Dawkins sparks outrage for saying Down Syndrome babies should be aborted

[Napoléon]

When I make my opinion on something, I usually balance both sides. Let's imagine I was a woman - I'd want to abort an handicapped baby... Now let's say I was the handicapped baby (let's pretend I was capable of having a conscience and processing thoughts) - I'd want to live.

Bullshit. Let's not pretend. Let's actually be realistic. These are foetuses we are talking about. Not babies. Not actual people. These foetuses aren't capable of any thought, and even if they were, how can you pretend to know what a handicapped baby would think? This is absolutely ludicrous.

Stop giving the foetus a mind. It doesn't have one. Not yet. This is exactly my point, you are thinking of the foetus as though it is a human who has rights like everyone else. Bottom line is, it isn't and it doesn't.

Some people don't like it, but the mother comes first.

Therefore my conclusion is that both options are valid, it's mostly a conflict of values.

Both options are valid but one option is more logical makes more sense than the other.


As for your understanding of Dawkin's positions on this matter, yeah, it's as deluded and incorrect as all those article headlines I quoted earlier. I'll reiterate what I said. Nobody is "pro-abortion". To say anyone is pro abortion is completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting their position on the matter. In an ideal world people wouldn't have to have abortions. But we don't live in an ideal world.


I brought up the incestuous offspring scenario because it highlights the hypocrisy of people who want to say "people should get to choose whether they have disabled kids or not" which is effectively what you're saying. Most people's contention with incest usually has little to do with the fact that people are brother and sister (or whatever other relation). In fact it's more to do with the higher chances of disabled or deformed offspring. In this case people tend to be vehemently against incest. It's seen as immoral to have a sexual relationship that has a higher chance of producing disabled offspring. Why is that? Why is it that in this scenario it's seen as bad to bring a disabled child into the world when it could be avoided, but when a 'normal' family has the opportunity to abort a child that will be disabled, it's immoral.

If you're not against incest for these reasons then I guess the argument is lost on you, but I still think it's relevant to some degree.

[Dystopia]

Bullshit. Let's not pretend. Let's actually be realistic. These are foetuses we are talking about. Not babies. Not actual people. These foetuses aren't capable of any thought, and even if they were, how can you pretend to know what a handicapped baby would think? This is absolutely ludicrous.

That's irrelevant, if I'm the mother of an handicapped unborn child, even if she/he is incapable of thinking, it's up to me to decide. My point on putting myself in both sides is to say 'I wouldn't want someone to abort me' but on the other want 'I would want to abort if I was a woman', it is merely an abstract idea.

Stop giving the foetus a mind. It doesn't have one. Not yet. This is exactly my point, you are thinking of the foetus as though it is a human who has rights like everyone else. Bottom line is, it isn't and it doesn't.

I'm not thinking like that, but the mother has the right to carry on a pregnancy if she wishes so, that's the only point I find relevant on this discussion

Some people don't like it, but the mother comes first.

Agree completely, that's why she can carry on a pregnancy if the child is handicapped

Both options are valid but one option is more logical makes more sense than the other.

People's ethics aren't always logical. And who are you to say one makes more sense? Have you met a mother of a child with down syndrome who genuinely loved him/her? If you did, you probably shouldn't be saying the choice is illogical, sometimes people are not capable of doing it. That's why it is a decision. Even if a decision is not logical or rational, emotions play a big part too, sometimes our decisions are not at all rational but they can make us feel more happy or fulfilled etc.

As for your understanding of Dawkin's positions on this matter, yeah, it's as deluded and incorrect as all those article headlines I quoted earlier. I'll reiterate what I said. Nobody is "pro-abortion". To say anyone is pro abortion is completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting their position on the matter. In an ideal world people wouldn't have to have abortions. But we don't live in an ideal world.

I've already noticed Dawkins was merely saying his opinion after being requested, it's valid, different people would give a different opinion.

I brought up the incestuous offspring scenario because it highlights the hypocrisy of people who want to say "people should get to choose whether they have disabled kids or not" which is effectively what you're saying. Most people's contention with incest usually has little to do with the fact that people are brother and sister (or whatever other relation). In fact it's more to do with the higher chances of disabled or deformed offspring. In this case people tend to be vehemently against incest. It's seen as immoral to have a sexual relationship that has a higher chance of producing disabled offspring. Why is that? Why is it that in this scenario it's seen as bad to bring a disabled child into the world when it could be avoided, but when a 'normal' family has the opportunity to abort a child that will be disabled, it's immoral.

Didn't you just say people consider incest immoral?

When it's a case of incest (and I'm not familiar with the exact probability of producing an handicapped child) it can be avoided and people are aware the odds do not favor them, it's a risky behavior. When it's a normal family it's usually an exceptional unplanned case. I don't treat both cases differently. And I'm not against incest, I just wouldn't personally bang my sister. I can be against procreation in incestuous relationships, but not against incest. If a couple (brother and sister) wanted to raise and handicapped baby, I'd let them, it's their choice.

[Napoléon]

That's irrelevant, if I'm the mother of an handicapped unborn child, even if she/he is incapable of thinking, it's up to me to decide. My point on putting myself in both sides is to say 'I wouldn't want someone to abort me' but on the other want 'I would want to abort if I was a woman', it is merely an abstract idea.

It's not irrelevant at all! It's the most relevant damn thing in all of this. "I wouldn't want someone to abort me" is a complete non-point. This person isn't even a person. There is no concept of a "me" to this foetus, it has as much thought as a chair. To use this line of reasoning at all is such a flagrant misunderstanding of the decision a person has to make. You're ascribing human emotion to something that is currently not yet a human. This is in turn having an impact on your rationality and thought process when deciding whether or not to abort. This is precisely why I think other people should have a say, or at least voice their opinions to a mother who might otherwise have these emotional feelings that you describe.

I'm not thinking like that, but the mother has the right to carry on a pregnancy if she wishes so, that's the only point I find relevant on this discussion

I'm not disputing a mother has that right. I'm in complete agreement with you when it comes to her having the choice. But where I appear to disagree with you is that you think it's fine for a woman to bring a disabled child into the world when she could try again. To go further, you say that it's not "anyone else's business" in terms of what decision she makes. I could not disagree more. I think people, especially medical professionals should weigh in on that decision. IMHO it's immoral to bring a disabled child into the world when you have the choice to try again. I agree with Dawkins. The thing is you seem to act like the foetus is a child. It's not. It's absolutely crucial to the issue here. It's absolutely relevant. If we were to talk about the foetus as though it is a child then it gives the impression that this foetus has feelings, that it has a say, when frankly it just should be like that. What about the unborn child that the mother has not yet tried for? The one she would have if she aborted and tried again? Why does nobody weep for this child when its place is taken by a disabled one? Because it doesn't exist yet? What about the thousands of fertilized eggs flushed away by menstruation? Nobody weeps for these either? The same consideration should be made for the foetus (ie, not much). The child itself doesn't exist yet, and the woman should understand that. But many don't. They think of it like a child that has already been born. That seems to be exactly what you're doing. It's just wrong.

Agree completely, that's why she can carry on a pregnancy if the child is handicapped

The point just flew over your head here...

People's ethics aren't always logical. And who are you to say one makes more sense?

I'm another human being. One choice does make more sense. Period. People should know the facts and not bury their head in the sand pretending that a foetus is a child. I'm not trying to be cold to the emotions a person might feel when they have a foetus inside them. I honestly can't even begin to talk about it because, 1. I'm not a woman and 2. I've never been pregnant. All I can do is think about the decision in rational terms and not emotional ones. If I was the father, and my wife/partner had the option to abort early and try again for a healthy baby, I think I'd be doing myself, my partner and my future child a massive wrong by not taking that option.

Have you met a mother of a child with down syndrome who genuinely loved him/her? If you did, you probably shouldn't be saying the choice is illogical, sometimes people are not capable of doing it. That's why it is a decision. Even if a decision is not logical or rational, emotions play a big part too, sometimes our decisions are not at all rational but they can make us feel more happy or fulfilled etc.

Yes my old next door neighbour's son had down syndrome. Take the moral high ground all you want, it's irrelevant to the point. I'm sure they'd of loved a healthy child just as much and it would have not been as much of a strain for them to look after a healthy child, a healthy child would also have better prospects and probably lead a more fulfilling life (note, I'm not saying people with down syndrome can't live fulfilling or happy lives, but their capacity to do so is certainly limited compared to a normal, healthy person).

I understand emotions play a part too, and I respect that if people make that decision. Indeed not everyone gets to make the decision at all. I don't understand the circumstances of my old neighbours so I can't comment on whether they had a choice, but what I do know is, is they most certainly had a harder time looking after a down syndrome child than if they had a healthy one.

I honestly think that given the choice we would all want healthy kids. Given the choice, I there is only one rational decision. People often have emotions over a foetus that aren't warranted though, which is precisely what I'm banging on about.

Didn't you just say people consider incest immoral?

EXACTLY. Yet bringing disabled children into the world when the parent otherwise has the choice not to is not immoral?

I can be against procreation in incestuous relationships, but not against incest. If a couple (brother and sister) wanted to raise and handicapped baby, I'd let them, it's their choice.

This is my point. I'm not against incest per se but I am against procreation in incestuous relationships because I think it's a pretty fucked up thing to do when the chances of bringing a disabled child into the world are significantly higher, especially considering it's something you are in direct control of. But again, it's seemingly not fucked up to go ahead with a pregnancy of a handicapped kid, when the choice can be made. Why is that?

So are you against procreation in incestuous relationships or aren't you? Because if you are, what do you base that on? If not, then that's pretty fucked up IMHO. Are you saying we should allow a brother and sister bring into the world a deformed kid from them both having sex? And you're ok with that? Dawkins is an asshole for saying something perfectly logical, but a brother and sister having a handicapped kid is okay? Am I following this right?


It comes down to this for me: If you have the choice to bring a baby into the world who is handicapped when you could otherwise try again, you're just doing a disservice to that potential life. The foetus that you're debating aborting shouldn't be thought of with human emotions because it's just plain not a baby yet. It's no more a baby than the thousands of other fertilized eggs that get flushed out through women's menstrual cycles. Neither one has reached the stage in its development where it can be thought of as a baby, but for some reason the foetus is thought of as a baby, when in reality it is no more a potential life than all those fertilized eggs.

Apologies for the long ass post, I'll try not to go on so much in my following posts (if I make any) I'm just trying to be clear with my thoughts.

[Losty]

Someone tweeted Dawkins saying they didn't know what they would do. Dawkins gave his opinion. Nothing more than that really. He's not advocating any sort of legal action or eugenicist mindset, he's saying what he would do. Nothing he said is in contradiction to anything you've said. Except maybe the tone.

Oh I wasn't criticizing Dawkins on this, I was just adding my opinion. I personally disagree that a fetus with Down syndrome "should" be aborted. It doesn't bother me that someone else thinks that though. It's not like he said, "it should be illegal to carry a fetus to term if it likely has Down syndrome". Then I would understand the outrage.

I would probably say that a fetus should be aborted whenever the woman carrying it wants/chooses to have an abortion for whatever reason she has. Said reason being none of my damn business.

[Aractus]

I recall a certain political leader from the 20th century also being quite fond of eugenics.

What a stupd thing to say. Aborting a defective fetus is not eugenics.

Labelling a Wolve's as "defective" is the same as labelling Chinks, Jiggies, Yarpies or Filthy Jewish Scum as "defective", and is absolutly the textbook definition of eugenics.

[Losty]

What a stupd thing to say. Aborting a defective fetus is not eugenics.

Labelling a Wolve's as "defective" is the same as labelling Chinks, Jiggies, Yarpies or Filthy Jewish Scum as "defective", and is absolutly the textbook definition of eugenics.

What?

[Aractus]

All people in any given society are resources and should be treated as such. If any society is not maximising their resources (humans included) we call them under-developed. This is the predominant ideology at the moment, as opposed to say the Eugenic view or the view that the public at large are merely objects for the wealthy to exploit (Laissez-fair etc). And it's also hugely successful in bringing the 3rd world out of poverty and into the categories of "developing nations".

All resources have value, and all human resources can contribute something to society. Labelling any person as "defective" is clearly incompatible with the resource-maximisation philosophy.

Let me give you an example that might help illustrate this. The yanks don't really believe very strongly in universal healthcare/obamacare. But from the perspective or resource maximisation it's certainly true that you want to keep your workforce strong and also that prevention is a lot cheaper than treatment. This is just as true for hospitals as is for gaols, etc. This is one reason why under this philosophy the belief of universal education is so important. Education for all - healthcare for all.

Now while education is certainly the preventative measure for crime, the preventative measures for health are certainly not fully exploited - which is one reason why I'm so interested in it - and I don't have the numbers for the USA, but I can tell you that in Australia govt. spending on healthcare sees about 35% or more go to hospitals, but only 2% go towards prevention. So we spend nearly 20 times as much treating people when it is in fact cheaper to prevent the need for treatment. So we're certainly not at the moment even trying to reach potential in this area. In the 3rd world it is very different - most of the health spending is on prevention (creating access to clean water, etc) and then once that's done it too sees that part of the health budget decrease as the spending on hospitals increases.

If you don't agree with this philosophy that's fine - that's your choice. You don't have to believe that all people should have access to education, etc, but in doing so you have to adopt another philosophy. Labelling any group of people as "defective" is incompatible with labelling all people as resources of society; but it is compatible with Eugenics and possibly other ideologies/political views etc.

[Losty]

I completely agree with you. I do not, however, agree that a fetus is a person.

[Cato]

What a stupd thing to say. Aborting a defective fetus is not eugenics.

Labelling a Wolve's as "defective" is the same as labelling Chinks, Jiggies, Yarpies or Filthy Jewish Scum as "defective", and is absolutly the textbook definition of eugenics.

You're not considering a crucial element of the definition of eugenics. It hinges on the idea of selecting traits prior to breeding in an attempt to only pass on certain traits. This is not happening when people decide to abort a fetus with a genetic defect. Traits weren't chosen for prior to reproduction; therefore, not eugenics.

[Polaris]

I recall a certain political leader from the 20th century also being quite fond of eugenics.

What a stupd thing to say. Aborting a defective fetus is not eugenics.

"The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. "