Richard Dawkins: 'Immoral' not to abort Down's foetuses


gore0bsessed
#1




Richard Dawkins, the atheist writer, has caused a stir on Twitter claiming it is "immoral" to allow unborn babies with Down's syndrome to live. But what do the relatives of people with Down's syndrome think about the comments?


The Oxford professor posted the message on Twitter in response to a user who wrote she would be faced with "a real ethical dilemma" if she became pregnant and learned that the baby would be born with Down's syndrome.


"Abort it and try again," Dawkins tweeted in reply. "It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."
His comments have caused anger online and have been dismissed by charities, but he insists his views are "very civilised", tweeting: "These are fetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings."



For Caroline White, whose son Seb has Down's syndrome, (external - login to view) the comments are offensive. "What saddens me most and what can't be denied is he backs up his argument by saying it's what the 'majority of women' do anyway," she says. "Yes, it is. It's what most women do. Women who, like him, like me, most probably grew up in a time of exclusion. A time where disabled people and people with Down's were labelled and then hidden away, never given the chance to integrate, reach their full potential or form meaningful relationships with their wider community."



Dawkins defended his comments on the social media website saying: "I do not for one moment apologise for approaching moral philosophic questions in a logical way. There's a place for emotion & this isn't it."


 
Colpy
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by gore0bsessedView Post





Richard Dawkins, the atheist writer, has caused a stir on Twitter claiming it is "immoral" to allow unborn babies with Down's syndrome to live. But what do the relatives of people with Down's syndrome think about the comments?


The Oxford professor posted the message on Twitter in response to a user who wrote she would be faced with "a real ethical dilemma" if she became pregnant and learned that the baby would be born with Down's syndrome.


"Abort it and try again," Dawkins tweeted in reply. "It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."
His comments have caused anger online and have been dismissed by charities, but he insists his views are "very civilised", tweeting: "These are fetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings."



For Caroline White, whose son Seb has Down's syndrome, (external - login to view) the comments are offensive. "What saddens me most and what can't be denied is he backs up his argument by saying it's what the 'majority of women' do anyway," she says. "Yes, it is. It's what most women do. Women who, like him, like me, most probably grew up in a time of exclusion. A time where disabled people and people with Down's were labelled and then hidden away, never given the chance to integrate, reach their full potential or form meaningful relationships with their wider community."



Dawkins defended his comments on the social media website saying: "I do not for one moment apologise for approaching moral philosophic questions in a logical way. There's a place for emotion & this isn't it."


Richard Dawkins wouldn't know a "moral philosophic question" if it bit him on the ****.

Here's one:

Is it legitimate to base the value of a life on intelligence alone??
 
talloola
+1
#3
i could never abort a foetus because i knew it was going to be born with down's, but i would never
know anyway till the child was born, so that takes care of that. the only reason one would want to
know early on, is because they are thinking of the possibility of aborting, if their unborn child
had 'anything' that might cause inconvenience in their lives, or because they are afraid.

i would like to think that many of those who think a foetus with down's syndrome should be aborted,
'sincerely believe' they have the unborn child's happiness at heart, and would not do it just for
their own selfishness, but of course there are those who would be selfish.


and there are several levels of seriousness between many different people with downs syndrome, and
many are very near normal, mentally, as is the case with a friend of mine who has such a child, but
there are many who live very difficult lives, and suffer, and that suffering is something none of us
ever want our children to go thru, and i'm sure many think about that and can't cope with the thought
of their own child suffering, and they can't do anything about it, so perhaps they would consider
aborting that pregnancy for those reasons.

not all decisions are based on a lack of thought about the child, but perhaps more on fear of
the suffering of the child, so it is not 'for us' to judge others, but for us to do what 'we'
are comfortable with, for ourselves.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#4
Well, y'know, Dorkins thinks it's immoral to let anybody but Oxford dons live.

That's OK, it's his religion. Funny, as "atheist" as he is, he's still marked by the characteristics of Abrahamic religion. As the Jesuits say, "Give me a child before he is seven, and he is mine forever."
 
mentalfloss
+4 / -3
#5
What happened to the good ole days when Christians would toss unwanted babies in a river?
 
Blackleaf
#6
Euthanasia is illegal in Britain, so someone should send Dawkins to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. The guy needs to be put down.
 
Walter
#7
www.commentarymagazine.com/20...chard-dawkins/ (external - login to view)

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

What happened to the good ole days when Christians would toss unwanted babies in a river?

Pulling crap out of your a$$ again I see.
 
#juan
#8
I have mixed feelings about this. How early do we know if a feotus(sp)is is going to have Downs?
 
petros
#9
What is keep in Dawkins alive?
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

I have mixed feelings about this. How early do we know if a feotus(sp)is is going to have Downs?

Amniocentesis can determine that definitively.

What's more important is developing a test that can tell us if a foetus will have Dawkins Syndrome. If so, abort the foetus, kill the mother, and kill the father to prevent the possibility of further contamination of the gene pool.
 
#juan
+2
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Amniocentesis can determine that definitively.

What's more important is developing a test that can tell us if a foetus will have Dawkins Syndrome. If so, abort the foetus, kill the mother, and kill the father to prevent the possibility of further contamination of the gene pool.

Hold on here. We are bringing a baby into the world who will be a burden pretty much for it's whole life. Some would find it heartbreaking, others handle it better. What are the options?
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Hold on here. We are bringing a baby into the world who will be a burden pretty much for it's whole life. Some would find it heartbreaking, others handle it better. What are the options?

With Downs Syndrome? How bout letting the parents choose and keeping our noses out of it?

But Dawkins Syndrome is a threat to the health and well-being of everybody. Kill it with fire!
 
captain morgan
+8
#13  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Hold on here. We are bringing a baby into the world who will be a burden pretty much for it's whole life. Some would find it heartbreaking, others handle it better. What are the options?

You bring up a very unpopular point that is politically incorrect.

Expectant parents of a child with (significant) developmental disabilities represents a huge commitment in terms of time, resources, emotional investment let alone money and even with today's medical advancements, the lifespan of a child with this condition is heavily reduced.

Having seen the trials and tribulations that one of my neighbours has gone through in this regard, I would give strong thought to all options if I were faced with this conundrum.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

You bring up a very unpopular point that is politically incorrect.

Expectant parents of a child with (significant) developmental disabilities represents a huge commitment in terms of time, resources, emotional investment let alone money and even with today's medical advancements, the lifespan of a child with this condition is heavily reduced.

Having seen the trials and tribulations that one of my neighbours has gone through in this regard, I would give strong thought to all options if I were faced with this conundrum.

Ain't politically incorrect at all. What's politically incorrect about "let the parents choose?" Ain't that kinda the whole pro-choice argument?
 
#juan
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Ain't politically incorrect at all. What's politically incorrect about "let the parents choose?" Ain't that kinda the whole pro-choice argument?

I'll ask again. What are the parent's choices??? Is abortion one of them??
 
Tecumsehsbones
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

I'll ask again. What are the parent's choices??? Is abortion one of them??

Last I checked, abortion is an option in most of the Western world, which is where Dorkins is writing from.
 
captain morgan
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Ain't politically incorrect at all. What's politically incorrect about "let the parents choose?" Ain't that kinda the whole pro-choice argument?

My response was directed at the idea that the child represents difficulties on a societal level, let alone the direct family.

Ultimately, the parents are the ones to make that decision, but in response to Juan, the entire community also takes on a responsibility as well
 
petros
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Hold on here. We are bringing a baby into the world who will be a burden pretty much for it's whole life. Some would find it heartbreaking, others handle it better. What are the options?

Really? Tell that to the Downs guy who is assistant manager of my local Tim's.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+4
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Really? Tell that to the Downs guy who is assistant manager of my local Tim's.

Or the one who's your Prime Minister.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.
 
Kreskin
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

You bring up a very unpopular point that is politically incorrect.

Expectant parents of a child with (significant) developmental disabilities represents a huge commitment in terms of time, resources, emotional investment let alone money and even with today's medical advancements, the lifespan of a child with this condition is heavily reduced.

Having seen the trials and tribulations that one of my neighbours has gone through in this regard, I would give strong thought to all options if I were faced with this conundrum.

Very well said Captain.
 
skookumchuck
+2 / -1
#21
There is a very deep pothole involved in raising a child with Downs syndrome. Two friends of mine have done so and i very much like their boy who is now graduated from high school (in a sense). That being said, i cannot imagine myself spending the time required to raise such a child. Most people will tough it out for a while, mess up their lives and their other children's lives, then sooner or later expect the government to take over. Therein lies the problem for society and the child.
 
captain morgan
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Very well said Captain.


Thanks K!
 
petros
#23
There are oodles of families who are willing to adopt Downs babies who have the potential of being productive taxpayers.
 
#juan
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by skookumchuckView Post

There is a very deep pothole involved in raising a child with Downs syndrome. Two friends of mine have done so and i very much like their boy who is now graduated from high school (in a sense). That being said, i cannot imagine myself spending the time required to raise such a child. Most people will tough it out for a while, mess up their lives and their other children's lives, then sooner or later expect the government to take over. Therein lies the problem for society and the child.

Another problem of course is that kids usually out-live their parents, even Downs Syndrome kids who have mostly learned to use the bathroom by themselves and other stuff but they are not independent by any stretch.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Another problem of course is that kids usually out-live their parents, even Downs Syndrome kids who have mostly learned to use the bathroom by themselves and other stuff but they are not independent by any stretch.

So, T-4 programme?
 
petros
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Another problem of course is that kids usually out-live their parents, even Downs Syndrome kids who have mostly learned to use the bathroom by themselves and other stuff but they are not independent by any stretch.

Really? Tell that to the Downs guy who is assistant manger of a Tim's who lives on his own just like other people with Downs.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+3
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Really? Tell that to the Downs guy who is assistant manger of a Tim's who lives on his own just like other people with Downs.

Not every downs person is the same nor is every parent have the skills required that his obviously did.
 
Walter
#28
Only those with IQ's of 160 or more should be allowed to live.
 
petros
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

Not every downs person is the same nor is every parent have the skills required that his obviously did.

Painting them all as invalids is retarded.
 
#juan
+2
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

So, T-4 programme?

I've never advocated euthanasia. My child rearing days are long over but Dawkins is right. If you have a choice, why would you choose to raise a retarded child?. Somebody said,"let the parents choose". Do the parents have a right to choose?
 
no new posts