Dawkins: Immoral Not To Abort Down’s Syndrome Child - page 6.

GangkisKhan

full member

Activity: 141

Merit: 100

Quote from: devthedev on August 25, 2014, 07:08:17 PM

I believe life starts even before the sperm and the egg meet.
When you think life came from nothing, you tend to think in ways like that. Roll Eyes

That's atheistic morality for you. Morality defined by those with power. If it’s an inconvenience, if it gets in the way, if it would make me feel bad to look at it... kill it.
This dude makes me sick.

This is the first time I heard people claiming life starts before the sperm meet the egg.

What is the basis for the believe? And what is the argument for it?

Wilikon

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

minds.com/Wilikon

Quote from: devthedev on August 25, 2014, 07:08:17 PM

I believe life starts even before the sperm and the egg meet.
When you think life came from nothing, you tend to think in ways like that. Roll Eyes

That's atheistic morality for you. Morality defined by those with power. If it’s an inconvenience, if it gets in the way, if it would make me feel bad to look at it... kill it.
This dude makes me sick.

He is not the only one who has the same view. Just look at this thread...

Wilikon

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

minds.com/Wilikon

Quote from: blablahblah on August 25, 2014, 07:00:21 PM

Quote from: Wilikon on August 25, 2014, 06:30:23 PM

Your taxes are paying for millions of "free" abortions right now. Every year. You don't mind your $$ be used for abortion but you would mind for people NOT to abort. Interesting.

Negligible cost for a pill and/or minor procedure vs many $1000s for each disabled person, annually. Depending on the level of disability, one parent often ends up resigning entirely from their career aspirations to become a stay-at-home caregiver. A noble but also extremely costly cause. And that's not counting any paid services or medical care.

All that fuss because people feel bad about aborting a small bit of genetic material, about the size of a thumbnail.

Quote

What I meant was if you use that tool to kill a down syndrome baby because you do not want to pay in part for his or her life, or you do not want to see him or her on your sidewalk, where you eat etc... If the gay gene is discovered will it be OK to abort that baby too because of the parents' view on homosexuality? It was a simple counter position. I was not expecting an answer...

Who said anything about killing babies?

Fetus = Small blob of practically lifeless genetic material, about the size of a thumb nail. The thoughts and feelings of such tiny things are probably about as diverse as what a bit of skin cancer or scar tissue might have. Not even remotely similar to an actual baby which, sadly, is often treated like a fetus because too many other people treated it like a baby at the wrong time when it actually was a fetus.

Your position is now crystal clear regarding parents who want to keep their down syndrome baby. Thank you for playing.

Honeypot

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Life begins at conception.

There are few instances there abortion is an option - primarily those concerning pregnancy due to violence, rape, incest, or a situation where carrying through the pregnancy would most definitely cost the life of the mother.

In the last case, it is a matter of weighing one life for another. It would be up to the mother, medical professionals, and involved people to make the decision.

The idea that abortion is a female rights issue or bitching about 'stay out of my womb' 'don't try to control my womb' is a laughable idea. Even if females contribute a great deal to the pregnancy, it does not give them the right to terminate life as they see fit. It is one of the greatest dilemma and loaded issue - while a woman may acknowledge her importance in the event, it is impertinent to think that she gets to call the shots on whether her baby gets to live or not.

It is not her body. It's the baby's life. Sometimes, it's not always about a woman's body.

That being said, aborting a child due to severe defect is a matter left up to the medical professionals, not 'thinkers' and 'educated' peoples who believes morality and ethics is their domain (LOL).

devthedev

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1004

I believe life starts even before the sperm and the egg meet.
When you think life came from nothing, you tend to think in ways like that. Roll Eyes

That's atheistic morality for you. Morality defined by those with power. If it’s an inconvenience, if it gets in the way, if it would make me feel bad to look at it... kill it.
This dude makes me sick.

Honeypot

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Dawkins has been given undue credit for far too long. He should stick to being a scientist, not some attention mongering demogauge spewing half baked garbage based only on his very fragile academician's ego.

He clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

blablahblah

hero member

Activity: 775

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Wilikon on August 25, 2014, 06:30:23 PM

Your taxes are paying for millions of "free" abortions right now. Every year. You don't mind your $$ be used for abortion but you would mind for people NOT to abort. Interesting.

Negligible cost for a pill and/or minor procedure vs many $1000s for each disabled person, annually. Depending on the level of disability, one parent often ends up resigning entirely from their career aspirations to become a stay-at-home caregiver. A noble but also extremely costly cause. And that's not counting any paid services or medical care.

All that fuss because people feel bad about aborting a small bit of genetic material, about the size of a thumbnail.

Quote

What I meant was if you use that tool to kill a down syndrome baby because you do not want to pay in part for his or her life, or you do not want to see him or her on your sidewalk, where you eat etc... If the gay gene is discovered will it be OK to abort that baby too because of the parents' view on homosexuality? It was a simple counter position. I was not expecting an answer...

Who said anything about killing babies?

Fetus = Small blob of practically lifeless genetic material, about the size of a thumb nail. The thoughts and feelings of such tiny things are probably about as diverse as what a bit of skin cancer or scar tissue might have. Not even remotely similar to an actual baby which, sadly, is often treated like a fetus because too many other people treated it like a baby at the wrong time when it actually was a fetus.

Wilikon

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

minds.com/Wilikon

Quote from: blablahblah on August 25, 2014, 01:33:50 PM

Quote from: Wilikon on August 25, 2014, 12:21:39 PM

Quote from: blablahblah on August 25, 2014, 12:15:30 PM

For the record, I partially agree with the stance that -- considering the availability of modern technology and genetic testing, and that <13 week abortions are basically just a specially induced menstrual period (and utterly overblown by religious zealots) -- government assistance should be reduced or somehow limited as a punitive response to irresponsible parenting decisions.

Why should tax-payers have to cough up 10,000s for a lifetime of special-ed and rehab, when the parents could just try again instead? In fact, they probably shouldn't try again, because it's probably an age-related problem and genetic diseases hit a brick wall when the parents are past around 36 years. If they really want to have a kid, adopt.

Good point. As soon as the famous "gay gene" is discovered, parents should have the moral obligation to abort a gay baby, based on a long life of mocking, bullying and rejection. We all need to keep this from happening. The same should be true for "wrong skin, eyes and hair color" genes too.................. Roll Eyes

I heard they can already do rudimentary "designer babies" with gene testing on IVF. I think the movie Gattaca did some extrapolation of that. Maybe if selective breeding is such a bad thing, they'll be another generational "one hit wonder" as per inbred royalty.

My objection was to the government funding, not so much the personal decisions of parents who might want their child to be more special for whatever reason. When strangers are asked to provide financial support, maybe they should also be allowed to have some input to the decision? I feel abused when I have to work harder to fund someone else's abortion-free lifestyle. Then again, I'm not a total libertarian/an-cap, and I'm capable of accepting that a small portion of my money will be diverted to some cause that I disagree with, as long as the rest seems well-spent.

Not sure what you mean with the gay gene. That seems more like xenophobia. If anything, gays seem to pay for themselves with ridiculous talent and above-average intelligence. #StephenFry !

Your taxes are paying for millions of "free" abortions right now. Every year. You don't mind your $$ be used for abortion but you would mind for people NOT to abort. Interesting.

Xenophobia? Don't you mean homophobia? Wink

What I meant was if you use that tool to kill a down syndrome baby because you do not want to pay in part for his or her life, or you do not want to see him or her on your sidewalk, where you eat etc... If the gay gene is discovered will it be OK to abort that baby too because of the parents' view on homosexuality? It was a simple counter position. I was not expecting an answer...

Wilikon

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

minds.com/Wilikon

Quote from: RodeoX on August 25, 2014, 12:58:44 PM

Morality is nothing more than opinions about what is right, and opinions vary.
The bible says it is immoral to eat shellfish or loan money; and that morality requires the stoning to death of disobedient children.

It is too bad Isis took over from the old testament nowadays hmm?

DrG

legendary

Activity: 2086

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Rooothlespredators on August 25, 2014, 12:30:16 PM

Quote from: blablahblah on August 25, 2014, 12:15:30 PM

For the record, I partially agree with the stance that -- considering the availability of modern technology and genetic testing, and that <13 week abortions are basically just a specially induced menstrual period (and utterly overblown by religious zealots) -- government assistance should be reduced or somehow limited as a punitive response to irresponsible parenting decisions.

Why should tax-payers have to cough up 10,000s for a lifetime of special-ed and rehab, when the parents could just try again instead? In fact, they probably shouldn't try again, because it's probably an age-related problem and genetic diseases hit a brick wall when the parents are past around 36 years. If they really want to have a kid, adopt.

Incorrect. Age related genetic disease probability increases gradually. Depending on your definition of a wall, a woman still only has a 1% chance of Down syndrome at 40. Maybe at 45 they should stop trying.

http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/womens_health_issues/detection_of_genetic_disorders/overview_of_genetic_disorders.html

This is not true. The terms Downs has come to include a vast swath of trisomy 21 errors - so now the current definition includes more aberrations. Because of this the base risk starts at around 1% for Downs at age 35. When I did my residency we were taught the risk goes up roughly 2.5% per year after 35, so a 40 year old would have a 13.5% risk of some form of trisomy (some are worse than others). With the latest in genome sequencing we're finding out that the rate doesn't seem to increase at 2.5%, at least not in all groups of women. Some women clearly have a higher risk and others lower - I think the current estimate is closer to about 1.7%, so it would still be about 10% risk for trisomy on 21 at age 40.

blablahblah

hero member

Activity: 775

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Wilikon on August 25, 2014, 12:21:39 PM

Quote from: blablahblah on August 25, 2014, 12:15:30 PM

For the record, I partially agree with the stance that -- considering the availability of modern technology and genetic testing, and that <13 week abortions are basically just a specially induced menstrual period (and utterly overblown by religious zealots) -- government assistance should be reduced or somehow limited as a punitive response to irresponsible parenting decisions.

Why should tax-payers have to cough up 10,000s for a lifetime of special-ed and rehab, when the parents could just try again instead? In fact, they probably shouldn't try again, because it's probably an age-related problem and genetic diseases hit a brick wall when the parents are past around 36 years. If they really want to have a kid, adopt.

Good point. As soon as the famous "gay gene" is discovered, parents should have the moral obligation to abort a gay baby, based on a long life of mocking, bullying and rejection. We all need to keep this from happening. The same should be true for "wrong skin, eyes and hair color" genes too.................. Roll Eyes

I heard they can already do rudimentary "designer babies" with gene testing on IVF. I think the movie Gattaca did some extrapolation of that. Maybe if selective breeding is such a bad thing, they'll be another generational "one hit wonder" as per inbred royalty.

My objection was to the government funding, not so much the personal decisions of parents who might want their child to be more special for whatever reason. When strangers are asked to provide financial support, maybe they should also be allowed to have some input to the decision? I feel abused when I have to work harder to fund someone else's abortion-free lifestyle. Then again, I'm not a total libertarian/an-cap, and I'm capable of accepting that a small portion of my money will be diverted to some cause that I disagree with, as long as the rest seems well-spent.

Not sure what you mean with the gay gene. That seems more like xenophobia. If anything, gays seem to pay for themselves with ridiculous talent and above-average intelligence. #StephenFry !

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Morality is nothing more than opinions about what is right, and opinions vary.
The bible says it is immoral to eat shellfish or loan money; and that morality requires the stoning to death of disobedient children.

iluvpie60

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: Wilikon on August 25, 2014, 11:02:28 AM

http://www.progressivestoday.com/dawkins-almost-apologizes-for-abortion-comments/

my girlfriend has a master in Psychology and whatever the fancy title i forget the exact name.

but she really opened my eyes to the whole other truth on a different side of reality in life.

yes we may have went to school and they had a "special kids" section and they seperated those people at lunch from the rest of us(if you want to a public school).

but they are people to. some of them are fully functioning but just need taken care of at a basic level,. they go to work, they talk to people, they are helpful but just a little slow. the compassion liberals/progs have is not there for these types of people. look at sweden and other liberal institutions. where they "assist suicides". extremely barbaric things that get "instituionialized" and the parents dont even have to be notified if their 14 yr old kid wants to die the doctor can just do it.

talk about opening up a whole new immoral area and huge potential abuse of power. there are people who thrive on killing others and taking lives.

Rooothlespredators

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: blablahblah on August 25, 2014, 12:15:30 PM

For the record, I partially agree with the stance that -- considering the availability of modern technology and genetic testing, and that <13 week abortions are basically just a specially induced menstrual period (and utterly overblown by religious zealots) -- government assistance should be reduced or somehow limited as a punitive response to irresponsible parenting decisions.

Why should tax-payers have to cough up 10,000s for a lifetime of special-ed and rehab, when the parents could just try again instead? In fact, they probably shouldn't try again, because it's probably an age-related problem and genetic diseases hit a brick wall when the parents are past around 36 years. If they really want to have a kid, adopt.

Incorrect. Age related genetic disease probability increases gradually. Depending on your definition of a wall, a woman still only has a 1% chance of Down syndrome at 40. Maybe at 45 they should stop trying.

http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/womens_health_issues/detection_of_genetic_disorders/overview_of_genetic_disorders.html

Wilikon

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

minds.com/Wilikon

Quote from: blablahblah on August 25, 2014, 12:15:30 PM

For the record, I partially agree with the stance that -- considering the availability of modern technology and genetic testing, and that <13 week abortions are basically just a specially induced menstrual period (and utterly overblown by religious zealots) -- government assistance should be reduced or somehow limited as a punitive response to irresponsible parenting decisions.

Why should tax-payers have to cough up 10,000s for a lifetime of special-ed and rehab, when the parents could just try again instead? In fact, they probably shouldn't try again, because it's probably an age-related problem and genetic diseases hit a brick wall when the parents are past around 36 years. If they really want to have a kid, adopt.

Good point. As soon as the famous "gay gene" is discovered, parents should have the moral obligation to abort a gay baby, based on a long life of mocking, bullying and rejection. We all need to keep this from happening. The same should be true for "wrong skin, eyes and hair color" genes too.................. Roll Eyes

blablahblah

hero member

Activity: 775

Merit: 1000

For the record, I partially agree with the stance that -- considering the availability of modern technology and genetic testing, and that <13 week abortions are basically just a specially induced menstrual period (and utterly overblown by religious zealots) -- government assistance should be reduced or somehow limited as a punitive response to irresponsible parenting decisions.

Why should tax-payers have to cough up 10,000s for a lifetime of special-ed and rehab, when the parents could just try again instead? In fact, they probably shouldn't try again, because it's probably an age-related problem and genetic diseases hit a brick wall when the parents are past around 36 years. If they really want to have a kid, adopt.

Rooothlespredators

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

I do admire Dawkins for what he's done for science and people's general scientific knowledge and I realize that everyone has the right to an opinion on this subject. That being said, I disagree that he says in a vacuum that it is immoral to have the child without looking at the circumstances specific to each case. There are many families that would be blessed to have a down syndrome child; many others that abortion would be the right thing to do. Don't think its a matter to be taken at 100% correct thing to do. Also if he's saying that it's immoral and unfair to the child to be born with Down's syndrome, I don't quite agree with this either. Down syndrome people will still feel joy in their lives and can still accomplish good lives.

blablahblah

hero member

Activity: 775

Merit: 1000

Depends on what's "moral". For something to be immoral, it would have to go against morals, whosever they may be referring to.

The claim of immorality implies some objective, universal sense of right and wrong, which would make it harder for one person's "right thing to do" to simultaneously be accepted as someone elses "wrong thing to do".

Sounds like typical Dawkins-y blundering through n00b-level philosophy. Is he still a nihilistic-atheist or whatever?

TrailingComet

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Would disagree, tend to swing the other way on this one
The important thing is that both sides respect each others views in tis complex and painful topic

Wilikon

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

minds.com/Wilikon

http://www.progressivestoday.com/dawkins-almost-apologizes-for-abortion-comments/

Topic: Dawkins: Immoral Not To Abort Down’s Syndrome Child - page 6. (Read 5942 times)