As I noted, this is an oldie by Internet standards but in the debates over how to address special needs children and I think remains relevant as the debates over abortion - and not just what if any legal restrictions should be on it but what our cultural attitudes on abortion should be - and special needs children continue. In Indiana there was a bill introduced to make it a felony to have an abortion solely on the basic of a unborn child being known to have a disability. Dawkins offered his take on this issue and said it is immoral not to abort a child when you know it has Down's syndrome. Advocating for us to be empathetic and understanding of a woman who wants to abort a DS child because she feels she cannot care for him properly is one thing, but Dawkins managed to be as much a tool in what he was advocating as many of the anti abortion zealots. I think many of his critics in fact found it just as offensive as, for example, Richard Mourdoch saying a pregnancy from rape is an act of God.
Richard Dawkins says we gotta nip this Down's Syndrome thing in the bud (note - this is an oldie)
- Thread starter emax100
- Start date
I've held my tongue on this a little, but to be honest, this sort of ignorant comment makes me want to smack someone in the mouth.
Firstly, how DARE a self confirmed athesist talk about immorality.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big pro-choice supporter. And that means ALL choices.
I know several folks with Downs, and I know friends and have family members who have various disabilities. I love them all and my life would be so much less without them. Was it 'immoral' to bring them into the world? Well, I don't think so. I don't want to bring religion etc into the thread, but one of my aunts (the mother of a child with severe difficulties) once told me that god gives you what he thinks you can cope with.
Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. It's whether or not the parents, the family of that child believe that they can cope. And if that child is happy and loved then it's really no one else's fucking place to comment.
Firstly, how DARE a self confirmed athesist talk about immorality.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big pro-choice supporter. And that means ALL choices.
I know several folks with Downs, and I know friends and have family members who have various disabilities. I love them all and my life would be so much less without them. Was it 'immoral' to bring them into the world? Well, I don't think so. I don't want to bring religion etc into the thread, but one of my aunts (the mother of a child with severe difficulties) once told me that god gives you what he thinks you can cope with.
Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. It's whether or not the parents, the family of that child believe that they can cope. And if that child is happy and loved then it's really no one else's fucking place to comment.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 16,171
- Reaction score
- 3,734
What cornflake said.
Oh, it's way too late for that now...
Yeah, me too. I wanna hear a lot more about how self-confirmed atheists can't talk about immorality. With cites and everything.
Last edited:
Amadan
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
Add me to the WTF? list.
That's a very old canard. The equally old rebuttal is that prisons, mental institutions, homeless shelters, and cemeteries are full of people who were given more than they could cope with.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,204
- Reaction score
- 3,259
- Location
- Walking the Underworld
- Website
- www.richardgarfinkle.com
Add me to the yikes lists. Atheism =/= Immoral.
Here's a discussion thread about atheism and morality.
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168290
Last edited:
Dawkins comment smacks a bit much of eugenics for my tastes, but yes atheists can speak on morality and immorality, those aren't functions of religion.
The more Richard Dawkins opens his mouth on topics other than evolutionary biology or atheism, the more I'm convinced he's a severely empathy-deficient arsehole. This, the anti-feminism, his comments on paedophilia ... Dude's got issues.
I also would like to know what the poster meant re: atheism and immorality.
I also would like to know what the poster meant re: atheism and immorality.
What I know about the topic of abortions due to fetal anomaly is approximately one metric fuckton. But rather than get into that (again) I'll just stick with the Dawkins discussion.
I don't agree with Dawkins on this issue. I believe its a parental decision, period. However, I understand where he is coming from on this and it's not "eugenics." If there is one thing Dawkins knows front to back, it's that evolution works and is an unstoppable force that doesn't need the human interference of eugenics.
To explain Dawkins's angle, I'm going to start with a great quote from our Richard Garfinkle from the Atheist Morality thread:
Dawkins is an intellectual, and he values intellect above all other human traits. Therefore, in Dawkins's mind, anyone with truncated intellectual ability is "suffering." He sees terminating those pregnancies as a way to alleviate unnecessary suffering.
Where we would quibble with that is a simple matter of what we deem "suffering."
Now, please don't come back and argue that people with Down syndrome aren't suffering. From Dawkins's perspective, they are. And it's Dawkins's perspective that is the subject of this thread.
I don't agree with Dawkins on this issue. I believe its a parental decision, period. However, I understand where he is coming from on this and it's not "eugenics." If there is one thing Dawkins knows front to back, it's that evolution works and is an unstoppable force that doesn't need the human interference of eugenics.
To explain Dawkins's angle, I'm going to start with a great quote from our Richard Garfinkle from the Atheist Morality thread:
Dawkins is an intellectual, and he values intellect above all other human traits. Therefore, in Dawkins's mind, anyone with truncated intellectual ability is "suffering." He sees terminating those pregnancies as a way to alleviate unnecessary suffering.
Where we would quibble with that is a simple matter of what we deem "suffering."
Now, please don't come back and argue that people with Down syndrome aren't suffering. From Dawkins's perspective, they are. And it's Dawkins's perspective that is the subject of this thread.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 5,425
- Reaction score
- 1,911
- Location
- Denver, CO
- Website
- www.badfoodie.com
Indeed. I'm also waiting for an explanation of why only a belief in God allows one to discuss morality...
As for what Dawkins said, that's not anything close to a pro-choice sentiment. At best, it's pro-asshole.
Who is Dawkins to decide for other people, wether or not they are suffering? He can't, right?
Amadan
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
What Dawkins said and how he expressed it was... insensitive. But from a purely evolutionary/biological point of view, arguing that it makes sense to terminate fetuses with developmental disabilities is pragmatic.
Obviously, it runs right into a lot of emotional and volatile issues concerning disability rights and the value of disabled people's lives, so I can understand why parents of children with Down's Syndrom and people with other disabilities took it badly.
But from the way some people have reported it, you'd think Dawkins said "Kill all disabled people."
Abstract intellectual discussions can't coexist with people whose personal feelings govern all discourse.
Obviously, it runs right into a lot of emotional and volatile issues concerning disability rights and the value of disabled people's lives, so I can understand why parents of children with Down's Syndrom and people with other disabilities took it badly.
But from the way some people have reported it, you'd think Dawkins said "Kill all disabled people."
Abstract intellectual discussions can't coexist with people whose personal feelings govern all discourse.
He isn't deciding for other people; he's just stating his opinion on the matter.
As far as I know, Dawkins hasn't forced anyone to abort a pregnancy where there was a Down syndrome diagnosis.
I'm still not clear that it isn't eugenics to suggest that exterminating the inferior genes by abortion no matter how glorious the reasoning...
He subscribes to an utilitarian morality. I'm basing this on the blog post linked to in the original post's article. I'm not quite clear on his arguments, since he doesn't really give them in the blog post either. He does voice some of his concerns (i.e. the welfare of the child and mother), but he doesn't really detail his logic.
He also says that were he concerned with eugenics, he wouldn't bother with Down's Syndrom, since heritability is minimal. Screening for DS is a waste of time from a eugenic point of view.
I find myself disagreeing with Dawkins more than agreeing, and I've [ETA:never] seen the appeal of utilitarianism. I've often wondered what my own moral compass is based on.
My personal take on this fiasco is that twitter is an escalation machine good for witticisms and slogan slinging and stand-offs, but a lousy tool for advice or discussion. If you're talking morals keep twitter out of it. Bad move Mr. Dawkins.
For what it's worth, I don't think giving birth to a DS child is immoral, but I'm not sure why I think that. Dawkin's blog post hasn't given me any reason to reconsider. Debating this with Mr. Dawkins might be benefitial to me, if only because it would force me to confront my own moral assumptions, a great many of them are intuitive rather than thought out.
If you said something like "Isn't it obvious?" then I'd just nod and we're done with the topic. I can't really play the devil's advocate either, because - for me - utilitarianism always ends up confusing me at some point and the arguments fall apart. Mostly because life's chaotic and you can't predict a balance of happiness/suffering. But, as I have demonstrated, I can use up a lot of words to say I have nothing worthwhile to say on the topic. (Except the twitter thing; I think that was worth saying.)
Last edited:
True.
Perhaps I should have asked how he thinks intellect, or the lack thereoff, is the only way of measuring wether or not someone suffers.
Amadan
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
I know eugenics, at least when applied to humans, is an almost unspeakable idea nowadays because it's almost synonymous with "Nazis," but humans are no less subject to the laws of genetics than other living things, and when not talking about humans, we call it "selective breeding" or "animal husbandry" and we've been doing it for centuries.
I wish it were possible to have a reasonable conversation about the desirability of preserving some genes and weeding out others without it automatically conjuring up assumptions of genocide.
From a purely evolutionary standpoint, it's not necessary to abort for Down syndrome. I'll demonstrate why:
Let's have a show of hands of all the people in this thread who have deliberately procreated with someone with Down syndrome.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Gee, why not? What does everyone have against people with Down syndrome? A woman with Down syndrome has a 35%-50% chance of bearing a child with Down syndrome. (Males with Down syndrome are commonly infertile, so we'll just stick with the ladies). Children with Down syndrome are reportedly filled with sweetness and light (don't get me started on that unfair stereotype) and undeniably cute as buttons. What the hell, people? Why haven't you married a woman with Down syndrome and started a wonderful family?
And ladies, you're not innocent either. Why aren't you lining up to have a woman with Down syndrome donate her chromosomaly enhanced eggs to you?
Well, I am sure there are a lot of reasons and none of them are "eugenics." We're not trying to create a master race or anything. Childbearing is a spin at the roulette wheel that occasionally lands on Down syndrome. How an individual handles that depends on what they value and what one wants or hopes for their children and families. For some people, a child with Down syndrome is welcomed as a chance for the family to learn and grow. But as much as people who don't happen to have these kids want to imagine that's the camp they'd choose, reality would beg to differ.
If there is one thing I've learned from running a support group for parents who have ended a pregnancy following a prenatal diagnosis, it's that people who start out swearing they would never abort because of fetal anomaly run at about 80% of the population. Yet depending on what research you're looking at, 80%-90% absolutely do abort when there is a serious diagnosis.
The math adds up to an awful lot of people who right now are dead certain they'd never make that choice, who actually will make that choice after they get a poor prenatal diagnosis. I have seen it so many times in the stories of women coming to my web site that start with "I never thought I'd" "I never imagined" "I skipped the early tests because I thought I'd never."
Absolutely. And Dawkins really doesn't have any business questioning the morality of the small percentage of folks who carry those pregnancies to term. Their babies, their decision, period.
I think he was (clumsily) attempting to counterbalance the popular argument that those who abort because of fetal anomaly are automatically immoral, selfish and so on. I've seen that argument a bazillion times and it doesn't hold any water, and the people who unquestioningly accept it as "truth" (without ever giving the parents the benefit of the doubt or taking a nanosecond to consider what the child would go through, and can't shut up about what they have learned and how their own lives have been enhanced) are legion.
This is actually an extremely personal topic for me ... I am trying not to let my feelings govern.
Last edited:
In my experience utilitarianism's main use is trolling/derailing/trainwrecking first year philosophy classes, but it has contributed to some worthwhile movements, e.g. in animal rights.
It prima facie conflicts with medical ethics, IMO, when you pit The Greatest Good against the autonomy of the self.
It prima facie conflicts with medical ethics, IMO, when you pit The Greatest Good against the autonomy of the self.
I agree with you there.
For many years there was a man working at my company who had the intellectual ability of roughly a 3 or 4 year old. That is, a very forgetful 3 or 4 year old who'd been around for several decades. He is probably the most happy go lucky person I've ever known and had a wonderfully philosophic answer to every question (It don't matter!). Even in his late 50s he's devoid of wrinkles except smile lines.
His mother, who also worked at our company in an executive capacity, is another story. Did she suffer? Well, that is for her to say. She lost her husband early, her other child moved across the country as soon as he reached adulthood. Now that she's retired it's just her and her 58-year-old 3-year-old, day in and day out now.
She did get him a vasectomy when he developed a relationship with a woman who was his intellectual peer. I wonder if some would consider that eugenics.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 5,425
- Reaction score
- 1,911
- Location
- Denver, CO
- Website
- www.badfoodie.com
There are many good objections to a bill which is basically just a end-around to dismantle Roe v Wade piece by piece.
This just isn't one of them.
If he had said it's immoral to force a family to raise a disabled child when they know they aren't prepared for it, or that it's immoral to force a woman to give birth to a child likely to die in infancy from a known problem, I would agree with him.
This just isn't one of them.
If he had said it's immoral to force a family to raise a disabled child when they know they aren't prepared for it, or that it's immoral to force a woman to give birth to a child likely to die in infancy from a known problem, I would agree with him.
