Dawkins sparks outrage for saying Down Syndrome babies should be aborted

[BrokenQuill92]

When a fetus is aborted, nothing is lost. I bet some of you hesitated when you read that, but it's true; there's no person in there, no soul, no life before a certain point. Get rid of it and nothing changes. That's a simple fact of biology, and any pro-lifer out there who wants to argue differently has a hell of a big burden of proof to shoulder for all their talk of souls.

Fucking this.


I'd just like to respond to BrokenQuill if I may. What is it exactly that's unsavoury about wanting to have the healthiest child possible? Why should someone feel guilty about that?

there is something a little unsavory about choosing abort because a pre-planned kid because it's not going to be the way you want.

People who have pre-planned have done so for a reason. If things don't go to plan then that's precisely enough reason to abort a foetus.

There is nothing wrong with wanting the healthiest child possible. There is something wrong with trying to determine the qaulity of life of person with a disability purely based on genetic testing. If you as a parent can't afford a child with a disability fine: abort. If you as a parent can't devote time and care to a child ( which isn't always the case) with a disability fine: abort. If you as a parent can't bring up a child with a disability who can be independent to some extent then fine: abort. But I will quote my dear gran here "Hon, we don't toss a pie because the crust is a bit brown."

[Losty]

What if someone, as a parent, doesn't want to raise a child with a disability? I would argue that person should abort because when a fetus comes out of the oven it's not a pie it's a kid. And kids deserve to have parents that want them. Having a kid you don't want because you feel obligated is a bad idea. Kids need to be wanted and loved and cared for.

[BrokenQuill92]

What if someone, as a parent, doesn't want to raise a child with a disability? I would argue that person should abort because when a fetus comes out of the oven it's not a pie it's a kid. And kids deserve to have parents that want them. Having a kid you don't want because you feel obligated is a bad idea. Kids need to be wanted and loved and cared for.

And like I said that mind set is creepy. Only wanting a kid if it's pretty and perfect. And you're "obligated" to take care of your child the moment you decide to be a parent.

[Losty]

Yes, well creepy or not it's still best that someone who doesn't want to carry the fetus to term doesn't carry it. Regardless of their reason regardless of whether or not we think it's creepy. Do you prefer a woman who clearly does not want to be the mother of a disabled child carry to term and deliver a child she resents and doesn't want? I wouldn't.

[BrokenQuill92]

Yes, well creepy or not it's still best that someone who doesn't want to carry the fetus to term doesn't carry it. Regardless of their reason regardless of whether or not we think it's creepy. Do you prefer a woman who clearly does not want to be the mother of a disabled child carry to term and deliver a child she resents and doesn't want? I wouldn't.

Of course not. But maybe someone with that mindset shouldn't be having children in the first place if their love is so conditional.

[Losty]

I'm just playing devils advocate here because though I don't personally feel that way but I wouldn't judge someone for wanting to abort and I don't really think it's wrong because I don't place much if any value on a fetus.

....but I would say that all love is conditional and where the conditions should be set could be argued for eternity and it's doubtful that any 2 people will ever agree.

[Aractus]

What Richard Fucknuckle Dawkin says is absolutely offensive, small-minded, discriminatory, intolerant, it's just plain obscene. There is absolutely nothing constructive, healthy or redeemable about it.

The reason is because in most first world countries - you may well be fortunate like me not to have the issue of disability care affect you or your personal family - but it is a very real issue that affects a huge number of people in our society. And we absolutely don't do enough - firstly because we're not helping these people reach their potential as a resource of society, but secondly because they're treated like second-class citizens. You may as well point and call them Wolves. A return to laissez-fair, Eugenics or any other slippery-slope model is the wrong direction. Disabled people shouldn't be a problem for any first world country - we're wealthy enough to make sure they're comfortable, happy and free to live their lives, participate in the workforce - and - not be a burden upon their families. Dawkin's dumbass opinion is based on the fact that he thinks that Wolves are a drain on society and on their families. That isn't true, what is true is that society currently doesn't give them a fair go when they should be afforded that.

I think you're adding a lot that was never said, into your summation of Dawkins' opinion. But you needn't: the man himself expanded on what he was saying in a blog post later on, and in fact addressed the fact that what you think he was saying... wasn't, in his summarized list of the kinds of people who got offended at his tweet:

Those who took offence because they know and love a person with Down Syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right to exist. I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one.

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.

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.

---

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. 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. 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. Eg. "abort all the jiggaboos because then they they don't have to face the racial discrimination later in life".

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.

[downbeatplumb]

Hey so I guess I'll jump into the pool yay! The way I see it I'm always Alaina (don't call me Laney or else!) first. The geek. Bow down to the queen bitches!

I'm not sure how to comment on intellectual disability since I have none. However I want to make this point, if you are planning for a child and the fetus happens to be disabled unless you can't afford to take care of a disabled child there is something a little unsavory about choosing abort because a pre-planned kid because it's not going to be the way you want. And I do know taking care of a disabled kid is freaking expensive. So I totally understand aborting the disabled fetus cost wise.

I seem to remember my wife being given a batch of tests to see if any of our children had some very specific ailments to give us the option of abortion. I can't remember what the tests were for, my youngest is almost twelve, but it was definitely a thing back then.

If you are pro-choice than what better criteria to choose than a fetus with a defect?

[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.

[Aractus]

This part was probably for Losty.

Then I apologise!

---

And I've still seen no evidence presented that very many foetuses are diagnosed with Down's before 21 weeks?

http://www.babycenter.com.au/a1487/scree...n-syndrome

What screening tests are available?
There are many different screening tests available. There are ultrasound tests, blood tests and a combination of the two. Remember that these are screening tests. They can't tell you for certain that your baby has or has not got Down syndrome. They just tell you your risk factor.

A cut-off point of 1 in 300 in first trimester screening (and 1 in 250 for second semester screening) is usually used. If your risk is less than that, you will be described as 'screen negative' or 'low-risk', which means that you are unlikely to be carrying a baby with Down syndrome (but it's not impossible). The tests will detect many pregnancies affected by Down syndrome, but they will also identify some pregnancies as being at risk of Down syndrome when, in fact, they are not -- these are known as 'false-positives'.

(Emphasis added). As I said before, foetuses are diagnosed in the first and second trimesters (and probably the third as well). As I said before, it is not a 100% certain test. And as I also said before, you can still give birth to a baby with down's after receiving negative diagnoses for the foetus. Dawkins seems to live in some magical land where he thinks that such solid diagnoses do happen - it simply isn't the case, there is no way to know 100% whether your foetus has Down's before it is born.