father would be wrong and to expressly do something against their wishes to spite them would be immoral. Which is a similar to the main issue in some respect with there being nothing that can be done without crossing that line in the other direction but the action could be deemed to be immoral.

Does this imply a religion and/or the state stepping in and placing limits on reproduction? With population growth out of control, the PRC attempted the One Child policy not too long ago, with problematic consequences for this population distribution. It appears that their culture prefers males over females when forced to one child per couple, and there is evidence of female abortions and infanticide to have that one male. The PRC population pyramid evidences a disproportion of males to females during the impact of this state policy, and now there are a substantial surplus of males. What will be the consequences?

I think states will try to influence it to some degree anyway. You mention China's one child policy which was an extreme example. You could argue also that child benefit restrictions will have an influence on the number of children people will have or at least be set with an interest in affecting it. But that's getting somewhat away from the issue I think.

Black Swan

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Does it fall into the domain of eugenics though ? Would eugenics need an orchestrated effort to change the genetics of a population ?

"Eugenics is the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage" (Francis Galton, July 1904, American Journal of Sociology, Volume 10, No 1). Galton gave a very broad view of eugenics that included both nature and nurture. Furthermore, he contended that morality should not be considered, in that it results in "entangling ourselves with the almost hopeless difficulties they raise."

diveout

Black Swan wrote: »

"Eugenics is the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage" (Francis Galton, July 1904, American Journal of Sociology, Volume 10, No 1). Galton gave a very broad view of eugenics that included both nature and nurture. Furthermore, he contended that morality should not be considered, in that it results in "entangling ourselves with the almost hopeless difficulties they raise."

I'm sorry I can't reference a link here, but I recall seeing a Fox News story where someone called a very well known health clinic and offerred to donate a lot if money of the donation could be allocated to black women who needed abortions, and this very well known health clinic said "yes, of course!"

Awkward Badger

Black Swan wrote: »

"Eugenics is the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage" (Francis Galton, July 1904, American Journal of Sociology, Volume 10, No 1). Galton gave a very broad view of eugenics that included both nature and nurture. Furthermore, he contended that morality should not be considered, in that it results in "entangling ourselves with the almost hopeless difficulties they raise."

I'm not sure the decision of an individual parent not to have a child with down syndrome is a decision based on improving the quality of a race though. Particularly when its based on moral reasons relating to the potential individual. I guess outside influences that may lead them to that decision could be construed as that but not the decision itself. But then again the ability to have an abortion itself could be viewed as eugenics in that regard.

He has a very defeatist view on the morality of it.

The Corinthian

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Secondly, the question of whether reproduction itself is morally justified.

This has seriously been weighing on your mind, given your recent threads here.

Black Swan wrote: »

Eugenics is a scary proposition and problematic in its practical application to a population (regardless if you base it on morality or science).

I'm just going to come out and admit that I strongly favour eugenics in principle.

There's a reason why we naturally have miscarriages and child mortality, which is that natural selection weeds out defective traits and genes that could otherwise end up being passed on and ultimately disadvantage the species in the long term.

Modern medicine has meant that we can and do cheat natural selection and traits that would otherwise be kept at bay are reentering the gene pool and spreading within it. This leaves us in a situation whereby we have become hyper dependent on our technology, to even survive - and so were we to lose it, we may not even be able to live without it, given our dependency.

For example, consider a long term scenario whereby multiple congenital issues that would otherwise be screened out by child mortality, end up being passed on. Eventually, almost everyone would end up with one or more of these conditions and require technology to essentially keep them alive. Suddenly, technology vanishes for some reason - what happens? At the very lease a catastrophic 'culling' of the population. At worst a drop in the population where a viable gene pool become difficult to maintain. Homo Sapien RIP.

This is all before one considers the Malthusian question of population control.

Given this, I did say in principle, because how do you manage an effective eugenics programme without becoming, for lack of a better word, a Nazi about it? Down Syndrome is something that even if most people would not like to admit it publicly, would not oppose seeing eugenics applied to, but it can also far too easily end up being applied to minor conditions or even traits that are ideologically rather than medically motivated.

So while in principle I support the idea, I don't know if in practice it would be desirable.

diveout

Art and science compensate for what nature misses. If 1/3 of pregnancies result in miscarriages due to chromosomal abnormalities one could argue that amnio is man's way of compensating for what nature misses.

This is already very much in practise. You don't really see downs syndrome in the US for example.

And yes it is a slippery slope, the more reproduction comes to center around choice. There are people sending their samples to be spun so they can have a boy or a girl etc.... soon we can check if one is missing an ovary or some other imperfection.

Awkward Badger

The Corinthian wrote: »

This has seriously been weighing on your mind, given your recent threads here.

I just can't get my head around it, although the purpose of life thread was a different issue. As it is though I see it as follows:

If the view of morality is that it is immoral to knowingly, needlessly and for personal wants do something to increase the suffering or risk of suffering for another being. Then it would be wrong to have a child with down syndrome when the option was available to have a child without down syndrome.

But this involves accepting as moral having a child in the first place. Which given the criteria for judging the first act as immoral surely means having a child at all is immoral as its knowingly and needlessly causing and increasing the risk of suffering for a human being. Surely the best thing is that there is no being at all. No being, no problem.

The conclusion doesn't seem particularly satisfying to me but the only option to avoid having to deal with the morality is ignore the morality. But it doesn't seem like a very valid argument to simply ignore the morality because the conclusion isn't to your liking.

robp

Black Swan wrote: »

If the child is down syndrome, or some other very serious condition, more than likely I would sadly terminate pregnancy. I see this as a case-by-case PERSONAL decision, not one of compliance to some group norm, religious edict, or political mandate. And if the state gets in the way, I will vacation in southern France and visit my relatives.

It is very sad when people make this sentiment. Inevitable people who make this statement have very little or no interaction with Down Syndrome. The reality is people with Down Syndrome can have an excellent quality of life easily matching the average person. Trying to impose our standards of quality is forcing one's will on another person is unethical. It is no more a 'personal decision' then a hypothetical man smothering to death his inconveniently brain damaged wife who requires a carer.

Valmont

When Dawkins says it is immoral not to abort a foetus with Down's Syndrome, by what standard of morality is he making his judgment?

Richard Dawkins wrote:

"IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"

Perhaps we can gain an insight into his thinking from this quote? (I haven't verified if he actually said this, please let me know if I'm wrong).

Awkward Badger

robp wrote: »

It is very sad when people make this sentiment. Inevitable people who make this statement have very little or no interaction with Down Syndrome. The reality is people with Down Syndrome can have an excellent quality of life easily matching the average person. Trying to impose our standards of quality is forcing one's will on another person is unethical. It is no more a 'personal decision' then a hypothetical man smothering to death his inconveniently brain damaged wife who requires a carer.

Given you have no knowledge of what interaction Black Swan or anyone else for that matter has with down syndrome I think that statement is utterly pointless.

The reality is that down syndrome is a genetic disorder that increases the risk of a lot of different health and social issues. Nobody has mentioned imposing standards of quality in this thread, this thread is in relation to whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy. Yet I suppose you miss the irony of making that statement to argue for bringing into existence a being with such a condition because of your own view ? Imposing such a condition and all that goes with it on another being is a choice the parent makes to force their will on another human being.

Your last statement is why its so difficult to discuss these issues and why I started a thread here to get away from AH. People cannot seem to control their emotions in relation to the topic and discuss it in a reasonable way.

Awkward Badger

Valmont wrote: »

When Dawkins says it is immoral not to abort a foetus with Down's Syndrome, by what standard of morality is he making his judgment?

Perhaps we can gain an insight into his thinking from this quote? (I haven't verified if he actually said this, please let me know if I'm wrong).

Might be better to gain an insight into his thinking from his recent explanation perhaps.

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.

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

Valmont

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Might be better to gain an insight into his thinking from his recent explanation perhaps.

The problem I have with that explanation is that it accepts, allows, or even encourages the causing of unhappiness in particular individuals so long as the majority remains 'happy' - it's nothing more than crude collectivism. Moreover, I find it grossly arrogant for him to presume that somebody with Down's Syndrome is subtracting from the sum-total of human happiness just by existing.

Awkward Badger

Valmont wrote: »

The problem I have with that explanation is that it accepts, allows, or even encourages the causing of unhappiness in particular individuals so long as the majority remains 'happy' - it's nothing more than crude collectivism. Moreover, I find it grossly arrogant for him to presume that somebody with Down's Syndrome is subtracting from the sum-total of human happiness just by existing.

I don't follow. He clarified that by "immoral" he meant that he personally would feel that between the two choices of continue with the pregnancy or abort and try again that to proceed with the pregnancy given the condition would be wrong due to the increased risk of "suffering" if the child that the parents will have anyway has down syndrome rather than not.

How does this encourage the causing of unhappiness in particular individuals as long as the majority are happy ? And what is arrogant about viewing an increased risk of health and social issues as an increased risk of suffering in comparison to an individual who would have a lower risk of having those issues ?

And while I take responsibility for using Dawkins quote as the basis for this thread I meant for it to be on the issue rather than about him personally.

diveout

Valmont wrote: »

When Dawkins says it is immoral not to abort a foetus with Down's Syndrome, by what standard of morality is he making his judgment?



Perhaps we can gain an insight into his thinking from this quote? (I haven't verified if he actually said this, please let me know if I'm wrong).

Can I ask you what is Dawkins talking about?

Why would he or one trust test tube babies more than natural selection?

Awkward Badger

diveout wrote: »

Can I ask you what is Dawkins talking about?

Why would he or one trust test tube babies more than natural selection?

He was talking about the possibility of and fear of discussing the morals of eugenics as far as I see. Not actually discussing the arguments for or against.

As for why someone would trust test tube babies more than natural selection I guess you'd have to clarified what you mean by "trust". If you mean why would it be more desirable to someone to control aspects of a child rather than let whatever happens happen then I guess the reasons could be numerous. Health would be one pretty convincing argument in the context of this discussion.

diveout

Awkward Badger wrote: »

He was talking about the fear of discussing the morals of eugenics as far as I see. Not actually discussing the arguments for or against.

As for why someone would trust test tube babies more than natural selection I guess you'd have to clarified what you mean by "trust". If you mean why would it be more desirable to someone to control aspects of a child rather than let whatever happens happen then I guess the reasons could be numerous. Health would be one pretty convincing argument in the context of this discussion.

He's a scientist. Nature is not moral. I wonder why he is getting moralistic about things.

I used to babysit for test tube babies. They came from one of these imported uber baby sperm banks. Donors were nobel prize winners, olympic athletes, etc. The third child had severe autism. Family blamed the MMR. I don't think we have mastered this enough to trust it over the natural selection process. And is Dawkins expecting people to abort babies they spent 20k trying to conceive?

Awkward Badger

diveout wrote: »

He's a scientist. Nature is not moral. I wonder why he is getting moralistic about things.

I used to babysit for test tube babies. They came from one of these imported uber baby sperm banks. Donors were nobel prize winners, olympic athletes, etc. The third child had severe autism. Family blamed the MMR. I don't think we have mastered this enough to trust it over the natural selection process.

Nature isn't but humans are and its human decisions we are talking about. The morality came into it upon someone raising the question of the ethical dilemma of whether or not to abort a down syndrome foetus.

Just because its not guaranteed to be faultless doesn't mean its less trustworthy in that regard than letting nature takes its course. Even with some children being born with health issues I'd imagine the rate would be far lower than regular births.

Natural selection for humans in the modern world is also an interesting topic. Its not as it once was when those ill suited failed to reproduce and this led to changes to better suit the environment. There are few natural restrictions of people's capability to reproduce in relation to our environment as it stands.

Edit:

And is Dawkins expecting people to abort babies they spent 20k trying to conceive?

I can't answer that I'm afraid. Depends on whether or not the parents want a health baby or a healthy bank balance.

Valmont

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I don't follow. He clarified that by "immoral" he meant that he personally would feel that between the two choices of continue with the pregnancy or abort and try again that to proceed with the pregnancy given the condition would be wrong due to the increased risk of "suffering" if the child that the parents will have anyway has down syndrome rather than not.

I don't think replacing moral prescriptions with 'I personally feel' clarifies anything - it just muddles the issue further.

Awkward Badger wrote: »

How does this encourage the causing of unhappiness in particular individuals as long as the majority are happy ?

I apologise, I wrongly attributed that quote to Dawkins when it from somebody else entirely. However if one's moral code is based on the happiness of the majority as an end then the unhappiness of a minority as means is fully justified.

Awkward Badger wrote: »

And what is arrogant about viewing an increased risk of health and social issues as an increased risk of suffering in comparison to an individual who would have a lower risk of having those issues ?

It's arrogant to assume a person with Down's Syndrome is 'unhappy' by the fact of their existence. Happiness is entirely subjective and our only way of perceiving its existence is through self-reporting - what exactly goes into a particular person's happiness in terms of values, motivations, material conditions is anyone's guess. The arrogance lies in pretending to know all of these factors. You could argue that a young child with cystic fibrosis has nothing to be happy about but they might tell you otherwise - and who are you to disagree?

The Corinthian

robp wrote: »

It is very sad when people make this sentiment. Inevitable people who make this statement have very little or no interaction with Down Syndrome. The reality is people with Down Syndrome can have an excellent quality of life easily matching the average person.

Would you the support selective termination, if a means to gauge which would be able to "have an excellent quality of life easily matching the average person" was available?

Trying to impose our standards of quality is forcing one's will on another person is unethical. It is no more a 'personal decision' then a hypothetical man smothering to death his inconveniently brain damaged wife who requires a carer.

We impose our standards on others all the time. Civilization is all about the trade off between freedom and the greater good.

diveout

I am half cringing and half laughing at Dawkin's statement considering that he is severely disabled himself.

Valmont

The Corinthian wrote: »

We impose our standards on others all the time. Civilization is all about the trade off between freedom and the greater good.

Civilisation is based on peace, cooperation, and the non-violent resolution of conflict. Whenever the 'greater good' has been enshrined by a ruling elite as the one true goal of a society, civilisation collapses in short order. See the Khmer Rouge's Year Zero, Mao's Great Leap Forward, or any other bloody communist experiment for evidence.

Awkward Badger

Valmont wrote: »

I don't think replacing moral prescriptions with 'I personally feel' clarifies anything - it just muddles the issue further.

Its a clarification of it being his own personal moral stance rather than any attempt to judge and influence others I guess. This whole moral argument is fairly muddled anyway.

I apologise, I wrongly attributed that quote to Dawkins when it from somebody else entirely. However if one's moral code is based on the happiness of the majority as an end then the unhappiness of a minority as means is fully justified.

Is it based on the happiness of the majority though ? I took it to be a personal philosophy to limit your own contribution to suffering rather than the view that overall anything can be justified if it benefits the majority.

It's arrogant to assume a person with Down's Syndrome is 'unhappy' by the fact of their existence. Happiness is entirely subjective and our only way of perceiving its existence is through self-reporting - what exactly goes into a particular person's happiness in terms of values, motivations, material conditions is anyone's guess. The arrogance lies in pretending to know all of these factors. You could argue that a young child with cystic fibrosis has nothing to be happy about but they might tell you otherwise - and who are you to disagree?

I don't think he's assuming anything nor am I in viewing it similarly. Its simply a decision based on risk. I am well aware someone with down syndrome can live a happy life and a happier life than some others without the condition in some situations. But its not a view of any individual or any life or people having nothing to be happy about. Its a view that the risk is greater of a foetus with down syndrome once it develops onto a child having negative medical and social issues than it is for a foetus without down syndrome.

The Corinthian

Valmont wrote: »

Civilisation is based on peace, cooperation, and the non-violent resolution of conflict.

Says who?

Whenever the 'greater good' has been enshrined by a ruling elite as the one true goal of a society, civilisation collapses in short order. See the Khmer Rouge's Year Zero, Mao's Great Leap Forward, or any other bloody communist experiment for evidence.

So, you feel that all law, taxation and regulation is the product of an oligarchic conspiracy? If not, you'll need to try harder to rebut my point.

Valmont

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Its a clarification of it being his own personal moral stance rather than any attempt to judge and influence others I guess. This whole moral argument is fairly muddled anyway.

I agree - as long as we accept that morality is by its very nature subjective I think it is hard to have a meaningful discussion.

Awkward Badger

Valmont wrote: »

I agree - as long as we accept that morality is by its very nature subjective I think it is hard to have a meaningful discussion.

Its hard but its not impossible I don't think, although I have a headache now thinking about it. As I said in an earlier post I personally struggle with getting my head around this topic but I have come to somewhat of a conclusion. And its agreement with Dawkins view that he expressed in this recent furore but on the back of that I'm forced to yet again face the question of whether reproduction itself falls victim to the same logic.

And tbh with this thread I was only seeking somewhat of a coherent argument as to why the act would or wouldn't be immoral. Most of those opposing Dawkins view seem to be doing so by dismissing his view of it being immoral, his right to call it immoral and in the AH thread they seem to be just dismissing him personally rather than arguing why it was morally justified. And while I know it's taking somewhat of a liberty to expect a rebuttal in line with the view of morality used to form the conclusion when everyone may not agree with that. I still hoped there could be some way forward without it stalling on "Each to their own".

seamus

diveout wrote: »

I am half cringing and half laughing at Dawkin's statement considering that he is severely disabled himself.

I wasn't aware of this. In what way is he severely disabled?

I guess looking at this objectively, he's coming from a semi-logical position. At one end of the scale you have children with fatal foetal abnormalities, where it's pretty clearly immoral to bring the child to life when they will die quickly and spend their only hours suffering. In that regard, the most humane act is to not force the child to experience life at all.

Then you could reasonably move the bar towards people who won't die immediately, but will not live an enjoyable life (or will not "live" in any honest sense of the word).

And then logically as you move this bar, you encounter Down's syndrome. And what quality of life a person with Down's can have is a matter of much debate, and is massively dependent on so many factors, not least the severity of the condition, but also the ability of the carers to cope.
Is it a reasonable position to hold that knowingly carrying Down's to term is "immoral". Yes, I think so. Do I agree with it? No. But then morality is not absolute. It's relative. And I can even appreciate the logic behind holding such a position.
A surprising amount of parents/siblings/carers of those with Down's actually hold a similar position, having seen this question come up in other arenas.

Whether this counts as "eugenics", I don't believe so. Going by the definition posted earlier, the aim of eugenics is to "improve" the gene pool (whole other discussion on how one would define that). Down's by its very nature is more-or-less incapable of "tainting" the gene pool since the vast majority are sterile. Often the offspring are likewise sterile or otherwise fail to procreate (i.e. die before sexual maturity), but the sample size on this is very small. Either way, since Down's people do not represent a "threat" to the "purity" of a gene pool, then from a eugenics point of view it makes no odds whether a Down's person is born or not.

diveout

seamus wrote: »

I wasn't aware of this. In what way is he severely disabled?

I was getting him confused with someone else. Sorry. My mistake.

Awkward Badger

diveout wrote: »

I was getting him confused with someone else. Sorry. My mistake.

And who was it you were cringing and chuckling at ?

Not too many public figures with severe disabilities who would cause this much controversy with statements. You didn't perchance mistake "Dawkins" for "Hawking" did you ? And were cringing and laughing at the thought of someone with motor neuron disease having a view on the morality of having a child with health issues ?

What exactly is it about someone who's disabled that makes it so embarrassing and funny that they would have such a view anyway ?

Valmont

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I still hoped there could be some way forward without it stalling on "Each to their own".

Until you may be willing to accept that objective standards of morality exist then this is as far the discussion can go unfortunately. I've been thinking about a thread on this topic for some time and have held back only because the philosophy forum sees so little traffic. Maybe this is the place for it.

Awkward Badger

Valmont wrote: »

Until you may be willing to accept that objective standards of morality exist then this is as far the discussion can go unfortunately. I've been thinking about a thread on this topic for some time and have held back only because the philosophy forum sees so little traffic. Maybe this is the place for it.

I'm not unwilling to accept that there may be objective standards of morality. In fact I'm very interested to hear what they or anyone else's personal moral view may be in relation to this issue.

As I said in my previous post a lot of energy has gone into dismissing Dawkins view but attempts to actually argue against it seem to be pretty lacking.

The Corinthian

seamus wrote: »

Whether this counts as "eugenics", I don't believe so. Going by the definition posted earlier, the aim of eugenics is to "improve" the gene pool (whole other discussion on how one would define that). Down's by its very nature is more-or-less incapable of "tainting" the gene pool since the vast majority are sterile. Often the offspring are likewise sterile or otherwise fail to procreate (i.e. die before sexual maturity), but the sample size on this is very small. Either way, since Down's people do not represent a "threat" to the "purity" of a gene pool, then from a eugenics point of view it makes no odds whether a Down's person is born or not.

Personally I agree that terminating those foetuses that are affected with Downs syndrome is not an exercise in eugenics. As you point out, many are sterile - actually mainly men, females (while impaired) are generally not. Either way, it is medically much less evasive to sterilize those that are not already sterile; termination is unnecessary.

Termination, as a choice (92% of European foetuses detected to have the condition) is not done for any reasons of genetic social responsibility, but because of the likely consequences to the parents and any other children they may have. I've seen in friends the devastating economic and social consequences of having to care for such a person - and not just the parents; who do you think ends up caring for them after the parents die? Not all those afflicted have short lives. So I can understand why many would opt for termination, but it's certainly not for the good of the gene pool that they do so.

I would nonetheless take exception to your use of biased terms when describing eugenics, such as "tainting" or "purity". If a policy of eugenics is administered for the purposes of maintaining some ideal of "purity" then you have a point, but in many cases, such as Sweden, where it was practised this was not the case. So to reduce it so is really just an exercise in Godwin's Law, TBH.

Valmont wrote: »

Until you may be willing to accept that objective standards of morality exist then this is as far the discussion can go unfortunately.

To me this is like asking someone to accept that Santa Clause exists. It's like your earlier claim that "civilisation is based on peace, cooperation, and the non-violent resolution of conflict" - I could hardly suppress a chuckle when I read it - "non-violent resolution of conflict"? Sure, just ask the Carthaginians about that.

Like it or not, morality is a human construct designed to allow populations to coexist relatively peaceably, and it allows for the violent resolution of conflict in every single culture throughout history. And it varies wildly in most every single culture throughout history.

If you seek objectivity in morality, it is at best utilitarian; seeking to product the authority of the state and/or societal unit (typically the family), protection of property and/or aforementioned societal unit and a ban on killing others without a socially acceptable cause. Outside of that, everything's up for grabs, which is why we'll find some moral stances elsewhere in the World abhorrent, just as they will find ours abhorrent. All we have in common is those basic utilitarian stances and none will shy away from imposing those using violent means, including us (or what do you think military intervention for 'humanitarian reasons' is?).

pwurple

I do sometimes question whether reproduction is damaging us. I have it all sorted out in my own mind, that myself and my husband have replaced only ourselves on the planet with our two children, and I'm sure most parents believe their own children are enriching the species.

We think about environmental impact when raising them... There are trade-offs. Take travel for example. I would like to travel with the children, seeing other places is an experience I think would benefit them as adults . But there is an impact to be considered with all travel, especially if we go to africa or similar long-haul where flying is the only practical method of getting there. Using up global resources to see the world doesn't sit well.

As for Downs specifically, the range of experiences is huge. There was a girl with downs syndrome who just completed her leaving cert in the papers recently. I would have considered that beyond the capacity of anyone with downs syndrome.

Fabreo

Valmont wrote: »

When Dawkins says it is immoral not to abort a foetus with Down's Syndrome, by what standard of morality is he making his judgment?



Perhaps we can gain an insight into his thinking from this quote? (I haven't verified if he actually said this, please let me know if I'm wrong).

Morals are subject so by whatever axioms of morality he decides to believe in.

robp

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Given you have no knowledge of what interaction Black Swan or anyone else for that matter has with down syndrome I think that statement is utterly pointless.

Someone's personal interaction with Down Syndrome is not important. What matters is the nature of Down Syndrome and the medical consensus that people with this condition can have very decent lives.

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Nobody has mentioned imposing standards of quality in this thread

Several posts say other wise.

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Imposing such a condition and all that goes with it on another being is a choice the parent makes to force their will on another human being.

Yes and I would argue it is equal to taking the choice of bringing the next talented writer or sportsperson into the world.

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Your last statement is why its so difficult to discuss these issues and why I started a thread here to get away from AH. People cannot seem to control their emotions in relation to the topic and discuss it in a reasonable way.

What can I say, some people find actuality uncomfortable.

Valmont

Awkward Badger wrote: »

As I said in my previous post a lot of energy has gone into dismissing Dawkins view but attempts to actually argue against it seem to be pretty lacking.

Seamus wrote:

Is it a reasonable position to hold that knowingly carrying Down's to term is "immoral". Yes, I think so.

By what standard is it immoral? Why is it any of Dawkins' concern if somebody somewhere has a child with Down's Syndrome?

I believe the debate is pointless unless we can agree on an objective morality. Otherwise Dawkins' position is both moral and immoral depending on who's looking - and if you hold that morality is ultimately subjective (it can't be true by merit of being accepted by a majority) any argument about whether the act is moral or not is a farce. This is why I think it is important to ask by what standard is Dawkins' making his moral prescription?

EDIT: I have the unsettling feeling that as long as we accept moral relativism then any barbarous act of murder or genocide is technically moral if it represents some utilitarian urge, as suggested by The Corinthian.

Awkward Badger

robp wrote: »

Someone's personal interaction with Down Syndrome is not important. What matters is the nature of Down Syndrome and the medical consensus that people with this condition can have very decent lives.

So why did you bring it up then and why did you use it to attempt to dismiss peoples views on this issue ? The nature of down syndrome is that it is a genetic disorder and the medical consensus is that a person with down syndrome has a greater risk of medical and social issues. The fact they can have very decent lives is irrelevant to this discussion. The discussion is about the morality of the decision to have a child with the condition rather than a child without the condition. Its unnecessary for a child to be born with the condition given the options available so in my opinion it is wrong to choose that a child be born with down syndrome.

Several posts say other wise.

Which posts are those that mentioned imposing your own standards of quality on another person ?

Yes and I would argue it is equal to taking the choice of bringing the next talented writer or sportsperson into the world.

Given you have already stated imposing your will on another human being is unethical then I take it you find both unethical now ? And I am very interested in hearing your argument as to why the choice of having a child with a greater chance of medical and social issues and a child with a less chance of having medical and social issue are equal.

What can I say, some people find actuality uncomfortable.

Would it not be better to discuss this in a rational way instead of making such pointless statements ?

The Corinthian

robp wrote: »

What can I say, some people find actuality uncomfortable.

I actually posted something relevant to this, I think in this thread, which pointed out that most people's morality is felt, rather than reasoned and so when asked to justify it, simply wouldn't be able to. I suspect it was subsequently deleted because I added a picture of some sheep, which I believe encapsulates those who follow life on what they feel without being able to reason it - I don't know, no reason for the deletion was offered.

A good example of this phenomenon is where one may compare homosexuality and consensual incest. Both can be consensual sexual relations between adults, yet while the former will today find widespread acceptance, the latter is still met with the 'ick' factor, despite it being, in principle, exactly the same.

Now, I don't want to drag the thread into a tangent on this; the fact remains that objections to the latter tend to be felt, rather than reasoned (although some will apply reasons after the fact).

Anyhow, what you've just described is an example of that phenomenon. It makes people feel uncomfortable, sure, but so did homosexuality 40 years ago. Was our objective morality back then 'wrong'?

Valmont wrote: »

I believe the debate is pointless unless we can agree on an objective morality.

We might, at least on the broad strokes, because we're all relatively culturally homogeneous.

EDIT: I have the unsettling feeling that as long as we accept moral relativism then any barbarous act of murder or genocide is technically moral if it represents some utilitarian urge, as suggested by The Corinthian.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'accept'. Morality is a human construct and thus may be defined as relativistic by default. To choose not to accept this seems to me on a par with choosing not to accept that day follows night.

Truth is that any barbarous act of murder or genocide is technically moral if it adheres to an accepted moral code. Doesn't even need to be a utilitarian one. You'll find no shortage of examples in history to illustrate this.

Awkward Badger

Valmont wrote: »

By what standard is it immoral? Why is it any of Dawkins' concern if somebody somewhere has a child with Down's Syndrome?

I believe the debate is pointless unless we can agree on an objective morality. Otherwise Dawkins' position is both moral and immoral depending on who's looking - and if you hold that morality is ultimately subjective (it can't be true by merit of being accepted by a majority) any argument about whether the act is moral or not is a farce. This is why I think it is important to ask by what standard is Dawkins' making his moral prescription?

EDIT: I have the unsettling feeling that as long as we accept moral relativism then any barbarous act of murder or genocide is technically moral if it represents some utilitarian urge, as suggested by The Corinthian.

Dawkins moral view has been explained, as have I explained my moral view and discussed why I deem the decision to be immoral.

I believe the debate is pointless while there is only one side willing to actually debate. There is plenty of scope to discuss the morality of the decision under both Dawkins moral view and whether he is correct in relation to that. Or indeed anyone else's moral view in relation to the issue who has weighed in on the topic. Its the morality of the decision which is the topic of this thread not morality itself.

If you cannot get past the fact that morality is subjective nor are you willing to discuss the topic unless an objective moral standard is accepted then in my opinion its you who have come to an impasse not the discussion. And perhaps the discussion of morality itself is a discussion that's best had in isolation.

Valmont

Awkward Badger wrote: »

...If it is always morally justified for a human to reproduce then what limits can be placed on that ? Then again if its not always morally justified to have a child due to the difficulties it will face then how can having any child be morally justified as there is no guarantee it will not face difficulties in some form or another ?

I'm not closing myself off to discussion to be fair and I have asked a number of times: immoral by what standard? What code of values are you referring to here?

Dawkins outlined his crude moral code of greatest happiness for the greatest number of people which is impossible to apply to the person with Down's Syndrome because we can only ever speculate about any one person's 'happiness'. So I ask, by what standard of morality can we actually (rationally) conclude that having a child with a disability is immoral?

Awkward Badger

Valmont wrote: »

I'm not closing myself off to discussion to be fair and I have asked a number of times: immoral by what standard? What code of values are you referring to here?

Dawkins outlined his crude moral code of greatest happiness for the greatest number of people which is impossible to apply to the person with Down's Syndrome because we can only ever speculate about any one person's 'happiness'. So I ask, by what standard of morality can we actually (rationally) conclude that having a child with a disability is immoral?

You have asked and you have been answered.

Dawkins outlined his moral view as seeking to increase the sum total of happiness and decrease the sum total of suffering in relation to decisions he personally makes. As far as I'm aware this isn't anything new in terms of a moral philosophy. And in line with that seems to see it immoral and against his own moral standards to have a child with such a condition that will carry a higher risk of suffering due to medical and social issues related to its condition when the option was available to have an abortion and try again for a child that would carry a lower risk due to having no discernible conditions. Again I'll say its not about any person or their happiness its about the morality of the decision to create a person and the whether or not to create a person with the condition or without the condition taking into account the risk of suffering for each option and seeking in line with their moral standards to avoid the one with the greatest risk of suffering. That's how I see it but I'm not Richard Dawkins.

I have explained as best I can my own view in this post where I see it similarly to Dawkins that it is wrong to knowingly and needlessly do something to increase the suffering or risk of suffering for another being. The needlessness coming from the availability of abortion with which to terminate the pregnancy due to the condition and try again.

The only obstacle in this discussion is an unwillingness to discuss this issue by any moral standard at all as far as I see it. If you do not agree with mine or Dawkins moral view or the conclusions made in the framework of those views then please do explain why. But to insist as you have done that discussion on morality is futile unless we accept an objective moral standard is simply refusal to discuss the topic imo.

diveout

So the entire premise is based on the potential happiness of the person born with downs syndrome? He sees it like a mercy killing? Did he suggest using anesthesia too? I hope so.

If happiness is the reason to stay alive, then we are all in a lot of trouble.

diveout

The Corinthian wrote: »

A good example of this phenomenon is where one may compare homosexuality and consensual incest. Both can be consensual sexual relations between adults, yet while the former will today find widespread acceptance, the latter is still met with the 'ick' factor, despite it being, in principle, exactly the same.

Not necessarily. The incest taboo might be the one universal. The taboos on homosexuality didn't start until the late 19th century [think glorified ideal images of the Victorian family eventually smashed into the image of the tragic family by Freud and one that currently dominates today.] Before then, classification of homo- bi etc were not so rigid. And not that American culture is so dominant you have a greater intolerance for ambiguity.

However given reproductive advances, then yes rationally speaking outside of the ick factor consensual incest should be ok or seen to be ok. And I suspect will eventually give way to approval. It's already largely forgiven in the cases of siblings who did not grow up together, something about genetic attraction being a common enough occurrence when they do not grow up in the same home. It's the growing up in the same home that induces the incest prohibition and not the actual blood tie.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by 'accept'. Morality is a human construct and thus may be defined as relativistic by default. To choose not to accept this seems to me on a par with choosing not to accept that day follows night.

Truth is that any barbarous act of murder or genocide is technically moral if it adheres to an accepted moral code. Doesn't even need to be a utilitarian one. You'll find no shortage of examples in history to illustrate this.

What you are saying is problematic for a number of reasons. We could look at history, but you'd have to come to an agreed version of history first and that wont be so easy. History has nothing to do with the past, but how you want to go ahead in the future. So whatever moral codes you draw from it are only useful in what it indicates in terms of how you plan to proceed in the future.

Awkward Badger

diveout wrote: »

So the entire premise is based on the potential happiness of the person born with downs syndrome?

No. His view of morality seems to be making decisions in the way least likely to result in suffering. In that sense due to the increased risk of medical and social issues relating to the condition of down syndrome he views abortion and an attempt to have a child without the condition as the moral option rather than continuing with the pregnancy. As best as I can make out. As I said I am not Richard Dawkins and this thread isn't about Richard Dawkins its about the morality of the decision. Any questions about Richard Dawkins should be forwarded to Richard Dawkins.

He sees it like a mercy killing? Did he suggest using anesthesia too? I hope so.

Mercy killing of what exactly ? There is nobody to kill.

If happiness is the reason to stay alive, then we are all in a lot of trouble.

I don't see how reasons to stay alive are relevant to this discussion. Nobody but you has mentioned it.

And I'm still waiting on an answer to this post.

diveout

Awkward Badger wrote: »

No. His view of morality seems to be making decisions in the way least likely to result in suffering. In that sense due to the increased risk of medical and social issues relating to the condition of down syndrome he views abortion and an attempt to have a child without the condition as the moral option rather than continuing with the pregnancy. As best as I can make out. As I said I am not Richard Dawkins and this thread isn't about Richard Dawkins its about the morality of the decision. Any questions about Richard Dawkins should be forwarded to Richard Dawkins.



Mercy killing of what exactly ? There is nothing to kill..

Well.... that debate is built into this I'm afraid.

Awkward Badger wrote: »

And I'm still waiting on an answer to this post.

It's completely irrelevent. However, we all deviate from perfect ideals so to some extent aren't we all disabled?

Awkward Badger

diveout wrote: »

Well.... that debate is built into this I'm afraid.

Which debate would that be ? This thread is about the morality of the decision not about the fact Richard Dawkins said it. Personalising it and being flippant and dismissive contributes nothing to the discussion.

The Corinthian

diveout wrote: »

Not necessarily. The incest taboo might be the one universal.

Incorrect. It's been accepted or tolerated in various cultures through the ages; Egypt, pre-Colombian Inca empire, Tamil Nadu (southern India) where the practice of marrying your niece is still common. Even the Biblical Abraham supposedly married his half-sister.

The taboos on homosexuality didn't start until the late 19th century [think glorified ideal images of the Victorian family eventually smashed into the image of the tragic family by Freud and one that currently dominates today.] Before then, classification of homo- bi etc were not so rigid.

Sorry, again incorrect. Homosexuality was punishable by death long before the 19th century - Roman emperor Theodosius I proscribed burning at the stake as punishment. European morality has at best tolerated it at times since late antiquity, but it's been pretty much taboo up until quite recently.

However given reproductive advances, then yes rationally speaking outside of the ick factor consensual incest should be ok or seen to be ok. And I suspect will eventually give way to approval.

Likely, but not my point. I was just using it as an example to describe the 'ick' factor - what people 'feel' is wrong without understanding why and how this can and does change.

What you are saying is problematic for a number of reasons. We could look at history, but you'd have to come to an agreed version of history first and that wont be so easy.

If you want to challenge any of it feel free. Otherwise you really can't use that argument as the basis of barring the inclusion of any history from the discussion.

diveout

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Which debate would that be ? This thread is about the morality of the decision not about the fact Richard Dawkins said it. Personalising it and being flippant and dismissive contributes nothing to the discussion.

I'm aware of that thanks.

Your accusing me of personalising and in the SAME sentence claim I am "being flippant."

What are you talking about?

Awkward Badger

diveout wrote: »

Can I ask you what is Dawkins talking about?

Why would he or one trust test tube babies more than natural selection?

diveout wrote: »

He's a scientist. Nature is not moral. I wonder why he is getting moralistic about things.

And is Dawkins expecting people to abort babies they spent 20k trying to conceive?

diveout wrote: »

I am half cringing and half laughing at Dawkin's statement considering that he is severely disabled himself.

diveout wrote: »

So the entire premise is based on the potential happiness of the person born with downs syndrome? He sees it like a mercy killing? Did he suggest using anesthesia too? I hope so.

If happiness is the reason to stay alive, then we are all in a lot of trouble.

diveout wrote: »

I'm aware of that thanks.

Your accusing me of personalising and in the SAME sentence claim I am "being flippant."

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about you personalising the topic in relation to Dawkins and being flippant and dismissive which you have been. While he was the one that made the statement this thread is as I have said numerous times on the morality of the decision not Richard Dawkins. I have posted the explanation of his moral standard in relation to the view of the immorality of the decision and I have put forth my own view of it. I have yet to encounter much in the way of an argument as to why none of it is valid.

diveout

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, again incorrect. Homosexuality was punishable by death long before the 19th century - Roman emperor Theodosius I proscribed burning at the stake as punishment. European morality has at best tolerated it at times since late antiquity, but it's been pretty much taboo up until quite recently.

Interesting. Because the law doesn't punish, but there are still hate crimes, bullying, ostracisation, adult children get disowned for it, etc so parts of the population still haven't come to terms with it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you want to challenge any of it feel free. Otherwise you really can't use that argument as the basis of barring the inclusion of any history from the discussion.

Wasn't suggesting barring it, only saying it is problematic.