Pages:
Author

Topic: Dawkins: Immoral Not To Abort Down’s Syndrome Child (Read 5942 times)

legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
Down's children have a lot more positives than negatives in terms of character. If he wants to get rid of people on the basis of imperfections lets start with psychopaths and sadists. Laughably all of these toe rags would have passed is subjective little test! Lets think just for one minute how the world will be when scientists are allowed to play God. Who exactly is going to define perfect in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years as the human quest for a marketing man's ideal person reaches ever more ridiculous specifications?

You can detect whether someone is going to be a psychopaths or a sadist in the womb?  Roll Eyes

Gene technology is progressing us to that point

One good side of gene tech detection: less people like dawkins in the future?  Roll Eyes



I'm thinking we can use it to get rid of people like Honeypot to be honest  Grin. Jk, I'm not a Nazi eugenicist unlike him.

Unless you were implying so in an optimistic manner. You could declare education and health care a human right, not a privilege to those who can afford it (like in 'Murka!). Once you make education readily available to all citizens regardless of race/sex/religion, the world would see a much smaller chance of producing more HoneyPots

Of course, Health Care is simply another way of raping the world using the idea that there is real health care available from them.

Smiley
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 504
Down's children have a lot more positives than negatives in terms of character. If he wants to get rid of people on the basis of imperfections lets start with psychopaths and sadists. Laughably all of these toe rags would have passed is subjective little test! Lets think just for one minute how the world will be when scientists are allowed to play God. Who exactly is going to define perfect in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years as the human quest for a marketing man's ideal person reaches ever more ridiculous specifications?

You can detect whether someone is going to be a psychopaths or a sadist in the womb?  Roll Eyes

Gene technology is progressing us to that point

One good side of gene tech detection: less people like dawkins in the future?  Roll Eyes



I'm thinking we can use it to get rid of people like Honeypot to be honest  Grin. Jk, I'm not a Nazi eugenicist unlike him.

Unless you were implying so in an optimistic manner. You could declare education and health care a human right, not a privilege to those who can afford it (like in 'Murka!). Once you make education readily available to all citizens regardless of race/sex/religion, the world would see a much smaller chance of producing more HoneyPots
sr. member
Activity: 338
Merit: 250
Down's children have a lot more positives than negatives in terms of character. If he wants to get rid of people on the basis of imperfections lets start with psychopaths and sadists. Laughably all of these toe rags would have passed is subjective little test! Lets think just for one minute how the world will be when scientists are allowed to play God. Who exactly is going to define perfect in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years as the human quest for a marketing man's ideal person reaches ever more ridiculous specifications?

You can detect whether someone is going to be a psychopaths or a sadist in the womb?  Roll Eyes

Gene technology is progressing us to that point

One good side of gene tech detection: less people like dawkins in the future?  Roll Eyes



I'm thinking we can use it to get rid of people like Honeypot to be honest  Grin. Jk, I'm not a Nazi eugenicist unlike him.
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 504
Down's children have a lot more positives than negatives in terms of character. If he wants to get rid of people on the basis of imperfections lets start with psychopaths and sadists. Laughably all of these toe rags would have passed is subjective little test! Lets think just for one minute how the world will be when scientists are allowed to play God. Who exactly is going to define perfect in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years as the human quest for a marketing man's ideal person reaches ever more ridiculous specifications?

You can detect whether someone is going to be a psychopaths or a sadist in the womb?  Roll Eyes

Gene technology is progressing us to that point

One good side of gene tech detection: less people like dawkins in the future?  Roll Eyes



That's just being the thought police
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
Down's children have a lot more positives than negatives in terms of character. If he wants to get rid of people on the basis of imperfections lets start with psychopaths and sadists. Laughably all of these toe rags would have passed is subjective little test! Lets think just for one minute how the world will be when scientists are allowed to play God. Who exactly is going to define perfect in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years as the human quest for a marketing man's ideal person reaches ever more ridiculous specifications?

You can detect whether someone is going to be a psychopaths or a sadist in the womb?  Roll Eyes

Gene technology is progressing us to that point

One good side of gene tech detection: less people like dawkins in the future?  Roll Eyes

legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
Down's children have a lot more positives than negatives in terms of character. If he wants to get rid of people on the basis of imperfections lets start with psychopaths and sadists. Laughably all of these toe rags would have passed is subjective little test! Lets think just for one minute how the world will be when scientists are allowed to play God. Who exactly is going to define perfect in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years as the human quest for a marketing man's ideal person reaches ever more ridiculous specifications?

You can detect whether someone is going to be a psychopaths or a sadist in the womb?  Roll Eyes

Gene technology is progressing us to that point

Besides, it doesn't really matter, since the Elite of the world need to drastically reduce world population, anyway.   Wink
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 504
Down's children have a lot more positives than negatives in terms of character. If he wants to get rid of people on the basis of imperfections lets start with psychopaths and sadists. Laughably all of these toe rags would have passed is subjective little test! Lets think just for one minute how the world will be when scientists are allowed to play God. Who exactly is going to define perfect in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years as the human quest for a marketing man's ideal person reaches ever more ridiculous specifications?

You can detect whether someone is going to be a psychopaths or a sadist in the womb?  Roll Eyes

Gene technology is progressing us to that point
sr. member
Activity: 338
Merit: 250
Down's children have a lot more positives than negatives in terms of character. If he wants to get rid of people on the basis of imperfections lets start with psychopaths and sadists. Laughably all of these toe rags would have passed is subjective little test! Lets think just for one minute how the world will be when scientists are allowed to play God. Who exactly is going to define perfect in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years as the human quest for a marketing man's ideal person reaches ever more ridiculous specifications?

You can detect whether someone is going to be a psychopaths or a sadist in the womb?  Roll Eyes
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 504
The first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights is the right to life.



Dawkins can take his eugenicist fascist ideology back to the UK, where they are all miserable and restricted.

actually the first amendment is freedom of speech, which Dawkins is doing.

Not the first amendment, I'm talking about the Bill of Rights

The "Right to Life, love, liberty"
hero member
Activity: 675
Merit: 507
Freedom to choose
The first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights is the right to life.



Dawkins can take his eugenicist fascist ideology back to the UK, where they are all miserable and restricted.

actually the first amendment is freedom of speech, which Dawkins is doing.
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 504
The first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights is the right to life.



Dawkins can take his eugenicist fascist ideology back to the UK, where they are all miserable and restricted.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Down's children have a lot more positives than negatives in terms of character. If he wants to get rid of people on the basis of imperfections lets start with psychopaths and sadists. Laughably all of these toe rags would have passed is subjective little test! Lets think just for one minute how the world will be when scientists are allowed to play God. Who exactly is going to define perfect in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years as the human quest for a marketing man's ideal person reaches ever more ridiculous specifications?
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 504
He's always trying to be the center of attention. Whether he's making controversial rape comments, complaining about the terrorists winning because he lost his honey, talking about how babies with Down's should be aborted, or making sexist comments about women, Dawkins will never be famous for what he was supposed to be famous for, his crappy book.
member
Activity: 97
Merit: 10
I don't agree with his wording, but at the end of the day it has to be the choice of the parents and nobody else. I believe that people with Downs Syndrome can make a hugely positive contribution to society, but I have also seen cases where people who are more severely affected by the condition are abandoned to the system when their parents pass away or become too old to look after them. This is a particular problem as Downs parents tend to be older when the child is born. This is a heartbreaking decision for any expectant parent to make and there is no right or wrong answer.

I totally agree with this. I've been around quite a few people with Downs syndrome and some are really nice people and can care for themselves but some are literally vegetables. "Abort and try again" - Has this guy ever been a parent? That's fucking disgusting.
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 504
Edit: never mind, misunderstood
sr. member
Activity: 994
Merit: 441
I don't agree with his wording, but at the end of the day it has to be the choice of the parents and nobody else. I believe that people with Downs Syndrome can make a hugely positive contribution to society, but I have also seen cases where people who are more severely affected by the condition are abandoned to the system when their parents pass away or become too old to look after them. This is a particular problem as Downs parents tend to be older when the child is born. This is a heartbreaking decision for any expectant parent to make and there is no right or wrong answer.
full member
Activity: 214
Merit: 100
What's a fun fact is that Stephen Hawkings would have been declared unfit and denied a right to live, sending us back about forty years in astrophysics.


Doubt it. He wasn't diagnosed with his disease until he was in his early twenties, but that's besides the point.

What's a fun fact is that Stephen Hawkings would have been declared unfit and denied a right to live, sending us back about forty years in astrophysics.

A real scholar with a physical handicap is of course better than any wannabe demagogue like dawkins. One has substance, the other has nothing but mouth.

Funny seeing as 'nothing but mouth' adequately describes your input here.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
What's a fun fact is that Stephen Hawkings would have been declared unfit and denied a right to live, sending us back about forty years in astrophysics.

A real scholar with a physical handicap is of course better than any wannabe demagogue like dawkins. One has substance, the other has nothing but mouth.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
Down's varies in people. Some people you would never guess that they have it. Others are vegetables, barely alive. Abortion is murder.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
He's got a point, ya know. It's not just an issue of the child's rights, either, it's an issue of responsibility. Most parents can't afford to pay for the medical costs of raising children with certain disorders, yet choose to have them anyway knowing full well they'll be a tax burden on society. I kind of have a problem with that.

Some people have a problem with sex change operations paid by society too.


Pages:
Jump to: