Richard Dawkins - "Abort it, try again".

[squarecut1]

I get it. I was into all this stuff too that Dawkins and company peddle. On the face of it, it all sounds "logical". Only with time and experience you see how truly poisonous and destructive it is. And what are the actual logical consequences of that line of thinking

But yes, I do get it. I was there once too.

 

[sandorski]

I get it. I was into all this stuff too that Dawkins and company peddle. On the face of it, it all sounds "logical". Only with time and experience you see how truly poisonous and destructive it is.

But yes, I do get it. I was there once too.

How is it these things?

 

[Exophase]

Yes, the choice to abort abominations like Mr. Dawkins and others of his ilk

Abortion is wrong except if the fetus will grow into a person who says things you don't agree with?

Got it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

How is it these things?

why ask? You have no intentions of discussing "these things" with him. Your intention is to ask questions that have no bearing on "these things"...

 

[Retro Rob]

M: Most situations where poverty hunger and injustice are rife, Down children are the first to die.

Does it really matter "who" are the first to die?

M: Perhaps 144 characters wasn't enough to carry nuance.

That makes him even more idiotic since he was aware of that. Maybe he should learn the basics of Twitter, or deactivate his account.

M: Strawman? You are not obligated to take care of aborted fetuses, are you? That was the point and the issue. You believe a moral issue exists before the law does

No, I believe that just because something is legal, that doesn't make it right.

Say for instance that the law recognized every human over 60 years old as a potato, legally, and they become subject to the treatment of average potatoes. Does that make you one, and thus, make just as expendable because of a legal definition?

This is what happens when rigid legality trumps mercy, love, and compassion -- what was one defined as a child simply becomes a clump of expendable cells (or potatoes).

 

[zinfamous]

I get it. I was into all this stuff too that Dawkins and company peddle. On the face of it, it all sounds "logical". Only with time and experience you see how truly poisonous and destructive it is. And what are the actual logical consequences of that line of thinking

But yes, I do get it. I was there once too.

So you're one of those people that chose ignorance..probably because you failed miserably at one point?

got it. :thumbsup:

 

[squarecut1]

So you're one of those people that chose ignorance..probably because you failed miserably at one point?

got it. :thumbsup:

Weird reply

 

[shira]

That is the basis of whether abortion is right or wrong dumbass.

If a fetus is little more than menstrual blood why should Dawkins feel bad about telling a woman to dispose of it?

No, fool; a woman's judgement on whether or not a fetus is a person is irrelevant to whether a fetus actually is a person. The consensus view is what determines this, and the consensus, as expressed in Roe v Wade, is that a fetus isn't a person until viability.

A homo sapiens that has attained viability is a person. Black people are homo sapiens that have attained viability, and are therefore people. First-trimester fetuses are homo sapiens who have not attained viability, so they are not persons.

Are you starting to grasp the concept yet?

Now an advanced course: A rock or a dog or your toaster is not a homo sapiens, and therefore not a person and therefore not able to give informed consent. This not only clears up your confusion over abortion, it also clears up your confusion over people being able to marry non-human living things and inanimate objects, since a legal prerequisite for marriage is the capability to give informed consent.

 

[Moonbeam]

Retro Rob: Does it really matter "who" are the first to die?

M: It isn't a question of first to die. You tried to deemphasize the quantity of suffering parents would feel by rating things higher where Downs would not even likely exist.

RB:That makes him even more idiotic since he was aware of that. Maybe he should learn the basics of Twitter, or deactivate his account.

M: He doesn't know much about Twitter and said so, but he knows more than me. Maybe judgmental twits should shoot themselves.

RB: No, I believe that just because something is legal, that doesn't make it right.

Say for instance that the law recognized every human over 60 years old as a potato, legally, and they become subject to the treatment of average potatoes. Does that make you one, and thus, make just as expendable because of a legal definition?

This is what happens when rigid legality trumps mercy, love, and compassion -- what was one defined as a child simply becomes a clump of expendable cells (or potatoes).

M: You can think anything you want. But you are a fanatic who would have the rest of us subject to your religiously derived beliefs we don't share. It is your will that folk willingly sacrifice their lives to raise genetic accidents that can be terminated long before they reach viability. You are the real monster.

Your get only a minority vote in a situation where you are the father of a known Downs fetus.

The law doesn't make something right any more than delusionary religiously derived opinion does. You aren't listening to your heart when you expect others to carry the weight of your religious convictions. That's arrogance.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

What is the distinction?

No personality exists inside of a fetus.

But...if you believe that Magic Sky God "breathes" a "soul" into it at conception...if you're a religious loony...then it might seem like a fetus is the same thing as a child with a personality.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

A question for the anti-abortion Christians -- How would you feel about a special tax increase levied only against devout Christians that could be used to pay for the high costs of caring for Down Syndrome babies (and crack babies, etc.) throughout their entire lives?

 

[Vapid Cabal]

No "right" answer exists. Guilt is a pointless emotion.
I certainly hope that individuals that are put in these situations make rational decisions rather than emotional decisions.

 

[Nebor]

I get it. I was into all this stuff too that Dawkins and company peddle. On the face of it, it all sounds "logical". Only with time and experience you see how truly poisonous and destructive it is. And what are the actual logical consequences of that line of thinking

But yes, I do get it. I was there once too.

It's obvious that this is the result of massive personal failure. Good work fella.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Retro Rob: Does it really matter "who" are the first to die?

M: It isn't a question of first to die. You tried to deemphasize the quantity of suffering parents would feel by rating things higher where Downs would not even likely exist.

RB:That makes him even more idiotic since he was aware of that. Maybe he should learn the basics of Twitter, or deactivate his account.

M: He doesn't know much about Twitter and said so, but he knows more than me. Maybe judgmental twits should shoot themselves.

RB: No, I believe that just because something is legal, that doesn't make it right.

Say for instance that the law recognized every human over 60 years old as a potato, legally, and they become subject to the treatment of average potatoes. Does that make you one, and thus, make just as expendable because of a legal definition?

This is what happens when rigid legality trumps mercy, love, and compassion -- what was one defined as a child simply becomes a clump of expendable cells (or potatoes).

M: You can think anything you want. But you are a fanatic who would have the rest of us subject to your religiously derived beliefs we don't share. It is your will that folk willingly sacrifice their lives to raise genetic accidents that can be terminated long before they reach viability. You are the real monster.

Your get only a minority vote in a situation where you are the father of a known Downs fetus.

The law doesn't make something right any more than delusionary religiously derived opinion does. You aren't listening to your heart when you expect others to carry the weight of your religious convictions. That's arrogance.

Insightful, accurate, and succinct. This is one of the best /thread replies I have read in a long time. :thumbsup:

 

[Retro Rob]

It isn't a question of first to die. You tried to deemphasize the quantity of suffering parents would feel by rating things higher where Downs would not even likely exist.

Aren't you the one who said Down's children are the first to die? Yeah, you did:

Most situations where poverty hunger and injustice are rife, Down children are the first to die

So if it isn't a question about who dies first, why'd you even bring it up? Secondly, Dawkins was clearly referring to ending the suffering of the Down fetus before it begins, NOT the suffering of the parents.

M: He doesn't know much about Twitter and said so, but he knows more than me. Maybe judgmental twits should shoot themselves.

Make sure you write a suicide letter first.

You can think anything you want. But you are a fanatic who would have the rest of us subject to your religiously derived beliefs we don't share.

Huh? Where have I done this?

It is your will that folk willingly sacrifice their lives to raise genetic accidents that can be terminated long before they reach viability.

You're getting off into something else here. The Down's Syndrome Association said that they don't endorse the termination of a fetus solely due to it having the illness, so go yell at them.

Your get only a minority vote in a situation where you are the father of a known Downs fetus.

Could you be more clear on what you mean?

The law doesn't make something right any more than delusionary religiously derived opinion does.

Agreed. But I was siding with the DSA. They don't have religiously derived opinions.

Pay attention.

 

[Thebobo]

Double-think. Liberals like to claim that a fetus has about as much worth as menstrual blood sometimes, but then claim that eliminating said menstrual blood is a traumatic experience other times.

Of course its the liberals fault. And FYI you are slacking you didn't blame Obama. Please try again.

 

[Vic]

The "Pro-life " crowd can never seem to decide if a baby is a blessing or a burden. Of course, it's a blessing in the womb, but once it's out... they're not paying for it, that's for sure.

 

[kage69]

Retro Rob: Does it really matter "who" are the first to die?

M: It isn't a question of first to die. You tried to deemphasize the quantity of suffering parents would feel by rating things higher where Downs would not even likely exist.

RB:That makes him even more idiotic since he was aware of that. Maybe he should learn the basics of Twitter, or deactivate his account.

M: He doesn't know much about Twitter and said so, but he knows more than me. Maybe judgmental twits should shoot themselves.

RB: No, I believe that just because something is legal, that doesn't make it right.

Say for instance that the law recognized every human over 60 years old as a potato, legally, and they become subject to the treatment of average potatoes. Does that make you one, and thus, make just as expendable because of a legal definition?

This is what happens when rigid legality trumps mercy, love, and compassion -- what was one defined as a child simply becomes a clump of expendable cells (or potatoes).

M: You can think anything you want. But you are a fanatic who would have the rest of us subject to your religiously derived beliefs we don't share. It is your will that folk willingly sacrifice their lives to raise genetic accidents that can be terminated long before they reach viability. You are the real monster.

Your get only a minority vote in a situation where you are the father of a known Downs fetus.

The law doesn't make something right any more than delusionary religiously derived opinion does. You aren't listening to your heart when you expect others to carry the weight of your religious convictions. That's arrogance.

Very well said/presented. Couldn't agree more.


It's 2014, and anti-choice advocates are still unable to keep themselves from comparing a woman's right over her own body to the justification held by criminals when they victimize other people. They are still presenting false equivalencies based on women being stupid, the menstrual blood / embryo thing in particular. Sure, anti-choice recognize the meaning of the word "potential" when they argue they are protecting a "potential" person, but when it comes to a woman being able to distinguish between normal material shed on a monthly basis and an embryo with that same "potential" to fully gestate, well no way, obviously those lazy sluts are dumb hypocrites! Clearly, all that anguish and emotional wear-and-tear is just one big deceptive fascade used in the war against pissed off old white guys.

Arrogant assholes.









Or has someone in a lab had success fertilizing a dead egg, uterine lining, mucus and blood and I just not see that headline?

 

[Oldgamer]

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-styl...icle-1.1911789

This really isn't about Dawkins as much as it is about the "morality" behind keeing an Downs child. I agree with the logic about the end (reducing the suffering in the world), but the means (aborting Downs fetustes) is questionable.

Interestingly, this is a statement from the Downs Syndrome Association in response:




Personally, if someone asked for my advice on such a deeply emotional and personal decision, I'd refer them to a medical professional and would withhold my personal advice.

I don't understand, someone asked him a question and he gave an honest answer based on his own personal opinion. If no one wanted to hear his answer then they shouldn't have asked. Many people do not have the means to take care of a child with Downs Syndrome. Just as with any baby or child with special needs the cost can become so high that a family may not have the monetary ability to care for said child.

See these sites talking about the cost of raising a special needs child:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802121/
http://www.downsyndromehelp.com/Support/Cost.aspx
https://www.mint.com/blog/planning/the-cost-of-raising-a-special-needs-child-0713/

Richard Dawkins didn't say anything that I thought warranted an apology, but of course the "anti-abortionists" will make a big deal out of his answer as we see already, this thread is posted by an anti-abortionist. Not surprising.

In the end though the decision is up to the woman. That is her choice to have a child with Downs Syndrome, or to abort it and try again later.

 

[Retro Rob]

Many people do not have the means to take care of a child with Downs Syndrome. Just as with any baby or child with special needs the cost can become so high that a family may not have the monetary ability to care for said child.

See these sites talking about the cost of raising a special needs child:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802121/
http://www.downsyndromehelp.com/Support/Cost.aspx
https://www.mint.com/blog/planning/the-cost-of-raising-a-special-needs-child-0713/

Richard Dawkins didn't say anything that I thought warranted an apology

I'm really starting to wonder if you even bothered to read through my responses in this thread instead of just the OP looking for something to be outraged about:

He shouldn't apologize for his opinion, no,

but of course the "anti-abortionists" will make a big deal out of his answer as we see already, this thread is posted by an anti-abortionist. Not surprising.

Am I an "anti-abortionist"? Let's see, here's a discussion from last year:

True, but the bottom line is that this is personal, and religious. I agree -- I see abortion as the same as killing a full grown man, but I just think that people should have the choice.

Being pro-choice doesn't mean you're pro-abortion....it simply means you are pro-people having the right to choose.

No, I am morally against abortion, but NOT legally (meaning, for eliminating the right to abort).

I fall into the "pro-choice" camp in the sense that I would NOT fight against the option to abort.

You need to get your facts before assuming that just because I have a moral objection to abortion, that means I'd strip women of the right to abort.

 

[Jeff7]

Always shades of gray, this life.

Now let's say the fetus was found to have a very severe problem which would cause it to survive only a few agonizing hours after it was born. Then what?

 

[Vic]

Always shades of gray, this life.

Now let's say the fetus was found to have a very severe problem which would cause it to survive only a few agonizing hours after it was born. Then what?

We already know the answer to this question. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024377057_herrerabeutlerxml.html

 

[Atreus21]

I couldn't care less about Godwin.

"This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too."

 

[theeedude]

I thought that's why fetuses are tested for genetic defects in the first place.

 

[Vic]

I couldn't care less about Godwin.

"This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too."

A very 'conservative' argument there.