Dawkins sparks outrage for saying Down Syndrome babies should be aborted

[Losty]

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. "

What does abortion have to do with controlled breeding?
Abortion occurs after the breeding has already occurred. And if you abort a genetically flawed fetus to try again the next fetus will still get the same genes from you, even if it doesn't get whatever flaw.

[Esquilax]

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. "

I didn't realize the absence of a genetic defect was a characteristic on its own.

[Aractus]

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

So? If a ferrous is "defective" under somebody's definition because it may have Down's then by that same definition a human being with Down's is "defective". It's still saying that you don't think a person with Down's has the same value as someone who doesn't.

[Esquilax]

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

So? If a ferrous is "defective" under somebody's definition because it may have Down's then by that same definition a human being with Down's is "defective". It's still saying that you don't think a person with Down's has the same value as someone who doesn't.

I don't think it's a matter of value. People have value, diseases and genetic defects do not; I doubt you'd find many people with Down's syndrome who'd willingly accept it as a choice, for example. The person has inherent worth, but you're not eliminating a person when you abort a fetus, there is no soul that was unique to the Down's baby that then doesn't have a chance to ever be alive if you abort it. When you abort, the person that fetus may have become doesn't shuffle off from some spectral plane, having lost his chance to exist.

There's nothing shameful or wrong about acknowledging that sometimes, the personal circumstances that somebody has no control over are less than ideal, but that doesn't mean you're bound to treat that person as any less valid a human being as anyone else. It's just accepting the realities of our physicality as it regards the world we live in; a person with a handicap is a person with a handicap. Should they be treated poorly because of it? No. Should they have the same opportunities as anyone else? Yes, of course. But to just pretend like their circumstances don't exist is just condescending. You wouldn't do that to any other person impacted by events beyond their control, after all.

And when we're talking about a fetus? That's not even a discussion you need to have. Because there's no person there at all, and by aborting you're just making sure the child you do have is given a better set of starting conditions.

[Aractus]

I don't think it's a matter of value. People have value, diseases and genetic defects do not; I doubt you'd find many people with Down's syndrome who'd willingly accept it as a choice, for example. The person has inherent worth, but you're not eliminating a person when you abort a fetus, there is no soul that was unique to the Down's baby that then doesn't have a chance to ever be alive if you abort it. When you abort, the person that fetus may have become doesn't shuffle off from some spectral plane, having lost his chance to exist.

You aren't reading the same thing I am.

This is Cato's statement:

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

He is labelling a foetus with Down's as "defective". That is just the same as labelling a Jiggaboo foetus "defective" or a Jewish foetus "defective".

And when we're talking about a fetus? That's not even a discussion you need to have. Because there's no person there at all, and by aborting you're just making sure the child you do have is given a better set of starting conditions.

If the foetus is 8 months old when it's diagnosed as being a Wolf wouldn't you say that's a different matter? What if it's not diagnosed until 6 years old, can it still be aborted then? The line is very fuzzy - I don't think that you're going to get very many foetus's diagnosed as Wolf before the 20 week mark. And diagnoses can happen at any time - it can happen 20 minutes before delivery. And those that are wouldn't be a 100% certain diagnoses either. So the argument can't be expected to be concentrated on an undeveloped foetus.

[Esquilax]

You aren't reading the same thing I am.

This is Cato's statement:

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

He is labelling a foetus with Down's as "defective". That is just the same as labelling a Jiggaboo foetus "defective" or a Jewish foetus "defective".

I was responding to your post to Losty, where you said that accepting Down's syndrome as a defect required that you place less value on any given person with Down's syndrome as you would on anyone else. It doesn't, so long as you're not conflating biology and physicality with personhood.

As to your actual position here, that very much depends on the quality of the argument one brings to bear: with Down's syndrome one can point to very real harmful effects that aren't present in the other two. In fact I doubt very much that one could even furnish an argument as to why the other two are harmful that didn't rely on special pleading or factual inaccuracies to do so.

I'm always interested when these types of conversations about biology turn to Judaism too; it's so obvious what parallels the claimant wishes to draw when they make that case, but it's also obviously inaccurate. "Jew" isn't a race, since one isn't formally identified as Jewish solely through ancestry. One can convert to Judaism, meaning that the biological component isn't required or, indeed, necessary. Hence, "Jewish fetus" is as inappropriate an appellation as "Christian fetus," or "Hindu fetus."

If the foetus is 8 months old when it's diagnosed as being a Wolf wouldn't you say that's a different matter?

Wait, are you saying eight months into fetal development, or eight months old? If it's the former it's almost a moot point given how few abortions actually take place at that stage, and if it's the latter then it's a person and my argument regarding fetuses no longer applies.

What if it's not diagnosed until 6 years old, can it still be aborted then?

Six year old= person.

The line is very fuzzy - I don't think that you're going to get very many foetus's diagnosed as Wolf before the 20 week mark. And diagnoses can happen at any time - it can happen 20 minutes before delivery. And those that are wouldn't be a 100% certain diagnoses either. So the argument can't be expected to be concentrated on an undeveloped foetus.

I don't think nuance invalidates the argument. Of course the position should change based on the available facts, but that has nothing to do with what I was originally responding to.

[BrokenQuill92]

I was going to comment on this but then I thought it's better if I don't go near this can of worms! Oh yeah, you guys "handicap" is really rude. That hasn't been used since the nineties.

[Aractus]

I was responding to your post to Losty, where you said that accepting Down's syndrome as a defect required that you place less value on any given person with Down's syndrome as you would on anyone else. It doesn't, so long as you're not conflating biology and physicality with personhood.

Let me make my position clear. I'm not particularly fond of abortion, especially after 18 or so weeks. At 21 weeks a baby can be delivered put into an incubator and has the potential to survive. At 21 weeks it probably won't survive - but it can.

So if the anti-abortionists are not allowed to tell people that they shouldn't have an abortion, then the pro-abortionists are not allowed to tell people they should have an abortion.

But that itself isn't the biggest problem I have here. Our first-world societies are founded on the principle of Social-Inclusion. And within that philosophy we value humans as a resource. That's why, as I said, in the 3rd world we start with education, with disease and preventative public-health measures etc to start building a framework where the productivity and potential of that resource can start to be realised. If you went back say 200 years in the UK the predominant model of the time would have been laissez-fair. The wealthy didn't want to bring the poor out of poverty they were more interested in their own lifestyles. They didn't want free education or universal healthcare - how was it going to help them? But we know for a fact because it's been repeated all over the world that the social-inclusive model does make society better for everyone because they have a resource that isn't being exploited to its potential.

Now within that same model you have to be able to provide for those less fortunate, and the handicapped. Australia, for instance, is a very wealthy country and we can absolutely afford to take care of everyone who is unable to fully support themselves just at the same time as we should be doing everything we can to have those same people contribute to their potential whatever that may be. For a handicapped person it may well be that they are only able to contribute 20% as much to society as an able-bodied person, but it's still a contribution. It's still much better than saying "we don't want you to contribute, and we're not going to give you opportunity or a fair go" - the laissez-fair ideology.

What Richard Fucknuckle Dawkin says is absolutely offensive, small-minded, discriminatory, intolerant, it's just plain obscene. There is absolutely nothing constructive, healthy or redeemable about it.

The reason is because in most first world countries - you may well be fortunate like me not to have the issue of disability care affect you or your personal family - but it is a very real issue that affects a huge number of people in our society. And we absolutely don't do enough - firstly because we're not helping these people reach their potential as a resource of society, but secondly because they're treated like second-class citizens. You may as well point and call them Wolves. A return to laissez-fair, Eugenics or any other slippery-slope model is the wrong direction. Disabled people shouldn't be a problem for any first world country - we're wealthy enough to make sure they're comfortable, happy and free to live their lives, participate in the workforce - and - not be a burden upon their families. Dawkin's dumbass opinion is based on the fact that he thinks that Wolves are a drain on society and on their families. That isn't true, what is true is that society currently doesn't give them a fair go when they should be afforded that.

[Dystopia]

I agree with Aractus to an extent that we should include people with Down Syndrome in society and that they CAN be productive members, some may have above average intellectual skills (for their condition), others will have jobs, Down Syndrome is probably the less bad deficiency you can have from birth. These people can now live to 50 or 60. It doesn't mean they have the skills of 'normal' people, but it's not a nightmare like others paint it.

I think however that certain conditions such as Patau syndrome should require abortion as a moral obligation, given the short lifespan, it's unnecessary suffering

[Esquilax]

What Richard Fucknuckle Dawkin says is absolutely offensive, small-minded, discriminatory, intolerant, it's just plain obscene. There is absolutely nothing constructive, healthy or redeemable about it.

The reason is because in most first world countries - you may well be fortunate like me not to have the issue of disability care affect you or your personal family - but it is a very real issue that affects a huge number of people in our society. And we absolutely don't do enough - firstly because we're not helping these people reach their potential as a resource of society, but secondly because they're treated like second-class citizens. You may as well point and call them Wolves. A return to laissez-fair, Eugenics or any other slippery-slope model is the wrong direction. Disabled people shouldn't be a problem for any first world country - we're wealthy enough to make sure they're comfortable, happy and free to live their lives, participate in the workforce - and - not be a burden upon their families. Dawkin's dumbass opinion is based on the fact that he thinks that Wolves are a drain on society and on their families. That isn't true, what is true is that society currently doesn't give them a fair go when they should be afforded that.

I think you're adding a lot that was never said, into your summation of Dawkins' opinion. But you needn't: the man himself expanded on what he was saying in a blog post later on, and in fact addressed the fact that what you think he was saying... wasn't, in his summarized list of the kinds of people who got offended at his tweet:

Those who took offence because they know and love a person with Down Syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right to exist. I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one. It is one of a common family of errors, one that frequently arises in the abortion debate. Another version of it is “The Great Beethoven Fallacy” discussed in Chapter 8 of The God Delusion. I combated it in a tweet as follows: “There’s a profound moral difference between ‘This fetus should now be aborted’ and ‘This person should have been aborted long ago’.” I would never dream of saying to any person, “You should have been aborted before you were born.” But that reluctance is fully compatible with a belief that, at a time before a fetus becomes a “person”, the decision to abort can be a moral one. If you think about it, you pretty much have to agree with that unless you are against all abortion in principle.The definition of “personhood” is much debated among moral philosophers and this is not the place to go into it at length. Briefly, I support those philosophers who say that, for moral purposes, an adult, a child and a baby should all be granted the rights of a person. An early fetus, before it develops a nervous system, should not. As embryonic development proceeds towards term, the morality of abortion becomes progressively more difficult to assess. There is no hard and fast dividing line. As I have argued in “The Tyranny of the Discontinuous Mind”, the definition of personhood is a gradual, “fading in / fading out” definition. In any case, this is a problem that faces anybody on the pro-choice side of the general abortion debate.

It's a pragmatic argument sure, and one he phrased in what I fully acknowledge was a stupidly generalized and blunt manner, but it's not the one you think it is.

Oh yeah, you guys "handicap" is really rude. That hasn't been used since the nineties.

Sorry Quill, I didn't know that. Is there a preferred term to use, for future reference?