Richard Dawkins: ‘It Would Be Immoral’ to Give Birth to A Child with Down’s Syndrome

[rug]

by Tina Nguyen | 8:28 pm, August 20th, 2014

Richard Dawkins inflamed the British internet last night when he suggested that it would be “immoral” to continue carrying a fetus to full term, if genetic screening proved that it carried the gene for Down’s Syndrome.

His suggestion came in response to a woman who didn’t know what she’d do if she were pregnant with a child with Down’s: “Abort it and try again,” he suggested. “It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

With the advent of genetic screening, the practice is fairly common in England and Wales: The Telegraph estimates that nearly 1000 abortions due to Downs Syndrome are performed per year.

“Apparently I’m a horrid monster for recommending WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS to the great majority of Down Syndrome fetuses,” Dawkins tweeted much later, after the internet collectively exploded at him.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/richard-dawkins-it-would-be-immoral-to-give-birth-to-a-child-with-downs-syndrome/

[TreasonousBastard]

1. He just doesn't get that it's not what he says, but...

the way he says it.

The question of aborting a child because of a gene is a terrible gamble to ask most parents to make. Make it they do, but not without some pain.

Demanding they abort it, as he is doing, is just adding another layer of pain. It is no more his place to tell parents what to do than it is the anti-abortionists.

[JNelson6563]

27. Hyperbole right out of the gate! Impressive.

"Demanding...". Lolz

Julie

[TreasonousBastard]

32. Sure, but doesn't the subject lend itself...

to hyperbole?

A feeble defense, to be sure, but I do have a certain difficulty seeing any Dawkins pronouncement as simply a "suggestion."

[cbayer]

35. Maybe not demanding, but calling those who would make a personal choice to not

have an abortion immoral is much worse.

Are you going to defend this statement, Julie?

[AlbertCat]

89. but calling those who would make a personal choice...immoral is much worse.

Oh...the irony!

[cbayer]

103. Again, a vacant statement. But this time it gets the rolly eyes for extra added credit!!

Why is this statement ironic? You imply something, but it is not at all clear.

Perhaps you think I am a mind reader?

[Maedhros]

81. Clearly, he calls the choice to carry the fetus to term "immoral."

Not quite a "demand," but abortion of the DS fetus is presented as a condition of "morality." That's a pretty callous judgement.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. That's what I would do.

Sad, sucks, but that's what I would choose.

[cbayer]

36. It's what you would do?

Under what circumstances do you think it would be your choice?

[AtheistCrusader]

39. If I were female, pregnant, and that test came back with those results.

I presume my powers of reason, my personality, etc, would not be much different if I happened to be female.

[cbayer]

52. Sorry, but you will never be a pregnant female and you can not even begin

to imagine what that is like.

When men speak of what they would do if they found themselves pregnant, it is the ultimate in male arrogance.

You have no idea what you would do, nor will you ever know.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Disagree.*

And I would cite the same data Dawkins did, to show that choice I would assume, is actually extremely common in that situation.

I won't link to the easiest to find copies though, as they are often hosted on anti-abortion, anti-choice sites where they are flipping over furniture in their outrage over it.


*It seems I hold men and women to be a lot more equal than some. I feel your claim above is incredibly arrogant, and presumptuous, let alone sexist. I would also remind you that I have authorized the destruction of fertilized embryos prior to implantation for developmental reasons, so, that's about as close as a male can get, biologically, in the decision chain for this issue. So I'm not unfamiliar with the implications behind the decision.

[cbayer]

59. Of course you disagree. That is what happens when you are blinded by privilege,

something you might point out in others but not recognize in yourself.

Justifying Dawkins position by saying that you would use the same data just makes this even more objectionable.

Please understand this - the reason that the numbers of those that chose to abort is so high is because it is based on those that have chosen to have the test. When a woman makes that decision, she has almost always already made up her mind that she will have an abortion if the test is positive.

This is not a random finding or something that one sees on an ultrasound. This is a conscious decision.

Those that think they have the right to decide when a woman should have an abortion are just as bad as those that think they have the right to decide when a woman shouldn't have a abortion.

You and Dawkins have absolutely no right to make any kind of judgement on this. None.

I'm the sexist here? Please. Your position on this ladder is blinding you. Authorizing destruction of embryos is nothing like having an abortion. Arrogant and presumptuous? You have no idea of the implications behind that decision.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. "This is a conscious decision"

Guess what. I make conscious decisions too. Even though I am male.

"You and Dawkins have absolutely no right to make any kind of judgement on this. None."

I said what I would do. Not what other people must do. You are reading things into what I said that do not exist in reality. Stop that.


"I'm the sexist here? Please. Your position on this ladder is blinding you. Authorizing destruction of embryos is nothing like having an abortion. Arrogant and presumptuous? You have no idea of the implications behind that decision."

Actually I do. Speaking of positions of privilege, ignorance of an individual's background so you can make blanket condemnations would be one.

[cbayer]

62. Of course you do, but you will never make the decision to have an abortion

or not to have an abortion, and you have no standing to judge anyone who actually has to make that decision.

That is what choice is about.

What you would do is completely irrelevant. You may have a voice as the sperm donor, but the decision will never and should never be yours.

Ignorance of someone's background is not an issue of privilege. But unless you were at one point biologically female, I think my position on this is fully informed. If you were, then I apologize.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Again, I didn't judge anyone.

Is there a dog whistle in here or something? I don't hear it in my post.

Have you never had anyone ask you for advice about an issue, even if you yourself had never been in that position in question?

Also, are you unaware that religiously inspired pro-lifers attack IVF procedures that produce discarded fertilized ovum, as morally equivalent to an abortion? That they work to prohibit it by law? Just as they attack abortion itself? That IS a process I was a party to, and clinic held equal legal weight to both mine, and my wife's opinion on the disposal of those fertilized ovum. (most likely to insulate themselves from legal repercussions.)

[cbayer]

65. I tend to be very reluctant to give advice.

I am particularly reluctant to give that advice if I have no personal knowledge or experience of the situation in question.

I have a strong dislike of self-help and advice books. What works for one person rarely works for another.

The one big exception I would make is the book I used to stop smoking 2 months ago. It was the most powerful self-help book I have ever laid eyes on. Others had "advised" me to read it years ago, but it wasn't until I kind of found it on my own that it became useful.

I am quite aware of pro=lifers and their position on fertilized eggs. That has nothing to do with this discussion, although I am aware that it was a personal situation for you.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. As a male, that's as close to implantation as I can get.

And society raises exactly the same ethical questions around it, as they do for the issue of abortion. Hence the same audience working to ban it.

You have no right to declare that I cannot possibly have a valid opinion on this issue.

There are hormonal functions to a pregnancy that I will never experience, but I don't believe there is anything inherently magical about implantation that changes the decision making process beyond the point of fertilization, whether or not to proceed. Sorry. Not beyond it being a medical procedure, or medication to end the pregnancy. Certainly we can see people confronted with the decision opting to terminate in large numbers. I maintain, that is the decision I would make under those circumstances, were I female. That is the opinion I would offer when anyone, male or female, solicits my opinion on that subject. And I make no apologies for it. Nor would I judge any individual that acted one way or another on that information, as you seem to keep suggesting I might. The decision whether or not to become a parent is incredibly personal, and does not lend itself to multiple choice type black and white assessments. Offering an opinion on what I might hypothetically do, is not equal to passing judgment on another person's choice.

As a father, I would never actively choose to become a parent under those circumstances. Even if it was and would be my only opportunity to ever have a biological child of my own. I would decline.

[cbayer]

73. Yes, it is as close as you will ever get,

but it gives you no authority to opine on when a woman should or should not have an abortion or whether you, in some completely hypothetical fantasy situation, would have one.

I am done discussing this with you. I dare you to take it to one of the feminist groups.

(Just kidding. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, even you. They would eat you alive….. and with reason).

[haikugal]

86. Just a note of thanks...

AtheistCrusader....(great name btw)

I have read here and elsewhere for months and I'd like to thank you for your reasoned comments on subjects such as this. I find it curious that some people over react and misrepresent what is clearly an expressed opinion by Dawkins in order to vilify him and those of us who, like him, would in fact abort such a fetus.

Oh, and I'm female.

Thanks again, well done!!

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

111. Right, Dawkins decrees what is moral and what is not

Objecting to this is scarcely over-reacting. Atheists in general get all hot and bothered if a Catholic bishop says, "Aborting a fetus with Downs is an immoral thing to do", but you seem to have no problem with Dawkins saying "Aborting a fetus with Downs is the moral thing to do".

Can you say, "Double standard" boys and girls? I knew you could.

[Lordquinton]

120. Interesting objection you have here

Try this:

Objecting to this is scarcely over-reacting. Theists in general get all hot and bothered if a prominent atheist says, "Aborting a fetus with Downs is the moral thing to do," but you seem to have no problem with a Catholic Bishop saying "Aborting a fetus with Downs is an immoral thing to do."

Can you say, "Double standard" boys and girls? I knew you could.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

180. I am saying nothing about the morality of aborting a Downs fetus

I am pointing out that at least some atheists here are saying that it is proper for Dawkins to pronounce on the morality of aborting a Downs fetus, but it is improper for a Catholic bishop to do the same thing. THAT is the double standard.

Perhaps if you had bothered to read what I had written you would not have been so confused.

[cbayer]

114. The problem is not with people like you that would abort such a fetus,

the problem is with those who would make the choice not to.

Remember the word choice when used in the discussion of abortion?

Do you not think Dawkins vilifies those that make the choice to not abort by calling them immoral?

BTW, I agree with your take on AC. While he and I disagree more often than not, he generally remains civil and rarely makes it personal. I find his support of Dawkins in this case a pretty negative thing, but I understand his position.

[Dorian Gray]

208. He uses

language that others would strongly object to if the position was reversed, and with good reason. Throwing "morality" in there when women make decisions for a lot of reasons is unnecessarily pushing buttons.

[kdmorris]

110. Sperm donor?

Could you be any more insulting?

Look, around these parts, we call them FATHERS. It is incredibly insulting to debase them to their reproductive cells... as insulting as being called breeders or incubators is to us.

I seriously hope that people reading this do not think that you speak for all women, because, as I woman, I find you to be way off base.

AtheistCrusader may never be pregnant, but he can be (is?) a father. Parenting a child is not the exclusive purview of women.

And without the ability to try to imagine ourselves in someone else's shoes, we will never develop empathy. The truth of the matter is that, male or female, NO ONE knows what they will do until they are in that situation.

It is an extremely complex matter and AtheistCrusader is not saying what anyone SHOULD do...just what he thinks he would do based on his knowledge of himself. It is not offensive to have men think and have an opinon about these things, as long as they don't try to dictate to us what we are supposed to do. After all, we need all the allies we can get at this point.

[cbayer]

112. Oh, I am sure I could be much more insulting.

Is this phrase new to you? Have you not heard it used in the context of a discussion on abortion?

Fathers should generally, but not always, have input into the decision, but, in the end, the decision is up to the woman.

This is going to be the next great meme, isn't it? I see men as mere vehicles for producing sperm. I anticipate that this one will have a shelf life of, oh say, 3 to 4 years. Maybe it will replace the dumbasses or genocide ones, but I doubt it.

But you are right. Nobody knows what they will do until they are in that situation, and AC will never be in that situation.

By dictating to us what we are supposed to do, do you mean things like telling a woman that she is immoral if she brings the pregnancy of a down's child to term? Or things like telling a woman she should abort a fetus with downs and try again?

Or are you also going to defend Dawkins?

Allies? Don't talk to me about allies, kdmorris. You have never to my knowledge shown any interest in allying yourself with people who see religion differently than you.

FWIW, I argue with AC often. We generally keep it very civil. I do view him as an ally when it comes right down to it. It's kind of you to jump into his defense, but he is really good at taking care of himself. He rarely tag teams, and I respect him for that.

[kdmorris]

116. I've certainly heard it in the context of abortion

Suffice it to say, I still find it insulting.

AC did not defend Dawkins and neither am I. I believe in reproductive choice - everyone gets to choose for themselves what they find immoral and what they wish to do - whether it is have 19 children or have none. I do not believe that anything productive comes from calling each other names.

I have no fucking clue what you are talking about with the "next great meme"... I speak for myself. I do not come to the religion forum much so I guess I'm not one of the "cool kids" that knows what you are all fighting about.

"Allies? Don't talk to me about allies, kdmorris. You have never to my knowledge shown any interest in allying yourself with people who see religion differently than you."

You don't know anything about me, cbayer, so I think it is fair to say that you do not know who I ally with. I would be unable to live in this world (the real world, not DU) without allying myself with people who believe in some religion or another. To clarify, I was talking about WOMEN needing the alliance of MEN in this time of encroaching restrictions on our reproductive rights, NOT alliance in terms of religion. But great job at getting your little dig in there.

It's kind of you to jump into his defense, but he is really good at taking care of himself. He rarely tag teams, and I respect him for that.

Is that supposed to be some sort of an insinuation that I'm tag teaming? This is a public board, just like the rest of DU and I believe that I still don't need your permission to respond to something that I see that I feel is insulting, yes?

[cbayer]

117. Well, you know what some people say about insults, don't you?

I understand that you recently had twins. Congratulations! I read somewhere your description of chasing them around while acting like a dragon and it sounded really cute.

I will apologize for bringing up the next great meme. I know that you speak for yourself, but I wanted to make a note of this, because it will be used as a weapon against me. However it was wrong to drag you into it at all.

You are right, I know very little about you and my statement is based solely on my experience with you on DU. That is where I see who you ally with. I am glad that you are more inclusive in real life.

It was not an insinuation that you are tag teaming at all, but a shout out to AC. I would never suggest that you should or should not respond to something.

[Lordquinton]

121. So "Next great meme" (to use Dawkin's term, nice one)

is you're way to try and undermine when people point out how insulting/problematic you are being and you just want to dismiss it out of hand.

[cbayer]

122. No. The next great meme will be that I consider men to be nothing more than

sperm donors.

Pretty funny, if you ask me.

[Lordquinton]

123. like I said about you misusing Richard Dawkins term

Accountability is not a meme, you insult someone and peolke will remember it and hold you accountable to your own standards.

[cbayer]

137. Misusing it? I'm not misusing it at all.

I know what it means and I am using it exactly as I mean it.

[Lordquinton]

203. A meme is an idea that permeates through the culture

that almost takes a life on it's own, like "Wow, just wow" as a subject only response that is popular on this board with a certain group.

Calling out your problematic behavior and hypocrisy is not a meme. Calling you out on constant tone policing is not a meme. Setting the record straight when people are constantly misrepresenting others is not a meme.

But I see what you are really saying here:

"I am using it exactly as I mean it."

How you mean it, not using it how it is actually meant.

[cbayer]

205. I know what a meme is.

"Wow, just wow" is a good example. It's a meme adopted by a small subgroup that is used to mock a whole other group. It was stated once, by one person, but picked up as a way to derisively dismiss a whole group. It's juvenile.

My problematic behavior and hypocrisy? Tone policing is a "meme" and there is no justification for it other than to push an idea that will put others down without needing further justification. The definition seems to be anything I say that is critical of what others say.

You know what isn't a meme, but is very problematic behavior? Talking about people behind their back and in places where they will not respond to you. You know what is a meme? Saying that your mere presence sends people into fits and that you offer olive branches that are thrown back in your face.

Show me a fit caused by your mere presence. Show me an example of you offering an olive branch, let alone one that has been snapped and thrown back in your face.

Some here are driven by memes and continuously repeat them without having any real knowledge of the source or whether it can be verified. Are you part of that group?

Now, let's say we stop making this personal. If you can't have a discussion with me without repeated the same tired things about my problematic behavior, hypocrisy, tone policing and on and on and on, I don't think we have anywhere to go with this.

Your decision at this point, but I'm about done.

[AlbertCat]

91. Of course you disagree. That is what happens when you are blinded by privilege,

Oh... the irony!

[cbayer]

104. Again with the rolly eyes? And again, I have to ask for clarification.

Are you implying that my privilege is somehow greater and therefore more blinding than the person I am responding to or your own?

I would wager that you are dead wrong about that. Want to take a little test?

Now, let me see if I can find an emoticon with the same profound impact as the one you chose?

[Chemisse]

202. Well stated, cbayer.

The poster may or may not have felt the same way if he had been a pregnant woman. The important thing is that he would have had the choice.

Condemning women who don't abort fetuses with genetic defects as 'immoral' is saying that they cannot - with a clear conscience - make their own choice.

This may seem harmless. It is one man's opinion, albeit stated publicly. But this is how groundswells start. Society's perception of what is right and wrong changes pretty dramatically over time (I recall one episode of Lassie in which the beloved dog was going to be put down because she was no longer useful on the farm!), but it all starts at some point, with one person's voice.

[cbayer]

204. Hello, Chemisse!

How have you been? I haven't seen you around for a long time.


Thanks for your response here. I agree with the way you put this. I found this to be so wrong and am rather appalled that others find a way to support it. "Get over it and try again" shows absolutely zero understanding of what is it like to be pregnant….

but how would he know?

[AlbertCat]

88. Demanding they abort it,

Where did he demand anything?

[TreasonousBastard]

92. A bit of hyperbole, as already noted, but...

the point apparently obscured by that language is that "abort it and try again" is not solid advice.

[AlbertCat]

93. "abort it and try again" is not solid advice

Why?

[TreasonousBastard]

94. Find a woman, or a couple, with the problem...

and giver them that advice.

Just that way.

Then get back to us with their response.

[AlbertCat]

98. Then get back to us with their response.

Their response has nothing to do with the veracity of the advice.

and

"With the advent of genetic screening, the practice is fairly common in England and Wales: The Telegraph estimates that nearly 1000 abortions due to Downs Syndrome are performed per year. "

[Starboard Tack]

148. Using the imperative mood may well be interpreted as a demand.

It's basic grammar.
The imperative is a grammatical mood that forms commands or requests, including the giving of prohibition or permission, or any other kind of exhortation.

[AlbertCat]

159. Let's see.... (also the imperative mood.... but not a demand, obviously)

"Imperatives are used principally for ordering, requesting or advising the listener to do (or not to do) something"

Ordering..... hardly fits Dawkins' statement since he was asked for advice

requesting.... nope, doesn't fit. Does anyone think it was a request?

advising the listener to do (or not to do) something..... there ya go!


It's like "Come visit North Carolina!".... was that a demand to come to NC? Only a fool would think so.

Y'see, basic grammar also requires understanding. Only some kind of idiot would think Dawkins' was making a demand.

[Starboard Tack]

167. I commented on the fact that he used the imperative.

Which, as we both recognize includes demanding and advising. When one advises and at the same time, claims moral authority, then there is not much of a line between advising and demanding, especially when the IMPERATIVE is used to deliver the message.
In this case, it was advice. Advice coming from a highly regarded public figure. A scientist, no less. When asked for his advice, he made no bones about his opinion, that to disregard his "advice" would be IMMORAL!

You can spin it to your heart's content, but that is what he said, and that is how he said it.

Y'see, basic grammar also requires understanding. Only some kind of idiot would think Dawkins' was making a demand.

Actually, only an idiot would think otherwise. That's why it's called the "imperative" and not the "indicative", "interrogative", or "subjunctive".

It is nothing like

"Come visit North Carolina!"

which is an advertising slogan and mentions nothing about morality. Only a fool would think it was equivalent, or someone who has little understanding of basic grammar.
Dawkins is an accomplished writer and had a fine education. He understands his English grammar as well as I do.

[AlbertCat]

170. Still ignoring he was asked for advice I see.

Like with the NC thing....context is everything.

[Starboard Tack]

182. Not at all. In fact that is the whole point. Thanks for reminding us.

Context is indeed everything.

He was asked for advice, for his opinion, and he gave it in no uncertain terms.
He didn't say, "In my opinion..." or "If I were you..." or "My advice to you would be..."

No, he fucking pontificated in the imperative, and told them what to do, and if they didn't do as he said, then it would be "immoral".

I'm sure that any idiot can see that the fact that he was asked and responded in such an unequivocal way, demonstrates a complete lack of sensitivity, in keeping with his sense of entitlement and arrogance.

[Goblinmonger]

2. If I saw 1/10 of the outrage by those of you obsessed with Dawkins

to the horrible shit said by the current Pope, I'd at least think that it was horrible shit that y'all were worried about. As it is, it just seems to be a Dawkins fixation.

[rug]

3. Do you have an opinion on his statement beyond tu quoque?

Or would you rather hear snark about Pope fixation?

[Goblinmonger]

6. It doesn't bother me.

It is what happens a great deal of times. He isn't demanding it happen contrary to statements above. He isn't running after women with a coat hanger. Someone asked him what he thought about it and he said what many people do. Not sure why that makes him a horrid person.

Can we talk about your fixation on Dawkins now?

[rug]

7. He is injecting "morality" into the right to choose.

If I had a fixation on Dawkins, I'd be happy to. But since I don't, I prefer to talk about what he says.

But what you said indicates a preference for discussing DUers and your ill-perceived notions of their fixations rather than the substance of the post.

If I cared, I'd ask you why.

[Goblinmonger]

12. I'll consider what Dawkins has to say about morality

with more interest than the Pope. YMMV.

In the end, he's just some guy answering questions, though. A very intelligent and gifted biologist guy, but just some guy.

For someone with no fixation on Dawkins, you sure do post about him a lot.

[rug]

13. My mileage does indeed vary.

And there you go again, mentioning the Pope.

Let me know if there's any word association at play so I can avoid any reflexive posting from you in the future.

[Brettongarcia]

19. The Pope is directly relevant; the Catholic Church is a major voice in antiabortionism

Given that, it seems relevant to examine the moral record of the Roman Catholic Church. And its popes.

[rug]

22. Bullshit. Read the OP again.

[Brettongarcia]

106. Dawkins speaks of abortion, and specifically "choice." Catholicism is the major anti-choice voice.

The subject is 1) Choice. 2) In the matter of abortion; a major issue with the Church.

It's 3) argument furthermore by the way, has often (if not consistently) been that essentially any fetus is a full human being. Including implicitly, a DS fetus.

Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope, seem relevant here.

Normally by the way, good Catholics, Christians, will insist that their religion is always relevant, in everything.

So why is the Church suddenly irrelevant ... just in this particular case? For Church-defending Rug?

[rug]

107. I haven't seen such contortions since freak shows were banned.

Let me try some weird syntax here . . . . From Dawkins-defending Brettongarcia?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

113. No, Dawkins is giving a pronouncement "This is moral"

And you find no problem with it. Yet if the Pope says "this is not moral", then you object. Hypocrisy, thy name is apparently Brettongarcia.

[Brettongarcia]

125. No. I don't say ALL moral judgements are wrong. I just say the churches' ideas are mostly wrong.

No inconsistency.

That's based not just on Dawkins' say-so furthermore, as if he was another Pope. Instead, it's based on a whole series of other items of information on this subject. Which are not mentioned by Dawkins.

One item in the background of all this, is the basic notion that the essential element of being a human person is our distinctively human (some say divine) intelligence. But the brain of an embryo - as even Aquinas noted? - is not developed enough (or "formed" enough, the Bible said), to sustain reason or intelligence. Therefore an embryo is not a human person.

This means that abortion first of all, in this view, is not immoral. Since it does not kill a human person.

Ideas like this, are probably what are behind Dawkin's notion.

Behind it all therefore, behind Dawkins, are some rather rational arguments.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

179. Oh, I see

If you agree with a moral pronouncement, then it is good and the person delivering it is OK. If you disagree with it, then it is not good and the person making the pronouncement is not OK. We don't need the Pope to give infallible teachings, we have you.

Thomas Aquinas said nothing about the brains of embryos.

[Brettongarcia]

195. I believe that religion has not made a convincing case in ethics, vs. reason-based systems

My preference in ethics is not based on the authority of any single person; but say, on the material fruitfulness of reason and science.

I am not for example a "Dawkins" proponent; like Dawkins himself I suspect, I value the judgments based on science.

Aquinas said the "body" of the embryo was not "formed" enough to sustain a "rational soul." Science later specified what part of the body was crucial: the size of the brain.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

207. In other words, I called it correctly

If you agree with a moral pronouncement, then it is good as is the person making it; similarly, if you disagree, then the pronouncement and the person making it is bad.

And Dawkins said that not aborting a fetus with Down's would be immoral. That is as much a "judgment based on science" as the Pope saying it would be immoral. He did not say, "In my opinion, it would be immoral" or "it might be immoral", he said "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

OK, you correctly stated Aquinas' opinion. So you are willing to listen to religious teachers if you agree with them? BTW,Thomas Aquinas also said that women are inferior to men (see the Summa Theologica, Supplement, question 39, article 1). Do you agree with him there?

[Brettongarcia]

210. No. I follow evidence, not people. Science, not strong-arming individuals.

I do not follow individuals. I follow Reason, and science.

This is the second time I am making this point.

It is easy to see why a person named "Fortinbras Armstrong" (trans. "strong arm/ strong arm&quot might over-emphasize the issue of the authority of individuals, heroes.

But that is not my problem. I follow Science and Reason; and quote individuals only insofar as they follow it too.

You might well want to try to strong-arm your way through this argument. But?

[cleanhippie]

23. Your Pope and your church ALSO inject "morality" into the opposition of choice.

Goose, gander.

[Goblinmonger]

24. Yeah, but Dawkins is saying that all atheists need to do as he says.

Oh, wait, no he isn't. My bad.

[cleanhippie]

25. +1

[rug]

29. That makes his statement so much less obnoxious.

[Starboard Tack]

71. No, he's telling women what to do.

“Abort it and try again,” he suggested. “It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

Pope Dicky, moralizing and telling women what to do with their bodies. How wonderfully progressive.
Which side of his mouth do you listen to? The one that says “It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”
Or the one that implies that it would be moral and fine if you don't have the choice?

Obviously, he is saying, if you have any doubts and want to do the moral thing, then don't get tested.

[Goblinmonger]

74. Where does he say he is telling women what to do?

He was asked what he thought. He answered. Actually the author of the piece felt he was "suggesting."

[Starboard Tack]

75. If the quote is accurate, he used the imperative.

He is being asked because he is highly regarded. He is a luminary, a renowned scientist/evolutionist. He is not Joe the fucking plumber. His words are golden, especially to those who take time to listen and attend his appearances. He is Brian.

“Abort it and try again,” he suggested. “It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

"suggested" is not part of the quote, but merely the authors characterization of how he spoke.

His pronouncement on morality is not equivocal.

[haikugal]

87. Apparently your definition of 'morality'

is quite different from many of us. I agree with his view. I would view it as an ethical imperative to abort such a fetus for the good of everyone. That's my view. I don't understand you but you have every right to an opinion just don't try to change the facts or what the man actually said.

[Starboard Tack]

105. Where did I define "morality"?

I agree with his choice, but not his pontificating. We were discussing what he said, which was a declaration of "immorality" toward any woman who choose not to abort a fetus that does not meet his standard of perfection.

I don't know what I would do. I'm not a woman. I know what I would not do, though, and that is stand on a soap box and moralize from an evolutionist, or any other point of view. I'd stand by whatever decision she made and support her to the full.

[rug]

28. Which has what to do with the OP?

See #3.

If you don't know what tu quoque means, let me know.

[MellowDem]

4. Yep.

[rug]

8. Care to elaborate?

[MellowDem]

84. Dawkins is a biologist...

He's not known for his opinion on morality. People who admire him don't subscribe to a belief system that makes him their leader. Dawkins opinion on various issues isn't a rehash of a dogma followed by billions. Dawkins doesn't claim his opinion is objectively true because an invisible god says so in a book.

However, there is a ton of attention on Dawkins, especially by the religious right, trying to equate him in some way as a leader of a religion of atheism. The core argument the religious right has is that atheism is like any other religion out there. Demonizing Dawkins as some sort of atheist religious leader is part of this strategy.

And it works to some degree, even on moderates and progressives. Dawkins doesn't hold many controversial opinions when it comes to progressive politics, especially compared to the current Pope. But you'll see people say that Dawkins is "kind of a dick" on here, and rarely hear the same for the Pope. I wonder what people would think of Dawkins if he opposed marriage equality, didn't think women should hold leadership positions, spoke against contraception, was anti-choice, etc.? Would he just still be "kind of a dick"?

And I wonder how many articles there would be praising Dawkins every time he acted like a normal decent human?

What if his opinion on those matters influenced billions of followers, because he was the leader of an ideology and institution with many members and subscribers?

Dawkins opinion on this article isn't even all that controversial amongst many progressives.

Seeing article after article on Dawkins posted here, trying to make him some diabolical massive figure, trying to blow every opinion he has up, often deliberately misstating what he said, is just reminiscent of the strategy the religious right uses. And it has nothing to do with religion or atheism. If it was Dawkins talking about religion, it would make more sense as being relevant.

[rug]

109. When he is making a social pronouncement based on his morality, he's fair game.

You sound offended.

[MellowDem]

124. He's always fair game...

I just have no idea why it is in the religion forum.

This article explains the phenomena pretty well:

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5698443

[rug]

129. "12. Wait 90 days and repeat."

[Starboard Tack]

16. What does this have to do with the Pope?

Are you saying "My guy is not as much a bigot as your guy? So that makes it OK for my guy to be a moderate bigot."
WTF is this? A contest of who is the biggest bigot?

[rug]

30. It's low grade deflection.

[Lordquinton]

136. pointing out the faux outrage when Dawkins says something akward

That they refuse to look into any further while defending anything the pope (for example) says regardless of how horrible it is. Called cognitive dissonance.

[Starboard Tack]

143. Except we have threads that discuss the Pope

Why conflate the two? After all, it has been decided pretty unanimously, that Dawkins is neither our Pope, nor does he speak for us. Let's keep the conversations honest.

[TreasonousBastard]

33. Well, the OP was about something Dawkins said that caused a sensation...

so there's no particular reason why the Pope should be brought up.

However, notwithstanding my throwaway about Dawkins "demanding", the Pope does speak for a billion or so people who listen to him when he, or others on his side in this, "suggest" that you add spending eternity in hellfire into the mix when making a difficult decision like this. So, yeah, mentioning him makes some sense.

But, then again, I'd hate to leave the impression that Dawkins is as significant as the Pope...

[mr blur]

37. Well, he seems to be to rug.

But that's OK, he's easier to defend than the Pope.

[rug]

40. As usual, what seems to be true to you is blurred.

[mr blur]

115. Very feeble response, even for you.

I know it must be difficult when you live in the 13th Century but do try to keep up.

[rug]

118. That's all it required.

Speaking of the 13th century, say hi to your Queen.

[Maedhros]

82. I am the father of a special needs child.

My concerns over Dawkins' statement is unrelated to any concerns I have regarding the Pope. And, since I'm an atheist, I feel no special compulsion to pay attention to papal missives.

[MellowDem]

5. Doesn't seem newsworthy...

But then, some are desperate to promote the idea of an atheist anti-Pope I guess.

[rug]

9. It's odd that only you and goblinmonger mention a Pope?

Would you like me to post a picture of Francis so you have something you can talk about?

[MellowDem]

83. Something relating to religion...

in the religion forum would be nice.

[LuvNewcastle]

10. I wouldn't say it's immoral, but it doesn't make a lot of sense

to have a DS child if you don't have to. My uncle had DS. He was born back in the 1930's, before people had much information about the children they carried. He had various health problems, but that wasn't all. When he got older, he would run off and my grandparents wouldn't know where he was. My grandmother worried about him so much that she had a nervous breakdown. They ended up putting him in a home, where he stayed from his teens until he died at the age of 60. He got Alzheimers toward the end of his life.

Fortunately, my grandparents had the means to have him cared for properly, but that is often not the case for the parents of kids with DS. Having a DS child can be very expensive when you take into consideration all the doctor bills for this and that, not to mention child care. The children often become wards of the state. It's not surprising that so many people opt to abort DS fetuses.

I always wondered if my grandmother would have aborted my uncle if it had been an option back then. My grandma and I were close, so I think she would have told me if I'd asked her, but I didn't want to dredge up all those feelings, especially over a hypothetical question. Considering all that she went through, I think she would have. It wouldn't have been out of morality; there is no wrong or right answer to that question, but it would certainly have been the practical thing to do.

[rug]

11. You tell the reality of it well.

I agree the decision has nothing to do with morality. At those times the ones involved don't need to hear it flung at them either from a priest or from an atheist.

[LuvNewcastle]

14. You're right. It's wrong to judge people over something like that.

[cbayer]

15. Oh. My. God.

Has he developed some kind of serious cognitive disorder or is he just flailing around in a rage because people are turning away from him?

And then his desperate attempts to try and justify this. Unbelievable.

[Brettongarcia]

18. Ms. cbayer is a medical professional pretending to be shocked at say, an optional D & C?

Or is she shocked that someone close to the profession finally told what is well known to insiders? That maybe 90% of pregnant women in this situation take this sort of solution.

[stone space]

20. Meaning that the other 10% are immoral, of course.

That maybe 90% of pregnant women in this situation take this sort of solution.

[Brettongarcia]

21. Most suggest this should be a "choice" made by the woman herself. And no one else.

[stone space]

26. Of course. And most of us would go even further...

...and not promote the notion that the other 10% are immoral.

[Brettongarcia]

66. Is Dawkin's position that 1) not aborting deformed fetuses IS immoral in HIS opinion; 2) but ...

... deciding to abort such a fetus or not, would still be a woman's individual choice?

In other words, Dawkins and 90% of all women in this position, may 1) feel themselves, personally, that it is not moral to take such a fetus to term; but 2) still many would impose their own personal moral sense on others. E.g.: they would allow a woman in this position, to make the choice to continue with or without an abortion. Though some might regard not aborting immoral, they do not feel it is a serious enough infraction to make it illegal.

Often in fact, many of us allow people to do things we do not consider moral; believing that that morality is not firm enough to impose our value judgment on others.

(By the way, I was rather surprised at the rejection of your OP questioning atheists' sanity; I believe that this OP might have made for interesting discussion. I do not believe the position advanced there was entirely good or moral; but I am not sure it really was even your position. Certainly it would have been a useful starting point for a discussion).

[Starboard Tack]

17. Sad!

[MineralMan]

34. That is apparently Dawkin's opinion.

It is not my opinion. As frequently occurs, Dawkins and I disagree. And yet, we are still both atheists. So, it doesn't appear that atheism is involved here. Dawkins represents only himself, and nobody else in this and everything else he says.

[rug]

38. What is the morality he invokes?

[MineralMan]

41. You would need to address your question to Dawkins.

I can no more answer for him than he can answer for me. I thought I made that clear. Neither of us speaks for the other or for anyone else.

As for myself, I speak more often about ethics than morality. Morality is not a word I use often.

[rug]

43. You'll have to do.

You interjected that, in your opinion, his remark had nothing to do with atheism.

So, what is your opinion, then, on the question?

I presume you posted here because you have one.

[MineralMan]

45. On the question of abortion of Down Syndrome Fetuses?

It is the same as my opinion about all abortion. Abortion is a decision to be made by the woman who is pregnant, in consultation with whomever she chooses to consult. Her decision and reasoning is all that matters. My opinion is irrelevant. My ethics prohibit me from interfering with anyone's reproductive choices.

I hope that will do as an answer.

[rug]

46. No, on the morality that he is invoking.

He does seem to be relying on something.

[MineralMan]

49. I have no opinion about Dawkins' morality.

I do not know it, nor its source. Again, you would have to ask that question of him, as I suggested above. I have never met the man, so it is not a subject I could have discussed with him.

As for myself, my ethical view is an amalgam of many ethical viewpoints. I cannot characterize it in general, except that it has to do with the right of the individual to form his or her own ethical viewpoint. I may agree or disagree, but I have no right to determine anyone else's ethical thinking.

[rug]

50. Your ethical amalgam is mildly interesting but the topic is Dawkins'.

[MineralMan]

54. And I told you what I think and that I cannot speak for him.

What part of my not being competent to tell you what Dawkins thinks do you fail to grasp?

[rug]

55. I fully grasp your incompetence on that subject.

I was asking about your opinion on what he said. I assumed, perhaps mistakenly, that you were competent to offer your own opinion on what he said.

[MineralMan]

57. I made my personal ethic regarding reproductive choice

clear. It differs from that of Dawkins, clearly. Such decisions are those of the woman who is pregnant, and nobody else. I would never provide any opinion on such an individual choice. And, since I cannot become pregnant, it will never be an issue for me. I consider abortion to be a personal choice, absolutely.

I made my choice, which was not to reproduce. That decision was based on my personal beliefs regarding overpopulation and the global misery that has caused. I had a choice, and I made one. I believe each person has the right to make whatever choices regarding reproduction that work for him or herself.

Is that clear enough for you? What do I think of Dawkin's suggestion? I think it is presumptuous and egotistical. But I often think that about Dawkins.

[Goblinmonger]

42. Do you not think that one can create one's own morality?

Are you seriously coming from a position that morality has to come from somewhere else? I know the RCC would like you to think that, but certainly you understand that a human being can create their own moral code.

[rug]

44. As a matter of fact, I think it happens all the time. But that was not the question.

What do you think Dawkins meant by "immoral"? His own idiosyncratic morality or something else?

[MineralMan]

47. Again, you are asking someone about someone else's

definition of morality. You need to ask Dawkins about his morality. Nobody else knows.

[rug]

48. Well, since he tweeted his morality to the world at large, that really is a non-answer.

If you can't or won't say what you think about it, just say so.

As it is, I have no reason to accept what you think, for whatever reason, I need to do.

[MineralMan]

51. Actually, he tweeted his opinion about a single issue.

I assume his morality is broader-based than that, and have no idea what he believes with regard to anything else.

Finally, I'm not asking you to accept anything. It's of no matter to me.

[rug]

53. I agree with that. He reached into whatever bag of morality he has to address that issue.

[tkmorris]

60. As do we all, do we not?

[rug]

67. Naturally. And when we do, it's open for discussion.

[rock]

58. What would Hitler do?

I just thought it was time to apply Godwin's law.

[rug]

68. Well, now that you mention it . . . .

“Sparta must be regarded as the first völkisch state. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more human than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject.”

[rock]

70. Well, I was just making a joke

But that's a damn good answer.

[Brettongarcia]

76. What God did: slaughters all men, women, children, fetuses, that are not God's chosen

In systematic genocide of whole towns.

Did Hitler learn from God? In fact, we are told that Hitler was a Catholic altar boy. He grew up in Austria, then matured in Bavaria: where the Catholic Church taught that "The Jews Killed Jesus." As dramatized by the Passion Plays, like the one in Oberammergau. German churches also taught "replacement theology": the idea that Old Testament Jewish religion was bad, materialistic; and was "replaced" or cancelled by the more spiritual New Testament.

Was the Church in part the source of Hitler's ideas? It's easy to find plenty of anti-Semitic sermons in German churches in the time of Hitler's childhood and young maturity. Particularly in the Catholic, southern part of Germany where Hitler got his start (Munchen, etc.). Finally there were so many, that we would have to account Christian anti-Semitism, anti Old Testament sentiments, as almost certainly a major source and power base, for Hitler's anti-Semitism.

[rug]

108. Do you find Dawkins' tweet more similar to that quote or to RCC doctrine?

[Brettongarcia]

126. Closer to actual historical Catholic practice, and older versions of its doctrine.

Not the currently whitewashed versions.

[rug]

128. With your scholarly expertise, link to earlier RCC doctrine on infanticide.

Don't forget to pinpoint when the whitewash occurred.

[Brettongarcia]

130. The church I was born into allowed abortion. Its doctrine was that the embryo was NOT an "infant."

The logic was borrowed from the Bible. And ironically, from some key Catholic theologians that the church threw under the bus.

Augustine and Aquinas agreed that 1) the essence of being human, is having a human intelligence, or a rational "soul." A better mind than an animal or a "beast." While 2) Augustine and Aquinas agreed that an embryo is - following the Bible - not "formed" enough - or as we would say today its brain in not large enough- to sustain such a "rational" soul. The Bible adds that the embryo is not yet formed; its "days" have not yet begun when it is only an embryo. While Numbers 5.13-28 actually orders a priest to perform an abortion; to administer a abortifacient "dust."

It was ironically only by abandoning these earlier doctrines - in part its own rational theological tradition, and the language of the Bible itself - that the Catholic Church went wrong on this issue.

Today, the Church is whitewashing this betrayal of its own past tradition, and of the Bible. The larger Catechism claims that "Tertullian" authorized this new doctrine. But Tertullian was long ago rejected by the Church, as an apostate, who left the Church, and was not reliable therefore.

The inconsistency of the Church, and its constant changes in its "eternal" doctrines, following the very people it once condemned as heretical apostates, is whitewashed by the church every day, today. Today the Church relies on sensationalist emotiveness to oppose abortion; sentimentally declaring the embryo an "infant" or "child." But the Bible warned that emotion - the "heart" - is "deceitful above all things."

It would be better if the Church had continued to follow its own major rational theologians and tradition, in part.

But it betrayed them.

[rug]

131. His dispute was primarily with the Church in Carthage. Augustine did also a century later.

For all that he remains a father of Latin Christianity.

But to the point at hand, the RCC has never approved infanticide.

[Brettongarcia]

133. Nor has it ever been consistent or clear on what is an "infant" vs. an embryo

Rendering its condemnation of "infant"icide here irrelevant.

It today quotes Tertullian as authority. But Tertullian left the church - and followed a radically different belief. One that anyone who reads him will instantly recognize as ENTIRELY outside of ANY recognizable Catholicism. Not just one specific church or two.

Read about it.

[rug]

134. We now agree it condemned infanticide.

Your distinction between an embryo (actually a fetus) and an infant is, as usual, misplaced. The controversy was never between an infant and a fetus but at what point a fetus acquires human qualities, i.e., a soul.

Tertullian has been a church authority for more than a thousand years. Another of his titles is "father of western theology".

[Brettongarcia]

138. The Church today whitewashes the fact that Tertullian left the Church; and was never reliable

Being the Father of "Western theology" does not say he was a good CATHOLIC theologian. Nor was the phrase accurate. Tertullian's theology was erratic and unreliable; to the point that he ends up entirely outside Christianity, in another religion altogether. Rendering his theology irrelevant for a Christian. Rumor is the Church condemned him long ago; but it now hides that. Because it conservatives find his questionable theology useful for their own purposes. (I.e., attacking the Left).

Yes the Church - and I - condemn infanticide. The reason that abortion was legalized however, was that 1) the original religious, Catholic and then 2) scientific sources determined that a young embryo could not be a human person, child, or "infant." Because its body and brain was not sufficiently large enough, or developed enough, to sustain a fully human or divine intelligence, or mind. Or as Aquinas and Augustine called it, the all-important "rational soul." Saint Aquinas and Saint Augustine by the way, are generally considered a hundred time more central to Catholic and Christian theology, than Tertullian; they are called the Doctors of the Church, etc.. And they were not excommunicated; they were made saints.

And amazingly, for once science more or less agreed with these theologians in some ways. Generally most philosophers and scientists are agreed that the thing that makes human beings more than the animals or "beasts," is our larger brain, and greater intelligence. Corresponding to Augustine's rational "soul." But most are agreed: an embryo hasn't got that rational spirit. Not even according to the two Doctors of the Church; it's brain too small to sustain rational thinking.

Therefore an embryo is not quite a human person yet.

This was what the Church originally said. But around 1964 or so, oddly, Catholic theologians completely turned away from their real roots. Against and the "Angelic Doctor" Aquinas. And even against the soul. They argued that to be sure, the Church once agreed that the young embryo had no mind or "soul"; but now it is argued that it is not necessary to have a mind or soul, to be human.

Thus elements of the church now embrace a mindless, soulless entity, as a fully human person. In this way degrading our understanding of humanity. Even as it attacks, explicitly, rationality - and intelligence itself. Declaring a mindless and soulless body as the adequate definition of a human person. In this way, the Church's recent position was a mockery, a travesty of, a assault on, intelligence, and humanity.

Fortunately however, things may be changing in the Church. It was because of the problems being noted here, and other problems with conservative Catholic anti-abortionism, Pro Life theology, that the current Pope Francis began to caution Catholics against an "obsession" with abortion. While he invited dialogue, not dogmatism, on many matters; including "family" and contraceptive issues. Like the one I am talking about now.

The new Pope Francis in fact now appears to be hinting at the need for some real changes in Catholic thought, on the issue of the embryo, and abortion. In part in the direction of minimalizing the radical anti-abortion theology of "conservative" Catholic institutions (like Priests for Life, and EWTN/RN).

Hopefully the Church will thus end its assault against Intelligence, the Mind, Humanity, and against the Soul itself.

[rug]

191. By your last sentence, I take it you are acknowledging the existence of a soul.

Now describe it.

[Brettongarcia]

196. I read "soul" as basically a primitive early word for, more or less, a human "mind" or consciousness

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=148781

[Humanist_Activist]

64. I would have chosen the word "irresponsible" rather than "immoral" but only because...

"morals" are loaded as it is. I would also call it unethical as well.

The issue is this, my fiancee and I are already at high risk for...complications with either the fetus and/or pregnancy. We have already discussed this, so its a very real possibility that we may have to go to the only Planned Parenthood that administers abortion in our state, thank goodness its in town, due to precisely this issue.

[rug]

69. Good luck. I hope you don't have to make that choice.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

77. That's a tough decision

but I'm glad you've addressed it in advance. A lot of families tear themselves apart over caretaking children with developmental issues, so the balancing of factors has to consider the possible tearing apart of all lives involved, not just that of the potential child.

[Humanist_Activist]

79. Its always a quality of life issue for me, I want my potential future child...

to have the best opportunities at a fulfilling and happy life as possible.

And yes, the quality of life for us also matters a great deal.

[YarnAddict]

80. Do you really want to go there?

Plenty of DS people live happy and fulfilling lives, and a whole lot of people who are perfectly normal, don't. And I don't think any of us can pre-judge whether some hypothetical person's life wll be happy and fulfilling based on our own standards.

Lefthanded people have some obstacles to overcome. I know, because I am one. So--in your opinion, maybe a lefty won't have the quality of life you would choose. Would you abort a lefthander? How about a redhead? Gay people have lots of struggles. Think it's okay for someone to abort a fetus who may be gay? Or short? Or fat? How about prone to depression?

[Heddi]

85. Downs Syndrome isn't just a cognitive disability. There are physical issues as well

Heart defects that can guarantee a lifetime of surgeries (especially throughout childhood), medications, and complications. GI issues that can guarantee a lifetime of surgeries (especially throughout childhood), medications, and complications.

Parents have the additional burden of having to contemplate what will happen to their adult child with Downs Syndrome when the parents die. Does the child become the responsibilty of siblings? Do you know how absolutely destructive it is to send a 45 year old adult with Downs Syndrome, who has lived with his parents up until the point of the death of the parents, to live in a group home or institutional setting?

This is nothing even remotely close to aborting a gay, left-handed, or red-headed foetus.

Not every person has the financial or emotional ability to properly raise a child with developmental disabilities, and the physical disabilities and congenital disorders that are inherent to chromosomal disorders. This isn't a "oh, they're slow, let's kill them." This is "I'm a single mother making minimum wage. How can I properly care for a child that will not only have cognitive disabilities to overcome, but deal with the repeated surgeries and hospitalizations, and properly save for their care upon my death?"

You're simplifying this issue in a very deceptive way. Not everyone is emotionally or financially prepared to be the parent of a child with DS (or any other chromosomal disorder). Not every DS child is functional and full of hugs and love. They can be violent, injurious, nonverbal, profoundly disabled and unable to perform even the most simple of tasks. They may have the cognitive development of a 2 year old even as they, themselves, are 30 or 40 or 50 years old. They may need 24 hour, around the clock care. They may never be able to live independently, or feed or bathe or clothe themselves.

THe idea that every child with DS turns into an adult with DS who can work a low-wage job and live semi-independently, and that the choice to abort a child with a chromosomal abnormality is eugenics is deceptive, wrong, and based purely on emotion and without any regards to facts, reason, OR the situation that the mother/father/family find themselves in.

[YarnAddict]

90. There are no guarantees in life

Your perfectly normal, healthy child with every opportunity for a happy and fulfilling life, could end up with a TBI due to a car accident, or even just a fall off a bike. He/she could get meningitis, or necrotizing fasciitis, or who-knows-what. What do you do with a perfect child who suddenly doesn't have that opportunity for the happy and fulfilling life you've planned for him/her?

How about behavioral issues? Your apparently perfect little baby could have Oppositional Defiance Disorder, could have severe ADHD, could even be a psychopath. What's your solution when you end up with someone who won't be happy and fulfilled, in the way that you want them to be?

The thing is, life is a crap shoot. We can't predict the future, and we must be always prepared to adjust our expectations, due to circumstances beyond our control.

I understand that varying degrees of intellectual disability, and physical problems are part of the DS package. I have known people who love and care for their children to the best of their ability despite their deficits. I applaud that choice, and admire them for making what must be a very difficult decision, with the full knowledge that their lives will be forever changed by making it, and that their child won't live up to their previous expectations.

I won't pass judgment on the "morality" of anyone who chooses to abort, or chooses to bring to term any child with any disability. I guess I'm just trying to say that you can't plan for every contingency. Life happens, and sometimes things come with it that you never planned for.

[Humanist_Activist]

95. Hell yes I want to go there, and your comparisons are fucking atrocious and offensive.

Being, in order, the son of a bi-polar person who also happens to be left-handed and overweight but working on it, why don't you just take a long walk off a short pier.

[hrmjustin]

78. Disgusting comment and sentiment.

[Humanist_Activist]

96. Why is the sentiment and comment disgusting? n/t

[hrmjustin]

97. It says these childrens lives have no meaning.

[Humanist_Activist]

99. What meaning would there be to create a life that suffers?

Serious question, look at my comment above, my fiancee and I are at an increased risk to have children with certain types of disabilities and conditions, most of which would necessarily have to be aborted.

I simply don't understand this mindset, what meaning is there in suffering?

In addition, whose meaning? The child with DS or similar cognitive disability, who may not have the ability to understand what is occurring around them, nor be self aware, or that of their parents and others who try to assign meaning to a chromosomal defect that can, in many cases, have horrendous consequences for both the person with DS and everyone around them?

No one has any meaning in life except that which they choose for themselves later in life.

[hrmjustin]

100. Everyone's morality is a bit different.

We have choices and we should respect people's right of choice.

Some people do not feel they can have an abortion because of moral and religious views. That is their right and I personally feel I have no right to judge them.

I feel for you and your fiancee and I wish you the best. You will make the best choice for you.

[amuse bouche]

101. It's all about personal choice

I gave birth to healthy children but was extremely happy to know that

abortion was available if needed or wanted.

There is nothing else to say. The rest is a bunch of bullshit noise

[terdheadur]

102. placenta shake is very good for you. Wonder if that was wasted as well?

Choice is up to parent. I also think the fetis should be handled differently though. Just flushing it or chucking it in the trash is imo uncivilized don't you all think¿ edit: after reading comments jmho either you are pro choice or not.I don't know how else to say it but i see so much room for a gray area here that no wonder this is a big argument amongst everyone. Honestly if you wanna abort because you don't want to be fat its YOUR CHOICE right? Who cares IF the kid MIGHT be retarded? Can't have it both ways. A true liberal knows its up to the individual regardless the reason. NO EXCEPTIONS. No room for gray area here. I make a habit of pointing out hypocrisy especially with the party i love get it together no wonder we aren't in control of the house hell we are to busy arguing amongst ourselves. Be progressive.

[amuse bouche]

119. "placenta shake is very good for you" No proof of that

Professor Mark Kristal of the State University of New York at Buffalo, wrote his doctoral dissertation in 1971 on why animals eat their placentas. He stated, “People can believe what they want, but there’s no research to substantiate claims of human benefit. The cooking process will destroy all the protein and hormones. Drying it out or freezing it would destroy other things"

Consuming it raw carries its own risks, such as transmitting blood borne illness.

Have you ever seen a placenta? There is absolutely nothing appetizing about it

[terdheadur]

132. yeah I've seen five.

I saw them make a shake out of it on Don't be tardy. I have witnessed five births they are all grown now and my youngest is saying she is going to do this. Yep nothing appealing at all Ha Ha. If it helps though it helps just hate seeing good things go to waste.

[amuse bouche]

144. " just hate seeing good things go to waste"

It served its purpose but if you want to re-purpose it, plant a tree in it

[AtheistCrusader]

127. Well, he pissed off Sarah Palin, so that's a 'win' in my book.

[cbayer]

139. Really? As much as we collectively despise Sarah Palin, she

is a human being and the mother of a down's child. Thinking that her getting pissed off at this is a "win" is really so black and white.

I don't like Sarah Palin. Someone said something that made her mad. Therefore what they said must have been good.

That is totally illogic., but that is how you like things, as you say.

[AtheistCrusader]

140. She used that child as a prop.

Used him as an insulating blanket against criticism. She has actively worked to eliminate comprehensive sex ed. She has worked herself, and hand in hand with the Republican Party to restrict the reproductive freedom of women in Alaska. Under her watch, women were left paying for their own rape kits, within the criminal justice system.

She's a truly detestable human being, and what vexes her, makes my cold, black heart swell with happiness. Sorry.

There are some things that she could do, that she could change that could undo some of the hatred and pain she has promulgated into this world, and I always do hold out hope that people can better themselves, but until then... No quarter given.

Edit: If I thought her child had the current capacity to be directly hurt by that sort of commentary, it might change my opinion of it.

My heart is perhaps not THAT cold and black.

[cbayer]

141. I agree that that is what she did and I am not defending her.

I am challenging your illogical statement that if she is pissed, whatever was said must be a win.

That's a dangerous path to take.

[AtheistCrusader]

142. I agree that it is petty and unflattering.

But I never claimed to be perfect.

[AndreaCG]

135. I babysat for a boy with Down's syndrome.

He was pretty high functioning. His mom had him watching wheel of fortune. Not sure how much of it he understood, but he was only 7 and most 7 year olds wouldn't answer right. Richard Dawkins is an ass and that's putting it mildly.

[amuse bouche]

145. What happens when that child is 30 and functions the same as he did when 7?

Resentment surely will set in when he is no longer cute and cuddly. What happens when that child is 50 and his parents are gone? Who takes care of him then?

You may think Dawkins is an ass, but he has a valid point. Just ask anyone caring for an adult with significant needs. The honest ones will tell you they feel burdened, financially strapped and bitter

[cbayer]

146. Whoa! Have you spent any time at all with people with Downs and the people who love them?

What a horrible thing to say. Perhaps we should just shoot them at 30 and put them out of everyone's misery. What do you think?

Dawkins is an ass, but you have actually managed to outdo him. Congratulations.

I hope the members of this board who are caring for children and adults with significant needs tear you a new asshole. And I hope that no one alerts on this, because it should stand for anyone who happens by to see.

[amuse bouche]

149. I've spent more that 25 years in the medical field and have seen plenty of people dumping

But do enjoy your pie in the sky

[cbayer]

150. What do you do in the medical field, if you don't mind me asking?

What kind of people dumping have you seen?

Pie in the sky? I don't think that means what you think it means. I suspect you mean something more along the line of rose colored glasses.

But, honestly, I think your post on this subject was one of the most ill-informed and heartless ones I have ever seen here.

It outraged me to the point that I really crossed my own line in terms of being civil.

[amuse bouche]

152. "It outraged me to the point that I really crossed my own line in terms of being civil. "

This forum seems to attract 'outraged' hysterical types

Not interested in discussing anything with those types. They just flip out and enjoy making a show

later

[cbayer]

160. Yes it does attract outraged hysterical types. You would be a part of that, no?

So what do you do in the medical field exactly?

[amuse bouche]

154. "I hope that no one alerts on this, because it should stand for anyone who happens by to see."

Did you mean my post or yours for an alert? (Like alerts, eh? I'm not surprised)

My post was calm and based on many years of experience, observation, client interviews and intake, in the medical field


Yours was typical name calling and baseless hysteria

[cbayer]

163. If you stand by that post, there is nothing else to be said.

You can always delete it, but I doubt that will happen.

What exactly do you do in the medical field, again? I think I missed your answer.

[rug]

192. My guess is medical billing.

After all caring for children and adults with Downs is so expensive.

I suppose making care of the vulnerable a political and social priority is out of the question.

[cbayer]

193. I honestly don't think it has anything to do with actual patient care.

The callousness of this position is only matched by it's ignorance.

[Starboard Tack]

147. Resentment of what will set in?

Dawkins is sounding more like Dr Mengele with every pronouncement on this subject. And you are supporting him?
Dawkins, and those who support him on this appear to be both shallow and selfish. I guess for some it boils down to cuddliness, for others it boils down to money. Fortunately, for many, it boils down to unconditional love, regardless the cost.

[AtheistCrusader]

151. Mengele? Can we keep the hyperbole to a dull roar?

There is no inherent moral difference between a woman choosing to abort a fetus that exhibits trisomy 21, and a woman choosing not to risk conceiving after the age of 40 due to escalating risk.

[amuse bouche]

153. "Mengele? Can we keep the hyperbole to a dull roar?"

No, they can't help themselves. No different than the 'Obama is Hitler' crowd

[cbayer]

165. "They"? Is that the same as "you people"?

Obama is hitler, is he not?

[amuse bouche]

181. "They"? Is that the same as "you people"?

So silly, clearly clueless and always looking for something to be faux outraged over.

"you people" was a joke. The (" &quot was a dead giveaway. womp..womp

[Starboard Tack]

155. I'm not referring to a woman choosing to abort any fetus. That is her choice. Trisomy 21 or not

I'm referring to a poster who is concerned about "cuddliness" and "resentment" of those who are not as genetically perfect as one might like. Nice attempt at deflection though.
A valid analogy is not hyperbole.

[amuse bouche]

156. "a poster who is concerned about "cuddliness" and "resentment"

Just mentioning some of what clients and patients have said.

You seem to have trouble with comprehension and reality. It's not about one adjective

"I'm not referring to a woman choosing to abort any fetus"--Yes you are. You are trying to impose your morality on which one can be aborted

It's about personal choice. Anything else is just bullshit noise

Edit to clarify that cuddly comment was in reference to poster who talked about a cuddly 7 year old. I wanted to remind them, that is a fleeting moment.

Life decisions, based on fleeting moments is not a responsible route to take for most people. They usually weigh many factors

[Starboard Tack]

162. I didn't see any reference to "clients" or "patients"

What I saw was

Just ask anyone caring for an adult with significant needs. The honest ones will tell you they feel burdened, financially strapped and bitter

And those who love unconditionally and deal with the financial burden and are not bitter, are they dishonest in your opinion?

You infer that only those who are bitter are the honest ones. I'm sorry, but that is so insulting to so many wonderful, caring, selfless people. Unconditional love often involves sacrifice. Conditional love often involves resentment and bitterness.

I pity those who only love conditionally and hope, for their sakes, they don't find themselves the objects of the same conditional love, should they one day become less than perfect. Karma can be a real bitch.

[cbayer]

166. Do you have clients or do you have patients?

And in what context do you gather your information from them?

It would really help my comprehension and reality if you would clarify where you are getting this information.

[amuse bouche]

171. " Do you have clients or do you have patients?"

Like I said...and

That's all the information you get in this hostile and pathetically hysterical environment

Oh my....Your alert didn't pan out

Fortunately, reasonable, non-hysterical people, understood I was not bashing DS. I was responding to a poster blathering on about 'cuddly' 7 year olds and ignoring the reality that caregivers must deal with for a lifetime

[cbayer]

174. You brought up your extensive medical experience on which you

based your otherwise completely baseless claims.

Kind of like religion - a whole lot of belief and no facts.

Clients and patients? I could guess what that is all about, but I think I will just leave it alone.

[amuse bouche]

177. "I could guess what that is all about, but I think I will just leave it alone"

Good decision because you would be wrong

[AtheistCrusader]

157. He was speaking to a reason WHY someone might make that choice.

(He or she, sorry, don't know.)

Not a reason to eliminate them post-birth. Mengele was a bloody minded murderer. That was not the proposition on the table.

[amuse bouche]

158. She .... and yes, thankfully you have comprehension skills,

unlike so many hysterical types around here

[Starboard Tack]

184. I said he was sounding more like Mengele with every pronouncement.

Mengele didn't start his professional life in Auschwitz. He was highly regarded by the scientific establishment, with doctorates in anthropology and medicine.

Racial-Morphological Examinations of the Anterior Portion of the Lower Jaw in Four Racial Groups. This dissertation, completed in 1935 and first published in 1937, earned him a PhD in anthropology from Munich University. In this work Mengele sought to demonstrate that there were structural differences in the lower jaws of individuals from different ethnic groups, and that racial distinctions could be made based on these differences.[8][120]
Genealogical Studies in the Cases of Cleft Lip-Jaw-Palate (1938), his medical dissertation, earned him a doctorate in medicine from Frankfurt University. Studying the influence of genetics as a factor in the occurrence of this deformity, Mengele conducted research on families who exhibited these traits in multiple generations. The work also included notes on other abnormalities found in these family lines.[8][121]
Hereditary Transmission of Fistulae Auris. This journal article, published in Der Erbarzt (The Genetic Physician), focuses on fistula auris (an abnormal fissure on the external ear) as a hereditary trait. Mengele noted that individuals who have this trait also tend to have a dimple on their chin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele

[AtheistCrusader]

185. And?

[cbayer]

164. Please tell me what you think of that post by amuse bouche.

I would be most interested in knowing what you think.

[AtheistCrusader]

175. I agree with the 1:6 jury outcome.

[SecularMotion]

168. Jury results

On Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:36 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

What happens when that child is 30 and functions the same as he did when 7?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=148949

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Outrageous bigotry against those with disabilities. To state that people with Downs lose their value as humans when they are no longer cute and cuddly has no place here. This person's bigotry against the disabled is appalling.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Aug 23, 2014, 11:45 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Better dealt with via discussion than hiding.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: While they make an unfortunately valid point, that there is a significant problem in finding care for adults with special needs, they go too far in implying that ANYONE would find a disabled adult a burden. If the poster has said 'many people' rather than 'anyone', I'd have voted to leave; but this is a sweeping and therefore prejudiced statement.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree that this posters remarks sound a harsh. People should tell them so. I don't think this comment represents a generalized bigotry against the disabled. But if someone thinks otherwise - they should tell the poster so.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post is not bigoted. The poster is pointing out the long-term consequences that happen when a Downs Syndrome child grows up. It is also the poster's opinion, which is one of the reasons DU exists in the first place.

Let it stand.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[LeftishBrit]

169. Just to add: I was Juror 2, and I am nevertheless horrified beyond belief at the Mengele comparison!

[Starboard Tack]

183. Why were you horrified beyond belief?

I didn't say Dawkins was like Mengele, but that he was starting to sound more and more like him with every statement. Do you really not see what a slippery slope this kind of attitude can develop into. A respected biologist using not only the imperative, but the moral imperative when asked for guidance. Morality based on financial burden, social burden? Please explain why you are not horrified beyond belief at what Dawkins said? Convince me and I'll withdraw the Mengele comparison.

The American author Robert Jay Lifton notes that Mengele's published works did not deviate much from the scientific mainstream of the time, and would probably have been viewed as valid scientific efforts even outside the borders of Nazi Germany.

[AtheistCrusader]

186. Not that anyone would do this, but let's construct a hypothetical. To examine morality.

Let's assume there might exist a prospective parent that desired to have a child with down syndrome. I will not fabricate some bizarre backstory, just use that as a starting point.

Do you think it would have a moral implication for such a hypothetical person to abort non-DS children until one tested positive for it, and then deliberately carried that to term?


Any moral implications at all?

[Starboard Tack]

187. Deciding to bring a fetus to term cannot be immoral in any circumstances, imo

Even Rosemary's baby. Deciding not to is the prerogative of the mother, and any moral implications that may exist are solely her's to determine.

[AtheistCrusader]

188. Im not talking about the choice to bring it to term.

I'm describing gaming the system with the deliberate intent of producing a child with down syndrome, over opportunities to have a child without.

Would the deliberate creation of such have any moral implications?

Since its a far fetched scenario, how about medical experimentation working to better understand the condition, deliberately creating kids with this condition? Medically ethical test?

[Starboard Tack]

189. I think any "gaming" of the system has potential moral implications.

"To be or not to be" is one thing. To determine how another is to be, is a whole other thing. The field of eugenics is fraught with moral implications. as is the broader field of genetic engineering of any kind.

When these decisions are made on an individual level, then the implications remain on that level. When made on a policy level by governments or hospitals, or any social groups, then we have much broader implications.

The more we try to manipulate or control nature, in any field, the more we should consider the potential implications. This has been a problem for mankind since time immemorial. What seems like a good idea today can come back and bite us in the ass tomorrow, and often does. Makes me think of the Second Amendment for some reason. LOL.

The arrogance of mankind, since the Industrial Revolution, has been staggering in this regard. What seemed like wonderful ways of making life easier for us all, from cities full of smokestack factories to hydro-electric plants to Monsanto, we have increased our comfort level enormously. And now, we find ourselves lounging in the luxurious ballroom of the Titanic, as the band plays on.
For what purpose would we want to populate the planet with more bright sparks such as those who brought us to this juncture?

So, to answer your question "Yes!" The deliberate creation of anything has moral implications.

[AtheistCrusader]

190. Have to take off for the day, but just one quick item

This issue, in relation to down syndrome is not a question of eugenics.

Also, in the hypothetical, the decision to create is foregone. Its what to create that is under consideration.

[hrmjustin]

161. He has the right to his opinion but I still think it is too harsh.

What maybe the right decision for some may not be for others.

[amuse bouche]

172. "What maybe the right decision for some may not be for others."

That's right. It's called choice.


Years later, many feel burdened, resentful, broke, depressed and some are suicidal because they chose to be martyrs.

A shame that is so impossible for some to comprehend

[hrmjustin]

173. I don't think it is hard to comprehend but I think peopke take issue with his calling it immoral

to keep the child and not have an abortion.

I think he is erong there.

But I have enormous sympathy for people in this situation and make ni judgements on their choices in the end.

[amuse bouche]

176. He's not wrong. It's one point of view

Some feel it is selfish to bring a person, with so many strikes against them, into this world

I gave birth to healthy children but would have had no guilt about getting an abortion if I felt I wanted or needed one

[hrmjustin]

178. He is not wrong to you. Others have other ideas on it.

It is a hard issue.

[rug]

194. And that's a choice he called immoral.

He's an ass.

[Brettongarcia]

197. Rug, of Democratic Underground, just called Dawkins "an ass." Next? He repeats it.

Next he posts a video telling us "How Not to Be An Atheist Asshole."

I suppose Rug's cover is that this was originally posted by an atheist organization.

But it's time to call public attention to the fact that by repeating this in the present context of DU, Rug is now engaged in the lowest kind of name-calling. He thinks he is clever here in doing it by in effect, employing proxies; by which he hopes no doubt to escape censure. "Someone else said it," Rug can claim.

But clearly when Rug posts this, this is not remote, just by other people. And it is not acceptable self-criticism and more; it is now clearly being repeated. And redirected at others. By now, a non-friendly voice. Not an atheist; but by Rug.

Tone and context are everything; and this atheist self-criticism, as present reposted by Rug in the present forum, this amounts a notable and extremely rude and childish, name-calling insult.

Thank you Rug. This is exactly what we expect from you, continually. And nothing else.

[rug]

198. Lol, watch the video.

If you had already, you wouldn't have made such an asinine statement.

BTW, next time you post for "we", kindly post a list of signatures.

[Brettongarcia]

199. Not the least bit funny or forgivable either.

The last straw, actually.

[rug]

200. It may just be yours.

[Iris]

201. Good thing it's still her choice.

Pro-choice means a woman should not be coerced into aborting a child - any child.

[cbayer]

206. It does make one wonder whether it would be her choice

if Dawkins or people like him ruled the world.

Societies generally outlaw things felt to be immoral.

[Iris]

209. yep.