Dawkins sparks outrage for saying Down Syndrome babies should be aborted

[Thumpalumpacus]

Comparing one group of people to another and passing judgement is the road to social-darwinism and laissez-faire, and it isn't healthy for society.

It need not lead there inevitably. This is the slippery-slope fallacy in action.

The values upon which our modern societies are built are, in a nutshell, opportunity and equity for all. For ALL. The laissez-faire model would keep the working-class as peasants for the rich to abuse to their benefit. But as we now know it is to the benefit of the rich that the working-class be prosperous as well.

The concept of "equality" at play here is the equality of treatment. The inequality between disabled people and people with normal capabilities is not an inequality of treatment, but an inequality of capability. In short, you're equivocating two different contextual meanings.

My argument, that you have not understood, is that all humans in a society have equal value. Equal. They should be afforded the respect, given the same resources and each according to their need.

I'm unsure why you think I'm arguing against that. I have not and would not take issue with that. The inequality between disabled and fully-capable humans is not in their value, but again, in their abilities.

The problem is there's a gap, and the disabled are presently disadvantaged when they ort not to be. The social-darwinist view would say that they're a "drain on society". They are actually a part of society. And as a part they have value, they're a resource, and if they need support then they should be given support according to their needs.

This is a straw-man. Nowhere have I advocated for any Social Darwinian treatment of disabled folk. I've simply pointed out that comparing, say, a legless man to a black man is comparing apples and oranges.

Saying that any disabled person should be aborted as a foetus whereever possible is perpetuating the view that these people are a problem for society, that they're a drain on society and that they shouldn't be supported from the "public purse".

Again, nowhere did I advocate for this course of action. Are you reading my posts? I specifically stated, "I don't think a person's worth boils down to such bald economic terms, myself."

Please stop imputing onto me views that I don't hold. The only disagreement we've had so far, and one you haven't cleared up at all, is your slipshod comparison of truly disabled people with ethnicities against which you yourself are admittedly biased. I disagree with that comparison, pointed out why, and have seen nothing from you demonstrating why I should dispose of my own view.

It is a judgement and it's no different to the laissez-faire or eugenic ideologies.

Nonsense. If I have two legs and you have none, is it true to say that you can run as fast as I can? Your continual efforts to slur my point with your imprecations of Social Darwinism are both inaccurate and grating, and give me pause to wonder as to your real motives in participating in this thread. Perhaps you're attempting to assuage your guilt over your own racism by tarring someone else with odious views?

No matter the reason, I invite you to reread my posts, and quote with link any passage where I advocate any treatment for disabled people.

A person with Down's Syndrome doesn't live a life of misery, pain and suffering. They are fully capable of living fulfilling wholesome lives, enjoying every day and contributing to society.

Go back and reread what I wrote about my coworker. You're preaching to the choir.

---

Are all DS people that "high-functioning"?
Are the majority?

I don't know. I don't have statistics handy.

I was relating my own personal experience.

Are you, as a prospective parent, willing to have a child like that?
If yes, then, by all means... no one is keeping you from it.
If no, then no one is making you have that child.

Of course, thanks. I was simply explaining why I think that looking upon disabled people as a "burden" who must always require immediate attention might not always be the case ... and why I think that viewing them as economic assets or liabilities might be just a *tad* short-sighted.

As for your question, I'm not sure. I'm personally against abortion, and at forty-seven, I'm not sure I have the energy to raise a fully-functioning child, mush less a special-needs child. In principle, and being younger, I probably would have a go at raising the child and hope for the best. I've always had a touch of the idealist.