Richard Dawkins: bigoted against those with Down's syndrome?

[alp227]

Full title: Richard Dawkins on babies with Down Syndrome: 'Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world'

Budding atheists wondering whether Richard Dawkins is in need of a little time away from Twitter to reflect on the past few weeks are about to have their (lack of) prayers answered.

The philosopher has managed to go one step further than his controversial comments on ‘date rape versus stranger rape’ to voice his opinions on what it would be ethical for a mother who is informed that her unborn child has Down Syndrome to do.

He started off his conversation with followers ethically enough, highlighting the plight of women in Ireland, where abortion is illegal, in light of the recent reports of the country’s refusal to provide a safe abortion to a suicidal rape victim. She was forced to give birth.

“Ireland is a civilised country except in this 1 area,” he tweeted, adding “You'd think the Roman Church would have lost all influence,” to caption a link to a similar article.

full: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-on-babies-with-down-syndrome-abort-it-and-try-again-it-would-be-immoral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html

UGH. this is why people associate secular thought with lack of morality.

[REP]

1. Actually, that's Dawkins on fetuses with Down's Syndrome

Babies can't be aborted. Nice click bait.

[alp227]

2. The title is based on this twitter exchange by Richard Dawkins.

InYourFaceNewYorker @InYourFaceNYer

@RichardDawkins @AidanMcCourt I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma.

Richard Dawkins ✔ @RichardDawkins
Follow

@InYourFaceNYer Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.

Maybe the editors prefer using human terms like baby rather than scientific technical terms, given the context?

[Fred Sanders]

6. The context is to smear atheists.

[AnalystInParadise]

30. Well it isn't difficult to

do with people liking Dawkins vomiting out crap like this.

[phil89]

40. That statement had nothing to do with atheism

I'm not sure you understand that rejecting a claim that a god exists has nothing to do with any other position. Atheism has no dogma or tenets.

[AnalystInParadise]

44. LMAO

The fact that Atheism exists demonstrates it is dogmatic. I so enjoy watching Atheists tell me they are not involved in a belief system like Christianity or Islam. It is always good for a laugh. To be an atheist requires the same level of faith as being a person that believe in God or gods.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma

[Neoma]

52. For me it only means not giving a shit.

That's not exactly hard.

[immoderate]

59. So you say it's not possible to have no faith?

That faith, whether you have it or not, is a faith?

The idea that a coincidence of lack of evidence is a dogma is equally ridiculous.

Webster tells us how people use words, not how to play games with them.

--imm

[AnalystInParadise]

67. the absence of faith is possible

but not under the banner of atheism.

[immoderate]

72. Under what banner should we expect to find it then?

--imm

[AnalystInParadise]

75. In situations that don't require faith

Atheism, like any religion requires faith.

[Marrah_G]

78. Atheism doesn't require faith

My son is an atheist- he simply does not have a belief in dieties of any sort.

[AnalystInParadise]

171. And his belief is tempered by faith

He believes there is no god or deities of any sort. That belief requires faith. Sorry......

[Marrah_G]

178. That does not require faith

Faith is a belief in something without proof. He simply does not believe in something without proof. He doesn't "believe there is no god" He knows there is not. Much in the same way he knows there is no Santa and knows that unicorns are not real.

This is where things get very frustrating. Why do you have such a difficult time believing that some people live life without religion?

[Marrah_G]

80. What situations require faith?

[Luminous Animal]

82. Faith in what? Why do the religious keep trying to force faith on the nonreligious.

The Ancients had a multitude of God and Goddesses, do you respect their faith? For some, the world was held up on the back of a turtle, do you respect that faith?

Atheists reject, Zeus, Athena, Thor, Poseidon, Diana, Gaia, Shiva, etc., etc., etc.,... And just as you do not take their non-existence on faith, we do not take your god's non-existence on faith.

Atheism is, quite simply, the absence of belief in any form of magical system whether it be Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, leprechauns, or gods.

[AnalystInParadise]

172. And it requires

faith to believe what they believe. I am no Christian radical, I alternate between agnosticism and a Christian/Wiccan fusion....But to watch atheists freak out when you tell them their beliefs require faith is interesting. Sorry but it does. They believe in the absence of god or gods, that requires faith.

[Marrah_G]

181. Not believing in the existence of dieties does not require faith

No matter how many times you say it does.

Do you require faith to not believe in Unicorns, Dragons or Leprechauns? Because frankly that is what he lumps deities and their myths/legends in with.

He was raised in a Wiccan home by a High Priestess. He then decided that it did not make sense to him and he did not believe in any of them. He is a very logical and science/math oriented young man. I told him that to believe or not is a personal thing and that I would never try to change his mind because I respect him.

[AnalystInParadise]

182. Ok we will just agree to disagree

to be an atheist is NO different than being a Wiccan or a Christian or a Muslim. It requires faith to believe in the absence of a god or gods. Comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries use "disbelief in God or gods" when defining atheism. Disbelief requires belief to justify it.

Atheism is defined as:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Believing in nothing is still believing something. Whatever we believe, we base it upon whatever evidence is available. Therefore even atheism requires faith.

You and I shall just agree to disagree, I am not pushing anything on you, just stating my opinion.

[Luminous Animal]

188. Yeah. Just like not believing in Santa Clause requires faith.

It doesn't require faith. It requires reason. Atheists do not "believe" their is no god or gods. They accept the fact that, what is known, is that god or gods are as real as Santa Claus.

Atheists "freak" out because you are being dishonest. Ascribing their lack of belief as belief.

[LanternWaste]

203. No more and less interesting that hearing someone alternating between...

"But to watch atheists freak out when you tell them their beliefs require faith is interesting..."

No more and less interesting that hearing someone alternating between agnosticism and a Christian/Wiccan telling others that pure back is a variant color of light rather than the actual absence of light.

However, I wouldn't call that "freaking out" as I don't feel very petulant or churlish at them moment.

[alp227]

99. FAITH??

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/DenialGod.htm

[Iggo]

107. No it doesn't.

[snooper2]

120. This is an attempt that is always done to bring atheism on par with religion

So then the person can attempt to sway the conversation that both are at the same starting point-

Except, it is a massive fail-

You would think if religion actually had a leg to stand on one wouldn't have to try to pull that trick. But, alas, it doesn't

[AnalystInParadise]

174. No tricks

Atheism is faith based. Sorry you can't accept facts. I am not some Bible Thumper, I lean towards agnosticism myself, but even my agnosticism is rooted in the belief that I am uncertain if God exists, that requires faith on my part. Same with atheists, their beliefs require faith. Spin it any way you want, it is the way it is.

[War Horse]

238. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me

The natural state of mankind, as I see it, is to not believe in any deity at all. Then they see thunder strikes, and invent Odin and Thor to make sense of it.

Atheism if neither a doctrine nor a belief.

I'm sort of an agnostic too, BTW. As in "probably not, but who the hell knows".

[Arugula Latte]

136. So you require faith to NOT believe in Santa, unicorns, and the power of Thor?

[FrodosPet]

179. There is no proof that some type of God does not exist

I am an agnostic. I don't know that there IS a supernatural entity, I don't know that there isn't.

One thing that has confused me for years: Is atheism the absence of belief in the existence of a deity or deities? Or is it a belief that they do not exist?

[Arugula Latte]

230. I would say agnosticism is the former and atheism is the latter ...

in general terms.

[MattBaggins]

219. Analyst will never answer that question

[Marrah_G]

77. That makes no sense

[Luminous Animal]

84. Apparently, their is faith in not having faith. Looking forward to people here making a credible

argument for believing in Zeus and labeling those here who reject a belief in Zeus, as practitioners of faith.

[defacto7]

89. I'm sorry you are so bound to your dogma.

Being atheist has more freedom that you seem to want to pigeonhole into your own experience.

I'd think about using less religiously controlled, staffed and funded organizations than Merriam Webster Dictionary. They are pretty much off my list as a reputable source of objective information. So if that is the source of your position, you have no argument as I see it

[eridani]

95. By that logic, baldness is a hair style n/t

[Warpy]

97. Tell me, where is this dogma written down?

Dictionaries written by believers are notoriously bad sources for philosophy and politics.

Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. That's all.

It's a belief like not playing baseball is a sport.

[stevenleser]

138. I'm not an atheist but this attempt to label them as having a religious belief system is silly.

I have no idea why you or anyone else persist in doing so.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

161. I think his point is to say a certain degree of atheism is attended by dogmatism and zeal. nt

[stevenleser]

162. I'll buy the zeal part. Atheism is built on science so, to say it is dogmatic is the opposite of the

truth.

Dogmatism is defined as "the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others."

If we are comparing that to the Scientific method to include things like peer review, we can see that this is not a fair characterization.

[AnalystInParadise]

173. Atheism is founded on a belief system

that requires faith to live within it, like any other religion or belief system

[stevenleser]

200. No, it is not and no it does not. See my #162 above.

Many atheists simply believe nothing regarding god/higher power.

It does not require faith at all.

[alp227]

87. To be fair though, religion does influence lots of "pro-life" ideology,

and religious conservatives often associate lack of religious belief with not valuing life enough (as in: not being outraged enough by abortion/euthanasia/etc.) Hence why sites like Lifenews are associated with Christian organizations.

[REP]

7. No; it's pure click bait and terrible journalism

Another "human" term (I think you meant colloquialism) is "bun in the oven," but that makes it neither pastry nor accurate. "Baby" is used to inflame sentiment and to get the hankies out.

[Rex]

3. 'people associate secular thought with lack of morality.'

That is ironic imo, because secular people associate religious fundamentalists with lack of morality.

[REP]

9. Lying and calling a fetus a baby is oh so moral

[Fred Sanders]

12. Well, he changed it to make his distortion more clear in a different way.....

How can anyone be bigoted against a fetus?

That is new one.

[REP]

16. More click-bait words

If you don't want to bring an ill child into the world to an unknown fate, you're a bigot!!11 That's the only reason you might choose not have a DS child - not because you have any concerns or worries for that potential child.

[LeftyMom]

4. He's a dick but that's sensible advice.

In addition to the cognitive disability there are some substantial physical disabilities that tend to go along with that diagnosis: everything from heart defects to really severe GI tract problems. You shouldn't do that to somebody if you have the option.

[moriah]

17. I'm about as pro-choice as they come, but unless a condition's bad enough to merit hospice care....

.... after birth, suggesting it's a mercy killing to have an abortion is extremely offensive to those who are alive with disabilities, particularly in this case Down Syndrome. Do their lives matter so little that it would have been better to abort them? That's pretty much what's being suggested.

If you have the option to cure the fetus but don't do so, that's fucked up and your logic would apply. But aborting it isn't a cure. I won't judge people who make that decision because they know they couldn't provide the kind of care the child would need or something, but suggesting that it should be standard policy or that it's somehow morally correct for all fetuses with DS to be aborted really chaps my hide.

C'mon, do we need to re-air "Life Goes On"?

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. That's an irrational argument

no-one is saying that people who have Down syndrome should be euthanised. But there's a difference between aborting a foetus and killing a person. One is not the other. (And you can't "cure" chromosomal defects.)

[moriah]

23. The poster, and Dawkins, are suggesting it's cruel to have a child with DS instead of aborting ....

... the fetus. Which is essentially advocating early mercy killing. And yes, I find that offensive as hell. I have disabled siblings, and they wouldn't be better off dead. Sure, it's cruel as fuck to have the kid and then ship it off to an institution like so many do in Europe. But if you have the time, patience, and money to raise a child with special needs and give it the care it deserves, and you CHOOSE to do so, that's not cruel.

I'm not judging those who choose abortion, but I think it's totally whacked to judge those who choose not to abort a child just because of Down Syndrome. Of all of the trisomies, it's the most survivable and has the best chance of a close to normal life for the child.

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. It IS cruel to have a child with a lifelong disability...

that carries risks of significant physical defects and shortened lifespan, yes. I don't see anything controversial about saying so.

[moriah]

27. So it's better to kill it instead, if you do it early enough?

And where do we draw the line of what's significant? Which disabilities merit abortion, and which deserve to live?

[Spider Jerusalem]

28. Not being born is not the same as "killing".

A foetus which is not viable on its own is not a life. (I thought you were pro-choice?)

[moriah]

33. You're trying to denigrate choice by saying it's cruel for women to choose to have their...

... kids if their kids have DS.

I am pro-choice, but I don't deny reality. It's a life. It may not be able to survive on its own, and living at the CHOICE of the mother. But it's still a life. And to a woman who wants to continue the pregnancy, it is a child from the moment they know they're pregnant.

I don't get why people have to do all these moral dances around the terminology you use to discuss abortion to be able to justify their pro-choice stance in their head. You're alive. Actively killing you would be murder. Refusing to be your heart-lung machine for nine months would NOT be murder, and that is what abortion is. But the end result is still death, and denying that is wrong.

[Spider Jerusalem]

34. You don't sound very pro-choice.

It's not "a life" until the foetus is viable; until that point, it's a potential life. So, you're pro-choice, except when you're not?

[moriah]

37. No, it's still a life. But just because it's a life doesn't mean it's sacrosanct, any more than....

... mine or yours is. None of us has the right to demand someone support us with their very bodies for nine months, risking THEIR lives in the process, just to save ours.

Instead, our mothers each CHOSE to do that for us. My mother got to choose twice, not only by choosing not to abort me, but when life-threatening complications happened asked the doctors to prioritize me over her. Yes, probably technically a stupid decision since she had another child who was alive, which would mean two kids without moms if she'd died. But it was still her choice.

Instead of throwing around judgments about which kids should and shouldn't be aborted, shouldn't we be leaving that CHOICE up to the mother, in consultation with her physician?

[Spider Jerusalem]

38. It isn't a life.

Until it's viable, it's not. It's a potential life. And it seems to me to be really fucked up to say you're "pro-choice" and then make what sounds like a "sanctity of life" argument against selective abortion for debilitating chromosomal disorders.

[moriah]

41. You're the one trying to dance around saying that not all life is sacred. It isn't, and I'm not...

... afraid to say it.

What bothers the fuck out of me is when people try to say what life is worthy of life, which is what people do when they try to tell others which fetuses to abort.

[Spider Jerusalem]

47. 80% of women who have a Down syndrome pregnancy in the US choose to terminate.

Does that bother you?

[moriah]

49. It's their choice. It's not the choice I would make, personally.

I believe I could handle that level of special needs.

Non-mosaic Edwards or Patau Syndrome? I'd probably choose termination. The chances for mainstreamed education are practically nil with those trisomies (edit: if they even survive birth/infancy, which is extremely rare), but there is still a chance with DS for independent living.

[REP]

53. There is no way to predict level of physical or intellectual disability through testing for DS

The intellectual disability can be profound to moderate, but most with DS are unable to live independently. Those with the mosaic form are more likely to be able to, but that cannot be predicted or tested for.

The physical disabilities associated with DS are also unpredictable, and can be severe and require numerous surgeries.

[moriah]

65. More are now that they aren't simply shuttled into institutions.

And medical care is getting better and better, with 80% of adults with Down Syndrome living into their 60s.

Also, the tested average IQ of people with DS is going up -- likely because of better access to both special education and mainstreaming for those who are able to integrate. 39% test in the mild range, not "profound to moderate", and 1% manage to test in the borderline range. My little brother has a moderate level of intellectual disability, and also has a heart condition that makes it where he cannot fly. He was able to get a part-time job, and while he would miss his parents if he ever left home (which he doesn't really want to do at this time) he could easily integrate into an assisted living situation.

But it's not like the majority of kids with DS are in diapers as teenagers or can't feed themselves.

[snooper2]

122. life doesn't start until the baby can live outside the womb on it's own

[moriah]

154. So women who miscarry and grieve the loss are drama queens.

After all, it's not alive, so it couldn't die, right?

[snooper2]

156. It's not really my place to say-

[REP]

39. Yes, a fetus/embryo/zygote dies in an abortion - not a baby, child, or person

A zygote/embryo/fetus dies when antibiotics or other prescriptions are taken at the wrong moment, or for myriad other reasons - often before a woman knows she's pregnant. She may be late with her period then have a heavier than normal one, but almost every sexually active woman has "killed" a z/e/f with her body or by her actions.

So?

Women have abortions because they can't afford a(nother) child; are in a bad relationship; don't want children; don't want children now ... myriad reasons. Why do you care if a woman aborts because of a Down's Syndrome dx? How is this any of your business? How will you even know? Will you take care of the child if her child outlives her? Will you pay for heart surgery if it's needed?

[moriah]

43. Back off, I said I never would judge a person for choosing abortion in that case.

I'm pissed that people are advocating what amounts to wholesale eugenics even when a mother WANTS to have her child with special needs.

That's fucked up and anyone who doesn't see it as fucked up has a problem.

[REP]

50. I don't see anyone telling anyone to have an abortion. You back off.

I see people with general opinions, but I only see one person handing out condemns - and that's not on the side of not bringing more suffering into the world. No one is advocating waiting outside genetic counseling centers and pestering women to abort.

[moriah]

68. And I wasn't saying anything against abortion, yet you acted like I was.

Which is why I asked you to back off, because you were barking up the wrong tree.

[pokerfan]

180. DS screening is NOT eugenics

DS is a non-hereditary chromosomal defect.

[d_r]

185. That's funny because

between 35-50 percent of children born to a mother with Down Syndrome also have trisomy 21. Are you suggesting that children of people with Down Syndrome are not more likely to inherit the disorder?

[pokerfan]

187. I'm not saying it

The National Institute of Health is saying it....

Most cases of Down syndrome are not inherited. When the condition is caused by trisomy 21, the chromosomal abnormality occurs as a random event during the formation of reproductive cells in a parent. The abnormality usually occurs in egg cells, but it occasionally occurs in sperm cells. An error in cell division called nondisjunction results in a reproductive cell with an abnormal number of chromosomes. For example, an egg or sperm cell may gain an extra copy of chromosome 21. If one of these atypical reproductive cells contributes to the genetic makeup of a child, the child will have an extra chromosome 21 in each of the body's cells.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/down-syndrome

[d_r]

189. your statement about the term "eugenics"

would not apply to the genotype of the parents, it would apply to the offspring of the individual with Down Syndrome, which absolutely do have an increased change of inheriting the disorder.

[pokerfan]

190. 95% of the time it is random

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/inherited-down-syndrome
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/down-syndrome/basics/causes/con-20020948

but whatever. I wish I hadn't wandered into this thread. Have a nice rest of the day.

[d_r]

192. you too nt

[moriah]

191. You're making the same mistake pro-lifers make, equating screening/diagnosis with a decision, but ..

(Many mothers choose to have the screenings done even if they know they'd never terminate, just to know what to expect. Yet many anti-choicers are against all prenatal screening because of the fact some mothers choose to terminate based on the information. It's a bad idea to equate screening with abortion.)

... many of the arguments people have been using in favor of abortion for DS on this very discussion forum have been about what will benefit society at large. Such as suggesting, based on the myth that most children with DS are born to older mothers (80% of kids with DS are born to women under 35, because younger women have more babies in general) that when the parents die the kids are inevitably going to be burdens on society and so those women should abort instead. Asking if I'll pay for their heart surgery if their parents can't afford it (the answer of course is yes through my taxes, as I'm a proponent of universal health care for everyone, including the disabled).

Also, while trisomies are not usually inherited and are a result of accidents during meiosis, women with Down Syndrome who become pregnant have roughly a 50% chance of passing on the disorder to their offspring (while fertility is reduced in women and nearly absent in men with DS, it can and does happen). So it can be hereditary.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

177. Choice is choice.

There's nothing that says people will make good choices if you allow them to do so. Or that everyone is going to agree with your choice. The important point is that you have a choice, not what you choose.

So no, no one here is trying to 'denigrate choice', even if they think your particular choice is wrong, or 'cruel'.

[moriah]

198. So the people who preach about abortion being murder....

... are not trying to denigrate choice, when they tell a woman they're choosing wrongly? Because after all, it's just their opinion, and not everyone is going to agree?

You can't have it both ways. Either it's entirely the mother's choice and not for us to judge, or it's not. We get to make judgments and decisions and choices for ourselves, not for others. Making blanket statements about what is immoral when it comes to the decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy is anti-choice bullshit.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

199. Correct - they're not trying to denigrate choice itself. They're trying to denigrate

the SPECIFIC choice of abortion, and not only to fenigrate it, but to take it away and make it illegal. They'll trumpet to the heavens the wonderfulness of women choosing to continue a pregnancy.

No one here is trying to take away EITHER choice - to continue, or not to continue.

[Marrah_G]

81. No one is saying someone has to

One guy is saying that he is of the opinion that people should.

[moriah]

90. And I'm of the opinion that the only opinion that matters is the mother's...

.... with a physician being the one giving the advice on a case-by-case basis.

I'm extremely pro-choice. I don't think anyone in their right mind is pro-abortion, however.

A poor prenatal diagnosis is a heartwrenching, agonizing situation regardless of the choices made. I've known people who have carried babies "as long as God would let them" that had 100% fatal anomalies. Yeah, they were religious and did it partially because their religious beliefs told them it was the right thing. I don't think I could have done it. At the same time, I saw what they tried to do with the situation -- one couple that knew they'd have less than 24 hours with their child made sure that their only son was given pain relieving medication immediately at birth, then held and rocked him until he took his last breath. He kept a picture of him holding his son (not really in his arms, but more in his hands, he was so tiny) on his desk for the rest of the time I knew him.

I guess my whole feeling on the topic is that if I want the freedom to choose abortion without being judged, whether it's because of a medical abnormality or circumstances or whatever, I can't judge someone for choosing *not* to have an abortion, whether it's because they think God told them not to or whatever.

[Marrah_G]

91. I agree that the only opinion that should matter is the mothers.

That doesn't stop others from having or expressing opinions or people from disagreeing with the people that have those opinions.

[LeftOfWest]

113. I Am Pro Abortion

Abortion is a Medical Procedure that keeps Women safe and healthy.

Period.

Chuck that "right minded" crap with bigot palin.

[moriah]

123. So you're pro-telling other women when to have abortions?

Because that's being pro-abortion. "Abortion is great, everybody should have one! Especially that older mother with a fetus with Down Syndrome. Her choices don't matter, only mine does."

Pro-CHOICE is being for that safe procedure being available to those who choose it, and also supporting the mothers who choose otherwise.

[Scout]

165. i am also pro-abortion for every/any pregnant woman who wants one.

sick of people trying to make out like abortion is oh so awful, and always such a difficult choice, and women feel so bad afterwards, yadda yadda yadda.

pro-abortion is not the opposite of "pro-life" ... we aren't hanging out around the office of the OB-GYNs and trying to coerce women into aborting....

[moriah]

170. If you think it's an *easy* choice, you've not had one.

I have. I won't go into my reasons -- because they don't matter. What does matter is that I made that choice, and fortunately there were no impediments to my getting the medical care I chose and no one pushing me into a decision either way. Which is how it should be.

No, it's not an easy choice, even when can you look back 10+ years later without regret and know it was the right decision for an unplanned pregnancy.

And don't forget, the vast majority of abortions carried out due to fetal abnormalities are of wanted children -- their parents may have done ovulation prediction kits, etc, trying desperately to get pregnant, perhaps for years before they finally succeeded. Then they find out the news that this baby they tried so hard to make may never be able to have their own children, may not be able to go to school, may not even be able to survive 24 hours after birth. If you think that's not "awful", whichever decision the mother ends up making, you have no compassion at all.

[Scout]

205. apparently you don't read very well.

emphasis added this time:

sick of people trying to make out like abortion is oh so awful, and always such a difficult choice, and women feel so bad afterwards, yadda yadda yadda.

For some women, abortion is not a difficult choice. Insisting that it is always, should always, be a decision that women agonize over is paternalistic. I have plenty of compassion, which is why i have spent many cold, early mornings as a clinic escort for women getting abortions.

I never said women shouldn't feel bad, but quit demonizing them if they don't.

[Mariana]

211. It's a good thing, then, that Dawkin's opinion doesn't matter.

Women's freedom to choose has not been affected in any way by his opinion and the fact that he expressed it.

[Hugabear]

128. Are you pro-choice or not?

Pro-choice is pro-choice.

[moriah]

133. The point of my question is that the ONLY person who can answer those questions....

... is the mother, not some posters on the Internet or a world-renowned rape minimalist jackass. The anti-choicers who want a person to continue the pregnancy are bad enough, but being anti-choice and wanting people to choose death for what very likely was a wanted child (in the case of most fetal abnormalities) is just fucking sick. Because then you are deciding for others what life is unworthy of life, and coming damn close to advocating eugenics along with being decidedly ANTI-choice!

It's always the mother's decision. It's a heartbreaking one no matter which way they decide. All mothers with a poor prenatal diagnosis need our unconditional support no matter what decision they make, not throwing around accusations of immorality.

[Hugabear]

140. You're the one saying that it's still a life

Earlier, you asked "So it's better to kill it instead, if you do it early enough?" and arguing that it was still a life. Sounds like very pro-life statements.

Even in your response to me, you continue pushing the pro-life narrative with your wording, "wanting people to choose death..."

It's a fetus. It's not a living being. Abortion is not killing anything.

[moriah]

148. I disagree. It may not be murder, but the fetus still dies.

It's not murder because it is not a woman's duty to be a heart-lung machine to another life. No matter what age that life is. If the life is too young to live outside the womb, it's the same as if you required me to be your heart-lung machine at risk to my own life for that long. It's not my duty. I have a choice. You'd still die, but I wouldn't have murdered you.

Now, some people feel the bond that mothers feel with their children early on in pregnancy.

To those women, once they have made the choice to nurture that embryo, to give that fetus life, it's a child. It's a baby. It's a life. More importantly, it's THEIR child. It's THEIR baby. The question of "personhood" for a fetus to me, is answered only by the mother -- and their decision is the only one that counts. Suggesting that a fetus is not a living being is suggesting that every woman who miscarries a wanted fetus and grieves is just being a drama queen for feeling like they've lost a child.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the decision, once made, is irrevocable. That's the most heartbreaking case of all, and the one that we're discussing when we talk about most abortions that occur because of fetal abnormalities. Most of the time, that woman has already transitioned into seeing the fetus as a person. But they've also seen the heart scans and have heard their doctor's predictions about if surgery is even possible. Or they've seen that the fetus they already think of as their son has no kidneys and absolutely will not live outside the womb.

I think if you were to lurk on discussion forums regarding poor prenatal diagnosis, you'll see that every pregnant woman on there sees her fetus as a life. They're looking at what kind of life their fetus might have, not whether the fetus that they will still call their child, their baby, is actually a living being.

[alp227]

106. "to have a child with a lifelong disability"

That phrase implies that parents - knowing what can happen based on genetic testing- purposely have children w/disability.

[d_r]

186. so what disabilities are "OK"

and what disabilities are not?

[dionysus]

93. that's a really tough one. you have the guy who played Corky from the old show Life Goes On, who is

pretty damn highly functional, eloquent even... he could remember his lines for seasons of a show and gives inspirational speeches. he can probably take good care of himself with minimal assistance. then you have severe cases of Downs that are far, far worse, who need round the clock care...

it is a dilemma of choice.. what to do?

and if you're poor, that complicates it even more. will someone adopt a child like that? what would you do if you couldn't afford to care for them?

it truly is a moral dilemma... I sure as hell don't have an answer for that one...

[YarnAddict]

183. Yes,

there are people willing to adopt DS kids.

[dionysus]

240. if people do, and have the adequate means to care for the child, i give them the utmost respect.

(as long as it's not the foster care fraudsters you read about now and again who take on kids for the money and treat them horribly or neglect their care. i hope people like that are very rare.)

[sir pball]

142. No, you're just categorically saying the disabled shouldn't be born in the first place.

Because that's a whole lot less offensive.

I'm going to go so far as to call it one of these rare times where invoking Nazism is not Godwin's law to say you're outright promoting Action T4, just on "fetuses" instead of "people".

[Spider Jerusalem]

144. So, do you think it's moral or ethical to have a child you know will have a chromosomal disorder?

And potentially severely compromised quality of life? I don't, especially. (And yes, some people would be better off not having been born.)

[sir pball]

146. It's not my decision to make that choice for another person. Full stop, end of story.

Even if it would save society a lot of resources down the road..

[Spider Jerusalem]

147. It isn't about saving resources, or "useless eaters"

it's about whether it's morally defensible to knowingly bring a child with a severe birth defect or chromosomal disorder into the world in the first place.

[sir pball]

151. I'm just asking for a little intellectual honesty - I won't ever agree with your position

But I'll at least respect it if you admit you're in favor of eugenics via abortion - couching it in ostensibly "caring" language about not forcing the poor, helpless little thing to be born into such a terrible life that it didn't choose doesn't change the fact that you're openly promoting the elimination of incurable chromosomal defects from the human race.

[Spider Jerusalem]

158. Is eliminating debilitating chromosomal disorders a bad thing, then?

NB that I'm certainly not advocating, nor do I support, anything like the extermination or sterilisation of people who have such disorders; nor would I advocate making abortion compulsory in such cases. However I don't see a moral argument for having a child who would have such a disability if it's known in advance through genetic screening. (It's amusing to observe how many people here turn into pro-lifers around issues like this, really. Complete with the same intellectually dishonest tactics.)

[Scout]

166. "However I don't see a moral argument for having a child..."

"However I don't see a moral argument for having a child who would have such a disability if it's known in advance through genetic screening."

Nor do I. Hell, all i've got is the fat gene, and there have been times i wish i had not been born. I can't imagine how I'd feel if I had an actual disability or chromosomal disorder. I might very well be angry and spiteful if I thought/knew my parents knew they could have prevented my misery by terminating the pregnancy.

[Spider Jerusalem]

169. Being fat and being severely disabled with multiple congenital conditions are very different things.

[Scout]

204. yes i know that. did you think i didn't? did you bother to read what i wrote? n/t

[LeftyMom]

29. Existential angst and bad television aside, that's irresponsible advice. nt

[gollygee]

149. People routinely abort fetuses shown to have Down Syndrome

Most pregnant women have a test that tells how high a risk they have, and if they have a high risk they have another test to tell them for sure. In addition, there's a ultrasound done where fetuses are checked for various physical problems that might lead a women to choose to abort, including but not limited to Down Syndrome. This isn't unsual and it is already a choice, and a common one.

[moriah]

152. And each case varies widely, which is why the choices are made by the woman...

.... with her doctor.

Not blanket statements like "it's immoral to have a baby with Down Syndrome".

[gollygee]

153. Well that's just his opinion

His opinion on what is moral is nothing more than one person's opinion. I think the person who asked his opinion did so deliberately because he/she know what the opinion was going to be and wanted some anti-abortion publicity. I'm not falling for that. Ask a question, you need to be prepared for the answer.

[ozone_man]

196. I think it's mainly right to lifers

who have Down Syndrome children because they don't believe in getting amniocentesis or abortion in case it indicates a DS fetus.

[Warpy]

98. Right, and will take so much of a family's time and resources

that other children in the family will be rather deprived, which they wouldn't be with a new brother or sister without those problems.

Families have to think long and hard whether or not they can stretch themselves to bringing up a Down's child properly. In a rotten economy with falling wages, it is an agonizing decision.

I've known quite a few adults with Down's and they are incredibly special people with the capacity to be naughty but seemingly without any capacity to be mean or spiteful.

That's the reward for raising a Down's child.

But yes, it's a terrible ethical choice. Do you bring a kid into the world who will cause other children to be deprived--or even never conceived and born--and who will likely experience multiple surgeries as a child and never progress to the point of being able to live totally independently, or do you have a second trimester abortion of a very much wanted pregnancy?

Anyone who paints this as a black and white choice is both cruel and stupid.

[pnwmom]

214. So should parents abort all imperfect fetuses, then? Even very fixable ones, like the heart defects

Downs Syndrome people have?

And everyone with Crohn's disease?

[LeftyMom]

222. Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.

I happen to have the mild form of a genetic digestive tract problem (not Crohn's) that is generally associated with Down syndrome. It runs in my family, in otherwise healthy people, which I'm told is weird. Having the mild form means that: I had only one surgery as an infant. Down syndrome babies with the severe form can wind up having a half dozen or more longer, more dangerous surgeries over their first two years or so before they can successfully use a diaper and not a colostomy bag.

Having the mild version means that while I needed digestive medication that ruined my baby teeth, and the caps on those teeth cost my parents thousands of dollars (not adjusted) they could ill afford, but my adult teeth are okay. My digestion is delicate but functional, though I have to be careful of what I eat. The triggers associated with the condition aren't well understood, I've had to figure it out for myself, and only in talking with cousins who have the same condition did we connect that it's the condition and we weren't really fixed by surgery that corrected the most obvious symptoms.

Knowing what that relatively mild, largely correctible version has done to my life (and that of my cousins with the same condition)? And knowing what the more severe form has done to a friend's child who has it? I wouldn't bring a child into this world who was both at great risk of the severe form and entirely incapable of understanding their suffering. It's cruel and it's wrong.

[pnwmom]

223. As someone with the most common digestive disease associated with Down's -- Celiac disease --

I disagree, although I do understand where you are coming from and you have every right to make this decision for yourself and your family.

No one should ever be pressured to abort a fetus, however. Pro-choice means pro-choice.

[LeftyMom]

228. Nobody's pressuring. People are expressing opinions.

If I ever hold a sign up outside a genetic counselor's office to tell people that having your digestive system surgically repaired in your first days of life is no fucking fun, I promise I'll let the internet know. But I'm pretty sure I have better things to do.

[Fred Sanders]

5. Nice try. Babies can not be aborted.....complete distortion...another jury decision...

[alp227]

8. OK, edited title. nt

[Fred Sanders]

11. Sure, much better with a Fox News question mark...now totally unrelated to actual title....

[ohnoyoudidnt]

60. yes, a fetus is not a baby.

I do not have a probem with a parent terminating a pregnancy if the fetus incicates a serious defect. If anyone does, they should question how pro-choice they really are.

[LynnTTT]

10. The facts are

that although most people will not discuss, aborting is exactly what people are doing.
92% of women who receive this diagnosis do have an abortion. Most people do not tell family until they are past the three month mark, so they can terminate if that is their choice.
When I was a kid we knew many families that had a Down's child. It's very unusual to see one now. And people never seem to wonder why.

[stone space]

70. That means that 8% of women ...

...who receive this diagnoses are immoral.

92% of women who receive this diagnosis do have an abortion

That seems a rather harsh judgment to me, but it seems to be what Dawkins as well as some here are saying, as near as I can tell.

Unless there's another interpretation here that I'm missing.

(Not saying you. Your post just happened to be the one containing the statistic.)

[Hugabear]

13. Pro-choice is pro-choice. End of story.

It's not pro-choice only under certain circumstances.

[Mariana]

213. Exactly. Dawkins in no way suggested

that women should be deprived of the right to make the decision.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. I think your title is absurd, honestly

I don't see a moral issue in choosing to abort a foetus with Down syndrome. Or Tay-Sachs disease. Or any of several other debilitating chromosomal disorders that significantly shorten lifespan. It seems far more immoral, honestly, to deny women the option of having the choice to abort.

[REP]

19. Well, Tay-Sachs is about 100% fatal

I personally think knowingly bringing a child with Tay-Sachs to term so it can die and feel every moment of it should be punishable somehow. I've never heard of it happening, and I hope I never do.

[Marrah_G]

83. I don't know of any family that has knowingly brought a child with Tay Sachs into the world

Last edited Thu Aug 21, 2014, 02:06 AM - Edit history (1)

I would not want any woman told they HAD to abort though. My nephew/godson had Tay Sachs, I can't think of a worse disease. Neither parent was Jewish so they had never been tested. They didn't find out until he started to regress.

(also, it is 100% fatal, with no positive quality of life)

DS is a very different thing. I can understand a woman choosing to go forward with a pregnancy if the child has DS.

[REP]

15. In reply to your edit: No

Down's Syndrome isn't about being being a good hugger or the many other demeaning and dehumanizing things people say, trying to compliment the intellectually delayed when they are in fact dismissing the numerous challenges they face. Let's start with just the health aspects: In addition to mental delay, which can range from profound to moderate, DS brings with it a number of serious health problems, not limited to the heart and kidneys. These are unpleasant and difficult enough for anyone to deal with; a person with a mental delay may find it even more terrifying and unbearable. No test can determine how severe the effects of DS will be; only that it is present.

Many with DS are never able to live independently, and statistically, children with DS are born to older parents. Who cares for that child should that outlive the parents? Group homes for those with mental delays are grim, and those are often the best alternative available. Sending off a vulnerable adult alone to the care of strangers is not a comforting thought.

Those are just two things - of hundreds - that are considered about the health and well-being of the potential child. It's not about bigotry; it's about 'can I do and provide everything necessary to make sure my child will be safe, cared for and protected?" That's hard enough to answer when there is no diagnosis of DS; when there is, there is so much more to consider - for someone else's sake.

[kelliekat44]

31. Not to mention the impact it has on family, especially siblings. nt

[951-Riverside]

20. No.

[freshwest]

21. How does he feel about this man who's been physically disabled for 50 years?

If Dawkins wants to play the eugenics game, he'd better be in perfect health forever or someone may say it's time for him to 'exit stage left.'

I know folks like Stephen Hawking and others with Down's and many who fall in between. What right has this guy to judge who should live or die?

What he is presenting as 'immoral' is the same logic Nazis used with Aktion T4 as mercy killlings, no matter what their parents or their caregivers wanted.

The reason given to sell the program was the cost of care of 'useless eaters.' I know people with Down's who are able to work and fully support themselves. So what does Dawkins want or is he just speaking from a place of privilege?

Aktion 14 eventually grew to the point it would have put Hawkin to death when he got sick and never allowed him to develop his potential.

UGH! Dawkins need to take a break with his arrogant blather.

[freshwest]

51. He's suffered with it for 50 years and is 71. And you are way out of line about RW talking points.

I'm prochoice for abortion as a matter of family and know those who have contined their pregnancy and those who have not. A fetus is not a child.

But women don't need some patronizing man to tell them what is and isn't immoral about their choice. I support all choices, but not some man telling women what to do.

I would like an apology for you calling me anti choice, as anyone who knows me has learned I am rabidly prochoice and against men telling us women what to do with our bodies and our reproductive lives, but am unlikely to get one.

I'm not enamoured of any man telling women what to do with their bodies it truly offends me to have anyone tell me as a woman and my friends who made whatever choice they decide as 'immoral.' I've argued with Libertarians on this same issue about the cost of care of the disabled. That was the mantra the Nazis used.

How many of the people I mentioned do you know personally, since you take me task as a RWer, how many have you taken to get abortions, or helped them when they chose to not have an amnio and abort?

If you want to attack me about women's rights, walk a mile in the shoes of those who didn't know what kind of disabilities their children would have or those who support others who become disabled and need care.

The one who is started this is the man who called not aborting 'immoral.' Women don't need his manly input. I will not, nor will the women I know weho have given birth to disabled children that they didn't know would be, be judged by them.

Nor will I judge them for giving birth when they did know their child would have Down's. It's the woman's choice. Period, end of story. And so are the consequences.

Liberals are for choice and the right to choose. Nowhere did I say that choice should be taken away, and I will not call their choice 'immoral' nor give a man quarter for demanding they give birth or upbraiding them for deciding not to give birth.

You've been here since March, no problem, but you might want to go over my Journal and see my many posts on the absolute right of women to choice. I won't accept a man telling women the choice they made as 'immoral.'

[REP]

35. I doubt very much you know anyone like Stephen Hawking

Hawking is unique in at least two ways: his intelligence and the length of time he's survived ALS.

The cause of ALS is unknown in 90% of patients. There is a rare familial form that is caused by a defect on the 21st chromosome. ALS and Down's Syndrome are unrelated and unlike things. Just as terminating a pregnancy is unrelated and unlike euthanasia.

[freshwest]

45. Sorry, but since I go and visit such people and advocate for them, your doubt is wrong.

Specifically, I meet with three people who move about in a get up just like the one in the picture.

But feel free to not respect me for actually meeting these folks a couple of times a week and knowing them as they go through life. I love them, they are not statistics and they are just a file of symptoms or diseases. And I know those who are also bedridden who survive past regular retirement age. Yes, they do exist, perhaps not in your world, I guess.

You do not know who I know, do not see what I see and you do not need to accept that I feel as strongly as I do about caring for those I know and love.

No, they aren't geniuses like Hawkin. But they love their lives. I can't believe a progressive website, that is supposed to be for the support of the disabled, is so eager to give this arrogant man a pass and let him use the word 'immoral' so carelessly. It effects policy when you demean people.

Hawkin, despite his intellectual capacity is disabled and is of the type for whom the ADA and other accomodations are made. I live in housing equipped for people who are mobility, intellectually and in other ways impaired. Not all are born disabled, either.

I see these people everyday and the love they have and their love for others. It's not about atheism for me, it's about freedom to choose to give or not give birth.

I support both options, and I would never call either of them 'immoral.' That is a real trigger for me here. I don't accept RW religionists attacking those they call 'immoral' and I won't put up with from those who don't espouse religion.

I'm talking about real people and not famous ones who are effected by this kind of arrogance.

I'm disappointed, but what else is new. A lot of folks are discouraged when they attempt to put real people above famous people.

EOM.

[REP]

57. There is only one person on earth like Stephen Hawking: Stephen Hawking

You see the disability. I see the man. Big difference.

I am disabled. I don't want "advocates" who see me only as a manifestation of disease. I am a human being, not a cause.

[freshwest]

62. You are wrong in all that you say about me.

I don't advocate for care unless asked. I too am disabled. So is my child. So are my friends.

Yet you say this man is unique and say I only see his disability. That is utterly wrong. To me he is an example of the physical side of disability but not mental, which is what Dawkins attacked.

The people I know are both or either mentally or physically 'not able' as some say. I don't get into the ideology of it. I say Hawkin is no more unique or deserving of respect than me, my child, my friends.

All persons live on the continiuum of what is considered able and disabled. I don't hold any one above the other.

I am specifically against those who see those like me and my child and others like us as a 'cause' because they forget our humanity in the process. And they are never there when the effects of their rhetoric harms us, causes government to try to herd us or RWers trying to tell us we are a burden, or religionists telling us that we have not tried enough or judging us for what they don't know and are not going to be held responsible for that harms us in many ways.

I am unwilling to let arrogant people consign me and those I care for and those who are like us to lives where we are victimized by entities who don't see us as worthwhile human beings. They sail off and never look at the mess they have made with their grand ideologies.

I know people who have died when their care was denied by cookie cutter approaches and the one size fits all. We are all unique and have to use all our talents to survive.

We are not so far apart REP but I tend to not reveal my own life for the gibbering masses to mock anywhere. Because they do not understand what we are going through.

[thucythucy]

73. Thanks for speaking up about this.

As a person with a serious disability myself, and someone who is surrounded by others similarly disabled, it always infuriates me when people make the "they're better off dead" or-- close cousin -- "they'd be better off having never been born" argument.

As if everyone who doesn't die young won't, at some point, have some sort of serious disability, in which case watch out! If "managed care" doesn't get you, the crypto-eugenicists will.

It's really discouraging to see this sort of ableism on what it supposed to be a progressive board. Hell, the spell-check here doesn't even recognize "ableism" as a real word!

Best wishes freshwest, and keep up the good fight.

[freshwest]

76. Thank you very much, thucythucy. Yes it's disappointing to see those would use us for an agenda.

Then they discard us after that. We are real people, we hurt, we need our dignity and not the things some say we must do that we can't make happen like they do.

As I said, I see people 'like' Hawkin in the physical realm weekly. On Wednesdays, not less than three. But they are not geniuses or famous. They are just people who love and are loved. I love them and no amount of money or fame or approval from others can take that away.

I am not paid nor do I tell anyone how or where to live. We are all so very individual in our needs and our hopes, and at times that has disabled people fighting each other for limited funding. It is never one size fits all people. Being a human is about our own uniqueness, not grouped and forced to what others say.

I support ALL choices and use what limited energy have to advocate for funds for their care. Even if the choices are not popular with ideologues. If they work and give is a quality of life we want and need and life itself - that is the issue, not egotism or being trendy.

When I note the slightest whiff of disregard for a disabled person I know it is the crypto-eugenetics you mention. Strange that it is the better off people financially who feel entitled to tell us jsut who should not be here breathing the same air they do.

Well, not quite, as we don't live in that rarified atmosphere where this is all a matter of social policy, ideology, business, popularity or some clever philosophy.

We are flesh and blood and we matter. We do make an impact on those around us for the better. I too, am surprised that a progressive board doesn't see us as people who are as important as those who get air time and are famous.

Thanks again, I needed that and won't give up what I do in real life, even if it and my life are not going to be respected here.

[sheshe2]

88. Dignity.

Dignity.

Then they discard us after that. We are real people, we hurt, we need our dignity and not the things some say we must do that we can't make happen like they do.

We are flesh and blood and we matter. We do make an impact on those around us for the better. I too, am surprised that a progressive board doesn't see us as people who are as important as those who get air time and are famous.

Bless your heart freshwest, a beautiful couple of posts.

No, you will not be not be discarded as long as I have breath in my body. You are flesh and blood and you damn well matter.

[freshwest]

92. :)

[Puzzledtraveller]

124. kudos!

Great reply, and awesome for being involved.

[bigwillq]

46. We should abort him

[LadyHawkAZ]

22. It beats being bigoted against women who choose to abort

DS pregnancies.

IMO, that would be so much less moral. Obviously YMMV.

[Crunchy Frog]

42. Sounds like he's bigoted against women who choose NOT to abort.

IMO, the only moral position is to respect women's freedom to choose, whatever that choice might be.

[Jim__]

25. Please. Dawkins is *NOT* a philosopher.

I know it's the article that makes the statement - not the OP - but I do think that's worth correcting.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

32. I wonder what the 1% do?

[Crunchy Frog]

36. He's really kind of a dick overall. n/t

[MellowDem]

48. People don't associate secular thought with lack of morality because of Dawkins....

He's just a scapegoat for many theists.

People associate lack of morality with secular thought because their own religions tell them that is the case. And because of religious privilege. And because they may not know many, if any atheists.

Many mainstream religions promote all sorts of bigotry explicitly in their texts, especially against atheists and other religions.

Which is to say, being mad at Dawkins for many religious believers being bigots makes absolutely no sense. Dawkins is demonized by theists, especially on the right, as some devil caricature of all atheists.

The root problem is religion and faith based thinking.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

55. "The root problem is religion"

The religious can cherry pick what someone says somewhere and try to make it sounds like it is every Atheist's opinion!

You probably wouldn't even hear from any Atheists if the religious would stay out of government and quit trying to shove there religion down everybody's throat!

[bluestateguy]

54. Sounds more pro-abortion than pro-choice

nt

[alarimer]

56. I think he's wrong only in the sense that it is an individual's choice.

No one should heed Richard Dawkins' advice or anyone else's on what they should do in a particular circumstance.

I do agree that, were I in that situation, it is likely to be the decision I would make.

He's wrong in that I don't think it's moral one way or the other. You can make an argument either way.

Dawkins, while I respect him in many ways, especially his take on religion, has some very definite blind spots. And can be an asshole.

I do think he's trying to make a rational case here. But I think it fails because that is not the only criterion to apply. He may be right that, from a quality of life perspective, abortion may be the rational response to such a diagnosis. But that is not the only consideration. And he missed that.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. so you all support abortion rights except if the mother learns that her child would have down's

syndrome?

[immoderate]

63. That's what I'm taking from this...

Except that they promoted Dawkins to "philosopher."

--imm

[alp227]

108. Women should ALWAYS have the choice,

but can it not be acknowledged that abortion based on genetics is a form of subtle bigotry?

[loyalsister]

61. Suggesting that abortion should be the only good choice is anti-choice

Women who have children with DS have talked about being asked why they didn't have an abortion. Being critical of whatever reproductive choices a woman makes is disrespectful. It devalues the woman and her child.

[immoderate]

64. How about *suggesting* that it's the better or best choice of many, from one that seeks an opinion?

Is that anti-choice?

--imm

[loyalsister]

79. I don't think that is the case here

Dawkins made a blanket statement based on a philosophical view of what he believes is the ethical decision for all women who have been informed that their fetus has DS.

It's anti-choice for someone to pretend they know better what decisions women should make about their bodies.

[Mariana]

109. It's not anti-choice to express an opinion

about which choice he thinks is best in a particular circumstance. Is there any indication whatsoever that Dawkins is interested in preventing women from making their own reproductive choices? Do you know of any actions he has taken to try to do so?

[loyalsister]

143. How are these opinions different?

It's immoral not to continue a pregnancy
vs
It's immoral to continue a pregnancy

They are both anti-choice opinions because they make a blanket statement on the morality of all women's decisions regarding their pregnancies and bodies.

[MellowDem]

193. Nope...

Saying something is immoral isn't the same as saying it should be illegal.

[loyalsister]

195. That's a different discussion

Compare the two statements as they stand. There is no difference between the two.
Both express beliefs about what a women should or shouldn't do with her body.

[MellowDem]

210. Between what two statements?

People can have opinions on what women should or shouldn't do with their bodies without thinking their opinions should be law. Plenty of people think it's immoral for women to smoke while pregnant.

And I get the impression that Dawkins would have the same opinion for men if they could get pregnant.

[loyalsister]

216. These

It's immoral not to continue a pregnancy
vs
It's immoral to continue a pregnancy

Whether they go beyond moral judgement is irrelevant. The are both anti-choice because both opinions oppose a personal choice a woman makes about her pregnancy on moral grounds.

[MellowDem]

218. Opposing something on moral grounds isn't anti-choice...

It's an opinion. Opposing abortion on legal grounds is anti-choice. Women still have a choice no matter a person's opinion on the matter.

[loyalsister]

221. Judging a woman's decisions

and claiming to know better than she does is a paternalistic, anti-choice position. I have talked with people who are not concerned about the legal arguments but believe that no one should have an abortion. Another believes it should be legal, but courts should determine whether it's an appropriate decision.

Those are philosophically anti-choice positions.

[MellowDem]

231. Well if they think their views should be enforced...

Then it is anti-choice. But otherwise it's just an opinion. Everyone has them.

[loyalsister]

232. Policy positions start with opinions

Do you think he would disagree if someone wanted to use his opinion as a basis for policy?
He's stating an opinion that is every bit as rigid as the one that claims no woman should have an abortion ever.

[MellowDem]

233. Yes, I think he would disagree...

Assuming he's pro-choice. Many people who are pro-choice think abortion is immoral. The question of whether something is moral is very different from whether it should be legal.

I don't think it's rigid to state an opinion. I may think it's immoral to be racist, but I don't want to make it illegal for a variety of reasons.

[loyalsister]

234. It doesn't change the fact that it is an anti-choice statement

A person can make the reverse statement of yours. I hate n--- but it shouldn't be illegal for them to go to school with my kids.

Is really that not a racist statement?

[MellowDem]

235. It is...

But saying you think something is immoral but shouldn't be illegal isn't anti-choice. It's saying it's immoral, but you don't think it should be illegal, for a number of reasons.

With abortion, many people say it wouldn't be practical, that it would result in more deaths and be even more immoral, etc. etc.

[loyalsister]

236. We aren't going to agree on this

It offends me deeply that people ask parents of my friends who have developmental disabilities they didn't have an abortion.

It bothers me as much as for someone to ask why a person had an abortion rather than implicitly accept that she made a decision that she felt was right.

When someone who is recognized as a moral authority on medical ethics publicly announces their opinion in either direction it emboldens people to disrespect women's decisions.

[MellowDem]

237. I think in the situation you described...

Asking the friend why they didn't have an abortion or bringing it up would be rude, but not anti-choice.

Dawkins, from what I understand, responded to someone who asked his opinion on twitter. I think it was an appropriate forum for it.

[Puzzledtraveller]

125. Thank you!

Somehow people are forgetting the "choice" aspect of all of this.

[betterdemsonly]

66. Just Irish nationalist bs.

Last edited Thu Aug 21, 2014, 05:17 AM - Edit history (1)

I am talking about the person Dawkins was responding to. Most Irish nationalist probably would favor abortion if the baby was black. They would also favor killing mom, afterword. Furthermore most of the people having these types of abortions were probably not atheists. Also Irish people probably have these types of abortions in the same numbers, but have to leave the country to do it, and keep hushed up about it.

[alp227]

110. ??? Dawkins is not Irish. Nt

[betterdemsonly]

114. The person he was responding to was

That is who I am talking about. Anyway, if Dawkins were a women and he felt abortion were the morally correct choice, who cares.

[GusBob]

69. sounds like the third reich: "beasts in human form"

First they sterilized the mentally ill and physically handicapped, then they started euthanasia with infants including those with DS then they kept raising the ages until eventually handicapped adults were "euthanized" They developed the gas and used it on these people first. They even collected the gold teeth

They justified it as "life unworthy of life" Nearly the entire medical profession partipated in the sterilization program and it was just the beginning of the next step: involuntary euthanasia of people they considered inferior. They considered it natural selection and had no moral qualms about it.

Hates to go all Godwin's law here, but its all well documented in "the third Reich at war" by Richard evans

[sir pball]

145. It's not Godwin's Law if it's a legitimate issue that relates to the NSDAP.

And you're a special kind of stupid if you don't think the Third Reich would have had forced amniocentesis and abortion if the technology had existed in the 40s.

This particular opinion of Dawkins' is quite literally Nazi.

[Mariana]

215. Are the women who abort DS fetuses Nazis?

Dawkins said some words. As far as we know, he hasn't actually participated in preventing the births of any DS children. The women who've aborted those fetuses have done so. What do you think of them?

[d_r]

71. I'm sorry

I support women's rights to choose what to do with their bodies 100%.

If they choose to abort a fetus that is their choice.

If a woman decides she doesn't want a child with Down Syndrome that is her choice and none of my business.

What I am about to say isn't about Abortion, it is about people's attitudes towards others with disabilities.

Because that is my business. Because now you aren't just talking about a fetus connected to a woman's body, but you are demeaning walking around talking human beings that are part of this society.

This attitude toward Down Syndrome is disgusting.

It is pure disgusting.

It is eugenics.

When asked about people with autism and where he would "draw the line" he said:
"People on that spectrum have a great deal to contribute, Maybe even an enhanced ability in some respects. DS not enhanced"

Holy fucking shit. He is making the decision that someone with a disability doesn't deserve to live. That is what he is saying. Fuck you Richard Hawkins. Fuck you.

I will tell you a story. I once knew of a preschool class of four-year-old children. A little boy in there had a father who was terminally ill with cancer. The boy would play doctor's office every day. His father was at home in a hospital bed. He would want to play out what he was experiencing, as if he was trying to work it out. He wanted to play hospital and lay sick in the bed. And the other kids got tired of this game really fast and left him. Except one little four year old girl with Down Syndrome, who played the nurse and the doctor and the patient and played that game with that boy for months when all the other kids were way passed wanting to be around it.

That is the "DS not enhanced."

I have a little boy in my scout group with Down Syndrome. He and my son have been close friends since kindergarten, they are 10 years old now. Unfuckingbelievable that this guy says that this boy has "nothing to contribute." He contributes every day to the people around him.

How fucking horrible can someone be? Awful. I just want to throw up.

This kind of attitude is why people with disabilities are treated as being subhuman without the rights that others enjoy.

Period. It is.

[freshwest]

85. Thanks, d_r. You speak for me and those I know. Yes, very valuable.

[Iron Man]

96. Dawkins never advocated eugenics.

You did read the article and his tweets, correct?

[d_r]

115. Yeah I did

and I don't see how it isn't.

He said "It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

"People on that spectrum have a great deal to contribute, Maybe even an enhanced ability in some respects. DS not enhanced."

He is saying that people with Down Syndrome have nothing to contribute to the world and it would be immoral to allow them to be born.

[d_r]

137. It would be immoral

to make sweeping generalizations about a group of individuals with a disability, particularly when there is ample evidence to the contrary.

[Iron Man]

139. I have no problems if a woman chooses to abort

if she found out her fetus has a chromosomal deficiency.

Why do you?

[d_r]

141. I don't

And I said I don't.

I have a problem with people making prejudiced remarks against people with disabilities.

I am truly disgusted by this bias against people with a disability.

Look, I'm sorry that you have a niece who has had a difficult life, but I do not agree with generalizing about an entire group of people.

I could have said "cool story, bro." Or I could have said talked about how your anecdote doesn't generalize to everyone. But I didn't. I am choosing to recognize that you have had this experience, but you are discounting experiences that are different from yours.

I am going to try to figure out how to put you on ignore now.

[MellowDem]

194. According to you...

every woman who aborts a fetus because they have a disability is engaged in eugenics.

After all, they're making a decision that someone with a disability doesn't deserve to be born.

And, according to you, that's disgusting. A big fuck you to the women who abort DS fetuses because they're DS.

It comes across as self-righteous hypocrisy.

Dawkins never said it was his business to decide, he just said his opinion, like you just did.

[d_r]

197. got that wrong pal

and it is really not that hard but let me try to make it even more easy.

Do I think it is "moral" for a woman to chose to have an abortion for whatever reason she decides to? Yes absolutely.

Does that include a positive triple screen or amniocentesis for Down Syndrome? Of course, it is none of my business.

Do I think it is "immoral" for a woman to decide not to abort a fetus because of a positive screen for Down Syndrome? No, I do not.

Do I think that Hawkins is a complete prejudiced dick for saying that it is "immoral" to not abort and backing up this point of view by saying that people with Down Syndrome have nothing to contribute? Yeah, I absolutely do.

Do I think that is a disgusting argument? Yes, I do.

Does that mean, as you said, that I think that every woman who decides to abort a fetus because of a disability is engaged in eugenics? Of course not.

Do I think that Hawkins argument that he views it is immoral to allow a child he sees as defective to be born as eugenics? yes, it is, and frankly I don't understand how anyone can not see that.

Do I think that arguing that it is immoral not to because a child with a disability is inferior and shouldn't "have to suffer" because they are somehow a less valid person is horrific? Yes, I do, period.


ETA again, my disgust is not about abortion, it is about talking about living, breathing alive human beings as if they are less worthy because of their disability. I have no apology for that, I am absolutely disgusted by it.

[MellowDem]

209. So all women who abort DS

Fetuses because they don't think they have as much to contribute and because it would be immoral are still the target of your contempt. Which is fine. Just be honest about it.

Same with women who abort a child they see as defective.

Which is to say, there are plenty of women who have the same opinion as Dawkins on this issue, and you certainly are slurring them as well.

Plenty of fetuses do get aborted because of everything Dawkins said.

[d_r]

212. I will try again

It doesn't seem that complicated to me, so I guess I am not doing a good job explaining it.

Here is the distinction.

1. What a woman decides to do with her own body is none of my business.

2. When someone makes public statements that a group of people, because of a disability, are inferior and have nothing to contribute and so it would be immoral to allow them to be born, it is my business. It is a statement of prejudice.

So, if that woman from statement one went around saying that individuals with Down Syndrome were inferior because of their disability, yes, I would think that they were repugnant. It would have nothing to do with whether they had an abortion or not, it would be because they are spreading around their prejudice.

I'll give another example, let's say someone decided not to adopt a child because the child was black. That would be none of my business. If they went around saying that no one should adopt a child that is black because black children are less likely to graduate high school and more likely to be arrested, then I'd have a big problem with it.

ETA that is not a direct example of course, I'm trying to say that the point is the prejudice. I am not trying to equate race with differences of ability.

[MellowDem]

217. No, I understand it perfectly...

You're fine with women aborting fetuses for reasons you don't like until they speak publicly about it.

And you think aborting a fetus with DS because the woman thinks it's defective is A-OK. What's disgusting is her ever stating that out loud.

It's not consistent, logical, or rational, and it seems intellectually dishonest, but I understand what you're saying. People that advocate ideas that you don't like are the target of your contempt, but people who practice those ideas in private are fine.

I don't see how whether something is your business or not has absolutely anything to do with whether you think something is moral or not.

[d_r]

225. Again.

I don't care what a person decides to do with their own body.

It's not my business.

For whatever reason a woman decides her life is or is not going to fit with her choice I don't have any business in it.

If a woman wants to have an abortion because she doesn't want a baby with blue eyes it is none of my business. Just as it is none of my business if someone decides they don't want to adopt a black baby, or a boy, or whatever. Maybe they feel like they can't handle it, maybe they don't feel like they have the resources or knowledge, or maybe they just feel like it isn't for them, whatever, it isn't my business.

The prejudice isn't the decision, or even talking about the reasons for the decision for that matter, the prejudice is generalizing about a group of people based on their disability.

So when a person says it is immoral to adopt a black child, or to have a blue eyed baby, or whatever, when a person says that members of group X are inferior, that is prejudice.

SO. If the woman goes around publicly spreading prejudiced statements about a whole group of people because she feels they are inferior, then I am disturbed by her statements. If she has had an abortion or not doesn't inoculate her from that, but the issue isn't her having the abortion it is spreading prejudice. I don't care what she did or why, I do care when she goes around spreading prejudice.

Unfortunately many people do not seem to even recognize this prejudice.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

220. Yes you are equating race to a very serious disability.

DS people have a much lower than average IQ (50) and serious medical issues, and you have the nerve to compare these facts to healthy black children!!!

I'm still reeling after some people on DU compare pit bulls to black people. ie; if you don't like pit bulls then you are a racist.

The irony is how people here try so hard not to appear racist and then spew such nasty racist shit....and get a way with it.

[d_r]

224. no, I didn't compare people with DS to black children

That is your prejudice against people with Down Syndrome in your eye that you are reading with, not my prejudice to black children.

The example was that it is none of my business why someone chooses to have a baby or not, but it is my business when people generalize about a whole group of other people.

And you just did that. You just said something that was not accurate about an entire group of people based on your preconceptions of their disability.

I'll give you another example.

Another name for Down Syndrome is Trisomy 21. This is because there is an extra chromosome or chromosomal material on the 21st pair.

There are also some children born with extra chromosomal material, compared to other children, in the 23rd pair.

Those children with that extra chromosomal material in the 23rd pair face a host of medical issues that children born without that material do not. In the US, children with that material in 23rd pair on average make lower life-long incomes. In some countries, these children are not even allowed to enter school.

What if, instead of the 21st pair, Dawkins had said that it was immoral not to abort a child with that extra chromosomal material in the 23rd pair? After all, many would argue and generalize that they are destined to a life more difficult than those born without that extra chromosomal material.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

227. I would abort, with out hesitation,

a fetus that was guaranteed to be born with a very low IQ.

I would not want to burden my family and society with such a child. And apparently I'm not alone.

In the meantime, my black son is retiring from the US military this year. You see he wasn't guaranteed to be born with medical problems and a lower than average IQ.

I don't like you and I will be putting you on ignore. The only one on my list BTW. I consider you a racist.

[d_r]

229. please do

If I catch you before you go, your statement about an IQ of 50 was incorrect.

You also didn't understand the point of my example.

edited to change the last line - I hope that your night gets better. You misunderstood my point and I hate that I am going to be the person that you remember as being a bad part of your day. I hope that someone erases that from your mind and it doesn't bother you.

[MisterP]

74. it's not just the callousness, it's the attitude that it's a done deal--like a triangle adding up to

180 degrees

these are the Jack Thompsons of atheism

[Puzzledtraveller]

126. Agreed

[Arugula Latte]

86. "this is why people associate secular thought with lack of morality" -- give me a fucking break!

So what if I pointed to the RCC's massive child rape/coverup, its Magdalene laundries and its fight against birth control and gay marriage, organized Christianity's suppression of women and gays, Islam's pushing of misogyny and jihad, the Crusades, and a thousand other religious-instituted horrors and religious wars over stupid superstition, as well as the religious suppression of scientific research that could save and improve countless lives and said "UGH. this is why people associate religious thought with lack of morality" ? Because that would be a FAR MORE justified sentiment. Religion thought has brought ignorance, suppression and idiocy to the planet for centuries and humanity would be far better off without its nonsense.

[hifiguy]

160. Eeyup

[Iron Man]

94. I don't see anything wrong with what Dawkins said.

If I found out my girlfriend/wife was pregnant with a fetus with a major chromosomal deficiency, I'd strongly encourage her to abort it. It'd be cruel to bring that child into the world and the quality of our life would be diminished.

Edited to add that by quality of life, that means the challenges associated with raising a Down's Syndrome child.

[Mariana]

111. He said nothing wrong.

Some people on this thread are pretending he would take the choice whether or not to abort away from women, but there's absolutely zero indication that he is interested in doing that.

[Iron Man]

118. You're absolutely right.

[alp227]

112. "I'd strongly encourage her to abort it."

Last edited Thu Aug 21, 2014, 11:45 AM - Edit history (2)

Seriously? What if she disagrees?

it's a tough situation, respecting a woman's reproductive choice vs informing a woman of consequences of having child w/DS, and wanting to prevent a child from living a life of suffering while not wanting to be sympathetic to eugenics.

[d_r]

116. I know a kid that is happy every day of his life

and loves it. I shudder at assuming what living a life of suffering is considered.

[Iron Man]

121. It would be a burden on the parents.

The kid is happy because he/she doesn't understand it's not going to have a life. He/she will always be raised by someone else. She/he will never get married, have kids, go to college, or get a career.

Why do that to a child?

[d_r]

129. Holy cow.

Wow.

I don't know where to begin with this.

"It" do you mean the child?

Any child is a "burden on the parents."

So where is the line? Diabetes, is that OK? Autism? Cystic fibrosis? Is it all physical challenges or just intellectual disabilities that aren't worth the burden? If the latter, is there an IQ cut off score?

"...doesn't understand it's not going to have a life."

Huh? A human being with friends, meaningful relationships, fun activities. A living person who is learning, growing, exploring. How is that not having a life?

"always be raised by someone else"

I have two children and neither have Down Syndrome. No one has ever given me a guarantee about what their future will be like.

http://www.downs-syndrome.org.uk/information/for-familiescarers/adults-18.html

http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/1009553/i-have-down-syndrome-and-run-my-own-business

"He/she will never get married."

Really? How do you know this? What guarantee is there that any other child would get married? And is life only worth living with marriage? I'm sorry I don't even understand this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595759/Sole-mates-Childhood-sweethearts-Down-syndrome-fitted-custom-boots-Western-themed-wedding-Dallas-vineyard.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/syndrome-couples-marry-live-longer-face-questions-sex/story?id=11862336

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20110515-east-dallas-couple-with-down-syndrome-discovers-joys-challenges-of-marriage.ece

http://www.down-syndrome.org/perspectives/67/

"have kids"

Really.

http://www.ndss.org/Resources/Wellness/Sexuality/Sexuality-and-Down-Syndrome/

"go to college,"

Here, let me google that for you.

https://www.google.com/search?q=down+syndrome+college&gws_rd=ssl

"or get a career"
from http://www.globaldownsyndrome.org/about-down-syndrome/misconceptions-vs-reality/

Misconception: Adults who have Down syndrome cannot live independently or get jobs.

Reality: An increasing number of adults with Down syndrome in the U.S. are living independently with limited assistance from family members or the state. A small percentage of people with Down syndrome are able to live entirely independently. In the U.S. some students who have Down syndrome graduate from high school, and some go on to attend post-secondary education.

For people who have Down syndrome, more opportunities are available for education and employment today than ever before. Anecdotally, we know that people with Down syndrome can be excellent employees and some employers have reported a higher satisfaction level among ALL workers when they have co-workers who have Down syndrome.

One last google search to grow on:
https://www.google.com/search?q=prejudice+down+syndrome&gws_rd=ssl

[Iron Man]

130. Those links aren't going to change my mind on this issue.

My niece, who has DS, is a burden on her parents. She has no life. They cannot enjoy their's. They hate their life even though they won't admit it.

Sounds like a great life for the kid, doesn't it?



I applaud those who choose to terminate.

[YarnAddict]

201. Then be honest about it

She is a burden on HER PARENTS.

HER PARENTS can't enjoy THEIR life. THEY hate THEIR life.

This is about the parents' quality of life, not the kids'.

Abortion is a choice women can make for whatever reason, but don't pretend they are doing the DS kid a favor by terminating. DS people can enjoy their lives. They can have a good quality of life; it may not be what you would choose as your own quality of life, but you certainly can't make judgments about theirs.

[alp227]

175. UGH. That bigoted post got kept, thanks to ONE juror.

On Thu Aug 21, 2014, 06:26 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

It would be a burden on the parents.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5423151

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Extreme broad-brush bigotry against people with Down's Syndrome, see OP: "The kid is happy because he/she doesn't understand it's not going to have a life. He/she will always be raised by someone else. She/he will never get married, have kids, go to college, or get a career."

DU ToS: "Do not post bigotry based on someone's...disability, or other comparable personal characteristic."

This post dehumanizes and generalizes people who have Down's syndrome based on ignorant stereotypes.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Thu Aug 21, 2014, 06:39 PM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I have known people with Down Syndrome and they have led happy fulfilled lives. Terrible stereotype.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Well I suppose if this was 1924 it might be acceptable but it's 2014, we've evolved.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post is shameful.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a discussion about abortion.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If he didn't express his view you wouldn't be able to argue your side.

Thank you.

[d_r]

184. for the record

I didn't alert it, but the fact that someone did restored some faith in DU.

It really is against the DU ToS.

The jury got hung up on abortion, but it isn't really about abortion.

He was talking about a living kid.

But I don't want to go meta.

It is a sad shame that otherwise progressive folks will fall in to this prejudice.

[Iron Man]

117. It's not eugenics when it comes to abortion.

[d_r]

131. It is eugenics

he is not talking just about abortion he is talking about live human beings.

That post about people with autism having something to contribute and people with Down Syndrome not. He is talking about human beings that he feels are inferior. And it is from prejudice and bias.

[Iron Man]

132. The discussion is abortion.

It seems as though you only support abortion in certain cases.

Huh.

[d_r]

134. The discussion is Down Syndrome

It seems like you have a personal bias.

Huh.

[d_r]

135. I'm sorry

I'm going to have to step away from the keyboard because I can not think of anything kind to say to you. I hope you have a good day.

[JustAnotherGen]

127. I just answered another newer thread on this -

He's forgotton to live and let live - that's all. That has nothing to do with being secular or not . . . It's just something some people lack the sensitivity chip for.

[gollygee]

150. Someone asked him for his opinion and he gave it

Wow. Alert Twitter. /sarcasm

[get the red out]

155. People should be free to choose

Bottom line.

[Humanist_Activist]

157. Wow, a shitload of anti-choice trolls here today, isn't that just peachy!

[mr blur]

159. "UGH. this is why people associate secular thought with lack of morality."? Grow up,

Speaking of bigotry...

[Scout]

163. i would probably terminate such a pregnancy.

don't know for sure how i would feel as i have never been pregnant. but right now, thinking about it, i would probably strongly favor an abortion for myself, and for the sake of the fetus.

if a woman i cared about asked my opinion, i would advise the same for her. if she doesn't ask my opinion, i wouldn't push her one way or the other.

[KamaAina]

164. You typed a question mark instead of a period after the sentence by mistake.

[LeftishBrit]

167. I think pro-choice goes both ways...

and that it's not really any better to say 'It is immoral to bring children with condition X into the world' than to say 'It is immoral to have an abortion'. It should be the woman's informed choice in both cases.

[PasadenaTrudy]

168. I agree with him n/t

[Manifestor_of_Light]

176. And....

there are some mothers of low-functioning autistic children who drop dead from the stress of raising said children.

Sometimes mom can't cope with a low-functioning child. Sometimes marriages break up over a special needs child.
We've all seen cases in the media of abuse or neglect or actual murder of a disabled child. That's sad.

I don't know what the actual answer is. I've never had to raise a disabled child.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

202. Creepy thinking bordering on eugenics.

But Dawkins has always been a bit of a creep in my mind.

[Bettie]

206. This is the man's personal opinion

It has nothing to do with him being an atheist.

If you dig down, nearly everyone has an opinion that you don't agree with.

The trick is not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, metaphorically, that is.

[alp227]

207. So? Some opinions are reprehensible.

Having an opinion means others can scrutinize it too.

[Bettie]

208. But to declare that his opinion is the sole reason why religious types

believe that those who are not of their faith have no morality is not scrutiny, it is broad brushing based on one guy.

I have friends who believe abortion is immoral in all cases, but they are also pro-choice in that they believe it should be safe and legal.

Their opinion is their own, they do not seek to impose it upon others, but if asked, they will say that they believe it is immoral.

A lot of people make choices I don't agree with, but they make their choices based on their own life experiences.

I'm not saying his opinion is right (or wrong), simply that it doesn't mean that all atheists have the same views.

[hrmjustin]

226. He should go back to science and forget about social commentary.

The man is a creep.

[pipi_k]

239. I don't know about "immoral" but...

after having worked for a few years in a program for people with different (and differing levels of) mental disabilities, all I can say is that there were times I truly did think it was cruel to have brought some of them into the world.

Life? LIFE??

Yeah, what about quality of life?

Before being released from the hospitals/institutions in the 80s, so many of them were victims of staff and other residents.

I worked at two houses. First one the clients were non-verbal, lower functioning. One of the young men had a life that involved, in the group home, taking off all of his clothing in his bedroom, and kneeling on his waterbed mattress (no sheets, he kept removing those as well) and engaging in endless masturbation or waving and flapping his hands in front of his face.

The higher functioning people in the other house didn't do that sort of thing, but they did suffer emotionally, knowing they were different from other people. One of the young men there kept asking me why he had to be different. The other kept saying he wanted to learn how to drive a car and get his drivers license (obviously impossible).

Don't get me wrong...they were delightful people and I loved working with them. But there were days when it was all I could do to keep from crying because they were hurting so badly.

And really, let's talk about how "moral" the family of the young woman in the second house was by ignoring her for weeks at a time. At least the parents of the two young men were involved in their lives.

I guess this is an issue that's between would-be parents and their own consciences.

What's "immoral"...what isn't. What's cruel...what isn't.