RE: Dawkins sparks outrage for saying Down Syndrome babies should be aborted
August 22, 2014 at 3:30 pm
(August 22, 2014 at 2:26 pm)Blackout Wrote: 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.
Quote: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.
