[Closed] Dawkins latest comments

A foetus is not a baby. In terms of it's nature, it is no more subject to risk of pain or awareness of it's condition than a brussel sprout.

EDIT: With which, of course, it shares much of it's gene base.

My point is Dawkins' use of the term 'immoral'. I have no argument with his view of religion - his latest comments have nothing to do with that. The decision to abort should rest entirely with the parents. I realise that this is one persons opinion, but he should take into consideration the fact that some people (and yes, I'd include myself among them) are upset and deeply offended by his remarks. I chose to adopt a baby with multiple learning difficulties. He is not an 'it', his name's Josh and I love him more than words could describe. I don't feel there is anything remotely immoral about him. Step outside the lecture theatre, this is not a clinical debate, it's a real issue that affects real lives. I for one am glad that someone decided not to abort this particular 'Brussels sprout'. With regard to suffering, Josh is the happiest kid you could wish to meet. It's not him that has the problem, just society in general. As I said previously, "I wouldn't change you for the world, but I'd change the world for you".

Nevertheless, when Josh was a foetus, he wasn't Josh. Whether or not the foetus went on to become Josh is neither here nor there.

EDIT: So some people were offended. So be offended then. Nothing's going to happen.

Nevertheless, when Josh was a foetus, he wasn't Josh. Whether or not the foetus went on to become Josh is neither here nor there.

To many people it's here. To many more it's there. To many more again, it's neither here nor there. It's always going to come down to personal philosophy on that front.

I'm not really sure what to make of that woppit. In a way, you're right, nothing will happen. We obviously have very different views of the world, and perhaps that's how it should be.

but he should take into consideration the fact that some people (and yes, I'd include myself among them) are upset and deeply offended by his remarks

Why should he, or anyone else for that matter, do this? If we all went around making sure that we said nothing that might offend someone else no one would say anything.

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.

Completely disagree with that. In fact (agnostic atheist speaking) I often see the more religious having difficulty approaching 'nuanced' (grey areas) ethics. They have a proscribed 'good vs evil' approach to ethics which is surely anything but nuanced?

On balance, I think it's really more down to the person - as I've had many ethical debates/discussions with, variously, Muslims, Christians, new age pagans, agnostics and atheists - and some seem almost embarrassed at their proscribed beliefs when it comes down to ethics, whereas in reality (with the religious - absent a slavish adherence to scripture, with hardline atheist - absent a slavish adherence to dispassionate science) people are broadly humanist with a penchant for ethical debate - while of course others (hardline) are literally black and white - ie 'thou shalt not suffer a witch/DS to live' because it is evil/immoral.

Incredibly insensitive, broad-brushed and stupid comment by Dawkins. He likes to court controversy, his bread and butter etc. Growing up, I never really thought about the fact that I was an 'atheist' untilthe internet cam along and with it an army of obnoxiously vocal, largely North American, uber-Darwinists who co-opted the 'A' in atheist and sold T Shirts at least as quickly as they became enslaved by internet memes. We humans have a long way to go ...

I'm not really sure what to make of that woppit

I think the idea was that Richard (and by extension, anybody) shouldn't say things that offend people, if he knows they might give offense.

My impression is that he probably things that's a load of old pony.

One of the reasons I'm a fan.

Why should he, or anyone else for that matter, do this? If we all went around making sure that we said nothing that might offend someone else no one would say anything.

I realise STW threads can easily get derailed into a "who's offended, who's not offended, who's professionally offended, who's wallowing in their inability to be offended" seven circles of hell, but let's see if we can keep what's been an interesting discussion on track, eh?

but let's see if we can keep what's been an interesting discussion on track, eh?

Who made YOU Pope? 😉

Let's not get into another debate on religion. Dawkins comments had nothing to do with religion. And with regard to his comments causing offence, why shouldn't I feel upset? This is not a clinical debate, it's an issue that affects people in the real world. As I said, it's not my son or his condition that's the problem, it's the attitudes of some members of society that are. I'm starting to get increasingly pissed, so I'm going to walk away from this thread.

😀

My best mate at school kissed his ring y'know. We all thought he was awesome for days afterwards.

EDIT: OOPS, the above at Woppit!! 😳

Completely disagree with that. In fact (agnostic atheist speaking) I often see the more religious having difficulty approaching 'nuanced' (grey areas) ethics. They have a proscribed 'good vs evil' approach to ethics which is surely anything but nuanced?

I clearly have difficulty expressing myself 🙂

What I meant was that religion often has a very binary appraoach to these areas. If you remove god and religion from the equation, in theory, at least, you should be able to apply a more nuanced perspective to difficult moral and ethical questions.

However, ironically a lot of Dawkins' comments, despite his opposition to good/evil religion, are also very binary, as evidenced here with the statement that it would be immoral to continue with a pregnancy following a positive DS screening test. Anything you say on Twitter can sound over-simplified, of course.

Let's not get into another debate on religion.

Yes, let's not.

Nobody's saying you shouldn't feel upset. We're just saying it's not important.

You're too easily upset, IMHO. Have a nice day. Really.

My best mate at school kissed his ring y'know. We all thought he was awesome for days afterwards

Bet his breath smelt, though.

As I said, it's not my son or his condition that's the problem, it's the attitudes of some members of society that are.

You have your opinions which is largely the result of your own experiences. There are many of us who have come to a different conclusion based on our personal experiences. Personally I don't agree that to continue with the pregnancy of a downs child is immoral, however I do understand exactly why someone might use that fact as a reason to terminate. The lifelong realities of raising a child with such a condition are all too well known to me so I'd never stand in judgment of someone who made this difficult choice.

Martin, not necessarily your difficulty - caffeine induced speedreading on my part doesn't help things. We seem to agree after all. Oh where's the fun in that!? 😉

Dawkins comments had everything to do with religion imo. He see's religion directing morality based on made up stories of fairies and goblins and so he gave his view based on the evidence he has seen. I welcome his input. I dont agree with it entirely but its good to see non religious people stand up for what they believe and feel able to express it. The debate about Downs is a side issue to his point that early abortion is not wrong and causes no suffering.

Dawkins comments had everything to do with religion imo.

Even when he doesn't say anything about it. As in this case.

Amazing.

wunundred

A woman said that if she had the positive (or likely) result of a Downs baby she wouldn't know what to do. He said abort and try again as to have the baby would be immoral. And in her case he's quite probably right, you shouldn't have a kid if you're not sure you want it.

We didn't have the DS test on our sprogs, basically I didn't want to get a positive result and have to make a decision I really did not want to make.

I think calling eugenics on this issue is harsh.

He's not telling people what to do he's saying what he thinks.

I find this a fascinating topic but do find Dawkins' use of the word immoral somewhat inflammatory. I'm sure this was intentional.

I'd love to share a pint or two with some of you who have polarised opinions on this, if only to share some experiences that may open our respective minds.

Whoppit have you read the full exchange?
Is what Dawkins said any worse than what pro lifers say?

klumpy - Member

A woman said that if she had the positive (or likely) result of a Downs baby she wouldn't know what to do. He said abort and try again as to have the baby would be immoral. And in her case he's quite probably right, you shouldn't have a kid if you're not sure you want it.

If it was in relation to that specific case then I think he's right too.

Unfortunately he can now be bracketed with David Starkey, Noam Chomsky and Billy Bragg in pushing an agenda with tiresome predictability and publicity-seeking into the bargain.

Unfortunately he can now be bracketed with David Starkey, Noam Chomsky and Billy Bragg in pushing

By you....

I've just caught up with this thread, and it raises some interesting questions. Sorry, I'm going to gloss over Dawkins because frankly I just don't care, he's not the spokesperson for the free-thinking world, he's a book writer and I'm quite happy with his position as 'target' for the more fringe theists. Put all the shouty people in a corner and let them get on with it.

Anyway. In particular, I'm having difficulty rationalising the pro-choice stance with the opinion some appear to have that 'I don't want it because I don't like the father' is valid but 'I don't want it because it will almost certainly have Downs' is not.

If we're [i]genuinely[/i] pro choice then what does the reasoning behind that choice matter? Aren't we just paying lip service to the idea and yet still judging people?

So it's not about the child.
It's about the parents.

I don't think that's 100% the case, but I think it's certainly a large part of it. And you know, I really don't see a problem with that. You only have one life.

Aren't we just paying lip service to the idea and yet still judging people?

I'm pro-choice but am uncomfortable with choice over "trivial" reasons

...and so we return to the crux of this debate which is that our respective moral compasses don't all point the same way, which is why this debate is such an interesting one and one that will never be "solved".

I'm pro-choice but am uncomfortable with choice over "trivial" reasons

absolutely.

and to clarify I'd back a woman's right to choice whatever, but if she decided to use that right because she and her partner CBA with contraception or because she wanted a girl not a boy or similar I'd be a bit miffed about it. Whether I'd actually say anything to her face or just moan about it on a cycling forum is another matter.

I think the reason abortion is such a difficult subject is that we personalise it - we think "what if my parents had aborted me". This is a confusion of the specific vs. the general.

A good example of this is the lottery. If I won the lottery I'd think myself very, very lucky*, and it'd be an incredibly unusual event. But someone wins the lottery almost every week - in my specific case it's a very unusual event, in the general case of someone winning the lottery it's not unusual at all.

Looking from the viewpoint of the individual child, it's very hard to not think abortion is a terrible thing - it's almost murder. But looking from the viewpoint of the parent, or wider society, if that person is going to produce a child then which particular combination of sperm and egg they use is unimportant.

I love my daughter. She's the most important thing in my world. If she had been born with a disability, that would still be the case, we wouldn't love her any less. But if we knew before she became a person that she would have a serious disability, the decision would be much harder, and we might well have decided it was better to try again.

It'd be different for everyone, though - we conceived almost right away, if we had struggled and gone through a lot to conceive, the decision might well have been different.

tl;dr: It's too complicated to discuss sensibly in 140 characters.

*for one thing, because I've never bought a lottery ticket.

[url= https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/ ]Dawkins explains[/url]

Who'd have thought it? 140 characters isn't a good vehicle for nuanced opinion. FWIW I thought his tweet was crass, arrogant and insensitive, yet can't find anything to fault in the linked piece.

This is a really interesting thread. Obviously close to a lot of people's hearts.

It became close to mine about 4 months ago when we were told our 20 week old son (foetus?) had a 99% chance of having DS. Within 2-3 days we were over the shock and coming to terms with the different life our family might have. We didn't even discuss an abortion, adoption or anything other than preparing ourselves for the situation if it came.

Thankfully, 3 weeks later, we were told that everything was fine.

At 20 weeks, he was already ours. I'd seen him wave and couldn't imagine him not joining us. There's no way I'd have wanted to end the pregnancy. However, if we'd been given those statistics when he was a few cells big, I'd have certainly wanted to discuss it with my wife. For me, the difficult thing there is at what stage he becomes my 'child'. Honestly, I've no idea.

What confuses me more is our first son, now 2 1/2, was born with severe congenital heart issues. They weren't diagnosed until he was 11 days old. Now that he's 'fixed' and 'normal', although my wife, son and I had a very tough first year, the thought of not having him in our lives leaves me cold. If, in a medically hypothetical situation, we'd been told days after conception about his heart issues, perhaps we'd have tried again.

TL;DR

I have no idea. There are splinters in my arse I'm sitting so firmly on the fence. Frequently, the people who fall strongly on one side or another of the argument, in this case the Catholic Church and Dawkins, come across as %^$*"@s.

EDIT:

Having seen Dawkins' explanation, I find it hard to disagree. The difficulty comes when

a) you have a child. Whether or not they have a disability, you can;t imagine not having them in your life and the thought of losing them in incomprehensible

b) at what stage were they your child and not a blob of cells.

Looking from the viewpoint of the individual child, it's very hard to not think abortion is a terrible thing - it's almost murder. But looking from the viewpoint of the parent, or wider society, if that person is going to produce a child then which particular combination of sperm and egg they use is unimportant.

No it isn't, otherwise the morning after pill is murder and ****ing into a sock is unjustified murder (you don't give one sperm a chance to become a whole person). As someone else mentioned, below 24 weeks it's nervous system can detect about as much pain as a Brussel Sprout. It's a collection of cells that looks somewhat like a baby and invariably sets off all sorts of emotions within people.

Cougar - Moderator

[b]So it's not about the child.
It's about the parents.[/b]

I don't think that's 100% the case, but I think it's certainly a large part of it. And you know, I really don't see a problem with that. You only have one life.

I should have said it's 'mostly' about the parents.

I know it's not black and white, and you notice I didn't make any judgments - I feel enormously sorry for anyone in this situation and I don't think that there are any definitive answers.

No it isn't, otherwise the morning after pill is murder and **** into a sock is unjustified murder (you don't get one sperm a chance to become a whole person).

Some people, especially those of a religious persuasion, would disagree with you. My point was that with abortion it's very hard not to look back in time - it's hard not to look at a person now and think that aborting them in the past would have been murder.

That's not logical, but I think it helps explain why it's such an emotive issue.

It's murder now because that person is a conscious being.

I find it very hard to look at a person and think, hey if they didn't exist right now that would be murder. They wouldn't know about it and they wouldn't have lost anything.

Who'd have thought it? 140 characters isn't a good vehicle for nuanced opinion. FWIW I thought his tweet was crass, arrogant and insensitive, yet can't find anything to fault in the linked piece.

Imagine how reasonable we'd all sound if we didn't use social media?

Closest you'll get to a grovelling apology from RD, I guess. He must be feeling daft for hitting return on that tweet, as it does sound awful.

dannyh - Member

Unfortunately he can now be bracketed with David Starkey, Noam Chomsky and Billy Bragg in pushing an agenda with tiresome predictability and publicity-seeking into the bargain.

Posted 2 hours ago #

Mr Woppit - Member

Unfortunately he can now be bracketed with David Starkey, Noam Chomsky and Billy Bragg in pushing

By you....

Yes - my point isn't particularly to do with whether I agree or disagree with him, it is just that whenever a particular type of issue crops up you just know that Dawkins/Starkey/Chomsky/Bragg will pop up and try to shoehorn their opinion into the argument, usually with a bit of controversy as a 'kicker' to make sure it causes a reaction.

By the way, the Selfish Gene and the Blind Watchmaker are amongst the best books I have read - I just don't like grandstanding (particularly) with a view to causing a ruckus over a controversial issue.

Starkey's comments on the 2011 riots for example were awkwardly correct in many ways, but the timing was 'unhelpful'.

Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort

There's still that use of 'moral' in there though that I can't see as being necessary to his point unless he views the word as being different in meaning to what I would understand from it.

I'm going to gloss over Dawkins because frankly I just don't care

I'll alert the media... 🙄

Closest you'll get to a grovelling apology from RD

Especially as there's absolutely no reason for grovelling.

He must be feeling daft for hitting return on that tweet,

I doubt that very much.

Nemesis - I agree, he still needs to expand on what the moral element of that choice would be in his view. Sparing future suffering to the DS individual (dubious in my opinion)? Introducing a genetically flawed individual into society to be a significant burden on health and care resources over its lifetime? (dubious in other ways IMO).

"I think the moral choice is" i dont see why people get so upset by him giving his view. Morals are personnel are they not. Had he said ethical you may have an issue.

THE. PARENT. DOES. NOT. WANT. THE. RESPONSIBILITY.

And, given the state of conciousness of a foetus as already outlined, there is no "moral" basis for denying an abortion. In my opinion.

Introducing a genetically flawed individual into society to be a significant burden on health and care resources over its lifetime?

That's what I reckon he probably means but I'd have thought he'd have stated that to make clear.

a_a you're maybe right but while morals can be considered personal, if I call you immoral I think you'd take that as a sleight, wouldn't you?

And given that I think woppit has summarised RD's position properly, why is there a moral element to it (to make it immoral)?

It's not just the parents though is it.

If we had a child with care needs over and above the 'normal' then we have to accept sooner or later that burden will fall on the sibling.

There's a lot to think about. I'm grateful to live in time and geography that allows me to have the debate even with myself.

Many people think I'm immoral for having a child out of wedlock. I dont give a **** what they think. If i had had a fetus aborted and people said I was immoral I might be more angry at them but not offended as such. If I had a child with Downs and someone questioned their right to life I'd kick them in the nuts.

And, given the state of conciousness of a foetus as already outlined, there is no "moral" basis for denying an abortion. In my opinion.

Two different 'moral questions' being thrown around here, hence some of the confusion.

1) Would it be moral to stop someone having an abortion in these circumstances, or morally acceptable should a couple choose to have an abortion?
2) Is the abortion the morally correct action, and not aborting immoral?

I was talking about 2) rather than 1), as was Dawkins - certainly in the tweet, and I'm pretty certain in his 'explanation'. What's your view on that?

a_a - That made me lol and you're quite right but it's still clear that the word 'moral' isn't just a personal thing.

Anyway, as I said above, I expect he's using 'moral' in the sense of a burden on society but that's not really clear in what he's actually written and in how people tend to actually use the word.

I expect he's using 'moral' in the sense of a burden on society

I expect he's using 'moral' as a honeypot to bait Christians into a morality / Bible exclusivity argument.

Well, quite possibly that too 🙂 He is a bit of an attention whore afterall...

You know, anecdotally, the most attention I see Dawkins get isn't from himself or from his fans, but from people who don't like him. I hear him used as a slur by Theists ('your god Dawkins' and similar) far more than I hear the non-religious bigging him up.

I'm starting to think that he is, fundamentally (ho ho!), trolling.

I expect he's using 'moral' in the sense of a burden on society but that's not really clear in what he's actually written and in how people tend to actually use the word.

Why would he not be using it in respect of quality of life of the person being born?

(i still don't agree with its use in that context though)

I suspect he may have done something that all of us do from time to time...acted without thinking. I bet if he'd thought about it for a moment he would have used a different word.

Well he hasn't said that and from a quick read up, there doesn't seem to be clear evidence of that. Given his logical nature, I'd have expected that to be the case if that's what he meant.

I'm starting to think that he is, fundamentally (ho ho!), trolling.

He's a bad and predictable troll at that, Hitchens was a far better one, a thinking mans troll. A giant amongst trolls.

I got a good laugh when Hitchens compared North Kora to heaven/Christmas. Dawkins just comes across as a jerk.

He is a bit of an attention whore afterall...

Yup. He's all meme meme meme.

Dawkins added a post to his blog clarifying his position:

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

FWIW I'd have to say that this response seems pretty reasonable, but I can see why people have got upset about it as well. As Dawkins points out its really up to the individual at the end of the day.

FWIW I'd have to say that this response seems pretty reasonable

Richard in "Dawkins not strident" shock horror in depth probe... 😆

Agreed, it was obvious that his true intention had not come across as meant (cue at the naysayers saying that he is now backtracking).

At the end of the day, it still turns on the point at which you consider a foetus to become a child. Biology teaches us one thing and emotion tells us another.

Difficult choice regardless of the side of the fence you sit on.

Biology teaches us one thing and emotion [s]tells us another[/s] misleads us by triggering a Darwinist survival mechanism.

If he realy meant to say on twitter what he said in his explanation on the blog I am sure he could have achieved it within 140 characters without saying the moral choice is to abort. I am pro the availability of abortion on demand and an atheist I would wholly support someone's decision to abort on the basis of a downs risk but to do so is not"the" moral choice it is "a" moral choice . when in the real world crankygirl and I worked out this equation our decision was we really wanted and would love our child regardless, we are not rich but have sufficient resources financial and family support and a first world state behind us to ensure a safe and happy life for our child, our limited experience of people with disabilities is that they can and do have happy and fulfilling lives . On that basis we decided not even to bother testing as we knew we would continue regardless . Our decision was not sound from a purely pragmatic or eugenic point of veiw but I believe was morally and ethnicly defensible .

Is not a Darwinist survival mechanism biology too?

It's biological, not Biology.

Is splitting hairs bullshit, biology or biological?

"biological" is, in this case, [i]of[/i] human development.

"Biology" is the study of that, hence being taught by it.

Hairs are a nuisance, especially yours. Get a shave.

Biology teaches us one thing and emotion misleads us by triggering a biological survival mechanism. Is that should have been said Woppit ?

Biology teaches us we are driven by a need to perpetuate our Genes. If one have lots of opportunity to reproduce then it makes biological sense to abort a foetus that is going to be potentially defective (not my ideal choice of word) if one has limited opportunity to reproduce then it makes biological sense to try to ensure the survival of every potential progeny .

I see you lot are still befuddled between morals and ethics

The Oxford Defence?

eh?

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/dawkins-now-just-telling-random-strangers-why-he-hates-them-2014082189774 ]Tee-Hee[/url]

Dawkins explains

Who'd have thought it? 140 characters isn't a good vehicle for nuanced opinion. FWIW I thought his tweet was crass, arrogant and insensitive, yet can't find anything to fault in the linked piece.

If he'd have written his blog then linked that in his reply tweet, it would have been fine. The problem is not what he said - his blog is actually very good and given time and space he explains himself very well.

The problem is that he tried to explain it via Twitter which is a rubbish medium for anything that in-depth and nuanced, especially when you bring into the equation the emotion that surrounds issues like abortion, religion etc.

Got no problems with Dawkins himself, generally he speaks pretty good sense even if he can be a bit self-publicising at times.

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?

Thats his problem, and many like him.

Science is nowhere near to understanding the human brain, emotions, feelings. All science can do is reduce phenomenon down to a mechanical explanation of the universe.

This mechanical explanation (everything runs like a machine, efficiency is a higher form of being etc) is a priori (before) the actual phenomenon we experience in the world.

Simply put, if you see the world in terms of logic, reason, religion, then any entity you encounter phenomenologically will be processed through that framework, which exists before you encounter the entity.

So a Down's Syndrome baby in Dawkin's eye will always appear as 'broken' or 'useless' because he has an a priori notion of what is 'useful' or 'not broken'.

I'm not religious, but these types like Dawkins really get on my nerves. They act like they know it all but in reality they need to take a course in Philosophy 101 and realise the scientific worldview isn't the be-all-end-all.

devash
They act like they know it all but in reality they need to take a course in Philosophy 101 and realise the scientific worldview isn't the be-all-end-all.

Dawkins upsets the self righteous, keep it up 😉

Down's Syndrome baby in Dawkin's eye will always appear as 'broken' or 'useless' because he has an a priori notion of what is 'useful' or 'not broken'.

Except that wasnt his point. His point was that a fetus does not suffer whilst kids with Downs have all sorts of health problems likely to cause suffering so the moral thing to do would be have an abortion and try again as Downs isnt an inherited genetic disorder.

His point was that a fetus does not suffer whilst kids with Downs have all sorts of health problems likely to cause suffering so the moral thing to do would be have an abortion and try again as Downs isnt an inherited genetic disorder.

If we can accept that at the point of termination a foetus is not a child, if when pregnancy is confirmed the midwife gave you an option and said " would you like your child with or without Down's ?", I would imagine every parent would say "without preferably". So from Dawkins perspective (ie foetus is not a child its just a stage in a biological process) why would someone choose to carry that foetus to term rather than try again with a different sperm and egg?

Like i've said before, the difference between Dawkins and people opposed to him (other than his manners) is simply when he considers that biological process to be a "child".

if one has limited opportunity to reproduce then it makes biological sense to try to ensure the survival of every potential progeny .

Wrong! If you can't have lots of offspring it's probably because they require lots of resources and take a long time to develop into adults, hence it's better to abort than waste resources on offspring that might not be able to pass on your genes.

try again as Downs isnt an inherited genetic disorder.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. Most cases of Downs Syndrome are not inherited but some are.

So much crap Biology in this thread.

Science is nowhere near to understanding the human brain, emotions, feelings. All science can do is reduce phenomenon down to a mechanical explanation of the universe.

The universe is mechanistic. Besides, we understand the brain well enough to make a judgement call on fetal pain.

Don't tell me, you're a postmodernist?