Richard Dawkins: 'Immoral' not to abort Down's foetuses
- Thread starter gore0bsessed
- Start date
As I already stated, and because you two are so hard of reading, I am not a bigot simply because I did not have the time to outline every heinous act from every group.
That's hilarious... You have an ideological bent that prevents you from seeing anything outside Harper and global warming
I disagree. Im also an atheist so don't lump us all together on this.
No, which is why I don't consider the lives of animals to be any less important than that of a human.
No, which is why I don't consider the lives of animals to be any less important than that of a human.
This all goes back to utilitarian ethics.
Not everyone subscribes to it, but there is nothing wrong with suggesting an abortion to avoid pain and suffering down the road. It's like euthanasia, but in reverse.
The bigot continues his dance!
That's not what Dawkins said. He said it is immoral not to abort a Downs Syndrome foetus. That ain't a suggestion.
How 'bout you address what he said rather than the strawman you made up?
Yea, like I said, it's about utilitarian ethics and morality.
Read all about it.
He wrote: "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's 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."
Richard Dawkins apologises for causing storm with Down's syndrome tweet | Science | The Guardian
Read all about it.
He wrote: "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's 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."
Richard Dawkins apologises for causing storm with Down's syndrome tweet | Science | The Guardian
So he didn't say it WAS immoral, just that it MIGHT be...meaning he's left himself room to re-visit his thought/idea and hasn't cemented into his current philosophy.
Well if he's going by a utilitarian ethic it would absolutely be immoral, assuming the kid would endure a ****ty life.
One thing I've noticed is there are considerably less downs syndrome people in the world today than there was when I was a kid. It is evident that most are opting for termination. 40+ years ago not only was abortion not used families were bigger and most needed only one bread-winner. The home support was pretty built in. Today most couples need both incomes to stay out of a shoe box. Plus just about every community had a special needs 'home'. Like an orphanage. Not only do they not exist anymore, for the most part, I don't think many have an appetite for bringing up a kid in that situation.
i support your comments, and also with many large families, the odds rose for the possibility of having
a downs syndrome baby.
i remember all of the institutions in new westminster, all are gone now, i believe those institutions
needed improving, but don't agree with getting rid of all of them, as there are many mentally handicapped
people walking the streets, with no support, and of course drugs everywhere, that must be extremely tough.
how early in a pregnancy can one know that the child will have downs syndrome.
Interesting. But working against that is people are having babies later now than they did 40 years ago which should increase the odds.
About 15-16 weeks.
True, although testing fairly early is now pretty standard for older women.
Not according to Hilter. Gotta have blue eyes and blonde hair too.........not that he did.
