RE: Dawkins sparks outrage for saying Down Syndrome babies should be aborted
August 24, 2014 at 9:01 am
When I was young, my mother kept saying stuff like she was oh so glad we (me and my brother) turned out whole, complete, without any problem.
At the time, there was no way to know if the fetus would be... err... defective... or not.
Nowadays, we can tell, with varying degrees of certainty for different disabilities, but we can. For those that gather a high degree of certainty, it makes perfect sense to abort. The inclusion of a ...err... defective... person into society comes at a cost... a monetary cost which not all couples/parents have access to... a psychological cost which is impossible to account for... and a social cost.
Plus, there is the knowledge that the...err....defective... person will be a burden for life and will, most likely outlive the parents, thus becoming a burden on the social services of the country... or die if no such services are available, or if there's no money to pay for similar private care.
Why knowingly bring forth into this world a child who will never be an adult? a child who will always require care by other people? A child which will always be a burden? A child which will have no independence, no freedom?
The moral choice should be the choice which brings the best for society... so I'd say Dawkins seems right, here...
At the time, there was no way to know if the fetus would be... err... defective... or not.
Nowadays, we can tell, with varying degrees of certainty for different disabilities, but we can. For those that gather a high degree of certainty, it makes perfect sense to abort. The inclusion of a ...err... defective... person into society comes at a cost... a monetary cost which not all couples/parents have access to... a psychological cost which is impossible to account for... and a social cost.
Plus, there is the knowledge that the...err....defective... person will be a burden for life and will, most likely outlive the parents, thus becoming a burden on the social services of the country... or die if no such services are available, or if there's no money to pay for similar private care.
Why knowingly bring forth into this world a child who will never be an adult? a child who will always require care by other people? A child which will always be a burden? A child which will have no independence, no freedom?
The moral choice should be the choice which brings the best for society... so I'd say Dawkins seems right, here...
