Tal Bachman uses this quote of Dawkins as it is an abomination, a hardhearted cruel person could think like this....
Nothing could be further than the truth.

Which idiot, moron (call me any name you want) would, could not realize that down's child syndrome uses at least five healthy children's upkeep through the school and medical life?

Dawkins is a rare, courageous individual, who speaks the reality most of us passes off....

I can't speak my mind, for example, I run a medical practice, even though I see the horrors of Right to life crap, I need to keep my mouth shut.

I don't think that other people have the right to make such a decision for someone else. It has to be up to the parents who were just given such news. I have no right to tell them what they should decide.

Exactly!

The same could be said for any of us. We could be severely disabled in a car crash, and industrial accident, or a war zone. We might get Alzheimer's or dementia. Medical care and support is a compact that we make with each other. It is a way of saying, "There but for the grace of God (or the Universe,) go I."

And for the record, I think that the decision to keep or abort a fetus is a private matter for the parents to decide within the bounds of the law.

"More children from the fit--few children from the unfit!"

Charming.

Yes, let's tell women what they should do with their bodies! And let's all decide which pregnancies get to be seen through til birth. After all, we don't want any abnormal children to be born already suckling at the teet of our economy!

Or perhaps we shouldn't measure the value of life in dollars and cents. It may be best if we, instead, respected the decision of the parent-to-be and came together as a community to help support our fellow humans, whether they choose to terminate a pregnancy or decide to carry it to term.

Empathy is a virtue.

Since "morality" is subjective, there's no "right" or "wrong" answer to that.
Dawkins considers it "immoral" to NOT abort such a child.
Others consider it "immoral" TO abort such a child.

You get to decide for yourself. No matter what Dawkins says or what other people say. There's no magical man in the sky defining what's "moral" and what isn't, there's just us trying to figure out what's best for us.

For me, I would prefer to do the right thing and try my best to be a good person. Not because I will be rewarded after I die, because nobody knows this but to be remembered as nice person. Who wants to be remembered as a selfish jerk?

The Romans at least waited until after the child was born before deciding whether it deserved to live.

Uh, they had no choice. Given their history of leaving deformed children out to die, I would guess that had they known in advance they'd abort.

First of all, I don't think it's a matter of money. When a person is born, they have the same rights as any other person, no matter what the cost. If a person is handicapped, their care will cost more but that, to me, is the price of a civilized society. Like "summer" said, it can happen to any of us.

Second, the debate is not about children. It's about pre-natal screening in the early stages of a pregnancy. We're talking blobs of tissue, not individual personalities.

Third, the debate is not about a woman's right to control her own body. It's about the parents' right to decide what kind of life their child will have, when born. So it's not a matter to decide for yourself, it's a matter to decide for someone else.

Personally, I am in favour of reducing human suffering as much as possible. In the theoretical setting in which this debate usually takes place, it's easy to take the moral high road and claim that having Down's does not necessarily equate suffering.

In reality, if you were to ask any set of prospective parents whether they prefer a healthy child or one with a birth defect, I doubt that, ceteris paribus, many will go for option two. If they do, I would consider that as immoral as smoking or drinking during a pregnancy.

You do what you can to ensure a healthy baby but once it is born, all bets are off and every person has the same human rights.

depends.

Arguing from an economical sense?
a practical sense?
A familial sense?
Any other thousands of senses?

Each will lead you to a different conclusion

This is what El Sabah Nur says;
>Why do you put "Dollars&cents" in the value equation?
This is not about the money; it is about the available services each child receives; more a child hogs the services others will receive less or none...Even we in the West do not have infinite resource.
We have plenty empathy, Dawkins included....

>Elder What's-his-face
>The Romans at least waited until after the child was born before deciding whether it deserved to live.

Who wants to remember that fact? Christians wants masses to think their morality existed forever.
>rt
>First of all, I don't think it's a matter of money.
You are very wrong; It is all about money; how much chances any of us would stand in a face of Leukemia or Breast Cancer without insurance? It seems like most of us saved but that is not the fact.

I think the issue here is that the OP can't stand it if anyone disagrees with him about Dawkins. Well, guess what? This is not the Dawkins fan club,many poster including me do not like the man and we have a right to our opinions too. I am wondering why the OP chose to bring this up again since it has been a while since the original post and since Tal isn't even here?

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am
> wondering why the OP chose to bring this up again
> since it has been a while since the original post
> and since Tal isn't even here?

The original post was last Friday, and Tal comes here often.

My point stands. He has started several threads defending Dawkins and the fact is that Tal is not here now. He has a right to start any thread he likes,but he does seem to have a problem with those who don't care for Dawkins.

Don't even get me started in the right to life of the handicapped. I am the parent of an adult with severe disabilities...which could NOT have been diagnosed as a fetus. Should those individuals be euthanized as children because of the cost to society throughout their lives? And my daughter's care is much more costly than many with down syndrome. I've been a vocal advocate for persons with developmental disabilities for over 35 years so I know what I'm talking about.

Ron Burr

I have had the wonderful experience of teaching violin (or alternative instruments when variations in thumb structure make violin impractical) to several children with Down. I've always marveled at how many committed professionals in special ed are employed because these children are alive. But if you enjoy being negative wishing these people dead by all means enjoy yourself.

I just learned that a dear friend with Down Syndrome passed away at age 64. Until he was recently hospitalized he would make the rounds through department of disabilities and special needs office every morning and brighten my day and keep me grounded in what is and what isn't important.

As a Philosophy grad I love a good debate, but on this issue I simply don't care to. My friend lived a beautiful life of friendship, work, love, and sharing a good laugh...a life worth emulating.

I look at the picture of my friend who just died an hour ago, look out the window at the disabled individuals walking by my office, at the picture of my disabled daughter on my desk, and see beautiful individuals who love and are loved in returned without ever asking if it is morally wrong that they are still alive.

Thank you.

And I'm terribly sorry for your loss.

This is one area wherein Richard Dawkins and I part company. He is correct that the large majority of Down's fetuses in Europe are aborted. However, if a family is willing to help that child through life, then more power to them. I will be happy to have more taxes taken from my paycheck to improve the lives of all who have disabilities. It is moral? That is a subjective question and specific to each circumstance.

HH =)

I think we need to remember that our choices and decisions are nobody else's business. Ever. Other people's opinions can be ignored with confidence.

I don't give a rats arse what anyone else thinks of my choices and decisions about how I live my life.
Why would I? My life is none of their business.

If I want information, I'll go to reliable factual sources, never, ever rely on someone's ...opinion... opinion??? Good Grief. NO!

We have plenty of available resources to accommodate disabled children. Your advocacy of selective termination based on the notion of a disabled child being a burden on social services is callous, inhuman and, frankly, repugnant.

I respect the right of a woman to end a pregnancy on her own terms AND her right to see it through to birth regardless of the disadvantages you or I or anybody else may percieve in her choice.

Using money and resources to provide care for children who require assistance isn't waste. The value of human life isn't in their "usefulness" to their community and it isn't nullified by financial need.

"Using money and resources to provide care for children who require assistance isn't waste. The value of human life isn't in their "usefulness" to their community and it isn't nullified by financial need."

Thank you! My brother has down syndrome and he is the most kind, selfless, loving person I know. I'd much rather spend my time with him than three quarters of the people I meet on daily basis. The world will be a sad place when it is his time to go.

And any person who told me or my family to our face that my brother was a waste of time and resources that could have gone to "normal" children, would probably have their face rearranged by the time I was through.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2014 04:57PM by fidget.

The measure of a society, in my opinion, is in how well it treats its less-fortunate members.

Our society (and many others) has huge wealth. It's just not distributed very well and not used for good often enough.

>I think the issue here is that the OP can't stand it if anyone disagrees with him about Dawkins

You are wrong, I m not Dawkins worshiper, I like his ideas because they reflect reality & facts more than Tal's,

Besides, Tal started the original thread and I am responding to it.

Might be a surprise to you but I like most of Tal's threads and positively comment about those.

As for you; I'd rather see you comment about my OP, I'd enjoy your comments about it, rather than innuendos, conjectures you might derive.

Is that so El Sabah Nur?
I lived most of my life In SLC, then I was fortunate enough to move in 4th largest City of US, you want to see something repugnant, then come here...most of the city looks like a Cesspool compared to SLC, granted it is big but overwhelming homelesness, filth people has to live by, any yet go little further, you will see 20thousand sq feet walled homes, incredible wealth....
Repugnant callous thoughts come from people who think they can manage everything without even thinking about the repercussions of their actions

It's not accurate to assert that we don't have the necessary resources to care for those that need assistance by pointing to the large number of folks who require help and aren't receiving it as evidence. There are other explanations; for instance, we allow corporations to take part in our government, where they purchase lawmakers who legislate to their benefit and at the expense of the lower classes. We have created a society that practically worships the wealthy and and denigrates the poor and disadvantaged.

The American dream is not only a lie; it's poison.

Our government spends its resources on campaigns of terror in foreign countries. It diverts our attention away from its own citizens who struggle to survive.

We have the means to care for practically everyone. We just don't do it.

We could also talk about a culture that views mental illness and physical disabilities as character flaws, that devalues a person for not looking or acting like a "normal" American. As someone with PTSD who has been diagnosed on the autism spectrum and who has a son who is also autistic, I can tell you from firsthand experience how pervasive attitudes like yours are in our society and how dehumanizing and abusive it is.

One of the reason so many disadvantaged people don't seek help is because they can't stand the stigma placed on them by society. They don't want to be branded with a scarlet "D" on their fucking foreheads.

You knwo what I think is immoral? Standing up there on your high horse acting like you know what's moral and what isn't for everybody else. That's heinous, IMO. The thing I love about morality is that it really is relative (I'm a big fan of Immanuel Kant).

I don't really have anything to add about the debate over aborting possibly disabled fetuses, but I do think it's really immoral to go around telling people their choices and decisions are immoral.

This also was a key part of Nazi eugenics or whatever they called it.

Who gives them the right to say who should live and who shouldn't? Noone. Any decision like that is in the hands of the parents.

quinlansolo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Which idiot, moron (call me any name you want)
> would, could not realize that down's child
> syndrome uses at least five healthy children's
> upkeep through the school and medical life?

Just for argument's sake, if I punch you in the face so fu.ckin' hard you'd be drinkin' from a straw for the rest of your life and couldn't again move your precious bowels for the love of ya, you'd take "at least five healthy children's upkeep etc." away from them. Not your fault I punched you so hard, right? Sure, it might be immoral of me not to refrain from punchin' your head in. But there it is, hypothetically I did, so perhaps it'd be immoral to refrain from finishing what my punch failed to do...

Or is that not the same? Okay. However:

Go down this kind of utilitarian road in as simplistic a fashion as you present and, well, only a moron (your word) wouldn't see that absurdity soon arises. If the cost of a Down's child is your concern, should we then begin assessing the costs of the potential risks to the collective budget when it comes to personal pastimes, leisure and sports? Where do we end this kind of assessing? And by the way, who does the assessing? Who makes the criteria? Who over-sees the process? Etc Etc Etc. Pray to God it ain't the likes of you and your "truth-telling" hero Richard Dawkins.

Anyway, whatever. On Downs: if Darryl Sutter can trust his Downs son Chris to carry the Stanley Cup on the back of an ATV then I'd say, *all things considered*, Downs isn't all that much of a handicap to begin with.

Interesting how the same (mostly fallacious) arguments that accompanied his original "tweet" are repeated here.

He addresses all of them here:

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

It's just fine to not agree with him. I do. He wasn't demanding you do anything, he wasn't saying disabled people have no worth and should have been aborted...go read his explanation.