Richard Dawkins Sparks Twitter Debate Over Aborting Down Syndrome Fetuses

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

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:: 

Didge wrote: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

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

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:: 

Let them decide between them, because in most cases when you allow people to decide they do the right thing and allow others to live over themselves, trust me on this, where there is many cases of people sacrificing themselves. Yes there will be selfish ones, but there is always one willing to allow others to live, proving my point on the compassion of humanity

Night

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote: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

Night Didge!

I'll say, in my limited ability to speak/type at the mo' (damn that alcohol) that in our present state, we really do have the resources to provide for everyone born.

However, it might mean that the uber-rich have to live like me (horror!).

But yeah, if it weren't for the resource hoarders, we could provide for all of humanity. We might all have to take a hit in terms of living space, daily calorie count or tech available to us, but we're not so far gone that we couldn't take care of everyone alive today if we wanted to.

eddie 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.

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.

Ben_Reilly wrote:No, you're a damn bunny-boiler, here's the proof Veya

I see what you're saying, but to me, corn must always serve me and my family. The corn can have us when we die, but we're going to eat it until that point ...

Remember, the starving child will eventually feed the worms that feed the fish!

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:No, you're a damn bunny-boiler, here's the proof Veya

I see what you're saying, but to me, corn must always serve me and my family. The corn can have us when we die, but we're going to eat it until that point ...

Remember, the starving child will eventually feed the worms that feed the fish!

and IF you and your family were Corn or Fish?
You treat Humans as individuals but the not Fish and Corn? the Individual Fish the child eats will never eat the worms that fed on the child. So does the survival/life of the individual truly matter? since it didn't for the fish... why does it for the child?
the loss of one child will effect our species less than loss of Adult fish to MOST species of Fish on the planet (since We in our big brained wisdom have been smart enough to pollute their home and collapse much of the natural ecosystem)
Your opinion assumes you are always on top of the food chain, thus Your Whole Argument boils down to IF you are powerful it is right to do what ever you god dam like. which I know You don't agree with in other aspects.
No One wants to be a Hypocrite, So does "Might make Right?"     

Oh and Why does any life form HAVE to serve another??? sounds like endorsement of Slavery to me     or is it the corns natural place as designed by.....  

P.S.
The art of meditation is not to think of nothing but consider oneself nothing in order to view things free of perspectives. If you were to meditate on the feelings of the corn or the fish you might change your mind.   

Not that it matters, just accept that Humans are no less a beast than a shark, what we do in kindness can often Incredibly cruel to another other life form. We can justify it be whatever excuse we want but IF the world was fair and just, Why would A life count for so much more JUST because it belongs to a Bipedal hairless ape?

veya_victaous wrote:@Ben
you think Kurt pulled the trigger with his toes   





@But I'm pro- our race of naked apes;
TM says the same thing about Anglos    

Ben_Reilly wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:



@But I'm pro- our race of naked apes;
TM says the same thing about Anglos    

Yeah, well. When they visit the moon I'll sit up

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:

Let them decide between them, because in most cases when you allow people to decide they do the right thing and allow others to live over themselves, trust me on this, where there is many cases of people sacrificing themselves. Yes there will be selfish ones, but there is always one willing to allow others to live, proving my point on the compassion of humanity

Night

But then Did you make the right choice? since the one most giving is now dead?   

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:

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.

And that is really the point Dawkins was making. People should have that choice. And it shouldn't be seen as wrong for someone to make that choice.

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:

Let them decide between them, because in most cases when you allow people to decide they do the right thing and allow others to live over themselves, trust me on this, where there is many cases of people sacrificing themselves. Yes there will be selfish ones, but there is always one willing to allow others to live, proving my point on the compassion of humanity

Night

But then Did you make the right choice? since the one most giving is now dead?   

I have given them the choice to decide, my choice allows them to decide on whether they deem who should survive, and is the best way to solve  the problem

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:

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.

And it shouldn't be seen as wrong for someone to make that choice.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
And it shouldn't be seen as wrong for someone to make that choice.

Yes it should. It's barbaric.

Are you saying that it's ok to abort DS babies??

I can understand if the child would literally have zero quality of life but this is not the case with DS children is it. I can't quite believe people are saying this in all honesty.

Eilzel wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

Yes it should. It's barbaric.

Are you saying that it's ok to abort DS babies??

I can understand if the child would literally have zero quality of life but this is not the case with DS children is it. I can't quite believe people are saying this in all honesty.

People abort for simple reasons such as not intending to get pregnant or feeling they cannot accept the responsibility of bringing up a child. If someone becomes pregnant with a DS baby and knows this, and feel they cannot cope with the added responsibility in bringing up a DS child then it should be the woman's right to abort that child. Why should they be forced to have a DS child they don't feel they can give proper care to?

FluffyBunny wrote:This to me is quite close to the concept of 'designer babies' where women want to be able to select the gender of their child,eye colour, hair colour etc

It is a very dangerous road to start down. Aborting children because they are not conventionally 'perfect'.

DS children can lead very fulfilling happy lives. None of us know,even those of us born as 'normal' people how long we will last,we could be hit by a bus tomorrow. Or God forbid have an accident that severely impacts on our quality of life.

Should we just be put down then like a lame dog??
well we just put down the dog    same logic, why do we do it to the dog? what ever reason you give well back at ya   
P.S. I generally don't believe we should be putting down dogs unless they are in untreatable pain put so I apply the same to humans    
But like the Dogs fate, reality is harsh, choices are sometimes bleak   

I can't get to grips with this mentality at all, I do find it disturbing.

Eilzel wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:
Yes it should. It's barbaric.

Are you saying that it's ok to abort DS babies??

I can understand if the child would literally have zero quality of life but this is not the case with DS children is it. I can't quite believe people are saying this in all honesty.

People abort for simple reasons such as not intending to get pregnant or feeling they cannot accept the responsibility of bringing up a child. If someone becomes pregnant with a DS baby and knows this, and feel they cannot cope with the added responsibility in bringing up a DS child then it should be the woman's right to abort that child. Why should they be forced to have a DS child they don't feel they can give proper care to?

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:

I have given them the choice to decide, my choice allows them to decide on whether they deem who should survive, and is the best way to solve  the problem

or escape the hard choice   It solves your problem by abstaining and making someone else make the hard choice   

personally i think that it unfair, I wouldn't want the doctor to make me choose and to know that some died because they choose to let me have it. So as the Doctor I would just make the choice all things being equal I would leave it to the random hand of fate. (I do so all the time by assigning random happening to equal course of action, like If that bird lands there I will do whatever it is I was considering that is of no great importance or damned if you do damned if you don't circumstances)
You may think it is unfair, but it is the best possible approach, because it places those facing the dilemma to choose between themselves, again people have been placed in this position before and people decide between themselves. By allowing them to decide they decide their own fate, as I should not have to decide the fate of people facing such a burden

OK smarty pants I will make it harder

Hospital situation say in a war zone like Palestine.    or Earthquake natural disaster area.
you have 3 identical patents (all Unconscious, equal back stories and families, equal chance of survival IF the stay connected to the machines)
the power goes off and the back up generator can only support 2 of the life support systems...
what do you do?

PS we're Doctors    

Eilzel wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

Yes it should. It's barbaric.

Are you saying that it's ok to abort DS babies??

I can understand if the child would literally have zero quality of life but this is not the case with DS children is it. I can't quite believe people are saying this in all honesty.

People abort for simple reasons such as not intending to get pregnant or feeling they cannot accept the responsibility of bringing up a child. If someone becomes pregnant with a DS baby and knows this, and feel they cannot cope with the added responsibility in bringing up a DS child then it should be the woman's right to abort that child. Why should they be forced to have a DS child they don't feel they can give proper care to?

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

People abort for simple reasons such as not intending to get pregnant or feeling they cannot accept the responsibility of bringing up a child. If someone becomes pregnant with a DS baby and knows this, and feel they cannot cope with the added responsibility in bringing up a DS child then it should be the woman's right to abort that child. Why should they be forced to have a DS child they don't feel they can give proper care to?

I think that is where people are not the sort of people who would make good parents, being as any good parent, would take on such a responsibility, those that choose to abort take the easy option, which means they want the issue option of having to do less, which does not bode well when you think about it.
What gets me is this line of being able to abort because the child might be different and with technology with genetics showing any deformities that a baby will have, so what next, any that have severe asthma?
Missing limbs?
Cystic Fibrosis?
Blind?
Deaf?

Where do you draw the line on imperfections Eilzel, where in the above all will be an added requirement of the parents to do far more to help and assist their children?
What next, if it is male or female?
If we are meddle with nature, are we then playing again what we call God?
Again I am all for choice, but this choice should be based on a necessity, not where a couple is trying to start a family and then are just wanting the perfect child, thus making a mockery of creating life, as we all take that chance when we decide to have a family.

nicko wrote:Fluffy, you say "the child could be adopted"  Lets be honest, there are very few who would adopt a D.S child.

Eilzel wrote:Didge, if someone has never even had a chikd they would have no idea if they will be a good parent or not. You cannot judge someone a bad parent though just because they would not choose to have a child who was DS.

Fluffy, abortion is never ideal, and there are already thousands if children waiting to be adopted. It would be irresponsible to bring a baby into the world, especially one that needs extra care, which then needs to be found and placed with adoptive parents who are both willing and able.

Eilzel wrote:A mother may want to have a child she will see grow up and have a long life, this is less likely if the child is DS. I'm just saying if a mother should have that choice. I don't know why a mother may feel she cannot cope but it could happen- Its a difficult subject didge- but do you think a mother should be forced to have a child under such circumstances?