Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

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

Ologhai Jones

Immoral Not To Abort Down's Foetuses?

Recommended Posts

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

Richard Dawkins, the atheist writer, has caused a stir on Twitter claiming it is "immoral" to allow unborn babies with Down's syndrome to live... But for many, especially the relatives of people with Down's syndrome, the comments have caused anger and upset. One mother, who has a child with the genetic condition wrote: "I would fight till my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma."

Discuss. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm

Where does intervention in sustaining life start, or stop ? You can't predetermine what genetic mutations may be advantageous.

Naturally, most lethal abnormalities are aborted early and without notice, others may gestate for longer, some die at, or soon after birth. Many chromosomal abnormalities lead to sterility. Many genetic mutations would also naturally lead to death before reproduction.

What we do through intervention with genetic mutations that might be eventually terminal for individuals who are also fertile, is to increase our genetic load. And here, there is a debate.

Down's syndrome is a strange choice as an example, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC are taking the proverbial a bit by describing Dawkins as an "atheist writer". Wouldn't "evolutionary biologist" be more accurate?

(Although he has diversified into being a posh troll since discovering social networks.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up to the parents really.. They are the ones who's lives will be most affected rather than that of the child. (Though I guess with life expectancies being up in the 50s 60s now it is partly societies burden as well.. Plus disability benefit costs to parents).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the thoughts that crosses my mind is why it is deemed that the best people to engage with Dawkins on the issue are people who have a Down's Syndrome child.

This is a general niggle I have. I don't understand why there seems to be the notion that, if you want someone to put an alternative point of view, you seek out the people with the least objectivity. Furthermore, people who, due to their situation, are among the most subjective often seem to feel that this entitles them to be taken more seriously than those who could perhaps be more objective.

Want to know about child safety in holiday resorts? Ask the McCann's! ... rather than simply chalk their experiences up as a statistically insignificant anecdote which presumably, therefore, shouldn't elevate the importance of their views (outside of the situations where their direct experiences are specifically relevant, of course), we have them on the TV and radio whenever an opinion on something even remotely related crops up.

The same sense of entitlement to be taken more seriously happens in many a discussion between parents and non-parents, where (you may have heard it too) the parents will play their 'well you wouldn't understand, you're not a parent' card.

Being 'involved' or having had a specific experience doesn't necessarily make one's opinion more valid, and it may even make it less valid due to the very subjectivity that can give people that 'more entitled to be heard' feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree.....all people are equal, sometimes the ones that seem to look and act normally are far worse than those that look and act differently.

The world would be a sad place if we were all the same, looked the same and acted the same. ;)

It'd be sad if we were all the same, but we're all equal, although some are far worse? Er... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the thoughts that crosses my mind is why it is deemed that the best people to engage with Dawkins on the issue are people who have a Down's Syndrome child.

This is a general niggle I have. I don't understand why there seems to be the notion that, if you want someone to put an alternative point of view, you seek out the people with the least objectivity. Furthermore, people who, due to their situation, are among the most subjective often seem to feel that this entitles them to be taken more seriously than those who could perhaps be more objective.

Want to know about child safety in holiday resorts? Ask the McCann's! ... rather than simply chalk their experiences up as a statistically insignificant anecdote which presumably, therefore, shouldn't elevate the importance of their views (outside of the situations where their direct experiences are specifically relevant, of course), we have them on the TV and radio whenever an opinion on something even remotely related crops up.

The same sense of entitlement to be taken more seriously happens in many a discussion between parents and non-parents, where (you may have heard it too) the parents will play their 'well you wouldn't understand, you're not a parent' card.

Being 'involved' or having had a specific experience doesn't necessarily make one's opinion more valid, and it may even make it less valid due to the very subjectivity that can give people that 'more entitled to be heard' feeling.

Sometimes a disability in yourself or others close brings out the very best in people.....sure people sometimes have choices, but sometimes they have no other choice but to accept it, embrace it, and deal with it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard who? Never heard of this guy before, but he sounds like a nazi dickhead... :wacko:

As I've posted before, we're all closet eugenicists...no one has ever walked into a sperm bank and said give me the shortage, baldest ugliest sperm donor who has the longest criminal record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC are taking the proverbial a bit by describing Dawkins as an "atheist writer". Wouldn't "evolutionary biologist" be more accurate?

(Although he has diversified into being a posh troll since discovering social networks.)

so have you figured out the reverse-psychology bit then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you think of an example where you imagine more people might agree with the stance that Dawkins seems to be taking?

I confess I am imagining the provocative argument that Dawkins is making. But yes, there are examples where terminations are carried out that people would find more reasonable, arguably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've posted before, we're all closet eugenicists...no one has ever walked into a sperm bank and said give me the shortage, baldest ugliest sperm donor who has the longest criminal record.

No ?

I thought that was what many people must have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've posted before, we're all closet eugenicists...

Speak for yourself, I'm most definitely not one.

no one has ever walked into a sperm bank and said give me the shortage, baldest ugliest sperm donor who has the longest criminal record.

I know countless examples of women who have chosen the short, fat, bald and ugly guy as living sperm donor for their offspring...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you a bald eagle by any chance? :D

Not yet bald but at some point I will be.. ;)

Edit:

This thread should really be merged with the "Another homegrown lunatic" one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know countless examples of women who have chosen the short, fat, bald and ugly guy as living sperm donor for their offspring...

Unless they had some other redeeming features you should write up your thesis and announce evolution to be disproven and debunked.

For superseding Darwin in this field you should be good for at least a Queens medal, a Wollaston medal and a Copley medal B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so have you figured out the reverse-psychology bit then?

I have of course wondered what his current game is but kind of assumed it was just about getting lucrative media work.

As for the BBC oompa loompa, maybe they just didn't know about his pre-loony work.

What's your theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   204 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.