Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

BBC: Richard Dawkins: 'Immoral' not to abort Down's foetuses


Zguy28

Recommended Posts

And I thought RGIII was one of the worst Tweeters. SMH.

 

Richard Dawkins: 'Immoral' not to abort Down's foetuses

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-ouch-28879659

 

Excerpt

 

Richard Dawkins, the atheist writer, has caused a stir on Twitter claiming it is "immoral" to allow unborn babies with Down's syndrome to live. But what do the relatives of people with Down's syndrome think about the comments?

The Oxford professor posted the message on Twitter in response to a user who wrote she would be faced with "a real ethical dilemma" if she became pregnant and learned that the baby would be born with Down's syndrome.

"Abort it and try again," Dawkins tweeted in reply. "It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

His comments have caused anger online and have been dismissed by charities, but he insists his views are "very civilised", tweeting: "These are fetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Apology?

 

"My phraseology may have been tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding, but I can’t help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand," he concluded the entry.

As for the date rape comment, that's at least partially on you trying to be offended.

 
Dawkins is a pompous, arrogant, superior English twit of the highest order. He's also very intelligent and has done some good scientific work in the field of biology and some outstanding science writing for the general public too. But the characteristics listed in the first sentence seems to be what he wants to be remembered for in the latter part of his career.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Apology?

 

"My phraseology may have been tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding, but I can’t help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand," he concluded the entry.

As for the date rape comment, that's at least partially on you trying to be offended.

 
Dawkins is a pompous, arrogant, superior English twit of this highest order. He's also very intelligent and has done some good scientific work in the field of biology and some outstanding science writing for the general public too. But the characteristics listed in the first sentence seems to be what he wants to be remembered for in the latter part of his career.

I was just going with the headline which said "apologizes". You are right though, it wasn't. It was more of a "sorry if I offended you".

 

I don't doubt his talent for science, I just think he lacks common sense and tact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with him that people many times work at taking offense.

 

I'd question the morality of trying again if ya don't like what ya got the 1st time :rolleyes: .....I understand the position some take on quality of life metrics, but accepting risks is inherent to life(taking life less so)

 

add

using "  wanton eagerness" is a excellent example of the pompous, arrogant, superior English twit  thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The implication of his statement is that parents with children that have down syndrome, committed an immoral act in birthing them (if they knew about it) and that it's unfortunate that those kids are alive. I can understand why some people would take issue with that.

Where does he draw the line for his concept of too damaged to be allowed to live? Surely it's not just down syndrome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This the exact mentality that Hitler had. Once you begin viewing certain humans as "inhuman," or making assumptions about their "quality of life," then it's all down hill from there. So sad.

I didn't realize that Hitler did what he did because he made radical assumptions about what constitutes peoples' "quality of life" :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The implication of his statement is that parents with children that have down syndrome, committed an immoral act in birthing them (if they knew about it) and that it's unfortunate that those kids are alive. I can understand why some people would take issue with that.

Where does he draw the line for his concept of too damaged to be allowed to live? Surely it's not just down syndrome.

Yeah... Dawkins has been on a roll saying insensitive and/or stupid things lately. Although I would note that he is not saying people should be forced to abort. (assuming he is not into legislating morality)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realize that Hitler did what he did because he made radical assumptions about what constitutes peoples' "quality of life" :D

What defines quality of life? People with Downs Syndrome can have a great life. We have a friend of the family with downs that has a highly productive and happy life. And I bet she makes more money than 90% of the people on this board - Jamie Brewer one of the recurring actors on American Horror Story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To pile on the insensitivity, here's a scientific/philosophical question. Is somebody with Downs Syndrome still technically human? Humans have 46 chromosomes, while a person with Downs Syndrome has 47 chromosomes. Chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes.

Gotta go! :movefast: (sigh, I miss the old smilies)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawkins advocating eugenics surprises me as much as my dog farting after he eats cheese.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐγενής eugenes "well-born" from εὖ eu, "good, well" and γένος genos, "race")[2][3] is the belief and practice of improving the genetic quality of the human population.[4][5] It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits (positive eugenics), and reduced reproduction of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics).[6]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife is pregnant now and early on in the pregnancy we had a blood test done. It's called the panorama. It screens for genetic factors which include Down's and other birth defects. It can be done as early as 9 weeks and the main reason we elected for the test was to determine the sex of the baby (we didn't want to wait until 20 weeks).

If the test showed that our child would have had Down's or another debilitating defect then we probably would have had a discussion about terminating the pregnancy. Luckily we didn't have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To pile on the insensitivity, here's a scientific/philosophical question. Is somebody with Downs Syndrome still technically human? Humans have 46 chromosomes, while a person with Downs Syndrome has 47 chromosomes. Chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes.

Gotta go! :movefast: (sigh, I miss the old smilies)

 

Well, there you have it. The other side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there you have it. The other side.

I did not pick a side, merely put forth the question. I'm actually rather curious how that additional chromosome could factor into the equation of the relationship between genes and our taxonomic system.

Just because the name changes, though, doesn't mean it makes any real difference. A technicality is just that: a technicality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me begin this post by stating that my second son, Jason, was born with Down syndrome. We did not know prior to him being born, but it wouldn't have mattered, we would not have murdered him because we didn't feel he lived up to our own subjective standards of quality of life.

Jason is now 3 1/2 years old and is the happiest child I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. Everyone who's met my son finds him a joy to be around. There are some who occasionally make an awkward face at his developing language skills, but they at least have the good tact to keep stupid questions to themselves.

My son is absolutely human, that isn't even up for debate. Suggesting that people with Down syndrome are not human is highly offensive to me, and I find the entire rationale repugnant. People who feel that way have never spent any time with someone like my son, and have no intention to ever do so. They are comfortable in their own ignorance, as a pig is comfortable wallowing in ****.

IMO, my son is more human than Richard Dawkins will ever be. Dawkins is a POS that the world would be better off without.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have often wondered if there was a gay test for fetuses would there be a huge surge in abortions? Would those gay fetuses be worthy of peoples love? Realistically they will probably have to hide who they are for years, if not forever... Think of the emotional strain that will be... They won't be normal and will have such hard lives.

I bet abortions would go through the roof.

Btw, my son has ds. We deemed him worthy of our love despite his imperfections.... We didn't have tests. It's not special or noteworthy, it's called being a human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐγενής eugenes "well-born" from εὖ eu, "good, well" and γένος genos, "race")[2][3] is the belief and practice of improving the genetic quality of the human population.[4][5] It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits (positive eugenics), and reduced reproduction of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics).[6]

 

Dawkins has been expressing pro-eugenic statements for a long time, and while this technically might not be eugenics, it is certainly in line with that thinking.

 

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/313323444299251713

 

""Eugenics": What's wrong with a nonrandom choice of a gene your child COULD have got from you at random, anyway, by normal genetic lottery?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah... Dawkins has been on a roll saying insensitive and/or stupid things lately. Although I would note that he is not saying people should be forced to abort. (assuming he is not into legislating morality)

If I was a betting man, I'd wager that if he had the ability to make his views law, he would, But I'm not a gambling man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawkins has been expressing pro-eugenic statements for a long time, and while this technically might not be eugenics, it is certainly in line with that thinking.

I understand eugenics as something focused on breeding people that have desirable traits or preventing people with undesirable traits from breeding.

I do not see eugenics covering questions of using medical procedures to create or modify the genetic makeup. Derogatory term for that (in my view inevitable, at least to some degree) stuff is "designer baby" ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To pile on the insensitivity, here's a scientific/philosophical question. Is somebody with Downs Syndrome still technically human? Humans have 46 chromosomes, while a person with Downs Syndrome has 47 chromosomes. Chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes.

Gotta go! :movefast: (sigh, I miss the old smilies)

Is that the only determining factor in "humanness"? According to Dawkins, it somehow is determined by having feelings.

I understand eugenics as something focused on breeding people that have desirable traits or preventing people with undesirable traits from breeding.

I do not see eugenics covering questions of using medical procedures to create or modify the genetic makeup. Derogatory term for that (in my view inevitable, at least to some degree) stuff is "designer baby" ;)

KHAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111

 

kirk+KHAN!.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand eugenics as something focused on breeding people that have desirable traits or preventing people with undesirable traits from breeding.

 

 

if ya prevent birth preventing breeding is accomplished is it not?....eugenics evolved as ability has (it's not recreational sex they are focused on)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if ya prevent birth preventing breeding is accomplished is it not?....eugenics evolved as ability has (it's not recreational sex they are focused on)

i understand how you could see it that way... The way I see it though, eugenics has to do with breeding people. I do not think it covers people who's decision to breed was made in a "traditional" way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...