Richard Dawkins on babies with Down Syndrome: 'Abort it and try again – it would be immoral to br

Well, he has a right to his opinion. He obviously can't force anyone to abort. I am pro-choice, so I believe it's up to the parent(s) to decide whether to abort for whatever reason. Me personally? I refused to take the amniocentesis test. I told my doctor that I would have and raise the child, even if it had Down's, so there was no point in taking the test. There was a higher risk, due to my age (I was 41). I knew that my husband and I would be able to emotionally, physically, and financially be responsible for her the rest of her life. Thankfully, my daughter was born without any kind of problems - physically or mentally.

The fact is, anyone who has children when they are too poor (or just otherwise unable) to adequately care for them, creates a burden on the rest of society - Down's Syndrome or not.

Everyone hangs off every word he says, and he knows it. Most of the time he says what's on his mind to see what type of response he will get. The guy isn't stupid, and most likely get's a kick out of peoples reactions and somewhere out of those reactions he might get one intelligent one worth his while.
It's his opinion really, as for me, if I knew I would have a child with downs at this stage of my life, I'd strongly consider aborting, and so would my girlfriend, we just aren't at that stage in life to make such a commitment it would be cruel to bring a life into world when we ourselves a student and me an apprentice barely make it by.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
So, he has an opinion... So what? Some are going to agree and some will disagree. It should be totally up to the parents - only they know whether they are up to the challenge that a special needs child brings.

So much emotional, dramatic energy going into one man's opinion. What WILL the ladies at church say???

Well, that's kind of what we are doing here, just discussing opinions. It's a good thing to bounce opinions off eachother, even when they are sparked by somebody else, that's something that is great about forums such as these.
Somebody may read it and learn something or change their views on something or perhaps I will...... who knows?

I saw the original OP link doesn't work now...but checking the Independent online I see they now have Dawkins' response to the outcry over his tweet.

www.independent.co.uk... ness-to-misunderstand-9683917.html

Unsurprisingly, his comments provoked “hate tweets” and the scientist has since published an apology of sorts, in which he is very sorry if he offended anyone with his “logical” opinion.

It wasn’t his view that was wrong, he says, more the public’s “wanton eagerness to misunderstand”.

"What I was saying simply follows logically from the ordinary pro-choice stance that most us, I presume, espouse,” he wrote. “My phraseology may have been tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding, but I can’t help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand.”

For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again,” he wrote. “Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do.

“I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare.”

He then attempts to break down the reasons as to why anyone could have possibly been offended by his views.

The “haters”, as he describes, comprise: those whom are categorically against abortion; those who thought he was dictating to women how to act; those who thought he was “advocating a mob rule”; those who believe he was supporting a “eugenic policy” and, finally, those who raised an “emotional point” because they know and love a person with Down syndrome.

“I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one,” he wrote in defence. “It is one of a common family of errors, one that frequently arises in the abortion debate.”

So... yes, he really did say this (the original quote in the OP). And this is his attempt to smooth things out a bit.

a reply to: b14warrior

I'm very tall. It has been studied that short people have it harder in life.

I think we should kill all the short people.

And left-handed people. Just think of all the wasted materials used to create tools and such for people who are left-handed.

Kill them as well.

Might as well toss in ugly people. Look at all the money wasted in making them good looking.

Kill ugly people also.

Oh!

I forgot genetic diseases like diabetes and such.

We should just kill them also.


Aww, hell.

Let's just kill everyone that isn't as ####ing smart and as wonderful and as enlightened as Mr. Richard ####ing Dawkins!

People don't really know what they're getting into with a Down kid no matter how much info they get. My youngest brother has Down, and while he's the stereotypical Gentle Down Kid, he's cost a literal fortune over his lifetime, into the multi-millions due to severe heart & other organ defects & subsequent surgeries. The state did have to cover what my dad & stepmom's medical insurance & own bank account couldn't, so yes, it's something that does impact society -- I don't argue that. They've had to hire nurses to help care for him at home his entire life, birth through adulthood, because they just can't do it solo, they had to work because he's a medically expensive boy. Medicaid doesn't cover everything by any means, and neither does private insurance.
My dad eventually retired due to his own serious health issues, which culminated in major surgery. My old man's in his 70's, guys, my stepmom her 50's. My littlest bro's going to be a burden to the state after they die because there's no one else who has the time, money & mental capabilities to care for him as intensively as he needs.

I love the little dude, but it's going to be a huge mess down the road. Dawkins' point may be rash & blunt, but it's at least sparked discussion.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: b14warrior

I'm very tall. It has been studied that short people have it harder in life.

I think we should kill all the short people.

And left-handed people. Just think of all the wasted materials used to create tools and such for people who are left-handed.

Kill them as well.

Might as well toss in ugly people. Look at all the money wasted in making them good looking.

Kill ugly people also.

I'm 5 foot 6 (1.56m) and left handed! I vote we let sort left handed people live!

I am however dashingly handsome, so you can kill the uglies.

He can pretentiously wrap his vulcan logic in flowery intellectual speeches all he likes. It's still eugenics.
And he is still a douche canoe of the third degree.

originally posted by: b14warrior

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: b14warrior

I'm very tall. It has been studied that short people have it harder in life.

I think we should kill all the short people.

And left-handed people. Just think of all the wasted materials used to create tools and such for people who are left-handed.

Kill them as well.

Might as well toss in ugly people. Look at all the money wasted in making them good looking.

Kill ugly people also.

I'm 5 foot 6 (1.56m) and left handed! I vote we let sort left handed people live!

I am however dashingly handsome, so you can kill the uglies.

Left-handed, but dashingly handsome.

I say we mostly kill you, but partially let you live simply because you are so good looking.

a reply to: b14warrior

I take your moral side as quite right, I don't like the inhumanity towards the care for people less fortunate, however
I take the view we are at a tipping point on just how much care we can financially give in today's financial world.

I see Downs as a specific condition one can do nothing to change. The physical side of the condition with the big toes more animal than human is something a lot of people don't realise and freaks many parents out. Its not a condition you can improve because its set, a human with a completely different almost simeon look. I mean no offence, just stating what I have seen happen. You mention autism, again an area with huge differences. This can isolate a person to a world within themselves and virtual unawareness of other people at its extreme, it can also produce brilliant college professors with almost single focus. This condition cannot be identified so easily as Downs but we do have at least a hope of some breakthrough for a cure or help. You don't have that change with Downs, is the point I am trying to make. It isn't until you work with people with these conditions that you see the real side of what they face and what they need and uncomfortable for many the real size of the budget that has to be allowed for their care.

I am looking at the problem practically and on the other side of the coin, what happens when funding has to be taken away from those such as Downs who, after their families can't cope will look after them? These people have a condition, but the argument will be - they are not ill or sick so don't need the care, funding gone and they are expected to live on income support? Many can function provided everything is provided for them, but when they throw a wobbly, someone has to restrain, pick up the pieces, repair the damage and there is a limit. Where I worked, our repair bill just from the Downs Williams, ran in the thousands per year for the smash ups he went in for, not to comment the upset and fear it caused the others living there. That money for vandalism wasn't calculated into the fees for his care - it that had to be funded elsewhere.

Surely if you have a condition that you can rule out by scanning for, whether Downs or whatever, today its worth it because with the numbers of people living longer, added to overpopulation, funding is not unlimited. I just feel we are at that tipping point and Downs, however cute they look as little kiddies such as the little girl, and we had one just like her in the family, don't stay like that and the men especially can be very difficult to deal with, how ever much good heart the carers have. Our little Downs as an adult slowly went into spending her days literally curling up in her own little world till she died. There was nothing we could do we were told it was 'their natural state'. by the Consultants.

You might not like what Dawkins says, but he is a brave man for standing up and basically telling the truth he picked on a condition that we could do something about - and just a thought abour any couple wanting a child, do you want a healthy one or a Downs - what do you think they would elect for honestly?