You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Not entirely sure of the vadility of this, as the report I saw was linked to the Daily Mail, but it appears that his recent twitter posts suggest that women pregnant with Down's syndrome foetus's should 'abort them and try again'. Along with this, and his recent comments about 'mild' rape and paedophilia, have somewhat changed my opinion. I used to think he was a somewhat publicity seeking outspoken atheist. If these comments are indeed true, I would change my opinion to 'despicable piece of shit'.
His follow up reasoning, according to The Independent article on this story, when he was asked 'what about autism', was that autistic people have much to contribute and even enhanced ability in some areas, while people with DS are not enhanced.
He was responding to this: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119147/ireland-abortion-case-reveals-draconian-horror-catholic-law
Perhaps he looks at everything from a purely logical point of view, leaving out any of the emotions that are an integral part of humanity?
Its all there on twitter, in context I have no problem with what he said.
His argument was regarding the forced caesarian of a young suicidal rape victim by the Irish authorities and prevention of suffering.
I've read the twitter thread: [url= https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/502104073009922048 ]here[/url] and have no issue with what he said.
The daily fail just likes to be angry and bitter, and succeeds in dragging people down to their level on times.
As already said, in context there is little to be offended about and -
Perhaps he looks at everything from a purely logical point of view, leaving out any of the emotions that are an integral part of humanity?
This, very much this.
Had a further google, and it's not just being reported by the Mail. With regard to his previous comments about mild rape, etc, I understand the logical point he was trying to make, I just thought he chose to use a particularly poor example, though suspect he was fully aware of the response it would create. However, as the parent of a child with learning difficulties, I can't think logically about his latest comments - despicable piece of shit it is then.
I am struggling a little to see how his comments about why a DS foetus should, in his opinion be aborted is a relevant response to what happened to the lady in Ireland? I had a read of the twitter AdamW linked to but I'm still not seeing the link.
He wasnt talking about learning disabilities in general just that on balance it may cause less suffering if a Downs fetus is aborted, he also hasnt given this as advice just his opinion. Its backed up by it being a very common choice where early diagnosis is available.
Not sure I agree but I find his position less objectionable than the irish governments.
Thegreatape... he was asked a what would you do type question about this scenario.
The link was a 'whataboutery' thrown in. He tweets that the Irish government is civilised apart from forcing a suicidal young rape victim to have a c-section and not an abortion.
The next comment is from a nutjob saying "Whatabout all the DS foetuses that are aborted?" as a way of saying that the actions of the Irish government are OK which throws the discussion to another track.
I used to think he was a somewhat publicity seeking outspoken atheist. If these comments are indeed true, I would change my opinion to 'despicable piece of shit'.
This. Not to mention an utterly appalling public speaker.
ratherbeintobago, have you read the comments or do you think every poor public speaker is a dispicable shit?
Thegreatape... he was asked a what would you do type question about this scenario.
Sure, I get that. It was the relevance to the women in Ireland I wasn't seeing, given that learning difficulties wasn't an aspect in that situation.
It's probably a bit like reading the first and last posts of certain threads on here, without reading any of the middle, and thinking 😕
which throws the discussion to another track.
Yes
No, he's a despicable piece of shit [b]and[/b] a crap public speaker.
So what was wrong with his comments tobago?
The date rape business was pretty ill-judged.
What was wrong with his comments? With regards to a woman being pregnant with a Down's syndrome baby, he responded with 'abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world'. So this, really, was what was wrong with his comments. 🙄
Why? Seemed a perfectly reasonable point to me.
Really?
Valuing some human life as better than some and humane to kill them is something I am not comfortable with
He wasnt talking about learning disabilities in general just that on balance it may cause less suffering if a Downs fetus is aborted
What makes you think people with DS suffer? IME they tend to be very happy individuals and are not suffering.
FWIW autism seems to lead to more "suffering" than DS if we are going down that route.
Does steven Hawkins suffer? Should he have been aborted?
What about Cerebral palsy?
IMHO it is a pretty unpalatable to be choosing who gets to be part of the Human race and deciding some people suffer.
Whilst i can intellectually see the point [ ish] you lack humanity if you are prepared to abort due to pre determined rules and no one can truly know whether they will suffer or what they will contribute.
Funny how everyone criticised the couple who left the baby
Barnsley you have already said its a bit to close to home for you so I wouldnt try to debate the issue with you. His comments are backed up by what the majority do when faced with the reality. You may have chosen differently and I respect that. I'm not here to defend Dawkins except to the uniformed who havent read what he said in context.
Actually, I chose to adopt a child with learning difficulties, so abortion was never a choice, and if my wife and I had been in that position, it would never have been considered as an option. I love my son, and though life can be difficult at times, I couldn't imagine life without him. There's a quote from someone, can't recall who, that goes 'I wouldn't change you for the world, but I'd change the world for you', which says it all for me. Dawkins is of course, entitled to his opinion, however unpalatable I may find it, but who is he to dictate to others what is immoral?
I used to think he was a somewhat publicity seeking outspoken atheist.
Agnostic.
LIKES BARNSLEY MITCH
You dont need my respect but you have earned it and some
Agnostic.
I didn't think he had any doubt there was no God?
Junkyard, I'm in the process of 'getting a room' as I believe the youth say!
ratherbeintobago:
No, in "The God Delusion" he states, obviously, that you cannot prove a negative, therefore you cannot disprove any god or gods. He posits a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 = "I absolutely know there is a god" and 7 = "I absolutely know there isn't a god". He describes himself as a 6.9. On that scale I'd also rate 6.9.
An agnostic atheist. Someone who doesn't know if any god exists but until proven lives as if they don't.
An agnostic atheist. Someone who doesn't know if any god exists but until proven lives as if they don't.
I think you (and he) are splitting hairs there, and I'd certainly hesitate to describe him as an agnostic without qualification, as fourbanger did.
I have been known to volunteer at a local day care centre. I also have family members that are autistic.
Anybody who has a problem with down syndrome or autism should really have a long hard look at themselves.
iolo, dont think anyone including Dawkins has a problem with Downs. His point was I think that aborting a fetus at an early stage means no suffering. I'm not sure I agree.
Barnsley, well done I am grateful people like you are in the world.
As for me well when we had a son at an older age we were asked if we wanted to have the test done for downs ( the non invasive probability thing) we thought about it and what it implied and thankfully it came back low risk. No idea what we would have done had it come back as a significant risk.
No idea what we would have done had it come back as a significant risk.
I'm thankful to live in a country where that choice, terrible though it would have been, was yours and not the state's.
I think you (and he) are splitting hairs there, and I'd certainly hesitate to describe him as an agnostic without qualification, as fourbanger did.
Not splitting hairs, striving for factual correctness. Something that the less agnostic seem to struggle with.
I'm thankful to live in a country where that choice, terrible though it would have been, was yours and not the state's.
+1
That's what this all boils down to really. Everyone will have their own thoughts and own opinions on this. However, their choice should not be influenced or dictated by the state.
I see no problem with his comments either. I wish he and other public science figures would start pushing for a global one child policy.
Quite a few of the kids at Josh's school have downs. They're ****ing ace! How can anyone see immorality there? I really can't understand how anyone can defend this dickheads comments.
I defend them because he's not saying what you think he's saying. And he's also saying that an *awful* lot of people actually terminate DS foetuses. Not on his say-so, but their own decision.
But this was initially started by some idiot intimating that raped suicidal girls should be forced to have babies.
EDIT: admittedly he doesn't come across to well in twitterland, better in essays, but even if he said "Two plus two equals four!" he would be receive a tidal wave of hate because of his stand on religion.
How can anyone see immorality there? I really can't understand how anyone can defend this dickheads comments.
You seem to be suggesting that he was critical of or insulting towards children with Down's. Could you quote the bit that gave you that impression? I can't find anything of that nature in his comments.
Cheers.
spin - as I previously stated, he twittered (in response to a question about what someone pregnant with a downs foetus should do) 'abort it, it would be immoral to bring it into the world'. Now I may be being a little over sensitive, but that doesn't sound overflowing with positivity to me. And Adam, I don't dislike him because of his views on religion, I dislike him for what appears (to me at least) a viewpoint veering uncomfortably close to eugenics.
With regards to a woman being pregnant with a Down's syndrome baby, he responded with 'abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world'
He really said that? I've never had much time for Dawkins, as he seems to be a bit of a shoty self-publicist with very little original to say, but if he did, then he's a ****.
My wife's brother has Downs; he has by al acounts leda a very happy and fulfilling life, and at 54, has brought so much joy and happiness to all those who love him. Always has a smile,and always wants everyone around him to be happy. Maybe Dawkins should meet him. Andlearn something.
You seem to be suggesting that he was critical of or insulting towards children with Down's.
He is. Hes saying they;re not worthy of being born.
Then barnsley we must agree to disagree. I believe the raped girl should have been allowed a termination.
He really said that?
I've found it in context now. Yes he did.
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-on-babies-with-down-syndrome-abort-it-and-try-again-it-would-be-immoral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html ]The Independent piece with twitter screenshots of the exchange.[/url]
“
994 human beings with Down's Syndrome deliberately killed before birth in England and Wales in 2012. Is that civilised?” @AidanMcCourt asked.“Yes, it is very civilised. These are fetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings,” Dawkins responded.
“I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma,” @InYourFaceNYer chimed in.
“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,” he tweeted back.
****ing hell.
It is not immoral to have a child with DS it is immoral to abort a child due to Eugenics or because you perceive it to be genetically inferior
What a cock
FWIW i heard him speak at a conference years ago and he was verging on sociopathic and incredibly rude to any question that slighted him/disagreed with him. Arrogant bastard was my main memory tbh.
Adam - Dawsons comments regarding aborting Downs foetus's weren't made regarding the girl who was raped, he states himself that it was in response to a theoretical question from a woman that he knows. I'm not anti-abortion (pretty weird for a catholic, eh?), and feel that it's largely the choice of the individual to make that decision, not church or state, not even shouty agnostic 😉
Close family member chose to abort a DS foetus does that make her less morally superior to somebody who chose not to, I don't think so. Does it make the person who chose not to abort a stronger person, I don't think so. It was an incredibly difficult decision by her & her husband but it was there's to make & nobody else's.
Twitter isn't the greatest medium to put across such points of view but I am sure as hell grateful for Richard Dawkins & others and the manner in which they deal with religion, I only wish Christopher Hitchens was still with us 🙁
barnsley - you're mainly in agreement with him then. His original point (rape) was the *individual* choice and not the state poking its nose in. He answers what he personally would do regarding a foetus with DS (which he states is what the majority would do, but I'd like to see figures on that), but unless someone hasn't dropped me the memo, I don't think he is ruler of the universe yet and no-one has to do what he says! 😀
An interesting question that leads from the discussion would be therefore: "Why test a foetus for DS?". I guess it is one of a battery of genetic tests done but if this should not be done for DS why should it be done for any other genetic disorder? Indeed, why do genetic testing at all? Surely that is 'eugenics'?
Interesting philosophical questions.
Again, what do his comments regarding this have to do with religion?
Adam - I can't agree with his comments on aborting a foetus with downs. I find his use of the term 'it' appalling, and his opinion that having a child with downs as somehow immoral is, to me at least, baffling. Sorry, but as you said, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
[b]“Abort it and try again. It would be [u]immoral[/u] to bring it into the world if you have the choice,” [/b]
How anyone can defend that comment is beyond me ?!
It's nothing to do with religion
It's nothing to do with rape
It's nothing to do with the Irish girls situation.
It's a comment about people who choose not to abort a pregnancy under those circumstances, and he says those people are [b]immoral[/b] to choose to have the baby.
****ing arsehole.
His line of reasoning is that it will suffer more if it enters into the world than if it's aborted. Which, in terms of biology is probably true. He's not making an argument that DS babies are undeserving of life.
His other arguments in regards to abortion center on the fact that we kill animals that are far more developed and capable of suffering than even new borns and so that whilst the baby is entirely dependent on it's mothers body and incapable of feeling pain, then it cannot be thought of as an individual that has a right to life but as an extension of the mother. That one made me uneasy, but I couldn't fault the logic in it.
His line of reasoning is that it will suffer more if it enters into the world than if it's aborted.Which, in terms of biology is probably true....
That would also be true for everybody ever born.
And it's crap justification for a complete **** up of a statement made by Dawkins.
That would also be true for everybody ever born.
True, some more than others though. And the 2nd point of his that I mentioned, makes that argument superfluous anyway.
Besides, this will all become mostly redundant when we're all conceiving via laboratory. You probably won't have to abort if you've made sure the gametes are healthy in the first place.
we kill animals that are far more developed and capable of suffering than even new borns and so that whilst the baby is entirely dependent on it's mothers body and incapable of feeling pain, then it cannot be thought of as an individual that has a right to life but as an extension
One of the only things I found vaguely interesting at university was the discussions around right to life/pro choice and at what point that sperm/egg combination becomes a "person" in legal terms(this of course varies hugely depending on who you ask!). Then there's the argument of what sort of protections the in utero "non person" should be afforded.
What occurred to me was that this was something almost impossible to prescribe by law from an moral perspective, yet the law must and does deal with it. One couple might feel that flushing the husband's sperm down the toilet has ended their future child's life, whereas others feel that until the baby's head is poking out it's still part of the woman, not yet a person and any choice regarding its life are hers. That's because it's very hard to look at a foetus/child as simply a biological process. We're conditioned by millions of years of evolution to not think like that. Even in utero, we see them as needing protection, love and with limitless opportunities in front of them.
I'm hugely conflicted on this subject. I largely agree with the legal definition and that termination to a point should always be exclusively at the choice of the parents. Their reasons should require no justification. I'm not sure I know where that point should be though.
But in terms of foetuses that will become disabled children (especially those with manageable disabilities who will still have a good quality of life)...and that being the reason cited for termination...I struggle with this. My grandparents adopted a girl with Downs when I was a kid, she was one of my best pals when I was little, I can't imagine my childhood without her in it, so the thought that someone may have terminated her late because of Downs is something I don't like to think about too often...but...and it's a huge but...she had demanding and special needs and luckily for her my grandparents were able to give her that. I dread to think what her life would have been like if she'd had parents who were not able to offer that. But then again, the same goes for any kid who has parents not up to the task.
There will never be a universally accepted right/wrong answer to this, but I am grateful to live in a country where we can discuss it and there is very little state involvement in such a private and personal matter.
Quite a few of the kids at Josh's school have downs. They're **** ace! How can anyone see immorality there? I really can't understand how anyone can defend this dickheads comments.
There is a world of difference between interacting with kids with downs at a school and having to live with the condition every day of your life.
“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,”How anyone can defend that comment is beyond me ?!
It's nothing to do with religion
It's nothing to do with rape
It's nothing to do with the Irish girls situation.It's a comment about people who choose not to abort a pregnancy under those circumstances, and he says those people are immoral to choose to have the baby.
**** arsehole.
Is his position any worse than a pro lifer stating victims of rape should be forced to have babies... not at all imo. That was his point in addition to the fact that an early abortion causes no suffering. It is also a fact that Downs brings with it a whole load of painful and potentially distressing complication. Again I'm not sure I support his view but I welcome his opinion and his voicing of it and find it much less abhorrent than the widely voiced opinion of the catholic church for example.
If he had said that it's justified and moral to abort a DS baby, then that's one thing. What he said though, was that it's immoral [i]not[/i] to do so, which is very different.
If it's immoral because the child will suffer in some way, which has been suggested as the reason for the comment, then you can logically extend that argument to say that unless a parent can absolutely guarantee that their child will never suffer in any way they are immoral for not aborting it. Clearly plenty of people with DS have an enjoyable and happy life, so that's a pish argument if that is the reason.
As usual, Dawkins says something I basically agree with* but manages to say it in such a way that manages to offend just about everyone. It's a special talent he has, to make even people who agree with him think he's a ****.
*If you have basically one chance to bring a new person into the world, it's better for that person to be as full and self-sufficient member of society as possible, so if it's possible to test early for something and decide to abort and try again then it's perfectly okay to do so.
I have thought for some time that he comes across as a sanctimonious prick. This is the first and last time I shall make comment on anything he says.
As better explained above by peterfile He is talking about the foetus not about a child, & I reckon there's few better qualified to make this distinction than the worst most eminent evolutionary biologist.
We also seem to forget that the amniocentesis test for DS can't show the spectrum of the problem just an high probability of the foetus developing it. We all speak of people with mild DS that can function in life with almost no problem but at the high end it can be a truly debilitating handicap with a shortened life span & heart problems that needs constant care and u will never know where on this spectrum the newborn will be until birth.
Using the word immoral is incredibly insensitive though.
gonefishin - please see my other posts on this thread. My son has multiple learning difficulties, which he, his mother and I have to deal with every day. Cheap shot there mate.
*If you have basically one chance to bring a new person into the world, it's better for that person to be as full and self-sufficient member of society as possible, so if it's possible to test early for something and decide to abort and try again then it's perfectly okay to do so.
Except that's not what he said - he said that if the foetus has DS, you should terminate it.
Of course, that leaves aside the fact that the standard non-invasive test only gives you a probability, and the invasive test carries its own risk of causing a miscarriage (i.e. you could end up aborting a non-DS foetus).
Even if it were possible to determine DS with 100% accuracy at no risk, it surely is personal choice. The people I've known with it seem to lead reasonably happy lives, so I fail to see where the immorality is here.
The immorality is his view based on balancing probabilities of suffering. He thinks one thing is immoral, prolifers think abortion is immoral. I find I am further towards his view than the pro lifers.
I wonder if most people who abort a foetus (though one would imagine they were probably referring to it as a "baby" beforehand) with a high probability of being born with Downs Syndrome aren't thinking about the baby's life prospects at all.
The immorality is his view based on balancing probabilities of suffering. He thinks one thing is immoral, prolifers think abortion is immoral. I find I am further towards his view than the pro lifers.
I'm pro-choice and always have been. In contrast, Dawkins is telling people how to live their lives. Sound familiar?
Well the key to understanding his comment then is whether on average DS people do or don't suffer.
If from a scientific POV it can be shown that they do then I can see his comment makes some sense from a purely logical POV though as has been said, it'd have been extremely badly worded regardless.
If not then he's either phrased it badly or he's a **** arsehole as stated above.
That's a purely logic analysis of the situation which seems appropriate.
Anyone know about DS then or are we going to work on anecdote to decide whether to be outraged or not?
the baby is entirely dependent on it's mothers body and incapable of feeling pain
Crucial point, there. If a woman who has been raped does not want the resultant child, then she should have the right to an abortion.
For whatever reason seems best to her.
If the foetus has no self awareness and cannot feel pain, you're only harming what is essentially [i]the idea of[/i] a future child, rather than something that exists in the here and now.
If the foetus has no self awareness
Jaysus, you're talking about half of STW there Wopster. 😉
He's not telling people what to do he's saying what he thinks.
I work with people with DS and learning difficulties.
I find they are equally as likely to be contented or discontented with their lives as people without DS or learning difficulties.
Which shouldn't really be surprising, but seems to be.
Once we take that as read, the argument comes down to this:
Someone with DS or learning difficulties is going to alter your life as a parent to a far greater extent than someone who does not.
They will take up much more of your time and resources, financial and otherwise than a child without these issues.
It will be difficult.
It will not fit into some peoples idealized version of what parenthood should be.
There is a greater chance you will outlive your child.
So it's not about the child.
It's about the parents.
anagallis_arvensis - Member
He's not telling people what to do he's saying what he thinks.
While I think you may be right that that was his intention, that's not really what he said. If you say that something is immoral you are pretty much telling people what they should be doing. Very few people feel that immoral behaviour is acceptable.
As someone with a bun in the oven and a best mate who's just had a positive DS probability result from the scan it's very pertinent. We had to ask ourselves the question what we'd do or there's no point having the scan.
Dawkins forgets that the language used in the lecture theatre doesn't translate to the public realm. I graduated in evolutionary biology, and for the purposes of education one must discuss topics in purely emotionless terms. I wouldn't dream of talking to people at dinner the way I debated at university, it would alienate and offend and any good point I may have would be lost.
I doubt he's evil/immoral etc, he's just an egotistical twit who refuses to accept every argument isn't binary.
Thats not really the full picture Rusty and a bit disengenuous towards many parents. Downs comes with many further complications such as arthritis, heart conditions, very early dementia. Given that its a genetic disease which is not afaik likely to keep re occurring his comments and the decisions taken by many have weight. Its not as simple as you make out.
I doubt he's evil/immoral etc, he's just an egotistical twit who refuses to accept every argument isn't binary.
You may be right. Part of his shtick is to take an opposite, logical view to god botherers who dont seem to take the battering he does when they tell us that boffing another man or having babies out of wedlock or abortion is immoral.
Dawkins seems to find it difficult to express a more nuanced approach to ethics, which is precisely what we are left with if you remove god and religion from the equation, as he wishes.
The format of Twitter isn't exactly helpful when it comes to complex ethical and moral arguments.
The tension between the needs and desires of parents, the likely quality of life of their unborn children, the creeping risk of eugenics, and the role of the state and religions in these issues can't be resolved neatly in an exchange of a few dozen words.
You just end up sounding absolutist and unreasonable, which is great when you want to bash heads with other absolutists, but not so great here.
I personally think that these days, thanks to advances in heart defect surgery and other medical treatments, and better understanding of the condition, many people with DS can lead rich, fulfilling and satisfying lives. I also understand if parents feel they won't be able to cope with a child who will be far more dependent on them throughout life. It can't be boiled down to some kind of qualitative judgement based on 'suffering', as if that could be measured or predicted for any of us.
view to god botherers
Plenty of people who aren't god botherers would be taking a view in opposition to his comments in this matter, and arguing whether he's proscribing an action or merely giving his opinion on the action is useless anyway. Plenty of people who [i]aren't[/i] god botherers are pro-life. Plenty of people who [i]are[/i] god botherers are pro-choice.
I'm with Rusty, I'm fairly convinced that most people take the decision to abort for themselves rather than for the sake of the baby, or "foetus" as it's called when we decide that aborting it is ok. This, of course, is a matter of opinion - few would admit to such an attitude even if questioned for a survey.
. It can't be boiled down to some kind of qualitative judgement based on 'suffering', as if that could be measured or predicted for any of us.
Based on probabilities you can.
As someone with a bun in the oven and a best mate who's just had a positive DS probability result from the scan it's very pertinent. We had to ask ourselves the question what we'd do or there's no point having the scan.
We were in your situation 3.5 years ago and decided not to have the scan. Why? Because I think very few people are pro-choice or pro-life in every single situation, and for us we came to realise that there was no way we would have a termination based on a probability. That's where our line is.
Plenty of people who aren't god botherers would be taking a view in opposition to his comments in this matter, and arguing whether he's proscribing an action or merely giving his opinion on the action is useless anyway.
I'm atheist and pro-choice. I think Dawkins is a complete tit.
Based on probabilities you can.
You can get a suffer score on Strava, I grant you. But there are so many variables in a DS screening 'diagnosis' to make any probability pretty unhelpful.
A foetus which tests 'positive' for DS does not necessarily have it. If it does, the degree of disability, including the presence and severity of heart defects, will not be apparent until much later in pregnancy or after birth. The degree and severity of learning disabilities and other health problems is also unknown and will fall on a wide spectrum from very mild to very severe.
These days you could test foetuses for a wide variety of genetic flaws. These range from a 100% certainty that you will develop cystic fibrosis through a greatly increased risk of breast cancer to mild increase in a variety of other serious diseases such as cancer and heart disease. Where exactly you draw the line in terms of acceptable and unacceptable likelihood of suffering is extremely difficult.