Dawkins sparks outrage for saying Down Syndrome babies should be aborted

[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.