Dawkins sparks outrage for saying Down Syndrome babies should be aborted

[Esquilax]

And for that matter, I don't see anyone mentioning Godwin's Law at all, so there doesn't really seem to be much basis to that contention, Endo.

[Cato]

To be fair..I do wish Dawkins had a little more "internet accumen"...because while the majority of us know what he means, a lot of theists don't, and watching them furiously circlejerk on my news feed over a 140 character tweet is really annoying.

I see it differently. I have no problem with the provocation, intentional or otherwise and rather enjoy the cranks exposing their intolerance, ignorance and general idiocy. I also don't think it is Dawkins' (or anyone else's) responsibility to consider the sensitivities of those who will vigorously disagree regardless of tone. I can't ignore the fact that these same people are usually foaming at the mouth while telling people (including other believers of a slightly different flavor) they will burn forever in hell or tells a woman who makes the agonizing choice to have an abortion that she is a murderer.

I can't abide these hypersenstive professional offense takers and their woefully mispaced howls of persecution. If something anybody says serves to twist their panties, all the better.

[Dystopia]

Sure it's not the nicest thing in the world to say, but let's be real, who really wants a down syndrome child?

Someone who really wants to be in-your-face with the whole "Sanctity of life" thing.

I would be more careful with words if I were you. Just because someone chooses to not abort a down syndrome child, that doesn't mean they want to impose the 'sanctity of life' idea (and btw, according to the declaration of human rights life is indeed precious) - But from a literal perspective no one voluntarily chooses to have a down syndrome child.

I consider that having a child with down syndrome is as brave as aborting the unborn child with down syndrome. Some women are really against abortion but open up the exception for a baby with a mental illness, they go against their ethics because they want to do what they believe is best for their future kid, others will abdicate from important parts of their lives to take care of a mentally retarded child, I see both options as valid. I don't agree with 'promoting' abortion for handicapped babies, just like I don't like Christians and Muslims going around calling women murderers for having an abortion, I don't like people saying abortion is a thing to be done. It's a decision and that's it, no need to say 'someone should do it' or 'someone shouldn't do it', it's none of your fucking business, I could have 10 children with down syndrome if I wanted to.

[Napoléon]

I would be more careful with words if I were you. Just because someone chooses to not abort a down syndrome child, that doesn't mean they want to impose the 'sanctity of life' idea (and btw, according to the declaration of human rights life is indeed precious)

The thing you seem to miss is that the foetuses we're talking about don't qualify for human rights. Moot point.

It's a decision and that's it, no need to say 'someone should do it' or 'someone shouldn't do it', it's none of your fucking business, I could have 10 children with down syndrome if I wanted to.

Eh, I disagree. I'm sure you'd have something to say if people in incestual relationships bred disfigured offspring over and over. People suddenly change their tune then. Y'see, it's not just your choice. It's not just your life the decision affects. People should absolutely be advised against bringing in more dependant offspring into the world when they are capable of having healthier children. That's not immoral and there's nothing wrong with not wanting a disabled child, in fact, IMHO it should be encouraged by health professionals. The key thing is that the decision gets made before the foetus turns into a baby.

Nobody is pro-abortion. Nobody wants to say "abortion is a thing to be done". But sometimes it is the best thing. That's the reality that you don't like to accept, you'd much rather bring a disabled child into the world when the parents could simply try again and have a healthy foetus the second time round. I don't understand the logic. We're not talking about murdering babies. This is why abortion is such a dirty topic. The waters are always muddied by people who insist on thinking of foetuses as actual children.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Godwin's Law" isn't "Godwin's Fallacy". Just because Nazis or Hitler are brought up, it doesn't make the argument invalid. Take it on its own merits. End femto-rant.

The fallacy lies is discrediting an idea based on who holds it.

[Dystopia]

The thing you seem to miss is that the foetuses we're talking about don't qualify for human rights. Moot point.

Miss? No, I know perfectly foetuses don't qualify for human rights. I was merely saying that the thing of 'life is sacred' is not entirely a lie.. In fact as an atheist, I value life more than most theists since I know this is the only life. It was just an off topic point.

Eh, I disagree. I'm sure you'd have something to say if people in incestual relationships bred disfigured offspring over and over. People suddenly change their tune then. Y'see, it's not just your choice. It's not just your life the decision affects. People should absolutely be advised against bringing in more dependant offspring into the world when they are capable of having healthier children. That's not immoral and there's nothing wrong with not wanting a disabled child, in fact, IMHO it should be encouraged by health professionals. The key thing is that the decision gets made before the foetus turns into a baby.

Nobody is pro-abortion. Nobody wants to say "abortion is a thing to be done". But sometimes it is the best thing. That's the reality that you don't like to accept, you'd much rather bring a disabled child into the world when the parents could simply try again and have a healthy foetus the second time round. I don't understand the logic. We're not talking about murdering babies. This is why abortion is such a dirty topic. The waters are always muddied by people who insist on thinking of foetuses as actual children.

Dawkins' opinion is literally pro abortion, saying 'people X should abort' is incentiving abortion.

I don't think it's up to health professionals to promote or dispromote abortion, they should just say 'Hey if this brings you trouble, it's a legal and valid option'. It's not up to anyone to say weather or not a woman should have an abortion. Just like I disagree with anti-abortion attitudes, I'll disagree with pro-abortion ones, it's a choice, a though one, but not up to anyone to dictate.

I agree completely that there's nothing wrong in not wanting a disabled child, I share that opinion, but there's nothing wrong in raising a disabled child either, it's a personal choice, even if our morals go against that choice it's not up to us to interfere with it.

I find Dawkins' attitude reprehensible as much as I find anti-abortion Christian headlines, it's a private matter, people make their choices (women), no one else has a saying. And I'm saying this as someone who thinks abortion is preferable if the child is going to be handicapped - But take the case of my girlfriend, she wouldn't abort an unborn baby if it was handicapped, unless, let's say, it was a totally severe mental or physical problem that would cause enormous pain and reduce a LOT the future person's lifespan (extreme cases), I don't have a problem with her stance, if she got pregnant and the baby was to be handicapped (in this case, Down Syndrome) I'd raise him happily, in fact I've been with kids who possess the said syndrome and taking care of them is not that painful and hard as people think it is - I remember when I was a kid I became friends with another kid with down syndrome, he played with me and my friends, was quite happy, he was just not the same as us, but it wasn't a problem. If I was a woman, I don't know what I would do. My point with this is just to say it's a personal choice, I will respect people if they abort an unborn handicapped child as much as I'd respect them if they voluntarily chose to raise him/her.

As for incestuous couples breeding, that's a completely different matter (in fact so is incest) and I'm sure we could start a thread on it someday.

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. Therefore my conclusion is that both options are valid, it's mostly a conflict of values.

[Losty]

Meh, I think the decision should obviously be up to the parents. I personally opted out of the Down syndrome tests, because I had already decided not to abort and for myself personally Down syndrome is not a reason to have an abortion.

[Brian37]

"Should be aborted" does not mean via force of law. I do not think he is advocating government fucking with personal decisions between a woman and her doctor. And he said "fetuses".

The life of any baby after they are born matters. Simply being pro birth only means you are pro birth.

[Dystopia]

Meh, I think the decision should obviously be up to the parents. I personally opted out of the Down syndrome tests, because I had already decided not to abort and for myself personally Down syndrome is not a reason to have an abortion.

Exactly my point. It's the woman or family's decision (I say family because usually when people are in a trustworthy relationship they debate what's best for both even if the decision to abort or not is ultimately on the female)

[FatAndFaithless]

Meh, I think the decision should obviously be up to the parents. I personally opted out of the Down syndrome tests, because I had already decided not to abort and for myself personally Down syndrome is not a reason to have an abortion.

Exactly my point. It's the woman or family's decision (I say family because usually when people are in a trustworthy relationship they debate what's best for both even if the decision to abort or not is ultimately on the female)

Someone tweeted Dawkins saying they didn't know what they would do. Dawkins gave his opinion. Nothing more than that really. He's not advocating any sort of legal action or eugenicist mindset, he's saying what he would do. Nothing he said is in contradiction to anything you've said. Except maybe the tone.