The Truth About Down Syndrome (What Dawkins got wrong)

[loyalsister]

I'm not comfortable with his moral reasoning, and this is why.

But Mr. Dawkins’s argument is flawed. Not because his moral reasoning is wrong, necessarily (that is a question for another day), but because his understanding of the facts is mistaken. Recent research indicates that individuals with Down syndrome can experience more happiness and potential for success than Mr. Dawkins seems to appreciate.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/29/opinion/the-truth-about-down-syndrome.html?smid=fb-share&_r=3&referrer

If the people who have down syndrome can experience happiness and success, wouldn't their families feel happy about that? It reminds me of what one young woman said "why isn't it called 'up syndrome'? I'm have an upbeat personality."

[Tikki]

1. Like one of the mother's told me 15 years ago.."He'll be able to do anything but drive"

and now I am thinking with new technology, he'll be able to get around independently in a vehicle..
to work and back home to a spouse..

It was a privilege to work with the little one's with Down...


Tikki

[Warpy]

28. I've known mostly adults with Down's.

One characteristic I've found among them is the lack of a capacity for meanness. Oh, they can be contrary and they can get angry but they will never do anything out of spite.

They can be truly amazing people. It just takes them longer to learn things.

[jwirr]

36. In all my years of working with clients with down's I have seen only one child that showed any signs

of being mean and he was in an abusive family. It was learned behavior. Most of my clients believed in "don't worry - be happy". One of the problems with Dawkins theory is that before the child is born it is impossible to determine the level of functioning. So you can have a child who is severe and may not live very long or you can have a child who will be able to function in a very normal way. So he would have all of them aborted to keep the most severe from suffering?

I once sat in a classroom where we had a visitor who had been a young teen in Nazi Germany taking part in a discussion about just this subject. He let much of the class hang themselves with attitudes like Dawkins. He deliberately sat in the seat right behind me as he had been clued into my daughter's illness. When everyone but me had a say he asked me what I thought - my family would not give up my daughter for anything. She is the joy of our life. (She does not have Down's but a very severe developmental disability.)

Then he told us what he had learned in Germany when he was young. The summary was that whenever you take a subsection of society out of that society there is a vacuum and the society is less for the lose. Dawkins is wrong. And for a disabled person to say this is very narrow minded.

[loyalsister]

63. People with disabilities were enlisted to be

the subjects in medical research which was actually experiments to help the NAZI's learn about the functional value of gas chambers. They were judged as being "life unworthy of life" meaning expensive and unable to contribute to society. It was easy to get people to agree either in the spirit of saving them from suffering or not wanting them to be a drain on society.

[jwirr]

64. Exactly.

[LiberalAndProud]

2. Fortunately for all of us,

Dawkins isn't trying to get his code of morals legislated into law. The same cannot be said of people who hold opposing viewpoints.

I like the idea of renaming the condition, though.

[arcane1]

3. I really don't understand the controversy here, unless it's because Dawkins said it.

If a woman aborts a pregnancy due to the presence of Downs Syndrome, she's committing an immoral act?

If she terminates a healthy pregnancy because she can't afford to raise a baby, that's OK?

If she chooses to end a pregnancy because of Downs Syndrome, should the state be allowed to force her to carry it to term?

Should the laws be changed to say "abortion is legal, but only if done for these specific reasons"?

Just because he's an outspoken proponent of atheism, doesn't make him a moral authority. And especially when it comes to this topic, the only moral authority is the mother making the choice.

My two cents

[loyalsister]

5. as a self-appointed moral authority

He said that it is immoral to carry a pregnancy to term if the fetus has been identified as having DS.

Both of these statements are offensive for the same reason. They are moral judgements on what women should do with their bodies. They are not legal statements made in court, but they are both efforts to persuade.

It is wrong for you to continue your pregnancy
It is wrong to end your pregnancy

[moriah]

6. Thank you. n/t

[arcane1]

7. It's merely his opinion, no more or less valid than anyone else's.

Didn't this all come about because a woman was in this situation and asked him for advice?

Many people believe it's immoral to bring a child into this world if one can't afford to raise it, and the law allows them to act on that moral judgement. I won't go out of my way to tell someone that one reason is good and the other is bad, but if they ask for my opinion I'll likely provide it.

[loyalsister]

9. And no one takes opinions of intellectuals seriously

Like when their input is requested by lawmakers? I remember a guy in the economics department at MU, who republicans invited to testify in bill hearings.

[arcane1]

12. Since this isn't his area of expertise, his opinion is no more relevant than his opinion of tv shows

I seriously doubt that congress will be trying to pass a law that mandates abortions anytime soon. The republicans are too busy trying to outlaw all abortions.

The "slippery slope to eugenics" argument is the same one that white anti-choice conservatives use to lure black people to their side, but they argue that poverty is the immoral reason for abortions: too many poor, black women having abortions will lead to the end of their race, they claim.

We can agree or disagree with his opinion, but I don't see it as fundamentally worse than any other argument for abortion. Many women have abortions, for as many reasons, and I don't see some of them as more moral than others.

[Iron Man]

10. He is not a "self-appointed moral authority".

He stated his opinion. Which I agree with.

[gollygee]

33. He stated his opinion when someone specifically asked it

He isn't a self-appointed moral authority. He just answered a question when someone asked him his opinion. I suspect that person was disingenuous in asking and wanted to create an anti-abortion shit storm. I'm not falling into that game. You ask someone's opinion, someone might tell you it.

[mr blur]

59. Still, never mind eh?

[jwirr]

37. This is about making a value judgement that he thinks should be applied to others. If he wants to

get an abortion fine. He did not leave room for a different choice for others. This my post is defending the choices of others. I do not object to any woman making up her own mind. It is her right.

[Mariana]

60. It's because Dawkins said it.

Christians regularly proclaim that abortions, for any reason, are immoral, and you don't hear anywhere near this much squawking about it.

[jwirr]

65. As far as I know Christians do not single out a specific group they are talking about they disagree

with abortion period.

[loyalsister]

70. Actually

People with disabilities often don't feel welcome in some Christian churches due to a long held beliefs that disability is punishment visited on the parents. Or that there is something inherently evil in people with disabilities (especially epilepsy and mental illness). And, they aren't always accessible.

Disability has been objectified in Christian churches for a very long time. People with disabilities "healed" by fraudulent preachers. Used opportunistically by the religious right to forward their abortion, end-of-life agendas. Used for fundraising, etc.


Obviously, there are churches that make an effort to welcome people with disabilities, so it isn't a blanket statement. However, the literal interpretations show either pity or images of a person who is possessed by demons. In fact, seizures are mentioned in the bible a number of times...

http://www.openbible.info/topics/epilepsy

[jwirr]

74. At least in my church there is no such bias and the use of seizures (which my daughter has) was

long ago recognized as a reference to the way they understood it back then before science gave it a medical term. I suspect that it is the same way when we look at the Bible's story of creation. The way people saw it in history.

[loyalsister]

75. Unfortunately there are still literal interpreters who don't see it that way

Last edited Sun Aug 31, 2014, 02:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Believe it or not, seizure (seized by a demon or unknown force) is still a medical term. A state legislator told a man who he knew had a bipolar disorder that the solution is an exorcism.

Epilepsy.com and others have had to address the question for people who have epilepsy:

Has anyone had problems with religious family members whipping out Mark 9 (the chapter where Jesus heals a boy who apparently is having seizures of some sort), then declaring that you must have demons in you, or you have spiritual unrest, or are somehow "not right" with God?
My father did that to me recently.
http://www.epilepsy.com/node/976814

I am just pointing out that ableist sentiment is not limited to Dawkins. I know this is not the belief of most Christians. But, I do find it ironic that Dawkins is aligned with some radiacal fundamentalist Christians on this. Both consider the existence of disability to have some root in moral deficiency.

[jwirr]

76. Of course there are. That is much the problem we are having in America today. The rw with their

literal interpretations have messed up a good deal of our culture and economic attitudes as well as many other things. I was trying to point out that one example given was used toward a group of people while the other was used for most of us. I hear what you are saying but this discussion regarding Dawkins is not a religious discussion. It does not matter what his religion or lack of religion is. His statement is a devaluation of life, especially the life of one group of persons with disabilities. That is what I was trying to say.

[independentpiney]

77. landover baptist is a parody site, not a real church

it's like using the Onion as a reference to validate what otherwise may be a valid point.

[loyalsister]

78. Sorry, I should have been more diligent

Unfortunately, that could lead someone to believe it doesn't happen. I'll delete it.

[loyalsister]

71. It has nothing to do with Dawkins

No matter whether the sentiment devaluing the lives and existence people with disabilities comes from the bible or Dawkins, Peter Sanger such statements are problematic in their devaluation of existing people.

[Mariana]

72. Fetuses aren't "people with disabilities". nt.

[loyalsister]

73. The statement devalues existing people

His comments imply that parents who decided to have children who were identified to have downs syndrome in time for them to have an abortion made an immoral decision. Thus, people with down syndrome should not exist. What does it say about existing people who have down syndrome?

[applegrove]

4. Exactly. They lead happy lives. I wonder if Dawkins does? Maybe unhappy people

should never be born....... now how does that feel?

[loyalsister]

8. That was the sentiment behind eugenics policies

It was assumed that racial minorities, poor "shiftless" morally deficient (as measured by standardized tests) whites, immigrants, people with various disabilities would have children with such a low quality of life, they should be sterilized.

That argument was used to get people who had reservations on board, and it became policy.

[Iron Man]

11. Eugenics was about race.

It's not about terminating a pregnancy when the fetus has a chromosomal deficiency.

Going around and calling it eugenics is doing a disservice to people who are around that witnessed our government committing such atrocious acts.

[loyalsister]

14. It was also about disability

It used a faulty interpretation of genetics to claim that all disabilities, and even "moral deficiencies" were genetically determined. Thus, immigrants with disabilities were turned away.

[Wella]

20. Thank you. Dawkins seems to be implying that the severely disabled are not as valuable

or something. It bothers me. I would never fault a woman for not giving birth to a child she couldn't afford. Up to that point, Dawkins is all right. But, to decide strictly on disability that the fetus wasn't worth carrying to term is not the answer.

[arcane1]

21. What if disability-related medical expenses are the reasons she can't afford it?

Are healthy children born into poverty considered less valuable than affluent children born with disabilities? Impoverished children can lead happy, fulfilling lives, and contribute to society too. Where is this line being drawn? Didn't Roe v. Wade erase the line? Isn't your moral judgment of impoverished children's value just as controversial as his judgement?

That's ultimately why I don't see anything positive about this non-controversy over Dawkins' tweet. Disagreeing with his opinion on that topic is one thing; to go any further than that, one has to start encroaching into anti-choice territory. The last thing we need is a bunch of liberals saying "women have the right to choose, but only under certain conditions" in an election year

[Wella]

22. So you think it's a moral duty to abort the disabled?

I said that I wouldn't blame a woman for not carrying a pregnancy to term that she couldn't afford. Whether it's moral or not is up to the woman's own spirituality.

I think Dawkins goes a step further than I do: he seems to think abortion of the disabled is a moral imperative.

[arcane1]

23. Putting words in my mouth? Classy. You know I never even implied that. Nice try though.

Again: his opinion, your opinion, my opinion, are equally meaningless. The law allows a woman to have an abortion for any reason she damn well wants to. It's not our place to judge them for it.

[Wella]

24. Actually, I'm not. I'm trying to figure out where you stand on this morally

Is it a moral good to abort a disabled fetus?

In my opinion, the answer is no. Dawkins seems to think otherwise:

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/502332698770542592


Richard DawkinsVerified account ?@RichardDawkins

Women have a right to early abortion. Choice is theirs. Down Syndrome is 1 of the commonest & most moral reasons to exercise that right.

[Iron Man]

55. You missed an important phrase there:

"Choice is theirs."

[arcane1]

61. Where I stand is an irrelevant distraction.

[Iron Man]

54. It doesn't matter.

If a woman wants to abort her fetus because of a chromosomal deficiency, that's her choice.

I can't believe I have to defend abortion here.

[LisaL]

82. What is it that you are arguing here?

That it's only o'key to have an abortion for financial reasons?

[Wella]

83. No. I pointing out that Dawkins thinks that aborting a Downs syndrome baby is a moral good

I do not believe that it is. I wondered if those defending Dawkins agreed with his moral assessment.

[jwirr]

40. Choice goes two ways.

[moriah]

66. We should be providing health care for all, so that shouldn't be a question.

Part of creating a truly pro-choice society is making sure that people have the resources to parent if they choose to do so, whether their child is disabled or not. That includes safety net programs for all children, adequate family leave, etc. (Most low-income households with a child with Down Syndrome would qualify for SSI for the child, who would also immediately qualify for Medicaid, but that should be accessible to all children, and adults IMHO.)

His statement was well within anti-choice territory itself, and that's the issue I have. But just as I believe abortion must be accessible, I believe parenthood should be accessible too -- in that we should prioritize our society so that if a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep the child, she is able to do so without losing her job or the roof over her head. We should feed the kids already here, too. When we have universal access to highly effective birth control, sex education that is factual instead of judgmental, and a support system for people who wish to parent, then abortion will be as "rare" as it can be. Along with all of that should come safe, legal, and accessible abortion care for women who need it, regardless of the reasons behind their choice. No one should have to feel like they have to explain why they sought or refuse a medical procedure, any more than they should have to listen to someone telling them what is "immoral".

Least of all to/from some man who is not a doctor.

[loyalsister]

25. It does have that ring

I have no stake or interest in what an individual woman decides with whatever information she has. I have a problem with someone making an authoritative statement about what is moral regarding my body. It does smart a little more knowing that he is endorsing the position taken by the people who forced people like me to be sterilized.

[Wella]

26. I like the way you said that

"I have a problem with someone making an authoritative statement about what is moral regarding my body."

That's a serious problem for Dawkins' statement. One wonders if he would support a law demanding that all women abort disabled or potentially disabled fetuses. I don't know that he would, but his followers might.

[jwirr]

39. Eugenics was about a lot more than race. I suggest you read "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and

America's Campaign to Create a Master Race" by Edwin Black. My family - white - experienced what he was writing about. We unfortunately had mental illness in the family. I am lucky to have been born.

[Puzzledtraveller]

13. :)

[applegrove]

15. I fully support a woman's right to choose, just to be clear. And that means

I get to choose what type of life I value for myself. He doesn't get to choose for other people. Or what their families look like. Depressed people see the world without delusional happy goggles. So sometimes they are more accurate and you need that in part of the population, some of the time. So depressed people play an important role too. I was only saying depressed people as a example of his thinking. So do dyslexics like Darwin, Churchill and Thomas Edison. Imagine if Dawkins had been around to scold their mothers way back when.

[Puzzledtraveller]

16. i agree

[Iron Man]

17. He merely gave an opinion when someone asked a question.

Maybe you should read his actual tweets before attacking him for no reason.

[LisaL]

41. He wasn't chosing for other people.

Woman asked him for his opinion. He expressed it.
As far as I can tell, the woman who asked him wasn't even carrying a fetus with Down syndrome, it was a hypothetical question.

[PasadenaTrudy]

18. Is it a happy life

for the parents? I doubt it.

[loyalsister]

19. Do you know many parents who are raising or have raised children with DS

I know several and they are open to their child's difference and allowing them to negotiate the world on their terms. They are very happy and enjoyed parenting them and watching them live their lives.

[ecstatic]

58. You can't really know that for sure, unless you're one of the parents

Can't really tell from the outside looking in.

[loyalsister]

62. well I know many who are advocates for PWD

In fact, it was parents who led the charge against institutionalization. I don't think speculating about the numbers is useful, but it is useful to know that there people who have children with disabilities who are happy enough with the people that their children have become to want to influence policy so that it can be true for others.

And, parents of children who have DS and other developmental disabilities have created blogs to let the world know it's not the tragedy the that entertainment and infotainment media so often claim.
A friend referred to his son's autism as "a beautifully unique way of seeing and interacting with the world."

People's personal reasons for terminating a pregnancy are not my concern. But I think it would be very sad for someone who very much wants to have a baby to abort based on of faulty ableist information.

[treestar]

56. Ask them

If it's their kid and they love their kid - yes, it could be.

[liberal_at_heart]

27. why are people defending his opinion? Does he have a right to his opinion? Of course he does.

Even right wing conservative assholes have the right to their opinion but I don't hear people on here defending them. Maybe if we had a different perspective on disability. Maybe if we could do away with the word disability all together and remember that just like race, gender, and sexual orientation, physical or mental ability is just another diversity that should be celebrated, not feared.

[loyalsister]

32. I prefer disabled because it locates the condition more appropriately

Using a wheelchair enables people whose mobility is limited by providing the opportunity to move around independently. What is disabling is the lack of elevators, ramps, curb cuts, etc.

[SheilaT]

29. It's named after some doctor named Down.

I recall quite clearly when they were called Mongoloid Idiots.

[LisaL]

30. There are many issues that come with Down syndrome.

Large number of children with Down syndrome also have heart problems and are susceptible to infections.
Men with Down syndrome are sterile (they won't be able to have children).

[loyalsister]

31. And some go to college and start their own businesses

That the images and stereotypes regarding down syndrome are the instant argument says a lot about how our culture understands disability as a negative experience.

[loyalsister]

34. Maybe this will help

The medical issues associated with down syndrome are treatable.

http://www.ndss.org/Down-Syndrome/Down-Syndrome-Facts/

As for men being sterile, do you have info on that? It seems to me a ridiculous number of people are concerned about BC if that is true.

[LisaL]

38. Men with Down syndrome are sterile, but large number of women with Down syndrome are fertile.

The children of women with Down syndrome are at much higher risk to have Down syndrome than general population.

"Men with Down syndrome most often are sterile and cannot father children. Many women with Down syndrome can have children, and they usually have early menopause."
http://www.webmd.com/children/tc/down-syndrome-what-happens

[loyalsister]

42. Often is not the same as always

And, why on earth would that interfere with their having a good quality of life on their terms with the differences they are aware of?

[LisaL]

43. As far as I can tell, only

a couple of documented cases exist of men with Down syndrome being able to father a child.

[loyalsister]

48. Is this a problem that men with down syndrome are concerned about?

Are they calling for a medical solution? Until I hear of people being truly bothered by it, I will assume it is not considered a problem and that it doesn't interfere with their quality of life.

[jwirr]

44. People without Down's also have these complications.

[LisaL]

46. Obviously not at the same rate.

"People with Down syndrome may have a variety of birth defects. About half of all affected children are born with a heart defect. Digestive abnormalities, such as a blockage of the intestine, are less common."

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/down-syndrome

[jwirr]

49. Yes I am aware of that - what I want to know is so what? We should abort then for these reasons?

[LisaL]

50. If a woman wants to have an abortion for whatever reason, she

should be able to do so. No?

[jwirr]

51. If you read the rest of my post you will see that is what I am saying. I see the devaluation of

disabled person due to his/her symptoms such as Dawkins does as an example of being told we do not have a choice since a choice involves being able to opt to have an abortion or opt not to have an abortion. There is no valuation or moral issue in doing either. It is the woman's choice either way.

[LisaL]

52. It should be woman's choice.

But she should be informed of the issues her child might be facing before making an informed decision.

[jwirr]

53. Since we still cannot tell the level of functioning for Downs before birth are not one set of facts

that can inform. In the case of severe heart problems you may be right. The doctor can probably determine the presence of this problem the same way as they do in other patients. But as far as knowing if the patient has certain capabilities for functioning or being happy. We have few resources to determine this.

I for one am glad that I did not have to make this decision because my daughter was born way before we had this testing. BTW I have had an abortion due to financial situations so I am not against abortion. I do not want someone to tell me that because of certain condition it is immoral to make a choice to carry the fetus to term. That is what I see happening when someone says well they have certain disabilities so.....

[LisaL]

47. There is also this.

"All people with Down syndrome develop Alzheimer’s disease. Adults with Down syndrome often are in their mid to late 40s or early 50s when symptoms might first appear."

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/disorders/alzheimers_disease/hic_alzheimers_disease_and_down_syndrome.aspx

[ecstatic]

57. I didn't know that. Wow. nt

[mentalsolstice]

67. So let's dismiss a huge segment of society

Your argument takes us down a slippery slope. So they "may" develop Alzheimer's at an earlier age. However, we also know Alzheimer's can be hereditary, so should any person that has a familial history refrain from having children? And with so many other disabilities, diseases, disorders and conditions, that we now know can be passed down, hereditary or genetically. Alzheimer's runs through the paternal side of my husband's family, while I've got the double whammy of heart disease from both my mom and dad's families, as well as leukemia. So should our younger family members refrain from having children? My cousin has schizophrenia, however, her daughter had 2 children knowing it can be hereditary and can skip generations. Was her daughter's decision immoral?

For all of the disabilities, diseases, and disorders listed above, including DS, I can point you to people who made a contribution to society before they succumbed to what fate had in store for them.

I support a woman's right to choose in any circumstance, only she knows what her capabilities are to nurture a child with special needs. However, to say it's immoral if she chooses in way that you disagree with is no different than if you say you have negative opinions about affirmative action, gay rights laws, EEOC. ADA, VAWA, etc., you're on a losing side with true progressives. Caveat, opinions can sway legislation.

ETA, as science and technology progresses, we're going to know what we're passing on to future generations. The plus side, as with Down's Syndrome and other conditions, with that same science/tech hopefully we'll come up with ways to accommodate and accept the diversity amongst us.

[Mariana]

68. Fetuses aren't a segment of society. nt.

[liberal_at_heart]

69. Disabled people are a segment of society and unless you know some other way of becoming a person,

a disabled person must first be a fetus. The attitudes about disabled people in this thread are disgusting. It is literally making me sick to my stomach.

[LisaL]

81. Are you saying that disabled fetus should be afforded the same rights as a disabled person?

[NYC Liberal]

35. It's up to one person: the mother. I don't consider it a "moral" issue.

There is no person involved with abortion except for the woman. The reason for the abortion is entirely irrelevant.

[jwirr]

45. Agreed. That is what those of us who are arguing against what he said are trying to say.

[demigoddess]

79. my guess is that Dawkins resents the money being spent

on special ed in schools, SSI for handicapped adults and other things similar. I have a severely handicapped daughter and in the early years before we settled in a more accepting area, I was stopped on the street and asked why I didn't have an abortion (she's pre Roe v Wade), and others complaining of the money spent on special ed in school that "takes money away from normal children" and her being a 'burden on society". As far as their lives, even though my daughter is very severely retarded, I have seen her do things that made me very proud of her. And her brothers grew up to be very caring men. Not once in their childhoods did I ever have to say to any of my kids "be nice, now, to your brother/sister". They shared beautifully and never fought. My sons have made me extra proud of how they have accepted her and others.

[loyalsister]

80. People who resent the money being spent

make strange bedfellows with those who believe they know what women should do with their bodies out of compassion is a match made in hell. Those who forget history and all that.
Good on you for raising compassionate children.