Richard Dawkins - "Abort it, try again".

[master_shake_]

It is not shocking, but is dehumanizing.

12 years ago my wife and I lived next to a family who had a disabled son. His body was twisted, he needed help breathing, had a nurse with him everynight monday - friday, wheelchair bound,,,.

The kid had a great mind. It took him a little while to talk because of his breathing issues, but he could carry on a conversation.

Should his parents have aborted him?

Then I think about Stephen Hawking.

stephen hawking wasn't born that way... he has als.

they didn't have genetic screening in 1942 either.

 

[Texashiker]

what if the child with down syndrome bankrupts the family and they have to go on some sort of government assistance?

you might think they are lazy and taking advantage of the system.

How is that any different than the millions of other people on government assistance?

 

[master_shake_]

How is that any different than the millions of other people on government assistance?

because the people with the disabled kid had a choice.

 

[witeken]

Homeless people do not benefit anyone, when do we start rounding them up?

People with serious schizophrenia and are unable to work, they do not contribute anything, right?

There is a guy here in town, homeless, does not bother anyone, lives pretty much through handouts. Would you like to see him put down? I wouldn't. I give him money from time to time.

Is the only gauge to measure the value of life is if they contribute something?

Like I said earlier, the big difference is that those people are actual humans.

I really like how Dawkins said it:

Those who took offence because they know and love a person with Down Syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right to exist. I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one. It is one of a common family of errors, one that frequently arises in the abortion debate. Another version of it is “The Great Beethoven Fallacy” discussed in Chapter 8 of The God Delusion. I combated it in a tweet as follows: “There’s a profound moral difference between ‘This fetus should now be aborted’ and ‘This person should have been aborted long ago’.” I would never dream of saying to any person, “You should have been aborted before you were born.” But that reluctance is fully compatible with a belief that, at a time before a fetus becomes a “person”, the decision to abort can be a moral one. If you think about it, you pretty much have to agree with that unless you are against all abortion in principle.The definition of “personhood” is much debated among moral philosophers and this is not the place to go into it at length. Briefly, I support those philosophers who say that, for moral purposes, an adult, a child and a baby should all be granted the rights of a person. An early fetus, before it develops a nervous system, should not. As embryonic development proceeds towards term, the morality of abortion becomes progressively more difficult to assess. There is no hard and fast dividing line. As I have argued in “The Tyranny of the Discontinuous Mind”, the definition of personhood is a gradual, “fading in / fading out” definition. In any case, this is a problem that faces anybody on the pro-choice side of the general abortion debate.

As time goes by, less and less options become available. To take your example of a homeless person who does not benefit anyone: When a (homeless) person is not yet born, this can be prevented by not creating the person or aborting it. When the (homeless) person is born, this option is not available anymore, so other solutions should be found.

BTW, the way I put it ("does not benefit anyone") might make it seem like I support your idea of getting rid of homeless people, but that statement also included the person itself, so that would not implicate the examples you gave. However, following this logic, postnatal abortion (like 1-3 years after birth) wouldn't be excluded.

 

[Texashiker]

because the people with the disabled kid had a choice.

Choices, as in like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0

 

[nehalem256]

because the people with the disabled kid had a choice.

So you are saying the 16 year single mother didn't have a choice to avoid going on welfare? :hmm:

 

[master_shake_]

Choices, as in like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0

no choices as in freedom, something that you go on about pepole having/needing.

 

[master_shake_]

So you are saying the 16 year single mother didn't have a choice to avoid going on welfare? :hmm:

ya she had a choice too... use protection.

she made the wrong choice.

 

[Texashiker]

no choices as in freedom, something that you go on about pepole having/needing.

She made her choice, her and her kids consume more than they contribute.

Part of the rational is a downs child will cost more than a "normal" child. So if you cost more money then we get rid of you.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Well, let me ask you this: is getting rid of a "gay fetus" any less moral the a Down's one?

I think morality is a personal choice; your answer to that question would depend entirely on your own moral criteria that you personally believe in. Assuming we could test for a gay gene, I would never tell my wife to seek an abortion for a gay fetus, though I would consider it for a Down's syndrome fetus. But I don't believe that it's inherently immoral to abort for whatever reason someone sees fit; it's a personal choice. So, no, I wouldn't say that it's less moral, it's just not in line with my personal morality.

 

[Vic]

Is it immoral to bring a severely disabled child into the world and pass millions of dollars in care costs onto others?

That is the question that Dawkins is asking. And what he was skewered for.

What is your opinion on that subject?

That you must be pro choice after all.

 

[master_shake_]

She made her choice, her and her kids consume more than they contribute.

Part of the rational is a downs child will cost more than a "normal" child. So if you cost more money then we get rid of you.

When people have kids they normally have an idea of what they can and can not do financially.

MOST people don't fuck till they have 17 kids and expect others to take care of them all.

if one child has special needs that require round the clock attention and the parents can avoid it, it's still a tough choice but at least they had one.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think morality is a personal choice; your answer to that question would depend entirely on your own moral criteria that you personally believe in. Assuming we could test for a gay gene, I would never tell my wife to seek an abortion for a gay fetus, though I would consider it for a Down's syndrome fetus. But I don't believe that it's inherently immoral to abort for whatever reason someone sees fit; it's a personal choice. So, no, I wouldn't say that it's less moral, it's just not in line with my personal morality.

That's fair, but as to your eariler point, all kids are financial burdens...some more than others.

Last I heard, to raise a child for 18 years would be about 200k. Of course, a DS child would cost way more, but spending money is spending money.

A relatively broke parent will be broke anyway. :\

 

[nehalem256]

That you must be pro choice after all.

I wouldn't really characterize Dawkins beliefs as pro-choice.

Which is in fact why I believe he was skewered.

 

[dank69]

That you must be pro choice after all.

Nehalem wants the government to decide who should have an abortion.

 

[master_shake_]

Nehalem wants the government to decide who should have an abortion.

but then "dey took er freedumz"

 

[alzan]

This hasn't turned into a Trollhiker fail thread yet?

Color me shocked

 

[Texashiker]

This hasn't turned into a Trollhiker fail thread yet?

Color me shocked

Abort and try again like what the opening post suggest is a morality slippery slop.

As DNA testing progresses and abortion becomes more socially acceptable, where does the slope end?

Downs? Abort.
Asthma? Abort.
Gay? Abort.
Left handed? Abort.
Not blonde hair and blue eyes? Abort.

Let's use DNA and abortion to phase out certain undesirable traits from society.

Rather than the government doing it, lets just leave it up to the parents. Lets just tell parents that if the fetus has some kind of genetic trait the parents do not want, just abort and try again.

 

[Exophase]

When do we start doing DNA test for IQ? Only children above a certain IQ are born, all the rest are aborted?

What do you think is happening when smart people only seek out other smart people to have children with? This sort of selective pressure in reproduction has been happening for a very long time among a great many life forms. Are you opposed to this? Of course not, you've merely determined abortion to be fundamentally delivered and view widespread acceptance as merely tolerance of a known evil, where you can find a threshold that people will be unwilling to accept.

You give the fetus some kind of special existential status the moment it is conceived, when in practice there is little different outcome between deciding to terminate an early pregnancy, preventing the pregnancy via birth control, or not engaging in sex in the first place. Not unless you give the zygote a special status because you think it's endowed with holy magic.

The standard of humanity is based on what someone is and has been, not based on the possibility or even inevitability of a future person. That's why people the question of tolerating homeless people in spite of their burden on society is entirely different to the question of tolerating a pregnancy; the homeless person has thoughts and feelings borne out in a continuity of consciousness and experience, and in many cases also has tangible bonds with other people.

Let's use DNA and abortion to phase out certain undesirable traits from society.

Like I said, already happens with reproductive selection. We let that be a personal choice too. That extends to obvious and widespread things like not wanting to date short people to more nuanced things only revealed through genetic testing. It's not like no one has ever sought to adopt children over having their own because of genetic risk factors.

What I think you'll find is that there's a limit to how much people will want to abort and try again, because there are real investments and opportunity costs behind pregnancies, and because leaving it as a personal choice leaves it subject to very different preferences.

 

[master_shake_]

Abort and try again like what the opening post suggest is a morality slippery slop.

As DNA testing progresses and abortion becomes more socially acceptable, where does the slope end?

Downs? Abort.
Asthma? Abort.
Gay? Abort.
Left handed? Abort.
Not blonde hair and blue eyes? Abort.

Let's use DNA and abortion to phase out certain undesirable traits from society.

Rather than the government doing it, lets just leave it up to the parents. Lets just tell parents that if the fetus has some kind of genetic trait the parents do not want, just abort and try again.

kinda seems like you are leaning toward godwins law...

 

[Texashiker]

kinda seems like you are leaning toward godwins law...

Lets not forget about the forced sterilization programs here in the states.

Learning disability? Step right over to this table and lay down.

 

[Exophase]

Lets not forget about the forced sterilization programs here in the states.

Learning disability? Step right over to this table and lay down.

Which has nothing to do with a personal choice made by the parent, which is the context of these abortions (and all abortions)

This is like equating forced sterilization with the decision to not have children. Or the decision to undergo treatments or surgeries that will prevent you from having children, like gender reassignment.

 

[Texashiker]

Which has nothing to do with a personal choice made by the parent, which is the context of these abortions (and all abortions)

This is like equating forced sterilization with the decision to not have children.

Instead of the government sterilizing people, just convince the masses abortion is a womans right.

Then use DNA testing to phase out certain traits.

Now we have successfully circumvented the whole legal issue of eugenics. Instead of using that nasty "eugenics" word, we get to use words like "a womans right".

Once again eugenics is legal. Not only is it legal, it is marketed as a womans right and empowering.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Abort and try again like what the opening post suggest is a morality slippery slop.

As DNA testing progresses and abortion becomes more socially acceptable, where does the slope end?

Downs? Abort.
Asthma? Abort.
Gay? Abort.
Left handed? Abort.
Not blonde hair and blue eyes? Abort.

Let's use DNA and abortion to phase out certain undesirable traits from society.

Rather than the government doing it, lets just leave it up to the parents. Lets just tell parents that if the fetus has some kind of genetic trait the parents do not want, just abort and try again.

All of this relies on the assumption that when genetic testing is widespread and sufficiently advanced that we can screen for virtually anything, parents will abort anything that doesn't meet an absurdly high threshold for the "ideal" baby in their eyes. But that's a pretty insane assumption. I'm almost positive that if the vast majority of expectant mothers today were offered the opportunity to screen for "blonde hair and blue eyes" and abort the ones that didn't meet that standard, almost no one takes the offer even if it was offered for free, because the vast majority of expectant mothers don't actually care about those traits. A major medical issue like Down's syndrome is very different from preferred physical traits, and it's reductio ad absurdum to suggest otherwise. You're suggesting a slippery slope where none exists.

 

[Exophase]

Instead of the government sterilizing people, just convince the masses abortion is a womans right.

Then use DNA testing to phase out certain traits.

Now we have successfully circumvented the whole legal issue of eugenics. Instead of using that nasty "eugenics" word, we get to use words like "a womans right".

Once again eugenics is legal. Not only is it legal, it is marketed as a womans right and empowering.

So once again..

Why is it okay to screen for reproduction before the pregnancy but not after? You think this is about abortion. It isn't. We don't need abortion to willingly phase out traits. If it's hereditary (which a trait is by definition) you can test for the likelihood of it happening before the pregnancy even happens. And humans (and their ancestors and relatives) have been doing this for a very long time, with varying levels of crudeness, knowingly or not.

Know why you can't do this for down's syndrome? Because it's not hereditary! So this isn't even about eugenics in the first place...