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

[Tom Skerritt]

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?

:whoosh:

Dawkins is arguing that it's better that people with Down's syndrome never be born. And he's saying that with complete disregard for the preferences of people with Down's syndrome.

I can say that if I had the choice to have Down's syndrome or to be aborted, I would choose abortion. Is it okay for me to make that argument?

 

[dgreen]

His point is - if you had a choice between having a disabled child or a non-disabled child, choosing the non-disabled child would be the morally right thing to do - for the child

Just from the quote in the OP, I don't see how you get that. Are you using some other quotes?

And I don't see how what you're saying makes sense. X is conceived and it is determined he has down syndrome. What you decide to do with X is irrelevant to whether you chose to try and have another child who hopefully turns out to be non-disabled.

You have to believe they are separate individuals first. I don't think Dawkins believes that.

I'm not sure what that means to say they aren't separate individuals.

 

[Greggity]

Who is Richard Dawkins and why should I care what he thinks?

He's a flaming liberal who said something outrageous. You should love this.

I don't pay much attention to those morons...

 

[msommer]

His point is - if you had a choice between having a disabled child or a non-disabled child, choosing the non-disabled child would be the morally right thing to do - for the child

Just from the quote in the OP, I don't see how you get that. Are you using some other quotes?

And I don't see how what you're saying makes sense. X is conceived and it is determined he has down syndrome. What you decide to do with X is irrelevant to whether you chose to try and have another child who hopefully turns out to be non-disabled.

You have to believe they are separate individuals first. I don't think Dawkins believes that.

I'm not sure what that means to say they aren't separate individuals.

I's about when a foetus becomes an individual and not just reproducing cells

 

[dgreen]

His point is - if you had a choice between having a disabled child or a non-disabled child, choosing the non-disabled child would be the morally right thing to do - for the child

Just from the quote in the OP, I don't see how you get that. Are you using some other quotes?

And I don't see how what you're saying makes sense. X is conceived and it is determined he has down syndrome. What you decide to do with X is irrelevant to whether you chose to try and have another child who hopefully turns out to be non-disabled.

You have to believe they are separate individuals first. I don't think Dawkins believes that.

I'm not sure what that means to say they aren't separate individuals.

I's about when a foetus becomes an individual and not just reproducing cells

Oh. Well, that's irrelevant whether it's cells or an individual or whatever. That's why I used "X". Whether it's just reproducing cells or something else, your decision about what to do with those cells is independent of a future decision to try for a non-disabled child. The decision to abort X is its own decision. Like I said, I don't see how randall is reading Dawkins' quote in that way and I don't think it makes sense anyway. I could be totally missing something, though.

And just out of curiosity, at how many weeks can you test for down syndrome?

 

[randall146]

That's not a far-fetched position is it? Not everyone feels that way but that's part of the reason they do the testing

"Abort it and try again" isn't that far-fetched, I get that. Saying it's immoral to have the kid? Don't get that part.

Every person we know raising a downs syndrome kid is committing an immoral act?

Interesting - I never would have read it that way but I can see someone reading that into it.

But that's not at all what he's saying - I'm sure he'd be very complimentary of people raising downs syndrome or any special needs kid. His argument is that it's immoral to bring someone who will struggle so much into the world if you have the choice not to.

Certainly people will argue whether that's moral or not, but he's not casting aspersions on people with down's syndrome or their caretakers

OK, now I get that he's not saying raising the kid is immoral. I'm still struggling why he thinks the choice to keep the kid is immoral. You can argue that it is better to abort the fetus and try again than to keep it. But immoral to keep it?

Immoral to keep it because you are choosing to have a child with Down's syndrome over trying again for a child without Down's syndrome. He assumes it's a straight choice. Get pregnant -> find out fetus has Down's -> abort -> get pregnant again

I don't think his position allows for the fact that for some people (particularly those that end up with a higher percentage of Down's babies) it's not as easy as just starting over to get a fully-abled kid. For a couple who struggled to get pregnant, or spent their whole savings on in vitro, or for whatever reason don't think it'd be easy to just get pregnant again, it's too black and white to say having the Down's kid is immoral.

 

[randall146]

His point is - if you had a choice between having a disabled child or a non-disabled child, choosing the non-disabled child would be the morally right thing to do - for the child

Just from the quote in the OP, I don't see how you get that. Are you using some other quotes?

And I don't see how what you're saying makes sense. X is conceived and it is determined he has down syndrome. What you decide to do with X is irrelevant to whether you chose to try and have another child who hopefully turns out to be non-disabled.

"Abort it and try again" means exactly what I said - choose not to have the disabled kid and then have a non-disabled kid

As to your second point, 17 seconds is right - I don't think Dawkins would identify your X and Y fetuses as X and Y. He'd identify the first one as (X with Down's syndrome) and the second one as (X without Down's syndrome)

 

[randall146]

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?

:whoosh:

Dawkins is arguing that it's better that people with Down's syndrome never be born. And he's saying that with complete disregard for the preferences of people with Down's syndrome.

I can say that if I had the choice to have Down's syndrome or to be aborted, I would choose abortion. Is it okay for me to make that argument?

Nope, this question must be decided strictly on majority Down's vote.

 

[dgreen]

His point is - if you had a choice between having a disabled child or a non-disabled child, choosing the non-disabled child would be the morally right thing to do - for the child

Just from the quote in the OP, I don't see how you get that. Are you using some other quotes?

And I don't see how what you're saying makes sense. X is conceived and it is determined he has down syndrome. What you decide to do with X is irrelevant to whether you chose to try and have another child who hopefully turns out to be non-disabled.

"Abort it and try again" means exactly what I said - choose not to have the disabled kid and then have a non-disabled kid

As to your second point, 17 seconds is right - I don't think Dawkins would identify your X and Y fetuses as X and Y. He'd identify the first one as (X with Down's syndrome) and the second one as (X without Down's syndrome)

Ok.

Makes absolutely no sense to me, but at least I'm clear about what you think he's saying.

 

[EYLive]

This is so F'd up it's funny.

Kill a handicapped child - No problemo!

Give birth to a handcapped child - Immoral!

What's this world coming to...

 

[Captain Quinoa]

That's not a far-fetched position is it? Not everyone feels that way but that's part of the reason they do the testing

"Abort it and try again" isn't that far-fetched, I get that. Saying it's immoral to have the kid? Don't get that part.

Every person we know raising a downs syndrome kid is committing an immoral act?

Interesting - I never would have read it that way but I can see someone reading that into it.

But that's not at all what he's saying - I'm sure he'd be very complimentary of people raising downs syndrome or any special needs kid. His argument is that it's immoral to bring someone who will struggle so much into the world if you have the choice not to.

Certainly people will argue whether that's moral or not, but he's not casting aspersions on people with down's syndrome or their caretakers

OK, now I get that he's not saying raising the kid is immoral. I'm still struggling why he thinks the choice to keep the kid is immoral. You can argue that it is better to abort the fetus and try again than to keep it. But immoral to keep it?

Immoral to keep it because you are choosing to have a child with Down's syndrome over trying again for a child without Down's syndrome. He assumes it's a straight choice. Get pregnant -> find out fetus has Down's -> abort -> get pregnant again

I don't think his position allows for the fact that for some people (particularly those that end up with a higher percentage of Down's babies) it's not as easy as just starting over to get a fully-abled kid. For a couple who struggled to get pregnant, or spent their whole savings on in vitro, or for whatever reason don't think it'd be easy to just get pregnant again, it's too black and white to say having the Down's kid is immoral.

Yeah his statement isn't so much outrageous as it is nonsensical.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

I don't think his position allows for the fact that for some people (particularly those that end up with a higher percentage of Down's babies) it's not as easy as just starting over to get a fully-abled kid. For a couple who struggled to get pregnant, or spent their whole savings on in vitro, or for whatever reason don't think it'd be easy to just get pregnant again, it's too black and white to say having the Down's kid is immoral.

At which point you should consider not procreating.

 

[msommer]

I don't think his position allows for the fact that for some people (particularly those that end up with a higher percentage of Down's babies) it's not as easy as just starting over to get a fully-abled kid. For a couple who struggled to get pregnant, or spent their whole savings on in vitro, or for whatever reason don't think it'd be easy to just get pregnant again, it's too black and white to say having the Down's kid is immoral.

At which point you should consider not procreating.

In the words of Jim Jeffries:

"If you're a dumb ####, and your wife is a dumb ####, the chances are your kids are too"

Although in ths case 'will be' works better than are

 

[cstu]

The morality or immorality argument to me is beside the point here. Saying "Abort it and try again" basically sounds like the sum of every person with down's syndrome's life equates to something that should be aborted. I think its pretty insulting to the many individuals who suffer from it who do lead relatively happy and functioning lives.

I've never heard of a kid with Down's beating up random strangers for fun.

If you were to ask somebody with Down's syndrome whether they would prefer the life they were given or would prefer his or her parents hadn't had sex that night, what sort of response do you think you would get?

Seem a lot happier than most people.

Finally, although 4 percent of individuals with DS expressed sadness about their lives, 99 percent said they were happy with their lives and 97 percent liked who they are.

 

[butcher boy]

The morality or immorality argument to me is beside the point here. Saying "Abort it and try again" basically sounds like the sum of every person with down's syndrome's life equates to something that should be aborted. I think its pretty insulting to the many individuals who suffer from it who do lead relatively happy and functioning lives.

I've never heard of a kid with Down's beating up random strangers for fun.

Neither have I?

 

[shader]

His point is - if you had a choice between having a disabled child or a non-disabled child, choosing the non-disabled child would be the morally right thing to do - for the child

Just from the quote in the OP, I don't see how you get that. Are you using some other quotes?And I don't see how what you're saying makes sense. X is conceived and it is determined he has down syndrome. What you decide to do with X is irrelevant to whether you chose to try and have another child who hopefully turns out to be non-disabled.

Yeah I'm amazed at the complete lack of reading comprehension by many in this thread.

He didn't say it's moral to abort a Down syndrome fetus.

He said its immoral to NOT abort.

These are two totally different statements. So people telling me that "x" number of Down syndrome patients are aborted is irrelevant because that's not what we are talking about.

 

[cstu]

The morality or immorality argument to me is beside the point here. Saying "Abort it and try again" basically sounds like the sum of every person with down's syndrome's life equates to something that should be aborted. I think its pretty insulting to the many individuals who suffer from it who do lead relatively happy and functioning lives.

I've never heard of a kid with Down's beating up random strangers for fun.

Neither have I?

I was agreeing with you. The idea that Down's kids are somehow worse that the average kid is completely ignorant.

 

[Kanil]

My wife and I discussed this at length prior to the birth of our first child. If we had learned beforehand that the child had down syndrome, my wife would have likely had an abortion.

Sorry if you think that's immoral, shader. I regard it as a private, personal choice. Unlike Dawkins, I would never encourage others to take this step. But I think everyone should have the right to.

Would you all sign up for a program where you could be 100% sure of eye color, hair color, maybe a design a baby type thing?

If I had the chance to give my kid the advantage of being the smartest, healthiest, biggest, strongest, fastest, and most attractive person in the world, I absolutely would.

 

[Kanil]

His point is - if you had a choice between having a disabled child or a non-disabled child, choosing the non-disabled child would be the morally right thing to do - for the child

Just from the quote in the OP, I don't see how you get that. Are you using some other quotes?And I don't see how what you're saying makes sense. X is conceived and it is determined he has down syndrome. What you decide to do with X is irrelevant to whether you chose to try and have another child who hopefully turns out to be non-disabled.

Yeah I'm amazed at the complete lack of reading comprehension by many in this thread.

He didn't say it's moral to abort a Down syndrome fetus.

He said its immoral to NOT abort.

These are two totally different statements. So people telling me that "x" number of Down syndrome patients are aborted is irrelevant because that's not what we are talking about.

So you can have an opinion that it's immoral to perform an action that some people choose to perform but Richard Dawkins can't have an opinion that it's immoral not to perform an action that some people choose not to perform. I think I've got it.

 

[TakiToki]

I think the underlying assumption is that the woman will likely have x children in her life, and that the decision is between keeping the Down syndrome one or attempting another pregnancy soon thereafter; not that she will have either x or x + 1 children in her life and that the Down Syndrome kid represents that difference.

 

[eoMMan]

Greatest Eagle to ever play the game.

 

[Kanil]

Greatest Eagle to ever play the game.

Second or Third best Safety in Broncos history!

 

[shadyridr]

I thought he was awesome on Family Fued

 

[meatwad1]

That's not a far-fetched position is it? Not everyone feels that way but that's part of the reason they do the testing

Not far fetched for a total #####.

 

[meatwad1]

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?

:whoosh:

Dawkins is arguing that it's better that people with Down's syndrome never be born. And he's saying that with complete disregard for the preferences of people with Down's syndrome.

I can say that if I had the choice to have Down's syndrome or to be aborted, I would choose abortion. Is it okay for me to make that argument?

Why?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

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?

:whoosh:

Dawkins is arguing that it's better that people with Down's syndrome never be born. And he's saying that with complete disregard for the preferences of people with Down's syndrome.

I can say that if I had the choice to have Down's syndrome or to be aborted, I would choose abortion. Is it okay for me to make that argument?

Why?

Because most people would choose to bring a healthy child into the world over a child with Downs.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think the underlying assumption is that the woman will likely have x children in her life, and that the decision is between keeping the Down syndrome one or attempting another pregnancy soon thereafter; not that she will have either x or x + 1 children in her life and that the Down Syndrome kid represents that difference.

I'd think that having a special needs child would also limit the overall number of children.

So if we are deciding this on opinion polling we need to ask the Down syndrome child, we need to ask the child that would have replaced them, and then we need to ask the children that could have followed if the parents didn't have to expend so much of their resources on just one child,

While effective in this thread, I think this is a pretty silly means to make choices - moral or otherwise. Especially since I'm not so sure that in 2014 limiting the number of children overall isn't the more moral choice.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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?

:whoosh:

Dawkins is arguing that it's better that people with Down's syndrome never be born. And he's saying that with complete disregard for the preferences of people with Down's syndrome.

I can say that if I had the choice to have Down's syndrome or to be aborted, I would choose abortion. Is it okay for me to make that argument?

Of course. It's when you start imposing that choice on people who would prefer to live that I have a problem with it. For example, if someone with terminal cancer chooses physician-assisted suicide, I am 100% fine with that. I would not be fine with a physician taking it upon himself to kill somebody with cancer.

 

[headcrack]

Dawkins not only slam dunked this one, he broke the backboard.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

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.

If you ask people who have never been born whether they would have preferred to be alive, they generally don't have an opinion.

 

[msommer]

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.

If you ask people who have never been born whether they would have preferred to be alive, they generally don't have an opinion.

At the very least they are hard to find

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

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.

If you ask people who have never been born whether they would have preferred to be alive, they generally don't have an opinion.

At the very least they are hard to find

Just like anything you're trying to find, they're always in the last place you look.

 

[Spike]

My wife and I discussed this at length prior to the birth of our first child. If we had learned beforehand that the child had down syndrome, my wife would have likely had an abortion.

Sorry if you think that's immoral, shader. I regard it as a private, personal choice. Unlike Dawkins, I would never encourage others to take this step. But I think everyone should have the right to.

Same here...and I know lots of others who felt the same way. The one couple I know of who went ahead with having a baby with Downs has had years and years of hardship due to it. From talking with the mother of the child, I know she would go a different route if she had the opportunity to do it again.

 

[timschochet]

Who is Richard Dawkins and why should I care what he thinks?

He's a flaming liberal who said something outrageous. You should love this.

I don't pay much attention to those morons...

but he's white though. Doesn't that help?

 

[SacramentoBob]

This atheist is against abortion FYI

I feel this way sometimes.

 

[SacramentoBob]

10am and I'm already out of likes. Thanks guys.

 

[jhib]

Why is the number of people who do or would choose abortion in that case significant when the main part being questioned is when he says it would be immoral not to abort?

If I said it was immoral to give birth to a female if you knew the gender ahead of time, would it help my case to bring up how many people in the world would choose to abort in that situation (think China)?

 

[randall146]

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?

:whoosh:

Dawkins is arguing that it's better that people with Down's syndrome never be born. And he's saying that with complete disregard for the preferences of people with Down's syndrome.

I can say that if I had the choice to have Down's syndrome or to be aborted, I would choose abortion. Is it okay for me to make that argument?

Of course. It's when you start imposing that choice on people who would prefer to live that I have a problem with it. For example, if someone with terminal cancer chooses physician-assisted suicide, I am 100% fine with that. I would not be fine with a physician taking it upon himself to kill somebody with cancer.

Dawkins isn't imposing a choice on anyone though, or even arguing that it should be imposed on anyone. He's just stating his opinion.

Your quarrel is with any abortion, not his view regarding Down's kids

 

[tonydead]

Why is the number of people who do or would choose abortion in that case significant when the main part being questioned is when he says it would be immoral not to abort?

If I said it was immoral to give birth to a female if you knew the gender ahead of time, would it help my case to bring up how many people in the world would choose to abort in that situation (think China)?

Because Richard's definition of morality is different than everyone who is criticizing his statement. If you consider the moral thing to do as what is best for the survival and advancement of the species then his statement makes perfect sense. And since our species currently has a high potential for survival you would expect the majority with that decision are making the right choice. If you consider the moral thing to do as what Jesus would do and you believe abortion is murder then it's pretty logical that you would be upset.

For Richard's definition of morality it doesn't make sense to consider it immoral to give birth do females because the species need females to reproduce and survive.

 

[CBusAlex]

I think the underlying assumption is that the woman will likely have x children in her life, and that the decision is between keeping the Down syndrome one or attempting another pregnancy soon thereafter; not that she will have either x or x + 1 children in her life and that the Down Syndrome kid represents that difference.

If you think that every pregnancy is a special miracle from God that will be granted a fixed number of times for each couple, then IK's "would down syndrome babies prefer to have never existed" argument makes sense, and Dawkins's position (and abortion in general) is abhorrent. If you think that parents generally can and do adjust their number of pregnancies depending on the number of children they want to have, then the "would down syndrome babies prefer to have never existed" argument is easily countered with "would the healthy babies who replaced them prefer to have never existed", and Dawkins's position is defensible.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I think the underlying assumption is that the woman will likely have x children in her life, and that the decision is between keeping the Down syndrome one or attempting another pregnancy soon thereafter; not that she will have either x or x + 1 children in her life and that the Down Syndrome kid represents that difference.

If you think that every pregnancy is a special miracle from God that will be granted a fixed number of times for each couple, then IK's "would down syndrome babies prefer to have never existed" argument makes sense, and Dawkins's position (and abortion in general) is abhorrent. If you think that parents generally can and do adjust their number of pregnancies depending on the number of children they want to have, then the "would down syndrome babies prefer to have never existed" argument is easily countered with "would the healthy babies who replaced them prefer to have never existed", and Dawkins's position is defensible.

It's also likely true that a Downs baby adjust he number of subsequent children downwards compared to a "normal" baby. Special needs children require more time and parental resources.

Now, I think there is a larger argument beyond just net social utility which is why abortion of a likely developmentally disabled child is more justifiable, IMO, than euthanasia of that child after it has been born. Twitter, however, is probably not the most appropriate place to try to make that argument.

 

[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

 

[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

Are you pro-choice then?

 

[matuski]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

One thing that strikes me a disingenuous in what Dawkins did tweet is the suggestion that the potential mother should just "try again." Down's is pretty strongly correlated with advanced maternal age. Trying again is often not really much of a possibility.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.