Richard Dawkins -- Showing his true colors with his tweets (1 Viewer)

[sublimeone]

Why would you expect Richard Dawkins to be against abortion?

If you were to ask somebody with Down's syndrome whether they would prefer the life they were given or would prefer never to have been born at all, what sort of response do you think you would get? You don't have to appeal to religion at all to establish why Dawkin's position is morally abhorrent. All you need is revealed preferences. That same argument applies to eugenics in general.

He seems to feel it is immoral to bring someone into the world to suffer. It does seem a bit selfish. A genetic disease (I forget the name) runs in my family. The men have a gene mutation that causes severe cognitive development issues for females. My cousin was born with it. Her parents now have a 50ish year old daughter who could never take care of herself, has never had a boyfriend, can't drive, didn't go to school, has all kind of physical issues and still wears diapers. She couldn't answer your question because she has no ability to understand the implications. But does that sound like a high quality of life? Her parents didn't have any tests done even though they knew the possibilities. Who knows what she thinks locked in her mind that she can't express. She may not be as eager for this life as some assume.

And I know this. Had my wife gotten pregnant and we got to the point where the test could be done if we found the fetus was a female and was going to be severely challenged as my cousin is we would have aborted. We agreed on that from the start. I am not about to bring someone into this world to suffer their whole lives.

i have a mentally disabled cousin. he's one of the happiest people i've ever met in my entire life.

 

[joffer]

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/

Those intrepid enough to venture onto my Twitter feed will have noticed a new feeding frenzy yesterday (20th August 2014), for which I apologise. The issue is the morality of abortion following screening for Down syndrome.

Down Syndrome, or Trisomy 21, results from the presence of an extra copy (or partial copy) of Chromosome 21. Symptoms vary but usually include characteristic facial features especially eye shape, abnormal growth patterns, and moderate mental disability. Life expectancy is reduced, and those who survive through adulthood often need special care as though they are children. Parents who care for their children with Down Syndrome usually form strong bonds of affection with them, as they would with any child. These feelings are sincere and mutual, and probably account for some of the hate tweets I have been experiencing (see below).

Screening for the chromosomal abnormality is normally offered, especially to older mothers who are more likely to have a child with the condition. When Down Syndrome is detected, most couples opt for abortion and most doctors recommend it.

Yesterday a woman on Twitter, one of our respected regulars on RichardDawkins.net, said she would be unsure what to do if she found a fetus she was carrying had Down Syndrome. I replied to her, beginning my reply with @ which – or so I thought (I’m told Twitter’s policy on this might recently have changed) – meant it would not go to all my million followers but only to the minority of people who follow both her and me. That was my intention. However, it doesn’t stop people who go out of their way to find such tweets, even if they don’t automatically pop up on their Twitter feeds. Many did so, and the whole affair blew up into the feeding frenzy I mentioned.

Here is what I would have said in my reply to this woman, given more than 140 characters:

“Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else.”
That’s what I would have said, if a woman were to ask my advice. As you might notice, it takes a lot more than 140 characters! I condensed it down to a tweet, and the result was understandably seen in some quarters as rather heartless and callous: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.” Of course I regret using abbreviated phraseology which caused so much upset. I never wanted to “cry havoc”!

Now to the upset itself. The haters came from various directions:-

1. Those who are against abortion under any circumstances. The majority fell into this category. I’m not going to get into that old debate. My position, which I would guess is shared by most people reading this, is that a woman has a right to early abortion, and I personally would not condemn her for choosing it. If you disagree, fair enough; many do, often on religious grounds. But then your quarrel is not just with me but with prevailing medical opinion and with the decision actually taken by most people who are faced with the choice.
2. Those who thought I was bossily telling a woman what to do rather than let her choose. Of course this was absolutely not my intention and I apologise if brevity made it look that way. My true intention was, as stated at length above, simply to say what I personally would do, based upon my own assessment of the pragmatics of the case, and my own moral philosophy which in turn is based on a desire to increase happiness and reduce suffering.
3. Those who thought I was advocating a kind of mob rule, when I pointed out that a majority of women, when facing this dilemma, as a matter of fact do choose abortion. Wasn’t that like saying “Hanging is right because if you took a plebiscite most people would bring back hanging.”? No, I was not advocating mob rule. I was simply suggesting that those hurling accusations of Nazism, vile, monstrous fascistic callousness etc., should reflect that their fireballs of hatred might as well be aimed directly at the great majority of the women who have actually faced the dilemma. Might that not give you pause before you accuse one individual of being a brute simply because he spells out the thinking behind the majority choice?
4. Those who thought I was advocating a eugenic policy and who therefore compared me to Hitler. That never entered my head, nor should it have. Down Syndrome has almost zero heritability. That means that, although it is a congenital condition – a chromosomal abnormality that babies are born with – there is very little tendency for susceptibility to trisomy to be inherited genetically. If you were eugenically inclined, you’d be wasting your time screening for Down syndrome. You’d screen for genuinely heritable conditions where your screening would make a difference to future generations.
5. 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. It is one of a common family of errors, one that frequently arises in the abortion debate. Another version of it is “The Great Beethoven Fallacy” discussed in Chapter 8 of The God Delusion. I combated it in a tweet as follows: “There’s a profound moral difference between ‘This fetus should now be aborted’ and ‘This person should have been aborted long ago’.” I would never dream of saying to any person, “You should have been aborted before you were born.” But that reluctance is fully compatible with a belief that, at a time before a fetus becomes a “person”, the decision to abort can be a moral one. If you think about it, you pretty much have to agree with that unless you are against all abortion in principle.The definition of “personhood” is much debated among moral philosophers and this is not the place to go into it at length. Briefly, I support those philosophers who say that, for moral purposes, an adult, a child and a baby should all be granted the rights of a person. An early fetus, before it develops a nervous system, should not. As embryonic development proceeds towards term, the morality of abortion becomes progressively more difficult to assess. There is no hard and fast dividing line. As I have argued in “The Tyranny of the Discontinuous Mind”, the definition of personhood is a gradual, “fading in / fading out” definition. In any case, this is a problem that faces anybody on the pro-choice side of the general abortion debate.

To conclude, what I was saying simply follows logically from the ordinary pro-choice stance that most us, I presume, espouse. 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.

 

[NCCommish]

Why would you expect Richard Dawkins to be against abortion?

If you were to ask somebody with Down's syndrome whether they would prefer the life they were given or would prefer never to have been born at all, what sort of response do you think you would get? You don't have to appeal to religion at all to establish why Dawkin's position is morally abhorrent. All you need is revealed preferences. That same argument applies to eugenics in general.

He seems to feel it is immoral to bring someone into the world to suffer. It does seem a bit selfish. A genetic disease (I forget the name) runs in my family. The men have a gene mutation that causes severe cognitive development issues for females. My cousin was born with it. Her parents now have a 50ish year old daughter who could never take care of herself, has never had a boyfriend, can't drive, didn't go to school, has all kind of physical issues and still wears diapers. She couldn't answer your question because she has no ability to understand the implications. But does that sound like a high quality of life? Her parents didn't have any tests done even though they knew the possibilities. Who knows what she thinks locked in her mind that she can't express. She may not be as eager for this life as some assume.

And I know this. Had my wife gotten pregnant and we got to the point where the test could be done if we found the fetus was a female and was going to be severely challenged as my cousin is we would have aborted. We agreed on that from the start. I am not about to bring someone into this world to suffer their whole lives.

Cool story. Sounds exactly like Down's.

You do realize that in severe cases Down children's IQ can be as low as 20 right? Does that sound like someone who is going to be independent ever? You do realize there are problems with their joints meaning they can become physically disabled to a large degree? You do realize they have gastrointestinal issues that lead to issues with using the bathroom right? So yeah it does sound a lot like lot severe Downs. And since you don't know what version you are going to get that is what you should go in expecting and hope you get something much less intense.

I forgot about early onset dementia.

 

[tonydead]

Dawkins doesn't believe people with Downs syndrome should be alive. That's pretty sick. I'm pretty sure the Nazi's used similar rational. You can still be pro-choice and find his comment abhorrent.

ETA: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/disabled.html

DING DIN DING, sublime pulls the Nazi post. You win the internet and all subsequent arguments are moot.

It's relevant here. I even provided a link.

Richard didn't suggest genocide so it really isn't relevant at all. Richard didn't even suggest doing anything illegal.

You dodged the question but if you are pro-choice what difference does it make what reason you use to make the choice?

Richard said "it would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice." So the moral thing to do, according to Dawkins, is abort babies with Downs syndrome. I'm not claiming Dawkins is suggesting genocide. The reason the comparison to Nazi's is relevant is because Nazi's held the same exact eugenic views about the mentally disabled.

So you're not pro-choice then. Got it, thanks.

ETA: The Nazi's were testing for mental disability in fetuses?

 

[matuski]

This guy probably doesn't even believe in a god.

 

[FlapJacks]

Everytime I see thread titles with peoples names in them and I don't know the name, I always wonder how much out of touch I am.

happens to me in the Shark Pool....

 

[sublimeone]

Dawkins doesn't believe people with Downs syndrome should be alive. That's pretty sick. I'm pretty sure the Nazi's used similar rational. You can still be pro-choice and find his comment abhorrent.

ETA: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/disabled.html

DING DIN DING, sublime pulls the Nazi post. You win the internet and all subsequent arguments are moot.

It's relevant here. I even provided a link.

Richard didn't suggest genocide so it really isn't relevant at all. Richard didn't even suggest doing anything illegal.

You dodged the question but if you are pro-choice what difference does it make what reason you use to make the choice?

Richard said "it would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice." So the moral thing to do, according to Dawkins, is abort babies with Downs syndrome. I'm not claiming Dawkins is suggesting genocide. The reason the comparison to Nazi's is relevant is because Nazi's held the same exact eugenic views about the mentally disabled.

So you're not pro-choice then. Got it, thanks.

Why are you obsessed with knowing my personal opinion on the abortion debate? It's about as relevant to this topic as the price of corn in China. We are discussing Dawkins statement that it is immoral to birth a child with downs syndrome.

 

[B-Deep]

Ridiculously offensive

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I understand the anger at his tweet, but his clarification pretty much echoes my feelings on the matter.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Why would you expect Richard Dawkins to be against abortion?

If you were to ask somebody with Down's syndrome whether they would prefer the life they were given or would prefer never to have been born at all, what sort of response do you think you would get? You don't have to appeal to religion at all to establish why Dawkin's position is morally abhorrent. All you need is revealed preferences. That same argument applies to eugenics in general.

He seems to feel it is immoral to bring someone into the world to suffer. It does seem a bit selfish. A genetic disease (I forget the name) runs in my family. The men have a gene mutation that causes severe cognitive development issues for females. My cousin was born with it. Her parents now have a 50ish year old daughter who could never take care of herself, has never had a boyfriend, can't drive, didn't go to school, has all kind of physical issues and still wears diapers. She couldn't answer your question because she has no ability to understand the implications. But does that sound like a high quality of life? Her parents didn't have any tests done even though they knew the possibilities. Who knows what she thinks locked in her mind that she can't express. She may not be as eager for this life as some assume.

And I know this. Had my wife gotten pregnant and we got to the point where the test could be done if we found the fetus was a female and was going to be severely challenged as my cousin is we would have aborted. We agreed on that from the start. I am not about to bring someone into this world to suffer their whole lives.

Cool story. Sounds exactly like Down's.

You do realize that in severe cases Down children's IQ can be as low as 20 right? Does that sound like someone who is going to be independent ever? You do realize there are problems with their joints meaning they can become physically disabled to a large degree? You do realize they have gastrointestinal issues that lead to issues with using the bathroom right? So yeah it does sound a lot like lot severe Downs. And since you don't know what version you are going to get that is what you should go in expecting and hope you get something much less intense.

I forgot about early onset dementia.

Neato

 

[B-Deep]

I understand the anger at his tweet, but his clarification pretty much echoes my feelings on the matter.

saying bringing a downs child into the world is immoral is disgusting, his clarification basically says if we misunderstood him we are ####### idiots, it did not help at all

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Why would you expect Richard Dawkins to be against abortion?

If you were to ask somebody with Down's syndrome whether they would prefer the life they were given or would prefer never to have been born at all, what sort of response do you think you would get? You don't have to appeal to religion at all to establish why Dawkin's position is morally abhorrent. All you need is revealed preferences. That same argument applies to eugenics in general.

He seems to feel it is immoral to bring someone into the world to suffer. It does seem a bit selfish. A genetic disease (I forget the name) runs in my family. The men have a gene mutation that causes severe cognitive development issues for females. My cousin was born with it. Her parents now have a 50ish year old daughter who could never take care of herself, has never had a boyfriend, can't drive, didn't go to school, has all kind of physical issues and still wears diapers. She couldn't answer your question because she has no ability to understand the implications. But does that sound like a high quality of life? Her parents didn't have any tests done even though they knew the possibilities. Who knows what she thinks locked in her mind that she can't express. She may not be as eager for this life as some assume.

And I know this. Had my wife gotten pregnant and we got to the point where the test could be done if we found the fetus was a female and was going to be severely challenged as my cousin is we would have aborted. We agreed on that from the start. I am not about to bring someone into this world to suffer their whole lives.

Cool story. Sounds exactly like Down's.

You do realize that in severe cases Down children's IQ can be as low as 20 right? Does that sound like someone who is going to be independent ever? You do realize there are problems with their joints meaning they can become physically disabled to a large degree? You do realize they have gastrointestinal issues that lead to issues with using the bathroom right? So yeah it does sound a lot like lot severe Downs. And since you don't know what version you are going to get that is what you should go in expecting and hope you get something much less intense.

I forgot about early onset dementia.

Yeah, there's a wide range. I've seen it as my friend was a care provider for a number of down's folks.

 

[B-Deep]

Why would you expect Richard Dawkins to be against abortion?

If you were to ask somebody with Down's syndrome whether they would prefer the life they were given or would prefer never to have been born at all, what sort of response do you think you would get? You don't have to appeal to religion at all to establish why Dawkin's position is morally abhorrent. All you need is revealed preferences. That same argument applies to eugenics in general.

He seems to feel it is immoral to bring someone into the world to suffer. It does seem a bit selfish. A genetic disease (I forget the name) runs in my family. The men have a gene mutation that causes severe cognitive development issues for females. My cousin was born with it. Her parents now have a 50ish year old daughter who could never take care of herself, has never had a boyfriend, can't drive, didn't go to school, has all kind of physical issues and still wears diapers. She couldn't answer your question because she has no ability to understand the implications. But does that sound like a high quality of life? Her parents didn't have any tests done even though they knew the possibilities. Who knows what she thinks locked in her mind that she can't express. She may not be as eager for this life as some assume.

And I know this. Had my wife gotten pregnant and we got to the point where the test could be done if we found the fetus was a female and was going to be severely challenged as my cousin is we would have aborted. We agreed on that from the start. I am not about to bring someone into this world to suffer their whole lives.

wanna tell me about my son's quality of life?

he cannot speak, never will. He is in second grade and wears diapers, he may well be wearing those for a long time.

wanna tell me how much his life sucks, how much he is suffering, and how much better it would be if he were not alive?

the thing is i am not telling you that having the tests and deciding against having the baby is immoral, it is your choice. Dawkins said choosing to have the baby is immoral. That's messed up

i know from a lot of first hand experience that disabled people, including people with downs, can have extraordinary lives, so to assume that a fetus that has downs is in for a joyless life of pain and suffering is ignorant. Additionally, downs is a VERY wide spectrum. There are some kids who have Downs that are significantly better off than my child.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I understand the anger at his tweet, but his clarification pretty much echoes my feelings on the matter.

saying bringing a downs child into the world is immoral is disgusting, his clarification basically says if we misunderstood him we are ####### idiots, it did not help at all

Well, I think you're misconstruing his clarification, but I'll fall on the grenade and make a slightly more modified statement and let you fire away.

Assuming you have the information early enough, I agree that choosing to bring a Downs Syndrome child into the world is immoral. And I arrive at that conclusion for the same reasons that Dawkins does. A Downs Syndrome child will face comparatively more pain and misery than a non-Downs child. And an early stage fetus has a less developed "personhood" to sin against.

I don't think either of those points are controversial. I've been doing IVF for years. We decided to test our fertilized embryos via PGD. We only implanted genetically normal embryos. Mostly because we wanted to avoid spontaneous miscarriage, but also because we wanted to try to avoid serious birth defects. I don't think that testing is very controversial except with the most fanatical pro-life advocates. In the early stages of the pregnancy we're continuing to do tests to rule out Downs Syndrome and other birth defects. I recognize that testing at 10 weeks is more controversial, but as Dawkins points out, it's probably accepted by the majority of potential families at this point. Its a recognition that this decision gets harder as you have a more developed nervous system and something that seems more likely to be a human consciousness that has developed.

 

[Jayrod]

No time to debate, but Dawkins' explanation is exactly what I would have guessed he would have said. When abortion is on the table as a matter of convenience, why not utilize it to eliminate an undesirable child? Very logical.

 

[tonydead]

Dawkins doesn't believe people with Downs syndrome should be alive. That's pretty sick. I'm pretty sure the Nazi's used similar rational. You can still be pro-choice and find his comment abhorrent.

ETA: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/disabled.html

DING DIN DING, sublime pulls the Nazi post. You win the internet and all subsequent arguments are moot.

It's relevant here. I even provided a link.

Richard didn't suggest genocide so it really isn't relevant at all. Richard didn't even suggest doing anything illegal.

You dodged the question but if you are pro-choice what difference does it make what reason you use to make the choice?

Richard said "it would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice." So the moral thing to do, according to Dawkins, is abort babies with Downs syndrome. I'm not claiming Dawkins is suggesting genocide. The reason the comparison to Nazi's is relevant is because Nazi's held the same exact eugenic views about the mentally disabled.

So you're not pro-choice then. Got it, thanks.

Why are you obsessed with knowing my personal opinion on the abortion debate? It's about as relevant to this topic as the price of corn in China. We are discussing Dawkins statement that it is immoral to birth a child with downs syndrome.

Because anyone that is anti pro-choice is offended by abortion regardless of reason. The debate would be mute on the comment of morality:

"

1. Those who are against abortion under any circumstances. The majority fell into this category. I’m not going to get into that old debate. My position, which I would guess is shared by most people reading this, is that a woman has a right to early abortion, and I personally would not condemn her for choosing it. If you disagree, fair enough; many do, often on religious grounds. But then your quarrel is not just with me but with prevailing medical opinion and with the decision actually taken by most people who are faced with the choice."

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

A Downs Syndrome child will face comparatively more pain and misery than a non-Downs child.

I'm not sure if this is completely true. Maybe I don't have enough experience with the condition to know.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

I understand the anger at his tweet, but his clarification pretty much echoes my feelings on the matter.

saying bringing a downs child into the world is immoral is disgusting, his clarification basically says if we misunderstood him we are ####### idiots, it did not help at all

Assuming you have the information early enough, I agree that choosing to bring a Downs Syndrome child into the world is immoral. And I arrive at that conclusion for the same reasons that Dawkins does. A Downs Syndrome child will face comparatively more pain and misery than a non-Downs child.

I don't find this to be intuitively true.

Also is "(facing) comparatively more pain and misery" your standard for the morality of bringing ANY child into the world, or just disabled ones?

 

[B-Deep]

I understand the anger at his tweet, but his clarification pretty much echoes my feelings on the matter.

saying bringing a downs child into the world is immoral is disgusting, his clarification basically says if we misunderstood him we are ####### idiots, it did not help at all

Well, I think you're misconstruing his clarification, but I'll fall on the grenade and make a slightly more modified statement and let you fire away.

Assuming you have the information early enough, I agree that choosing to bring a Downs Syndrome child into the world is immoral. And I arrive at that conclusion for the same reasons that Dawkins does. A Downs Syndrome child will face comparatively more pain and misery than a non-Downs child. And an early stage fetus has a less developed "personhood" to sin against.

I don't think either of those points are controversial. I've been doing IVF for years. We decided to test our fertilized embryos via PGD. We only implanted genetically normal embryos. Mostly because we wanted to avoid spontaneous miscarriage, but also because we wanted to try to avoid serious birth defects. I don't think that testing is very controversial except with the most fanatical pro-life advocates. In the early stages of the pregnancy we're continuing to do tests to rule out Downs Syndrome and other birth defects. I recognize that testing at 10 weeks is more controversial, but as Dawkins points out, it's probably accepted by the majority of potential families at this point. Its a recognition that this decision gets harder as you have a more developed nervous system and something that seems more likely to be a human consciousness that has developed.

ok assuming i conceed on all the misery a downs child will have (which i really do not)

a child in a third world country will face comparatively more pain and misery than a child born in the US, is it immoral to have a child in a third world country?

 

[B-Deep]

poor US kids suffer more than rich US kids, i wonder at what income level reproducing becomes immoral...

we won't even get into minorities

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Dawkins doesn't believe people with Downs syndrome should be alive. That's pretty sick. I'm pretty sure the Nazi's used similar rational. You can still be pro-choice and find his comment abhorrent.

ETA: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/disabled.html

DING DIN DING, sublime pulls the Nazi post. You win the internet and all subsequent arguments are moot.

It's relevant here. I even provided a link.

Richard didn't suggest genocide so it really isn't relevant at all. Richard didn't even suggest doing anything illegal.

You dodged the question but if you are pro-choice what difference does it make what reason you use to make the choice?

Richard said "it would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice." So the moral thing to do, according to Dawkins, is abort babies with Downs syndrome. I'm not claiming Dawkins is suggesting genocide. The reason the comparison to Nazi's is relevant is because Nazi's held the same exact eugenic views about the mentally disabled.

So you're not pro-choice then. Got it, thanks.

Why are you obsessed with knowing my personal opinion on the abortion debate? It's about as relevant to this topic as the price of corn in China. We are discussing Dawkins statement that it is immoral to birth a child with downs syndrome.

Because anyone that is anti pro-choice is offended by abortion regardless of reason. The debate would be mute on the comment of morality:

Don't hurt yourself with the verbal gymnastics. Also.. 'moot'.

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for posting Dawkin's lengthy explanation. IMO, it justifies him completely.

Tweeting is dangerous, especially for celebrities. It's almost impossible to express one's thoughts clearly in so few words.

 

[B-Deep]

A Downs Syndrome child will face comparatively more pain and misery than a non-Downs child.

I'm not sure if this is completely true. Maybe I don't have enough experience with the condition to know.

I have and i do not believe it to be true, not across the board certainly

 

[Cliff Clavin]

a child in a third world country will face comparatively more pain and misery than a child born in the US, is it immoral to have a child in a third world country?

When you and your family are already starving and suffering? Yes, I would say so.

 

[B-Deep]

Thanks for posting Dawkin's lengthy explanation. IMO, it justifies him completely.

Tweeting is dangerous, especially for celebrities. It's almost impossible to express one's thoughts clearly in so few words.

interesting

question, do you think there have been times/places in history when being jewish brought inherently more pain and suffering on a child? if so, would bringing a child in to that situation be immoral?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

A Downs Syndrome child will face comparatively more pain and misery than a non-Downs child.

I'm not sure if this is completely true. Maybe I don't have enough experience with the condition to know.

Let's put it another way, and you can disagree with my premise. If we accept Maslow's hierarchy, upper level human needs like esteem and self-actualization are going to be comparably difficult to achieve for most Downs' Syndrome children. I don't think it's just a matter of less social utility. I think it's a matter of less personal utility. Now, I don't think that should affect our decision when a child has been born, but I don't think the countervailing concerns are as compelling at earlier stages of fetal development because there's less likely a conscience to be snuffing out.

 

[B-Deep]

a child in a third world country will face comparatively more pain and misery than a child born in the US, is it immoral to have a child in a third world country?

When you and your family are already starving and suffering? Yes, I would say so.

are all third world people starving?

who decides if they are suffering, you? Dawkins?

 

[B-Deep]

A Downs Syndrome child will face comparatively more pain and misery than a non-Downs child.

I'm not sure if this is completely true. Maybe I don't have enough experience with the condition to know.

Let's put it another way, and you can disagree with my premise. If we accept Maslow's hierarchy, upper level human needs like esteem and self-actualization are going to be comparably difficult to achieve for most Downs' Syndrome children. I don't think it's just a matter of less social utility. I think it's a matter of less personal utility. Now, I don't think that should affect our decision when a child has been born, but I don't think the countervailing concerns are as compelling at earlier stages of fetal development because there's less likely a conscience to be snuffing out.

Maslow be damned, the vast majority of children I have met with downs are as happy as they can be. Perhaps you judge their hapiness as less worthy because they do not operate at your mental level, but that's on you.

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for posting Dawkin's lengthy explanation. IMO, it justifies him completely.

Tweeting is dangerous, especially for celebrities. It's almost impossible to express one's thoughts clearly in so few words.

interesting

question, do you think there have been times/places in history when being jewish brought inherently more pain and suffering on a child? if so, would bringing a child in to that situation be immoral?

1. Yes.

2. That all depends on very specific circumstances. If I were living in the Russian shetl (think Fiddler on the Roof) in 1890, my answer would be no. If I were living in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1941 (not for long), my answer would be yes.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

poor US kids suffer more than rich US kids, i wonder at what income level reproducing becomes immoral...

we won't even get into minorities

Do I think that choosing to bring a child into crushing poverty can both be:

1) a mother's choice that should neither be mandated nor prohibited by the government; and

2) probably immoral?

Yes, I do. I generally don't think we should have laws preventing people from being immoral in all circumstances.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

A Downs Syndrome child will face comparatively more pain and misery than a non-Downs child.

I'm not sure if this is completely true. Maybe I don't have enough experience with the condition to know.

Let's put it another way, and you can disagree with my premise. If we accept Maslow's hierarchy, upper level human needs like esteem and self-actualization are going to be comparably difficult to achieve for most Downs' Syndrome children. I don't think it's just a matter of less social utility. I think it's a matter of less personal utility. Now, I don't think that should affect our decision when a child has been born, but I don't think the countervailing concerns are as compelling at earlier stages of fetal development because there's less likely a conscience to be snuffing out.

Yeah, I'm just not sure about all this stuff. Google turns up a bunch of studies saying people with Downs are generally happier than other folks. I don't know whether those studies are flawed or not.

 

[matuski]

Thanks for posting Dawkin's lengthy explanation. IMO, it justifies him completely.

Tweeting is dangerous, especially for celebrities. It's almost impossible to express one's thoughts clearly in so few words.

interesting

question, do you think there have been times/places in history when being jewish brought inherently more pain and suffering on a child? if so, would bringing a child in to that situation be immoral?

I like you putting religion on par with down syndrome and wholeheartedly support this equivalence.

 

[The Commish]

A Downs Syndrome child will face comparatively more pain and misery than a non-Downs child.

I'm not sure if this is completely true. Maybe I don't have enough experience with the condition to know.

It's not. I spent most of my teen years and early 20s working with Down Syndrome kids. They range from virtual vegetables who can't communicate to those that you'd never guess they had the disease if not for the "look". I've had more "pain and misery" in my life than a lot of the folks I worked with. However, none of that should matter when it comes to morality IMO. Do we really want to be deciding who comes into this world based on the "pain and misery" they might face? Bizarre place to draw the line IMO.

 

[B-Deep]

Thanks for posting Dawkin's lengthy explanation. IMO, it justifies him completely.

Tweeting is dangerous, especially for celebrities. It's almost impossible to express one's thoughts clearly in so few words.

interesting

question, do you think there have been times/places in history when being jewish brought inherently more pain and suffering on a child? if so, would bringing a child in to that situation be immoral?

1. Yes.

2. That all depends on very specific circumstances. If I were living in the Russian shetl (think Fiddler on the Roof) in 1890, my answer would be no. If I were living in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1941 (not for long), my answer would be yes.

glad you feel comfortable deciding what level of comfort is required for people to morally procreate

 

[Cliff Clavin]

a child in a third world country will face comparatively more pain and misery than a child born in the US, is it immoral to have a child in a third world country?

When you and your family are already starving and suffering? Yes, I would say so.

are all third world people starving?who decides if they are suffering, you? Dawkins?

Did I say all third world people are starving?

I'll make it clear. I wouldn't bring a child into this world if my family was starving and suffering. I would find it immoral to do so.

 

[B-Deep]

poor US kids suffer more than rich US kids, i wonder at what income level reproducing becomes immoral...

we won't even get into minorities

Do I think that choosing to bring a child into crushing poverty can both be:

1) a mother's choice that should neither be mandated nor prohibited by the government; and

2) probably immoral?

Yes, I do. I generally don't think we should have laws preventing people from being immoral in all circumstances.

so

it is immoral for poor folk to have kids

minorities? there is no doubt life is tougher for a minority

why not make it simple, what percentage of white americans are well off enough to morally have a child in your opinion?

 

[tonydead]

Dawkins doesn't believe people with Downs syndrome should be alive. That's pretty sick. I'm pretty sure the Nazi's used similar rational. You can still be pro-choice and find his comment abhorrent.

ETA: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/disabled.html

DING DIN DING, sublime pulls the Nazi post. You win the internet and all subsequent arguments are moot.

It's relevant here. I even provided a link.

Richard didn't suggest genocide so it really isn't relevant at all. Richard didn't even suggest doing anything illegal.

You dodged the question but if you are pro-choice what difference does it make what reason you use to make the choice?

Richard said "it would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice." So the moral thing to do, according to Dawkins, is abort babies with Downs syndrome. I'm not claiming Dawkins is suggesting genocide. The reason the comparison to Nazi's is relevant is because Nazi's held the same exact eugenic views about the mentally disabled.

So you're not pro-choice then. Got it, thanks.

Why are you obsessed with knowing my personal opinion on the abortion debate? It's about as relevant to this topic as the price of corn in China. We are discussing Dawkins statement that it is immoral to birth a child with downs syndrome.

Because anyone that is anti pro-choice is offended by abortion regardless of reason. The debate would be mute on the comment of morality:

Don't hurt yourself with the verbal gymnastics. Also.. 'moot'.

I think it's pretty straight forward. And no I meant "mute" because we could still have the debate on abortion it would just be "silent" or meaningless with regard to Richards comment. But, thanks for the attempt at distraction.

 

[B-Deep]

a child in a third world country will face comparatively more pain and misery than a child born in the US, is it immoral to have a child in a third world country?

When you and your family are already starving and suffering? Yes, I would say so.

are all third world people starving?who decides if they are suffering, you? Dawkins?

Did I say all third world people are starving?

I'll make it clear. I wouldn't bring a child into this world if my family was starving and suffering. I would find it immoral to do so.

i did not ask about people who are starving

i asked about third world countries

the average person there may not be starving, but the certainly are struggling and less happy than us cozy americans, they are facing more pain and misery

I am trying to point out the absurdness of using ones own value judgments on what constitutes "too much suffering" to determine if other people are moral in having children, but strangely enough a lot of people here are just fine with it

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Because anyone that is anti pro-choice is offended by abortion regardless of reason. The debate would be mute on the comment of morality:

Don't hurt yourself with the verbal gymnastics. Also.. 'moot'.

I think it's pretty straight forward. And no I meant "mute" because we could still have the debate on abortion it would just be "silent" or meaningless with regard to Richards comment. But, thanks for the attempt at distraction.

It's really the opposite of that.

Point conceded on mute

 

[CBusAlex]

"Try again" was a pretty important part of Dawkins's advice. A woman with a downs syndrome pregnancy can try for a non-downs one. Jewish parents can't expect to try for a non-Jewish child, nor can Ethiopians expect a Canadian one.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

"Try again" was a pretty important part of Dawkins's advice. A woman with a downs syndrome pregnancy can try for a non-downs one. Jewish parents can't expect to try for a non-Jewish child, nor can Ethiopians expect a Canadian one.

Again, it might not be that easy considering the correlation with advanced maternal age. But again, he's tweeting. "Try again" might mean "explore adoption or egg donation." Of course, those options may be cost prohibitive.

 

[CBusAlex]

"Try again" was a pretty important part of Dawkins's advice. A woman with a downs syndrome pregnancy can try for a non-downs one. Jewish parents can't expect to try for a non-Jewish child, nor can Ethiopians expect a Canadian one.

Again, it might not be that easy considering the correlation with advanced maternal age. But again, he's tweeting. "Try again" might mean "explore adoption or egg donation." Of course, those options may be cost prohibitive.

Agreed. But this wasn't generalized advice for everyone, it was a response to one specific person. He may know her circumstances well enough to know that these other factors don't apply to her.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

a child in a third world country will face comparatively more pain and misery than a child born in the US, is it immoral to have a child in a third world country?

When you and your family are already starving and suffering? Yes, I would say so.

are all third world people starving?who decides if they are suffering, you? Dawkins?

Did I say all third world people are starving?

I'll make it clear. I wouldn't bring a child into this world if my family was starving and suffering. I would find it immoral to do so.

i did not ask about people who are starvingi asked about third world countries

the average person there may not be starving, but the certainly are struggling and less happy than us cozy americans, they are facing more pain and misery

I am trying to point out the absurdness of using ones own value judgments on what constitutes "too much suffering" to determine if other people are moral in having children, but strangely enough a lot of people here are just fine with it

Uh, we use our own value judgements in deciding if others are making the correct moral choice all the time. If you're pro-choice, you think it is immoral to tell a woman what she can and can't do to her own body. If you're anti-choice, you think it is immoral to abort. I don't see why applying to who should be having kids is any different.

Thinking it is immoral and actively trying to stop it are two different things.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

anti choice lulz

 

[tonydead]

I still think most don't understand what Richard means when he talks about morality. We'd be better off as a species, given the choice, with healthier stronger offspring. It's as simple as that. He's wasn't trying to take away anything from people who have Downs children.

 

[matuski]

I still think most don't understand what Richard means when he talks about morality. We'd be better off as a species, given the choice, with healthier stronger offspring. It's as simple as that. He's wasn't trying to take away anything from people who have Downs children.

This was never about what Dawkins was actually saying, it was an opening to take a shot at him and what he represents.

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for posting Dawkin's lengthy explanation. IMO, it justifies him completely.

Tweeting is dangerous, especially for celebrities. It's almost impossible to express one's thoughts clearly in so few words.

interesting

question, do you think there have been times/places in history when being jewish brought inherently more pain and suffering on a child? if so, would bringing a child in to that situation be immoral?

1. Yes.

2. That all depends on very specific circumstances. If I were living in the Russian shetl (think Fiddler on the Roof) in 1890, my answer would be no. If I were living in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1941 (not for long), my answer would be yes.

glad you feel comfortable deciding what level of comfort is required for people to morally procreate

Was that post intended for me, or for Christianity?

 

[Gr00vus]

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/

... “There’s a profound moral difference between ‘This fetus should now be aborted’ and ‘This person should have been aborted long ago’.” I would never dream of saying to any person, “You should have been aborted before you were born.” But that reluctance is fully compatible with a belief that, at a time before a fetus becomes a “person”, the decision to abort can be a moral one.

I think this is a key point in Dawkins's explanation/thinking that is being glossed over by some other posters in this thread. In his opinion, prior to the transition from group of non-thinking/non-feeling cells to person, his moral equation for abortion comes out differently than it does after that transition. In the former case the decision is weighed much more heavily towards the considerations of the impact on quality of life to the whole family (and perhaps the larger community) which would be responsible for a Downs person.

 

[sublimeone]

Dawkins doesn't believe people with Downs syndrome should be alive. That's pretty sick. I'm pretty sure the Nazi's used similar rational. You can still be pro-choice and find his comment abhorrent.

ETA: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/disabled.html

DING DIN DING, sublime pulls the Nazi post. You win the internet and all subsequent arguments are moot.

It's relevant here. I even provided a link.

Richard didn't suggest genocide so it really isn't relevant at all. Richard didn't even suggest doing anything illegal.

You dodged the question but if you are pro-choice what difference does it make what reason you use to make the choice?

Richard said "it would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice." So the moral thing to do, according to Dawkins, is abort babies with Downs syndrome. I'm not claiming Dawkins is suggesting genocide. The reason the comparison to Nazi's is relevant is because Nazi's held the same exact eugenic views about the mentally disabled.

So you're not pro-choice then. Got it, thanks.

Why are you obsessed with knowing my personal opinion on the abortion debate? It's about as relevant to this topic as the price of corn in China. We are discussing Dawkins statement that it is immoral to birth a child with downs syndrome.

Because anyone that is anti pro-choice is offended by abortion regardless of reason. The debate would be mute on the comment of morality:

"

1. Those who are against abortion under any circumstances. The majority fell into this category. I’m not going to get into that old debate. My position, which I would guess is shared by most people reading this, is that a woman has a right to early abortion, and I personally would not condemn her for choosing it. If you disagree, fair enough; many do, often on religious grounds. But then your quarrel is not just with me but with prevailing medical opinion and with the decision actually taken by most people who are faced with the choice."

Wow, you're quite dense. I have repeatedly stated my issue is with Dawkins comment that is is immoral to bring a child with Down syndrome into the world. People choose to have abortions for a variety of reasons, that is not what we are debating in this thread. Try to keep up.

 

[msommer]

Dawkins doesn't believe people with Downs syndrome should be alive. That's pretty sick. I'm pretty sure the Nazi's used similar rational. You can still be pro-choice and find his comment abhorrent.

ETA: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/disabled.html

DING DIN DING, sublime pulls the Nazi post. You win the internet and all subsequent arguments are moot.

It's relevant here. I even provided a link.

Richard didn't suggest genocide so it really isn't relevant at all. Richard didn't even suggest doing anything illegal.

You dodged the question but if you are pro-choice what difference does it make what reason you use to make the choice?

Richard said "it would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice." So the moral thing to do, according to Dawkins, is abort babies with Downs syndrome. I'm not claiming Dawkins is suggesting genocide. The reason the comparison to Nazi's is relevant is because Nazi's held the same exact eugenic views about the mentally disabled.

So you're not pro-choice then. Got it, thanks.

Why are you obsessed with knowing my personal opinion on the abortion debate? It's about as relevant to this topic as the price of corn in China. We are discussing Dawkins statement that it is immoral to birth a child with downs syndrome.

Because anyone that is anti pro-choice is offended by abortion regardless of reason. The debate would be mute on the comment of morality:

"

1. Those who are against abortion under any circumstances. The majority fell into this category. I’m not going to get into that old debate. My position, which I would guess is shared by most people reading this, is that a woman has a right to early abortion, and I personally would not condemn her for choosing it. If you disagree, fair enough; many do, often on religious grounds. But then your quarrel is not just with me but with prevailing medical opinion and with the decision actually taken by most people who are faced with the choice."

Wow, you're quite dense. I have repeatedly stated my issue is with Dawkins comment that is is immoral to bring a child with Down syndrome into the world. People choose to have abortions for a variety of reasons, that is not what we are debating in this thread. Try to keep up.

You may not have noticed the short thrift your eugenics argument got from Dawkins himself, so here's helping you out

Those who thought I was advocating a eugenic policy and who therefore compared me to Hitler. That never entered my head, nor should it have. Down Syndrome has almost zero heritability. That means that, although it is a congenital condition – a chromosomal abnormality that babies are born with – there is very little tendency for susceptibility to trisomy to be inherited genetically. If you were eugenically inclined, you’d be wasting your time screening for Down syndrome. You’d screen for genuinely heritable conditions where your screening would make a difference to future generations.

HTH