Richard Dawkins - "Abort it, try again".

[nehalem256]

No, it's the argument of many anti-abortionists that once a sperm fertilizes a cell, it constitutes a new human life deserving of the protections afforded to a developed and independent human being. I think the point is that we obviously don't stress out over two-week miscarriages or similar because they are very common, so why bother protecting them?

If miscarriages justifies abortion.

Then cancer justifies murder.

In other words its an absolutely retarded argument.

 

[Texashiker]

Awhile back I started a thread about the possibility of gay being genetic. My theory was that if parents were able to test for the gay gene, then the parents would abort the child.

Someone replied to that thread saying that if the parents were that much of a bigot, they should not be having kids. I think that statement applies here also.

Discrimination based on whether the child has downs is a form of bigotry.

If you are going to be a bigot, why have kids?

 

[dank69]

Awhile back I started a thread about the possibility of gay being genetic. My theory was that if parents were able to test for the gay gene, then the parents would abort the child.

Someone replied to that thread saying that if the parents were that much of a bigot, they should not be having kids. I think that statement applies here also.

Discrimination based on whether the child has downs is a form of bigotry.

If you are going to be a bigot, why have kids?

Are you saying gay people are retarded? :hmm:

 

[Texashiker]

Are you saying gay people are retarded? :hmm:

Of course not.

Discrimination by any other name is still discrimination.

By aborting a downs child, the parents are being bigots.

 

[Retro Rob]

Awhile back I started a thread about the possibility of gay being genetic. My theory was that if parents were able to test for the gay gene, then the parents would abort the child.

Someone replied to that thread saying that if the parents were that much of a bigot, they should not be having kids. I think that statement applies here also.

Discrimination based on whether the child has downs is a form of bigotry.

If you are going to be a bigot, why have kids?

I think people would abort the child, which is why I think finding a "gay gene" has monstrous consequences.

Of course, rasing a "gay child" isn't remotely the same as a kid with DS, but if one can morally rationalize aborting a sick fetus, the same can be used to abort a gay child, then we'd see some serious outrage with liberals suddenly becoming "pro-life".

 

[dank69]

I think people would abort the child, which is why I think finding a "gay gene" has monstrous consequences.

Of course, rasing a "gay child" isn't remotely the same as a kid with DS, but if one can morally rationalize aborting a sick fetus, the same can be used to abort a gay child, then we'd see some serious outrage with liberals suddenly becoming "pro-life".

I think you have that backwards. You'd suddenly have a lot of conservatives becoming pro-choice.

 

[Texashiker]

Of course, rasing a "gay child" isn't remotely the same as a kid with DS, but if one can morally rationalize aborting a sick fetus, the same can be used to abort a gay child, then we'd see some serious outrage with liberals suddenly becoming "pro-life".

I did not mean to derail this thread and go into a gay vs downs topic.

The question I keep asking myself where does bigotry end and compassion start?

Abortion is socially acceptable.

Aborting a down child is pretty acceptable.

What about aborting a gay child?

What about a child with red hair?

How far down the morality ladder do we go before society says no more? If you say no more then you are infringing on someones rights to make their own decisions.

If someone with down syndrome can live a comfortable and full life, why abort it? To save society some money? Just print more money, that is what allen greenspan said.

Is the only life worth living is one that contributes to society? If that is the standard, when do we start rounding up homeless people?

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

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I think you're all overstating how many people would abort a gay fetus as opposed to a Down's syndrome fetus. People, regardless of political ideology, are becoming more tolerant and accepting of homosexuality. The decision about a Down's syndrome baby has the added component of economics, since they cost 10 times as much to raise as "normal" babies. Unless gay babies start demanding wardrobes like Liberace, that's probably not part of the discussion of raising one.

 

[JackBurton]

My only issue with Dawkins' statement was that he apologized for it.

 

[Texashiker]

The decision about a Down's syndrome baby has the added component of economics, since they cost 10 times as much to raise as "normal" babies.

How does society gauge the value of a life?

Doctor: Mom, dad, the fetus has the genetic markers for asthma. The baby is going to cost 3X what a normal baby will cost, so why dont you abort and start over?

When are we going to round up homeless people and ship them off to camps? Homeless do not contribute anything to society, right? Homeless are a burden, right? Think about how much money society could save with no homeless people.

How far down the morality ladder do we need to go?

 

[witeken]

Of course not.

Discrimination by any other name is still discrimination.

By aborting a downs child, the parents are being bigots.

Down syndrome is a "mutation" that does not benefit anyone. It's a testament of the fact that nature makes lots of errata in its mission to fool people into thinking it intelligently designed all animals.

When someone creates another human, I don't think they want to create such a person. If you buy an iPhone and something doesn't work, you send it back. The same should be done with procreation.

 

[Texashiker]

Down syndrome is a "mutation" that does not benefit anyone.

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?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

How does society gauge the value of a life?

Doctor: Mom, dad, the fetus has the genetic markers for asthma. The baby is going to cost 3X what a normal baby will cost, so why dont you abort and start over?

When are we going to round up homeless people and ship them off to camps? Homeless do not contribute anything to society, right? Homeless are a burden, right? Think about how much money society could save with no homeless people.

How far down the morality ladder do we need to go?

Morality varies from person to person. Some people may think it's worth it to abort a Down's baby; some won't. Some people may think it's worth it to abort a gay baby; some won't. It's all a matter of perspective. But I'll guarantee you that neither one will lead to some irrevocable destruction of society. People have been harping on that nonsense for years; the moral decay of society will doom us all! Bullshit. As long as people aren't actively harming one another, I don't really care what they believe or do.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think you have that backwards. You'd suddenly have a lot of conservatives becoming pro-choice.

lol

 

[alzan]

How does society gauge the value of a life?

Doctor: Mom, dad, the fetus has the genetic markers for asthma. The baby is going to cost 3X what a normal baby will cost, so why dont you abort and start over?

When are we going to round up homeless people and ship them off to camps? Homeless do not contribute anything to society, right? Homeless are a burden, right? Think about how much money society could save with no homeless people.

How far down the morality ladder do we need to go?

In your example the doctor went way over the line in what he said. If you're attempting to make a analogy to the OP it would be:

Mother: "Doctor, we had a test done on my fetus and it shows that it will have asthma which will be costly. What do you think we should do?"

Doctor: "Well if it were my decision to make I would have the child and make the financial sacrifices; children who have asthma can have full productive lives."

 

[Retro Rob]

I think you're all overstating how many people would abort a gay fetus as opposed to a Down's syndrome fetus. People, regardless of political ideology, are becoming more tolerant and accepting of homosexuality. The decision about a Down's syndrome baby has the added component of economics, since they cost 10 times as much to raise as "normal" babies. Unless gay babies start demanding wardrobes like Liberace, that's probably not part of the discussion of raising one.

Just sayin', it would happen.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

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

It is whenever conservatives talk about welfare or thug culture, why shouldn't it be when liberals talk about genetic mutations that can be identified before birth? I mean, OK, maybe it's a little dehumanizing to reduce people to an ROI, but at a certain level, we all do it. Let's not act like it's shocking that we value people based on what they can contribute to society.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Just sayin', it would happen.

It absolutely would, and I'd feel about those people the same way pro-lifers feel about women who get abortions for financial reasons. But we don't have to see eye-to-eye on everything; that's one of the benefits of living in a free society.

 

[witeken]

I did not mean to derail this thread and go into a gay vs downs topic.

The question I keep asking myself where does bigotry end and compassion start?

Abortion is socially acceptable.

Aborting a down child is pretty acceptable.

What about aborting a gay child?

What about a child with red hair?

How far down the morality ladder do we go before society says no more? If you say no more then you are infringing on someones rights to make their own decisions.


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

You also have to look at it from the perspective of the person who is created. Does this person suffer from being gay or having red hair?

The way I see it is that things like hair color are preferences. I don't know if it's a good idea to let people customize their own child by determining properties like hair and eye color, length, IQ, gender,... As if such properties are the only things that make a person who he is.

 

[Texashiker]

Let's not act like it's shocking that we value people based on what they can contribute to society.

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.

 

[witeken]

How does society gauge the value of a life?

Doctor: Mom, dad, the fetus has the genetic markers for asthma. The baby is going to cost 3X what a normal baby will cost, so why dont you abort and start over?

When are we going to round up homeless people and ship them off to camps? Homeless do not contribute anything to society, right? Homeless are a burden, right? Think about how much money society could save with no homeless people.

How far down the morality ladder do we need to go?

The major difference is that homeless people are also people. Conscious, living humans. Most people would probably leave the morality ladder much higher, even before animals. So you don't have to go that far down the morality ladder.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

If miscarriages justifies abortion.

Then cancer justifies murder.

In other words its an absolutely retarded argument.

No, miscarriages show an inconsistency in the religious logic that a higher power arbitrarily chooses which zygotes count as human and which ones don't. The justification for abortion is that an early-development fetus is not capable of thought, is not capable of living autonomously, and that allowing it to develop into a child unwanted by its parent(s) places unnecessary stress on social services.

 

[Retro Rob]

It absolutely would, and I'd feel about those people the same way pro-lifers feel about women who get abortions for financial reasons. But we don't have to see eye-to-eye on everything; that's one of the benefits of living in a free society.

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

 

[master_shake_]

Of course not.

Discrimination by any other name is still discrimination.

By aborting a downs child, the parents are being bigots.

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.

 

[nehalem256]

No, miscarriages show an inconsistency in the religious logic that a higher power arbitrarily chooses which zygotes count as human and which ones don't. The justification for abortion is that an early-development fetus is not capable of thought, is not capable of living autonomously, and that allowing it to develop into a child unwanted by its parent(s) places unnecessary stress on social services.

No more than the fact that people die in general.

Theologically I believe it all goes back to this being considered a fallen world.