Dawkins sparks outrage for saying Down Syndrome babies should be aborted

[Aractus]

Lower cognitive abilities than who? Non-disabled people who've since suffered severe brain damage in a car accident??

Than the average person, of course.

Also, I've got a family member who is employed rehabilitating a TBI patient. Saying that her patient isn't disabled doesn't make sense; a TBI patient is almost always disabled.

Are you really thinking your position through? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your analogy doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

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.

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.

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. If someone is sick, he is given healthcare. If someone is uneducated, he's given an education. If someone has a disability he is given care. If someone is unable to work due to a disability he is give financial-support. Each according to his need.

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.

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".

No you're not getting it. My point is that judging others for their congestive ability, or generally just for being "not normal" is not healthy for society.

It is not a "judgment". It is an analysis of the facts at hand.

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

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.

[Losty]

How is that even relevant to abortion? Oh wait, it's not.

[Aractus]

Women have chosen to abort their foetuses for no other reason than that it was mixed-race.

Doesn't make it right.

[Losty]

I don't see anything wrong with aborting a fetus for any reason or no reason at all.

[pocaracas]

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...

One of my first jobs was at a shitty fast-food joint. I had a co-worker named Doug who was DS, high-functioning, and could do most any job in the store. He was a genuinely funny and good guy. I've run into him again from time to time, and as the years have passed he's gotten some independence (had his own apartment the last I saw him).

He taught me a hell of a lot about my own prejudices, and how I could be a more thoughtful person.

I don't think a person's worth boils down to such bald economic terms, myself.

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

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.

[Cato]

Now you're getting it. Who buys a severely damaged brand new car?

No you're not getting it. My point is that judging others for their congestive ability, or generally just for being "not normal" is not healthy for society.

Bullshit, I got your meaning. You just didn't like my use of your analogy to demonstrate a fault in your reasoning.

Now you're on to claiming it's not good for society, but you haven't supported this claim nor have you given any indication of what you mean by 'good for society'. What is a more healthy society? One where people with DS make up 100% of the population, or one where people with DS make up 0% of the population? Somewhere in between? Who decides?

---

Women have chosen to abort their foetuses for no other reason than that it was mixed-race.

Doesn't make it right.

We're not discussing this are we? Why invoke abortion of mixed race babies to argue that aborting a fetus with DS is wrong? Are you claiming that being mixed race is the same as having DS?

I'm not saying that in the history of abortion that there isn't perhaps an instance of a woman aborting a child because it was of mixed race, but the reasoning seems faulty and I'll assume exceedingly rare. My meaning here is that I would have a hard time believing this to be the reason since the woman seemingly had no problem having sex with a man of another race. Doesn't make sense, unless you're now going to argue into your hypothetical some type of pregnancy buyer's remorse.

[Aractus]

What is a more healthy society? One where people with DS make up 100% of the population, or one where people with DS make up 0% of the population? Somewhere in between? Who decides?

Social Darwinism.

[Cato]

What is a more healthy society? One where people with DS make up 100% of the population, or one where people with DS make up 0% of the population? Somewhere in between? Who decides?

Social Darwinism.

I think your emotions are getting in the way of you thinking clearly on this matter. A law requiring the abortion of all fetuses shown to have Down's Syndrome would amount to Social Darwinism; individual decisions made by pregnant women do not.

[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.

[Napoléon]

We're not discussing this are we? Why invoke abortion of mixed race babies to argue that aborting a fetus with DS is wrong? Are you claiming that being mixed race is the same as having DS?

This just highlights his own bias and misunderstanding of the simplest reasons for aborting a foetus. In fact, this just shows he has NO understanding whatsoever of any argument anyone here has presented. Judging by his lack of response he's embarrassed to acknowledge such a fact.