Dawkins sparks outrage for saying Down Syndrome babies should be aborted

[Esquilax]

But I will quote my dear gran here "Hon, we don't toss a pie because the crust is a bit brown."

I think the point being argued here is that, before a certain point in development, the "pie" doesn't actually exist. Nobody seems to be arguing from the standpoint that a disabled person's life is inherently worse off than anyone else, just that if there's a way to ensure a set of starting conditions better geared to that child's success, the rational course would be to take it.

It's like if you had the option to either raise your kid middle class, or with enough money saved to put it through the best education possible and attend to all its needs: would you be arguing against taking the action that results in getting the money just because there's nothing specifically wrong with being middle class?

I'm not adding a thing to what he said, I'm simply taking it apart. His response it not applicable to me - I don't know anyone with Down's, never have, and nor is my family or any of my current close friends affected directly by the issue of disability and disability care.

Don't be so literal. That's just the way Dawkins' response was phrased, but it was the most applicable quote to your argument. I disagree that his position necessitates the idea that the disabled are a drain on anyone, because it's based around a simple question that I don't think we'd get any disagreement over: would you prefer to be born with a disability, or not?

I can't imagine that anyone would answer that they would prefer the former. But that's not an argument that even needs to involve societal factors, as it's simply personal. Nobody wants to be sick, nobody wants a body that suffers from issues that others, statistically speaking, generally don't. That's not an assessment of the content of anyone's character or social worth, merely an acceptance of the fact that our physicality often fails us for reasons beyond our control, and that it sucks when that happens.

I didn't make an emotional argument, I mad a logical one, based on the very principles that my society is founded on. The values of a fair go for everyone and the others that I already laid out, and I'd rather not repeat myself at this time.

And it's at this point that I'd like to point out that at no time did Dawkins so much as hint that he thinks anyone should be treated less than equal. That's something you're reading into the text that he specifically says he wasn't saying.

Note, and this is where I will repeat myself, the point I was making is that his comments are not constructive to fixing the social and economic problems surrounding the issue of disability.

They weren't meant to be.

It shouldn't cost parents any more, and it shouldn't mean that the mentally disabled cannot fully participate to their potential and live a happy a fulfilled life.

I agree, and so does Dawkins, so I wonder why you're bringing it up.

If these problems didn't exist in the first place then there would no room in the first place to suggest that aborting all foetus's that may be disabled is such a great idea.

Actually, yes there would, as I outlined above. It's an argument that, incidentally, doesn't apply to your racial discrimination argument, as that's a social issue that can be changed.

As for your comment: fuck you. I had to hear racial slurs nearly every fucking day for 4 years, it affected my stress levels and so until I become a racist and used those terms every single day in a context where I am being racially hateful you don't get to tell me, ever, not to use them. I have to be able to express them to release the years of the built up rage and stress. I know it's not nice, but that's my point and that's the context that I do it in.

This part was probably for Losty.