Dawkins sparks outrage for saying Down Syndrome babies should be aborted

[Aractus]

I think your emotions are getting in the way of you thinking clearly on this matter. A law requiring the abortion of all fetuses shown to have Down's Syndrome would amount to Social Darwinism; individual decisions made by pregnant women do not.

Social Darwinism/laissez-faire are categorised by a lack of laws. So opposing laws for greater assistance and care for the disabled could be an example.

On the second point you've drawn a straw man - I didn't say anything about the individual decisions, I was criticising Dawkins and his view that all [at-risk of] Down's Syndrome foetuses should be aborted. Unless you are making such a statement in a context where you are clearly distinguishing it from the treatment of Down's Syndrome people in society then you are perpetuating the view that the disabled at large are a drain on society and not worthy of being supported by the public purse. In actual fact it can be demonstrated that having disabled people in the community is not an overall drain on resources/negative thing for society.

What is however negative is excluding people because of the perceived value that a person puts on them.

[ManMachine]

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/s-syndro...story.html

CONTROVERSIAL scientist Richard Dawkins has sparked anger once again - this time by claiming foetuses with Down's syndrome should be aborted.

The outspoken athiest author said parents should abort unborn babies with the condition and "try again".

I love how all the religious jump to say he's a horrific man with no morals but I 100% guarantee that ANYONE who is told they have a down syndrome foetus on the way would absolutely consider abortion.

Sure it's not the nicest thing in the world to say, but let's be real, who really wants a down syndrome child? Some people may accept it and live with the child however it is born but given the opportunity I think most of us would choose to have a healthy child with no defects. That's not immoral.

Also, wtf is this article getting at? "Controversial scientist". What's he controversial for? Really?

This is very real for me as trisomy 21 runs in my family and when my wife was pregnant we had to have these tests done, so up to the point we knew for certain everything was ok it was a choice I was faced with.

I understand the arguments from both sides, I can also say our decision should the test prove positive for trisomy 21, would have been to carry on with the pregnancy.

Dawkins is entitled to express his opinion, as am I. That's the wonder of a society with free speech. I think it is easy to intellectualise these matters but you never know how you are going to feel until you are faced with the decision.

Everyone has the right to feel and act according to their own conscience, whatever that may be, what is important here is people's right to choose. Dawkins comments are fine - for him - the question is, did he considered the impact they would have when he gave them? If he didn't then that would seem foolish, if he did then one has to ask what his intent was. Another 'sensationalist' comment to bump his public persona? It is also easy to see how this can be misinterpreted as sanctioning eugenics, perhaps this is where he is headed. Who knows, but the more I encounter Dawkins the more I find myself questioning his integrity.

MM

[Aractus]

I think your emotions are getting in the way of you thinking clearly on this matter. A law requiring the abortion of all fetuses shown to have Down's Syndrome would amount to Social Darwinism; individual decisions made by pregnant women do not.

The other point I should make is that you had to draw extremes. I drew real-world examples, eg. woemn aborting mixed-race foetus's. That is something that happens. You drew imaginary hypotheticals - what's better for society: no disabled people, or, 100% with down's syndrome. That's taking extremes. What I was advocating for was contending with the real-world situation, what you suggested is that down's syndrome (and by extension all mental disability) is preventable at the stage of pregnancy - or that it could be - or that it is preferred to be. That's an extreme view that's no different to the laissez-faire one, in that it perpetuates the view of a two-tiered society.

[Cato]

Aractus,
You've lost your mind. Dawkins did not say all DS fetuses should be aborted. He was asked what he would do in the situation. He also pointed out that a majority of women in the situation do indeed choose to abort making your uphill climb of denouncing the practice as immoral much more difficult. Was this the basis of all your blathering?

You accuse me of a strawman argument and invoking extremes, yet you are the one that brought up mixed race abortion and eugenics.

Mixed race abortions: you never addressed my concern of how it was possible or the extent to which this is a real concern understanding that the pregnant woman knew the race of the man prior to fucking.

Social Darwinsim: You are now taking a very fine definition in order to quibble with my assertion that legislation is required for enaction. This may not be necessary for the definition, but how else would the idea be enforced? I think you are just trying to find some shade for the ridiculous argument that aborting DS fetuses amounts to eugenics.

[Esquilax]

On the second point you've drawn a straw man - I didn't say anything about the individual decisions, I was criticising Dawkins and his view that all [at-risk of] Down's Syndrome foetuses should be aborted. Unless you are making such a statement in a context where you are clearly distinguishing it from the treatment of Down's Syndrome people in society then you are perpetuating the view that the disabled at large are a drain on society and not worthy of being supported by the public purse. In actual fact it can be demonstrated that having disabled people in the community is not an overall drain on resources/negative thing for society.

... Which is why Dawkins later expanded on his view to draw that exact distinguishing line you're talking about. I doubt you'll find a person here who'll defend the initial tweet as being anything other than a hasty, poorly thought out generalization, but there's no excuse for pretending that he hasn't gone on to explain further and making your entire reaction about the tweet itself. It's really weird that you're talking about strawmen when you yourself are only addressing an incredibly small fraction of a person's overall position in the face of the rest of his argument.

What is however negative is excluding people because of the perceived value that a person puts on them.

As we've been pointing out for pages and pages now, a fetus is not a person. You can have a negative view of a certain kind of fetus without treating a certain kind of person any differently.

[pocaracas]

I see where Aractus is going....
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/