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

[sublimeone]

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.

Oh, thanks, but I didn't mention it because it had merit as a eugenic benefit, I mentioned it because he and Hitler share the same point of view with regard to the mentally disabled.

 

[msommer]

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.

Oh, thanks, but I didn't mention it because it had merit as a eugenic benefit, I mentioned it because he and Hitler share the same point of view with regard to the mentally disabled.

in case you forgot these were your words:

The reason the comparison to Nazi's is relevant is because Nazi's held the same exact eugenic views about the mentally disabled.

HTH again.

Richard Dawkins has expressed no eugenic views in the tweet you are reacting to

 

[tri-man 47]

I've always appreciated this perspective on the matter - Welcome to Holland:

http://www.ndsccenter.org/resources/new-and-expectant-parents/welcome-to-holland/

 

[Fennis]

Does he still host Family Feud?

Loved him on that show!

"C'mon Down!!!!!"

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Do we really want to be deciding who comes into this world based on the "pain and misery" they might face?

In making any decision, a person morally ought to consider the amount of pain and misery her respective choices might cause.

IMO, if Dawkins's conclusion is wrong, it's not because his reasoning went awry; it's because he's got his facts wrong. The notion that people with Down Syndrome suffer unusually great pain and misery does not seem to be well established. By most accounts, parents who raise children with Down Syndrome are bringing happiness into the world, not pain and misery, and are doing so at some personal sacrifice. It's hardly the kind of thing I would call immoral.

 

[tonydead]

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.

If you keep making the leap from fetus to living human I'm going to keep insisting that we are debating abortion.

And it's usually the person that resorts to name calling that isn't keeping up in the discussion.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

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.

If you keep making the leap from fetus to living human I'm going to keep insisting that we are debating abortion.

And it's usually the person that resorts to name calling that isn't keeping up in the discussion.

Why are you anti-life?

 

[tonydead]

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.

If you keep making the leap from fetus to living human I'm going to keep insisting that we are debating abortion.

And it's usually the person that resorts to name calling that isn't keeping up in the discussion.

Why are you anti-life?

In the context of this thread I am pro-choice. Anti is the antonym of pro and it's better to say anti pro-choice because pro-life makes the assertion that the fetus is a living human, which at least by law, we know isn't true. Just as your silly statement above points out. If it helps you I can make it simpler and just use anti-choice from now on.

 

[The Commish]

Do we really want to be deciding who comes into this world based on the "pain and misery" they might face?

In making any decision, a person morally ought to consider the amount of pain and misery her respective choices might cause.

IMO, if Dawkins's conclusion is wrong, it's not because his reasoning went awry; it's because he's got his facts wrong. The notion that people with Down Syndrome suffer unusually great pain and misery does not seem to be well established. By most accounts, parents who raise children with Down Syndrome are bringing happiness into the world, not pain and misery, and are doing so at some personal sacrifice. It's hardly the kind of thing I would call immoral.

Perhaps. I do agree that his thought really wasn't all that well thought out. He's done this many times. Beginning to wonder if he's just fishing for the sake of fishing. His comment about America and GWB was a hoot. And I tend to agree with your conclusion. It's way more accurate. He might as well have said that anyone not born perfectly healthy should be aborted. That's a much more logical line to draw IMO.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

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.

If you keep making the leap from fetus to living human I'm going to keep insisting that we are debating abortion.

And it's usually the person that resorts to name calling that isn't keeping up in the discussion.

Why are you anti-life?

In the context of this thread I am pro-choice. Anti is the antonym of pro and it's better to say anti pro-choice because pro-life makes the assertion that the fetus is a living human, which at least by law, we know isn't true. Just as your silly statement above points out. If it helps you I can make it simpler and just use anti-choice from now on.

Oh dear. Ok then.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Love Letters to Richard Dawkins

NSFW (language)

 

[jdoggydogg]

Love Letters to Richard Dawkins

NSFW (language)

God bless.