Richard Dawkins Sparks Twitter Debate Over Aborting Down Syndrome Fetuses

Richard Dawkins’ brand of strident rationalism has won him many fans, but it can also leads to the occasional tone deaf comment on Twitter, with the academic’s latest offering a staunch defense of abortion if a fetus is diagnosed with Down Syndrome.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/20/richard-dawkins-sparks-twitter-debate-over-aborting-down-syndrome-fetuses_n_5694961.html?utm_hp_ref=uk



I wonder if he would say the same for those with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis?

Or no limbs?

I starting to think he loves controversy and attention.

He is revealing a total lack of knowledge with this one by stating autism spectrum can contribute and even offer enhanced abilities but DS do not.

In many cases DS is a classic example of disability being caused by society not condition. Many DS people are held back by societies expectations of them rather than actual lack of ability. I was lucky enough at college to be part of an experiment where 2 DS students were attached to a mainstream national diploma course to see if they gained any benefits (expected to be small and related to language and socialization). At the end of the initial 12 months both students received further funding to complete the second year and having completed some of the units were being entered for GCSE courses and looking at driving lessons after that second year. Yes they had a support worker but the fact was they were perfectly capable if managing GCSE level work intellectually.

I think Didge Touched on it..
Really this debate ends with Eugenics, because at what point do you stop?

For all the negativity around Eugenics there are is quite sound logic that it would make as stronger and more efficient as a species.
But personally I am for Cybernetic bestowed immortality... if we are picking a Sci-Fi tech to make man closer to god-like  ::footie:: 

I also Agree Dawkins is a bit of a media whore

hes being a prat here.

this was on FB and I shared it. it makes my heart soar. I dare anyone not to smile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCJQAm_uKyg

He isn't saying they should be aborted though. He's saying he would but that it should still be the woman's choice. And pointing out most women given such a choice choose to do so (abort).

I must admit though at times it seems he does indeed just go out to cause controversy, which is a shame because he is an incredibly intelligent man, just also bafflingly insensitive at times...

Eilzel wrote:He isn't saying they should be aborted though. He's saying he would but that it should still be the woman's choice. And pointing out most women given such a choice choose to do so (abort).

I must admit though at times it seems he does indeed just go out to cause controversy, which is a shame because he is an incredibly intelligent man, just also bafflingly insensitive at times...

Yes he is saying they should be aborted, as he is advocating himself there is no reason to have any brought into the world as if they are a burden and that they will not live a full life, which is appalling, the kind of thinking advocated by the Nazis, as he is saying it is immoral to bring into the world, where again where do you draw the line over imperfections.
No doubt being as Stephen Hawkins has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, he would have had him aborted from birth, showing his position on whether people can be useful is very mooted to say the least and where many people with DS lead happy lives, where many work.
The fact many people are totally irresponsible when it comes to having sex and there should be far less abortions, if people were responsible, but to make decisions as we are seeing based like for example on the sex of the child is morally wrong, abortion should only really be an option based a necessity, for example a danger to the mother, victims of rape etc, the sad reality is people most abortions are the result of irresponsible sex, which is again wrong.

This is one of Dawkins' latest tweets:

"@RichardDawkins: If I were a woman with a DS fetus I personally would abort. So do most women in fact. If you wouldn't, good luck to you, it's your decision,"

He has also tweeted he would oppose state intervention on this.

His argument is on abortion rights, he has just chosen to make his point in a very tactless way. But he clearly isn't advocating eugenics. His emphasis is on choice.

Eilzel wrote:This is one of Dawkins' latest tweets:

"@RichardDawkins: If I were a woman with a DS fetus I personally would abort. So do most women in fact. If you wouldn't, good luck to you, it's your decision,"

He has also tweeted he would oppose state intervention on this.

His argument is on abortion rights, he has just chosen to make his point in a very tactless way. But he clearly isn't advocating eugenics. His emphasis is on choice.

You are making poor excuses again Eilzel, he states clearly it is immoral to bring babies with DS into the world, he is thus in hindsight trying to cover his poor disgusting words, by claiming women s rights, where women already have choice so that is a moot argument on abortion. This argument is whether women should abort because of the child having DS, which to me is a copout of talking responsibility on raising a child.
So his argument which is clear from his tweets which I suggest you read again, which is basically saying they have no place within this world, because to him they are of no use and a burden, where again, where do you draw the line

Laters

I got the fact he was saying woman's choice but sorry hes being a TACTLESS prat .....and he is lucky that he will never have to make that choice.

I think Les is right about what Dawkins is TRYING to express, but he just does it in the most controversial easily to 'take the wrong way' possible

That is basically it veya yeah.

whoop de doo ......I am tired of "sound bites " to stir up controvery over a hard topic.....it can be discussed without a devil's advocate point of view.

Cass wrote:whoop de doo ......I am tired of "sound bites " to stir up controvery over a hard topic.....it can be discussed without a devil's advocate point of view.

I don't think he is 100% trying to do that either.. I think Dawkins is actually a little bit Autistic and simply doesn't anticipate the blow-back to it's full extent. You be surprised how many academic types are like that.  
I know I can be a bit like that too where I sometimes forget that Not everyone can hit the dispassionate/analytical switch in the their head... but mind you he should have known better now.   

veya_victaous wrote:

Cass wrote:whoop de doo ......I am tired of "sound bites " to stir up controvery over a hard topic.....it can be discussed without a devil's advocate point of view.

I don't think he is 100% trying to do that either..  I think Dawkins is actually a little bit Autistic and simply doesn't anticipate the blow-back to it's full extent. You be surprised how many academic types are like that.  
I know I can be a bit like that too where I sometimes forget that Not everyone can hit the dispassionate/analytical switch in the their head... but mind you he should have known better now.   

He's certainly been at it long enough to know better. I'd add that he also has a track record for seeming to see the value of people only in relation to what they give back to society. My attitude is that you have to manage expectations of what people can give back in accordance with their capabilities.

Does seem a bit eugenically-minded to me. Either that or he's trying to generate attention, something I'm increasingly believing Dawkins will do from time to time.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Cass wrote:whoop de doo ......I am tired of "sound bites " to stir up controvery over a hard topic.....it can be discussed without a devil's advocate point of view.

I don't think he is 100% trying to do that either..  I think Dawkins is actually a little bit Autistic and simply doesn't anticipate the blow-back to it's full extent. You be surprised how many academic types are like that.  
I know I can be a bit like that too where I sometimes forget that Not everyone can hit the dispassionate/analytical switch in the their head... but mind you he should have known better now.   

He's certainly been at it long enough to know better. I'd add that he also has a track record for seeming to see the value of people only in relation to what they give back to society. My attitude is that you have to manage expectations of what people can give back in accordance with their capabilities.

Does seem a bit eugenically-minded to me. Either that or he's trying to generate attention, something I'm increasingly believing Dawkins will do from time to time.

Because IF we are dispassionately Analytical it is 'right'.... assuming we stay meat bags and don't upgrade to Cool titanium ones

We have to overcome humanity itself to overcome religion. What happens to religion if the future belongs to the cyborgs?

http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/05/28/religion-in-the-age-of-cyborgs/

These Cyborgs for God see new technologies and radical modifications of human nature as ways of approaching salvation and becoming divine. Others, who would often self-describe as secular, still draw on religion-like narratives to talk about our imminent transhuman revolution through the “technological Singularity”. Some advocates, such as Ray Kurzweil, even see the singularity as a way to create God by rearranging all the matter in the universe and making it conscious.

Well, even if you could make the matter of the universe conscious, it still wouldn't match up to the concept of God -- it would still have to operate by this universe's laws of physics, etc.

I'd far rather humanity give way to A.I. -- which would still be human in the sense of being descended from and indelibly linked to humanity -- than try creating some "all-powerful" being that would act like any of the petty tyrants described in most religions

@ben
well there is a variant of the thinking that we can all become gods all with our very own universe. they would be virtual but what's to say this one we're in isn't   

I actually think it is quite Plausible. the trick will be rendering our selves as electromagnetism    but once we can covert the brain from chemical cells and pulses to Magnetic fields and charges, the rest would be relatively easy as much could be achieved by re-purposing existing technologies.

veya_victaous wrote:@ben
well there is a variant of the thinking that we can all become gods all with our very own universe. they would be virtual but what's to say this one we're in isn't   

I actually think it is quite Plausible. the trick will be rendering our selves as electromagnetism     but once we can covert the brain from chemical cells and pulses to Magnetic fields and charges, the rest would be relatively easy as much could be achieved by re-purposing existing technologies.

Still don't think we could change the rules of relativity on a whim, which as by-the-book gods we should be able to do

Tell me, have you seen "Her"? I tend to think that movie has it right and that when we eventually create AI, it will advance itself to the point seeing us as grunting cavepeople in a matter of months But yeah, if we could separate our intelligence from spongy organic material and hook it up with some real processing power, that would be cool ... even if it's something short of speaking light into existence

Sorry again people are making poor excuses, as let us recap as to what he says:

Abort "it" (nice way to describe a human being) and try again.
It would be immoral to bring "it" into the world if you have a choice.


On every level that is disgusting, because basically he is saying any person with DS would be better off not existing.


He then asks if anyone has met anyone with DS and then asks people if they think they would be better off not born.

What a wanker, basically he is playing God, trying to dictate what is acceptable to exist and from an atheist I find that hypocritical to say the least.

Didge wrote:Sorry again people are making poor excuses, as let us recap as to what he says:

Abort "it" (nice way to describe a human being) and try again.
It would be immoral to bring "it" into the world if you have a choice.


On every level that is disgusting, because basically he is saying any person with DS would be better off not existing.


He then asks if anyone has met anyone with DS and then asks people if they think they would be better off not born.

What a wanker, basically he is playing God, trying to dictate what is acceptable to exist and from an atheist I find that hypocritical to say the least.

You're right. He is a knob of the highest order. There are may DS people around who are happy and their parents wouldn't even have contemplated not having them.

Not now Irn, but the fact is most when given that choice do in fact choose to abort so Richard claims. Whether we think that is right or wrong that IS what many do. This isn't say DS people aren't happy, but they do tend to have shorter lives, and many parents wouldn't want to bring a child into the world knowing that was the case.

Didge wrote:Sorry again people are making poor excuses, as let us recap as to what he says:

Abort "it" (nice way to describe a human being) and try again.
It would be immoral to bring "it" into the world if you have a choice.


On every level that is disgusting, because basically he is saying any person with DS would be better off not existing.


He then asks if anyone has met anyone with DS and then asks people if they think they would be better off not born.

What a wanker, basically he is playing God, trying to dictate what is acceptable to exist and from an atheist I find that hypocritical to say the least.

Agreed, What he is saying is disgusting.

I can't believe people come out with such horrible sentiments nor do I understand the justifications offered that 'he didn't mean it to sound like that' etc.

I am rarely cynical but the suggestion from him that a DS baby should be aborted just seems like an attempt to cause controversy,nothing more, nothing less.

Cass wrote:hes being a prat here.

this was on FB and I shared it. it makes my heart soar. I dare anyone not to smile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCJQAm_uKyg

That was absolutely fab. Your heart does indeed soar.
Dawkins unfortunately thinks he is an authority on everything and anything.
He got a new book to flog perchance?

This is what happens when one person thinks that we have no soul.

We are then just biological organisms, with no worth and disposable.

Didge wrote:Sorry again people are making poor excuses, as let us recap as to what he says:

Abort "it" (nice way to describe a human being) and try again.
It would be immoral to bring "it" into the world if you have a choice.


On every level that is disgusting, because basically he is saying any person with DS would be better off not existing.


He then asks if anyone has met anyone with DS and then asks people if they think they would be better off not born.

What a wanker, basically he is playing God, trying to dictate what is acceptable to exist and from an atheist I find that hypocritical to say the least.

I have known many people with DS - and cannot think of one who it would have better if they had not been born (unlike a small number of "normal" people who I think would definitely have been better not born).

I have also known people with far more severe disabilities who if described on paper would seem better never born but who in the flesh have an incredible lust for life and the ability to leave those about them in no doubt of that lust.

Once upon a time I gave consideration to the idea some disabled people would have been better never born. Then I had the privilege to know a couple of people and never again will I ever make the mistake of thinking any person can be judge of anothers quality of life.

Eilzel wrote:Not now Irn, but the fact is most when given that choice do in fact choose to abort so Richard claims. Whether we think that is right or wrong that IS what many do. This isn't say DS people aren't happy, but they do tend to have shorter lives, and many parents wouldn't want to bring a child into the world knowing that was the case.

Are the parents in such cases showing concern for what the child might experience or concern for what they themselves might experience?

A couple of houses down from me [a few yrs ago] there were an elderly couple who had a Downs son, they treated him as if he did not have this condition. the father died, a few years later his mother died, the son was 32yrs old, there was no one to look after him. HE sat in his house with his dead mother for 3 days before my wife found him. He had no one else. he was taken away and put in a"home" . we were told he never stopped crying and calling "mom mom".He died a few months later.People who say no abortion should think about what could happen when these children are orphaned.

nicko wrote:A couple of houses down from me [a few yrs ago] there were an elderly couple who had a Downs son, they treated him as if he did not have this condition. the father died, a few years later his mother died, the son was 32yrs old, there was no one to look after him. HE sat in his house with his dead mother for 3 days before my wife found him.  He had no one else. he was taken away and put in a"home" . we were told he never stopped crying and calling "mom mom".He died a few months later.People who say no abortion should think about what could happen when these children are orphaned.

I dont see the downs as the major problem there. I have seen "normal" adults left unable to cope alone by parents who never allowed them to be independent and I have known people with DS who live perfectly independent lives. If their son had not had downs would they have taught him to be independent? Or would it have been like the sit com "sorry".

Obviously the degree of impairment varies but why did this man have no-one but his parents? Parents treating their son as if not having the condition would surely have encouraged him to have friends? Work? A social life outside of themselves? It is not normal parenting to want a 32 year old with no contact outside of the parents whether the child does or does not have impairments.

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:Sorry again people are making poor excuses, as let us recap as to what he says:

Abort "it" (nice way to describe a human being) and try again.
It would be immoral to bring "it" into the world if you have a choice.


On every level that is disgusting, because basically he is saying any person with DS would be better off not existing.


He then asks if anyone has met anyone with DS and then asks people if they think they would be better off not born.

What a wanker, basically he is playing God, trying to dictate what is acceptable to exist and from an atheist I find that hypocritical to say the least.

I have known many people with DS - and cannot think of one who it would have better if they had not been born (unlike a small number of "normal" people who I think would definitely have been better not born).

I have also known people with far more severe disabilities who if described on paper would seem better never born but who in the flesh have an incredible lust for life and the ability to leave those about them in no doubt of that lust.  

Once upon a time I gave consideration to the idea some disabled people would have been better never born.  Then I had the privilege to know a couple of people and never again will I ever make the mistake of thinking any person can be judge of anothers quality of life.

Agree 100% Sphinx

Richard Dawkins, atheist author, provocateur, scientist, you must by now be well aware of the furore over your comments yesterday.

Comments that it was 'immoral' to bring a baby with Down's syndrome into the world if you have a choice.

'Abort it and try again', was your advice because it is the 'civilised' thing to do as 'they are foetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings.'

As I watched the Twitter debate unfurl, you continued that you would not recommend abortion for individuals with Autism, say, as they 'contribute' to society, for they are 'enhanced', which, in your view those with Trisomy 21 are not. You even went so far as to say children with Down's syndrome 'suffer'.

Now hold your horses just one moment Mr Dawkins. I think perhaps you are confusing non-essentialist, humanist thinking with a loss of humanity here.

You are so very wrong on every single count above that it would be eye-rollingly laughable if it weren't so hurtful and damaging. Adults with Down's syndrome are reading your outdated and bigoted views. Yes, they read, and have opinions and feelings, just like you.

What you are actually saying by stating that we have a moral obligation to eradicate them as foetuses, is that they are worth less than the rest of us. So before you go any further, I suggest that you stop and listen to someone who actually lives the reality you claim to speak on with authority.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/hayley-goleniowska/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome_b_5697336.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Didge wrote:
Richard Dawkins’ brand of strident rationalism has won him many fans, but it can also leads to the occasional tone deaf comment on Twitter, with the academic’s latest offering a staunch defense of abortion if a fetus is diagnosed with Down Syndrome.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/20/richard-dawkins-sparks-twitter-debate-over-aborting-down-syndrome-fetuses_n_5694961.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


I wonder if he would say the same for those with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis?

Or no limbs?

I starting to think he loves controversy and attention.

  

METHINKS that silly ol' duffer Richard Dawkins, esq. has truly fallen off his twig this year; and may even be showing the first signs of early onset dementia, going on the evidence of some of the more ridiculous and abhorrent statements and claims that he has been found muttering in the last few weeks...  :asbluras: 

Cass wrote:whoop de doo ......I am tired of "sound bites " to stir up controvery over a hard topic.....it can be discussed without a devil's advocate point of view.

Totally,agree Cass.
I am all,for free speech and debating emotive topics but he is very insensitive at times and taking the emotional route here people with Down's syndrome are some of the most loving and affectionate people you could ever wish to meet.

If I found out though, that I was having a DS baby, and it was early on in the pregnancy, would I keep it?
I'm not absolutely sure if I'm honest.

Richard Dawkins is a great mind of our time, he tells it exactly as it is, no frills attached and I do not see a connection with eugenics at all.

He has always supported a woman's choice, let the mother decide, as she will have to live with the consequences.

For my own part, I believe that those that have a designated disability often compensate by advancing in other aspects far superior to anyone else.

Science can give us fantastic leaps forward but it cannot be the judge of life.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@ben
well there is a variant of the thinking that we can all become gods all with our very own universe. they would be virtual but what's to say this one we're in isn't   

I actually think it is quite Plausible. the trick will be rendering our selves as electromagnetism     but once we can covert the brain from chemical cells and pulses to Magnetic fields and charges, the rest would be relatively easy as much could be achieved by re-purposing existing technologies.

Still don't think we could change the rules of relativity on a whim, which as by-the-book gods we should be able to do

Tell me, have you seen "Her"? I tend to think that movie has it right and that when we eventually create AI, it will advance itself to the point seeing us as grunting cavepeople in a matter of months But yeah, if we could separate our intelligence from spongy organic material and hook it up with some real processing power, that would be cool ... even if it's something short of speaking light into existence

you could in a virtual reality... think Neo in the matrix.... but everyone gets their own   
And Thor or Odin(nor the VAST majority of gods) Could not change the rules of relativity, in one of the Thor legends he is defeated three in challenges set by a troll king

First is the drinking horn connected to the sea for even the gods must submit to might of nature
second there is giant cat that is connected to Jörmungand (the Midgard serpent) that is responsible for things that we now know as gravity
3rd was an old woman that Thor cannot wrestle o the ground because the old woman is time and All things will lose the battle with age.

The ridiculous "I can do everything god" Is limited to the Abrahamic fools   

@Ben
I haven't seen 'her'... but seen the ads

but assuming that it is programmed by a smart person that probably already views most of humanity that way....  it wont take months   

Actually to tell the truth that is what i have been doing for most of the past week, adding checking scripts to the systems to make it out smart the dumb/lazy people that keep entering stupid data....         

It will be better under the machines
there will be cake  ::D:: ::D:: ::D::

Fuzzy Zack wrote:This is what happens when one person thinks that we have no soul.

We are then just biological organisms, with no worth and disposable.

sometimes the truth hurts...

But hey those same people are often those pushing to give animals rights.. because really are we any better than an ape.... we are definitely not as good as dogs... probably better than cats though     

Eilzel wrote:Not now Irn, but the fact is most when given that choice do in fact choose to abort so Richard claims. Whether we think that is right or wrong that IS what many do. This isn't say DS people aren't happy, but they do tend to have shorter lives, and many parents wouldn't want to bring a child into the world knowing that was the case.

many people have shorter lives, because of a multitude of illnesses, it is not our choice to play God to decide whether they should not be allowed to live that life Eilzel. Just because a majority choose to abort does not make that decision right does it? That is a moot argument, it shows to me that people have little responsibility and a fear of taking up a challenging situation and would rather take the easy option out, which to me is the problem why they abort and not because they would personally think as Dawkins does that they have no right to an existence.
Lets face it Eilzel, one thing that Dawkins understands little about is the emotional attributes of the human which is what makes us so human in the first place, which going back thousands of years even Neanderthals showed kindness to those who were injured looking after them, even many of animal species do the same.
What he said was appalling, based upon a Sheldon charater approach, one devoid of emotion

Didge wrote:Sorry again people are making poor excuses, as let us recap as to what he says:

Abort "it" (nice way to describe a human being) and try again.
It would be immoral to bring "it" into the world if you have a choice.


On every level that is disgusting, because basically he is saying any person with DS would be better off not existing.


He then asks if anyone has met anyone with DS and then asks people if they think they would be better off not born.

What a wanker, basically he is playing God, trying to dictate what is acceptable to exist and from an atheist I find that hypocritical to say the least.

Serious question....
Why? Not asking why you dislike but why you say 'Hypocritical'?

Atheist say they don't believe a god exists not that woudl not try and be one or do the things that 'people' believe gods do?

I am an agnostic technocrat so I pretty open about the fact I believe gods not only exist but it is the 'end goal' of our personal existences... and that 'fate/future lies with the machines'.

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:Sorry again people are making poor excuses, as let us recap as to what he says:

Abort "it" (nice way to describe a human being) and try again.
It would be immoral to bring "it" into the world if you have a choice.


On every level that is disgusting, because basically he is saying any person with DS would be better off not existing.


He then asks if anyone has met anyone with DS and then asks people if they think they would be better off not born.

What a wanker, basically he is playing God, trying to dictate what is acceptable to exist and from an atheist I find that hypocritical to say the least.

Serious question....
Why? Not asking why you dislike but why you say 'Hypocritical'?

Atheist say they don't believe a god exists not that woudl not try and be one or do the things that 'people' believe gods do?

I am an agnostic technocrat so I pretty open about the fact I believe gods not only exist but it is the 'end goal' of our personal existences... and that 'fate/future lies with the machines'.

I am an atheist and do not wish be hypocritical and act as if what we have come to call God over deciding who should have a right to be born or not be born, all should have a chance to life, and if they fuck up and commit murder or wrongs, then they forfeit that life as punishment, but nobody should be punished before being born based off an a medical problem. What he advocates is playing what again people call god by stating no person with DS should live as to him it is immoral, showing his complete lack of empathy or understanding of people with DS and he is actually taking a very superiority approach of humans, which is akin to racism. I understand people have a requirement at times to need an abortion, but many abortions would not be required if many more people were responsible sexually, this though should not be used as a means to abort a child just because they will be DS. If you decide to have a family, this is what you wanted to do, you then should not be able to change your mind because you fear the challenges ahead

@didge
I see where you coming from   
but I think the 'Sheldon' comment really hits the nail on the head..
because 'Sheldon' has no problem playing god.   
I don't actually agree with him but I don't think it is hypocritical because the 'Sheldon' types tend to deal and express themselves in hypothetical.

I will put forward the Hypothetical Argument FOR the abortion of DS people...  there is finite resources on the planet, so is it more morally fair to expend a larger portion of those resources on a life that will be unlikely to improve the over all position of our species OR to abort that life and use those resource to bring multiple healthy children out of poverty and into a position where they are more likely to improve the position of our species? why does an individual with DS that happens to be born in a western nation have more right to the worlds resources than the healthy born children of Africa? keep in mind that ever aspect of a DS person life costs more resources, health, education, all of it will cost significantly more(often multiple times) to the point where 2 or 3 'healthy' people could be sustained on those same resources.

the question of morality would be is easy if we had infinite resources... but we don't  :::grouch::

Of course the CEO earning 130 times the average wage could just limit themselves to just 100 times the average wage and the resource are available... so I don't agree just because the resource could be found elsewhere so the question does not yet need to be asked...as it is obviously more moral to take off the guy that has 100's or even 1000's of times the resources necessary.

veya_victaous wrote:@didge
I see where you coming from   
but I think the 'Sheldon' comment really hits the nail on the head..
because 'Sheldon' has no problem playing god.   
I don't actually agree with him but I don't think it is hypocritical because the 'Sheldon' types tend to deal and express themselves in hypothetical.

I will put forward the Hypothetical Argument FOR the abortion of DS people...  there is finite resources on the planet, so is it more morally fair to expend a larger portion of those resources on a life that will be unlikely to improve the over all position of our species OR to abort that life and use those resource to bring multiple healthy children out of poverty and into a position where they are more likely to improve the position of our species? why does an individual with DS that happens to be born in a western nation have more right to the worlds resources than the healthy born children of Africa? keep in mind that ever aspect of a DS person life costs more resources, health, education, all of it will cost significantly more(often multiple times) to the point where 2 or 3 'healthy' people could be sustained on those same resources.

the question of morality would be is easy if we had infinite resources... but we don't  :::grouch::

Your hypothesis falls apart based on nature itself where many animals look after those that are injured or even lame. So being as one of the greatest thinking minds this century that being Stephen Hawkins, who has advanced our understanding would be cast to one side to have your view of only those deemed and let me stress this, again playing God deciding who is acceptable to live growing up in a society. being fully functional as you are classifying can lead to also many criminals, where it would be impossible to eradicate knowing who would in advance commit such acts. It is only a time era in your argument based on Africa which in time will become the bread basket for the world, thus showing your argument is limited to a time frame and how any current country is doing in time, where this can change at any time based upon any given event. It shows why the world better functions acting together, because nobody can really predict the future.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:This is what happens when one person thinks that we have no soul.

We are then just biological organisms, with no worth and disposable.

That we are, it doesn't mean we're not the only species we know of capable of investigating the universe. That's why I think homo sapiens are special, not for any notion of a soul. Or, if we do have a soul, it's our advanced minds, nothing supernatural

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@didge
I see where you coming from   
but I think the 'Sheldon' comment really hits the nail on the head..
because 'Sheldon' has no problem playing god.   
I don't actually agree with him but I don't think it is hypocritical because the 'Sheldon' types tend to deal and express themselves in hypothetical.

I will put forward the Hypothetical Argument FOR the abortion of DS people...  there is finite resources on the planet, so is it more morally fair to expend a larger portion of those resources on a life that will be unlikely to improve the over all position of our species OR to abort that life and use those resource to bring multiple healthy children out of poverty and into a position where they are more likely to improve the position of our species? why does an individual with DS that happens to be born in a western nation have more right to the worlds resources than the healthy born children of Africa? keep in mind that ever aspect of a DS person life costs more resources, health, education, all of it will cost significantly more(often multiple times) to the point where 2 or 3 'healthy' people could be sustained on those same resources.

the question of morality would be is easy if we had infinite resources... but we don't  :::grouch::

Your hypothesis falls apart based on nature itself where many animals look after those that are injured or even lame. So being as one of the greatest thinking minds this century that being Stephen Hawkins, who has advanced our understanding would be cast to one side to have your view of only those deemed and let me stress this, again playing God deciding who is acceptable to live growing up in a society. being fully functional as you are classifying can lead to also many criminals, where it would be impossible to eradicate knowing who would in advance commit such acts. It is only a time era in your argument based on Africa which in time will become the bread basket for the world, thus showing your argument is limited to a time frame and how any current country is doing in time, where this can change at any time based upon any given event. It shows why the world better functions acting together, because nobody can really predict the future.

Well put, I'd just add that the true definition of morality is this:

If you see the need to provide and care for any living thing not capable of taking care of him or herself, you are moral (high five!).

Whether you're helping a prairie dog survive or a disabled human being, you're better off being the caring sort than the "fuck you if you can't keep up" sort.

Them are mah val-yews and bah Gawd Ah'm stickin' to 'em

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

Your hypothesis falls apart based on nature itself where many animals look after those that are injured or even lame. So being as one of the greatest thinking minds this century that being Stephen Hawkins, who has advanced our understanding would be cast to one side to have your view of only those deemed and let me stress this, again playing God deciding who is acceptable to live growing up in a society. being fully functional as you are classifying can lead to also many criminals, where it would be impossible to eradicate knowing who would in advance commit such acts. It is only a time era in your argument based on Africa which in time will become the bread basket for the world, thus showing your argument is limited to a time frame and how any current country is doing in time, where this can change at any time based upon any given event. It shows why the world better functions acting together, because nobody can really predict the future.

Well put, I'd just add that the true definition of morality is this:

If you see the need to provide and care for any living thing not capable of taking care of him or herself, you are moral (high five!).

Whether you're helping a prairie dog survive or a disabled human being, you're better off being the caring sort than the "fuck you if you can't keep up" sort.

Them are mah val-yews and bah Gawd Ah'm stickin' to 'em

Indeed Ben, for all the amount of war, there has has been 100 fold more caring and help and understanding between humans, it is the poor traits of humans, greed, jealousy, myths, ethnic divisions etc that have created problems, but being as within all humans is the capacity for compassion, this has always triumphed over hate. The reality is for thousands of years humans and again even Neanderthals cared for those within their groups, showing where some were lame or injured and cared for and looked after for years. I think Veya is confusing survival of the fittest for how species have evolved, not how they can continue to survive or advance, though like any species all have their time and day and like anything are just one of many great cycles in the earths life.

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@didge
I see where you coming from   
but I think the 'Sheldon' comment really hits the nail on the head..
because 'Sheldon' has no problem playing god.   
I don't actually agree with him but I don't think it is hypocritical because the 'Sheldon' types tend to deal and express themselves in hypothetical.

I will put forward the Hypothetical Argument FOR the abortion of DS people...  there is finite resources on the planet, so is it more morally fair to expend a larger portion of those resources on a life that will be unlikely to improve the over all position of our species OR to abort that life and use those resource to bring multiple healthy children out of poverty and into a position where they are more likely to improve the position of our species? why does an individual with DS that happens to be born in a western nation have more right to the worlds resources than the healthy born children of Africa? keep in mind that ever aspect of a DS person life costs more resources, health, education, all of it will cost significantly more(often multiple times) to the point where 2 or 3 'healthy' people could be sustained on those same resources.

the question of morality would be is easy if we had infinite resources... but we don't  :::grouch::

Your hypothesis falls apart based on nature itself where many animals look after those that are injured or even lame. So being as one of the greatest thinking minds this century that being Stephen Hawkins, who has advanced our understanding would be cast to one side to have your view of only those deemed and let me stress this, again playing God deciding who is acceptable to live growing up in a society. being fully functional as you are classifying can lead to also many criminals, where it would be impossible to eradicate knowing who would in advance commit such acts. It is only a time era in your argument based on Africa which in time will become the bread basket for the world, thus showing your argument is limited to a time frame and how any current country is doing in time, where this can change at any time based upon any given event. It shows why the world better functions acting together, because nobody can really predict the future.

and many animals Including our closest relatives will eat their own young if they don't think they will survive to conserve resources....

Yes the Africa argument is Based on this specific time but I don't think there has ever been a time when one group of people or another wasn't being oppressed an denied the resource they need. so the argument can be transferred to who ever is missing out at the time.

Mankind success as a species is balance between our altruistic and brutal nature... our kindness is really no greater than our cruelty. we are strong because we are both.

and criminal/politician/CEO all the same to me, thieves the lot of them  :asboredas: 
and besides in my hypothetical a thief is better than a CEO or politician because on average they consume far less resources.... that's why it is hypothetical as it really only concerned with distribution of resources.
When you look at all the factors, like a DS person is also less likely to have a negative impact on society, then well I don't think there is a nice answer, someone will always lose depending on which factors are given the greatest preference.
Like I said ATM it is not the question that needs to asked/answered as there are paths less questionable in their morality available to society.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@didge
I see where you coming from   
but I think the 'Sheldon' comment really hits the nail on the head..
because 'Sheldon' has no problem playing god.   
I don't actually agree with him but I don't think it is hypocritical because the 'Sheldon' types tend to deal and express themselves in hypothetical.

I will put forward the Hypothetical Argument FOR the abortion of DS people...  there is finite resources on the planet, so is it more morally fair to expend a larger portion of those resources on a life that will be unlikely to improve the over all position of our species OR to abort that life and use those resource to bring multiple healthy children out of poverty and into a position where they are more likely to improve the position of our species? why does an individual with DS that happens to be born in a western nation have more right to the worlds resources than the healthy born children of Africa? keep in mind that ever aspect of a DS person life costs more resources, health, education, all of it will cost significantly more(often multiple times) to the point where 2 or 3 'healthy' people could be sustained on those same resources.

the question of morality would be is easy if we had infinite resources... but we don't  :::grouch::

Your hypothesis falls apart based on nature itself where many animals look after those that are injured or even lame. So being as one of the greatest thinking minds this century that being Stephen Hawkins, who has advanced our understanding would be cast to one side to have your view of only those deemed and let me stress this, again playing God deciding who is acceptable to live growing up in a society. being fully functional as you are classifying can lead to also many criminals, where it would be impossible to eradicate knowing who would in advance commit such acts. It is only a time era in your argument based on Africa which in time will become the bread basket for the world, thus showing your argument is limited to a time frame and how any current country is doing in time, where this can change at any time based upon any given event. It shows why the world better functions acting together, because nobody can really predict the future.

Well put, I'd just add that the true definition of morality is this:

If you see the need to provide and care for any living thing not capable of taking care of him or herself, you are moral (high five!).

Whether you're helping a prairie dog survive or a disabled human being, you're better off being the caring sort than the "fuck you if you can't keep up" sort.

Them are mah val-yews and bah Gawd Ah'm stickin' to 'em

Well Ben A hypothetical for you....

3 starving people/animals and you have enough food to keep 2 alive on basis do you choose which to help?
OR
3 Ebola Patients and 2 vials of Miracle cure?

finite resources means that while we might like to, we cannot actually save them all.  :::grouch:: 

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:

Your hypothesis falls apart based on nature itself where many animals look after those that are injured or even lame. So being as one of the greatest thinking minds this century that being Stephen Hawkins, who has advanced our understanding would be cast to one side to have your view of only those deemed and let me stress this, again playing God deciding who is acceptable to live growing up in a society. being fully functional as you are classifying can lead to also many criminals, where it would be impossible to eradicate knowing who would in advance commit such acts. It is only a time era in your argument based on Africa which in time will become the bread basket for the world, thus showing your argument is limited to a time frame and how any current country is doing in time, where this can change at any time based upon any given event. It shows why the world better functions acting together, because nobody can really predict the future.

and many animals Including our closest relatives will eat their own young if they don't think they will survive to conserve resources....

Yes the Africa argument is Based on this specific time but I don't think there has ever been a time when one group of people or another wasn't being oppressed an denied the resource they need. so the argument can be transferred to who ever is missing out at the time.

Mankind success as a species is balance between our altruistic and brutal nature...  our kindness is really no greater than our cruelty. we are strong because we are both.

and criminal/politician/CEO all the same to me, thieves the lot of them  :asboredas: 
and besides in my hypothetical a thief is better than a CEO or politician because on average they consume far less resources....  that's why it is hypothetical as it really only concerned with distribution of resources.
When you look at all the factors, like a DS person is also less likely to have a negative impact on society, then well I don't think there is a nice answer, someone will always lose depending on which factors are given the greatest preference.
Like I said ATM it is not the question that needs to asked/answered as there are paths less questionable in their morality available to society.

Some animal species do eat their young, but it is not the norm compared to the many cases where they do not, o it is not really the bases for any sound reasoning showing that in the vast majority of cases and even cases where animals look and help raise other species as is the case for humans themselves.
To claim humankind is altruistic and brutal nature is in reality a myth, because throughout history whilst their has been wars, there has been much cooperation and compassion, where it is other elements, like greed or materialism, where and which has brought about problems. Societies in the past very much looked at helping each other as a cohesive group, not actively seeking conflict or war and in many cases would have been to defend food resources or land needed for agriculture.
You are now going away from your original hypothesis Veya to selective points like Politicians, when we have to look at this as a species as a whole and not over certain points within our history, whee again from its beginnings where humans were nearly and very nearly became extinct, being as the world populations all descend from a very small number of humans, showed it was their capacity to help each other in their most dire need that saved humans from extinction

Anyway, must get some sleep, so catch you all later and this has become quite interesting which I am sure Victor and Stardesk would liken to add their views on this.

Night Ben and Veya