Thought there might be a few interested in attending this
The Strand Arts Centre Belfast will be screening "The Unbelievers" documentary on the 21st October.
Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss will be in attendance for a Q+A after the screening.
To book
http://www.strandartscentre.com/unbelievers-qa (http://www.strandartscentre.com/unbelievers-qa)
Ask Dawkins what inspired him to say parents were morally wrong not to abort Down Syndrome pregnancies.
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 (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)
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 04, 2014, 11:31:43 AM
Ask Dawkins what inspired him to say parents were morally wrong not to abort Down Syndrome pregnancies.
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 (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)
Jebus.
If you are a non-believer fair enough, but why then follow another non-believer?
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 04, 2014, 11:31:43 AM
Ask Dawkins what inspired him to say parents were morally wrong not to abort Down Syndrome pregnancies.
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 (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)
In his own words ...........
Here is what I would have said in my reply to this woman, given more than 140 characters:
"Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it's worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else."
What specifically in what he's said here would you take issue with?
If a churchman said that choosing to abort was an immoral choice, he would be lambasted (and rightly so) for imposing extra pressure on someone in an already difficult situation. The reverse is also true, and that's why I would have a problem with Dawkins' viewpoint. NB saying "I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else" after everything that came before is weasel-minded bollocks.
Specifically the word moral. What is immoral about a DS baby? I think it's an incredible position for him to take. It makes me wonder about the rest of his values, regardless of his opinion on a Deity. I could invoke Godwin's law here but I won't.
And having time to think about it write a long reply is fine. The nub of what he said, he repeats. And then, as deiseach says, to come out with some "ah but sure don't mind me anyway" is pathetic.
Quote from: theskull1 on September 04, 2014, 12:25:19 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 04, 2014, 11:31:43 AM
Ask Dawkins what inspired him to say parents were morally wrong not to abort Down Syndrome pregnancies.
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 (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)
In his own words ...........
Here is what I would have said in my reply to this woman, given more than 140 characters:
"Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it's worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else."
What specifically in what he's said here would you take issue with?
This principle of genetically engineering our children.
He choose to discuss DS children, which was imho a mistake. He could have discussed a child who would have no interaction with the world and who would die shortly after birth. It would be harder to argue against that.
But to choose a DS child, who most certainly does interact with the world, can experience happiness and can give it back in spades, as his example, is at best mischievous and at worst a very dangerous discourse. If you go back not too long ago a left-handed child was seen as defective.
A lot of DS foetuses are aborted in Switzerland . I know a woman who had 3 abortions before she had her first child.
There is something sickening about the whole "rational " attitude and the priceless contribution DS people make to society and family life is lost.
It's also "rational" to put energetic kids on Ritalin and f**k them up because it's easier than talking to them.
http://www.monbiot.com/2014/06/10/the-values-ratchet/
"We are not born with our core values: they are strongly shaped by our social environment. These values can be placed on a spectrum between extrinsic and intrinsic. People towards the intrinsic end have high levels of self-acceptance, strong bonds of intimacy and a powerful desire to help others. People at the other end are drawn to external signifiers, such as fame, financial success and attractiveness. They seek praise and rewards from others.
Research across 70 countries suggests that intrinsic values are strongly associated with an understanding of others, tolerance, appreciation, cooperation and empathy. Those with strong extrinsic values tend to have lower empathy, a stronger attraction towards power, hierarchy and inequality, greater prejudice towards outsiders, and less concern for global justice and the natural world. These clusters exist in opposition to each other: as one set of values strengthens, the other weakens.
They tend to report higher levels of stress, anxiety, anger, envy, dissatisfaction and depression than those at the intrinsic end. Societies in which extrinsic goals are widely adopted are more unequal and uncooperative than those with deep intrinsic values. In one experiment, people with strong extrinsic values who were given a resource to share soon exhausted it (unlike a group with strong intrinsic values), as they all sought to take more than their due."
Dawkins is claonta chun extrinsic
Another field day for DUP/Free Presbyterian Church protests, what a year it has been for them, Reduced Shakespeare Company, Pride, George Galloway now Dawkins.
I think Dawkins is making a big mistake in trying to straddle the reason and morality arenas. He does a service to reason, rationality and science in his relentless exposure of mumbo-jumbo, wacky woo and quackery. But he weakens his position of influence as an intellectual on the side of reason and against supernaturalism when he spouts his personal moral position in public.
Those moral views have nothing to do with scientific reasoning, with the debate over whether God exists or with the exposure of homeopathy as a conspiracy against the gullible. But, of course, his opponents and the moronic press will happily use his views to allege a link that doesn't exist between rationality and amorality/immorality.
It's the supernaturalists and mumbo-jumbo purveyors who claim both to know how the world works AND the right to dictate moral choices for all of us. Rationalists and scientists in general confine themselves to working on the "how the world works" bit and don't suggest they have a more informed input to the morality debate than anybody else.
Hardy, that's a poor post in fairness.
It's the supernaturalists and mumbo jumbo purveyors (sic) who proclaim both to know how the world works AND to dictate moral choices for all of us.
That implies ALL of the people you've tagged in such a way do that.
But then you neatly say
Rationalists and scientists "in general" confine themselves to working on the "how the world works" bit and don't suggest they have a more informed input to the morality debate than anybody else. So even though this guy, a flagship for 'rationalists' did exactly that, in general they don't.
So all the 'God botherers' are trying to force themselves and their morals on you, but rationalists (presumably including all those who write books on the subjects) are not. Apart from the odd one or two of course.
Quote from: Hardy on September 04, 2014, 03:11:45 PM
I think Dawkins is making a big mistake in trying to straddle the reason and morality arenas. He does a service to reason, rationality and science in his relentless exposure of mumbo-jumbo, wacky woo and quackery. But he weakens his position of influence as an intellectual on the side of reason and against supernaturalism when he spouts his personal moral position in public.
Those moral views have nothing to do with scientific reasoning, with the debate over whether God exists or with the exposure of homeopathy as a conspiracy against the gullible. But, of course, his opponents and the moronic press will happily use his views to allege a link that doesn't exist between rationality and amorality/immorality.
It's the supernaturalists and mumbo-jumbo purveyors who proclaim both to know how the world works AND to dictate moral choices for all of us. Rationalists and scientists in general confine themselves to working on the "how the world works" bit and don't suggest they have a more informed input to the morality debate than anybody else.
Excellent post. My understanding of evolution has improved no end thanks to Richard Dawkins, and he does a great job in showing what a wondrous thing it is. It's a pity that the great work he does there is obscured by his determination to have a grand theory of everything that is informed by science rather than philosophy or ethics.
I say poor post, deiseach says excellent post :) Just goes to show you can't agree on everything! :)
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 04, 2014, 03:17:33 PM
I say poor post, deiseach says excellent post :) Just goes to show you can't agree on everything! :)
We also had that spat over the Dublin Bus driver and the cyclist!
Oh yeah. And you were wrong then too!
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 04, 2014, 03:14:46 PM
Hardy, that's a poor post in fairness.
It's the supernaturalists and mumbo jumbo purveyors (sic) who proclaim both to know how the world works AND to dictate moral choices for all of us.
That implies ALL of the people you've tagged in such a way do that.
But then you neatly say
Rationalists and scientists "in general" confine themselves to working on the "how the world works" bit and don't suggest they have a more informed input to the morality debate than anybody else.
(I edited my post slightly, but not in substance before you quoted it.)
I didn't ask for a critique of my posting skills, but thanks anyway. I'll try to do better.
On your substantive point, I see what you mean and it was a bit slack. I'll rewrite it:
It's the supernaturalists and mumbo jumbo purveyors in general who proclaim both to know how the world works AND to dictate moral choices for all of us.
Rationalists and scientists in general confine themselves to working on the "how the world works" bit and don't suggest they have a more informed input to the morality debate than anybody else.
Thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't dare criticise your posting skills. I'd be too nervous you'd spot a misplaced apostrophe of mine!
In fairness, I have no problem with athiests or agnostics or zealot religionists, as long as they don't harm anyone else. I would accept that religious zealots have far more track record in harming people than scientists or evolutionists.
I myself believe in God. I also believe in evolution. I also don't need a church to tell me what's right and wrong in their eyes. I trust myself to know the difference.
However, all that aside, if you look at the old 10 commandments. Ignore the first 3 for the purposes of this discussion. (They're the ones about God). Look at the 'moral' ones. Is there anything you'd disagree with?
Honour your Father and Mother
Don't Kill
Don't Steal
Don't lie about somebody else
Don't be an adulterer
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's wife
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's property.
That's not a bad starter for a moral compass, regardless of what the various churches say after that.
Dawkins, just like the various Churches have been accused of doing, is tapping into secularism and making a more than decent living out of it, I'd say.
The essence of any moral code should be tolerance, of those who believe in religion by those who don't and vice versa.I look forward to seeing it breaking out on this Board.
People are obviously reading snippets from that statement to suit their own opinions. There is nothing contentious in his statement from what I can see, when I try to put myself in the mind of a person considering the dilemma for real and having close knowledge of one middle aged couple in particular with a severe downs child.
Quote from: theskull1 on September 04, 2014, 03:35:39 PM
People are obviously reading snippets from that statement to suit their own opinions. There is nothing contentious in his statement from what I can see, when I try to put myself in the mind of a person considering the dilemma for real and having close knowledge of one middle aged couple in particular with a severe downs child.
I consider the bits I find objectionable to be objectionable and the bits I find unobjectionable to be unobjectionable. Is there some other way it's meant to work? You have to accept it all or reject it all?
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 04, 2014, 03:30:04 PM
Thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't dare criticise your posting skills. I'd be too nervous you'd spot a misplaced apostrophe of mine!
In fairness, I have no problem with athiests or agnostics or zealot religionists, as long as they don't harm anyone else. I would accept that religious zealots have far more track record in harming people than scientists or evolutionists.
I myself believe in God. I also believe in evolution. I also don't need a church to tell me what's right and wrong in their eyes. I trust myself to know the difference.
However, all that aside, if you look at the old 10 commandments. Ignore the first 3 for the purposes of this discussion. (They're the ones about God). Look at the 'moral' ones. Is there anything you'd disagree with?
Honour your Father and Mother
Don't Kill
Don't Steal
Don't lie about somebody else
Don't be an adulterer
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's wife
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's property.
That's not a bad starter for a moral compass, regardless of what the various churches say after that.
Of course I don't disagree with any of those principles. That was part of my point. We can have a debate about where these ideas originate from. You won't be surprised that I don't believe that a being in the sky presented them to a white-bearded prophet in tablets of stone on the top of Mount Sinai (with no witnesses present). My position would be to view the development of a generally accepted morality as part of the evolutionary process. Societies that didn't embrace these basic enabling principles of civilisation didn't tend to survive.
(Your post was perfect.)
Quote from: Hardy on September 04, 2014, 03:40:35 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 04, 2014, 03:30:04 PM
Thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't dare criticise your posting skills. I'd be too nervous you'd spot a misplaced apostrophe of mine!
In fairness, I have no problem with athiests or agnostics or zealot religionists, as long as they don't harm anyone else. I would accept that religious zealots have far more track record in harming people than scientists or evolutionists.
I myself believe in God. I also believe in evolution. I also don't need a church to tell me what's right and wrong in their eyes. I trust myself to know the difference.
However, all that aside, if you look at the old 10 commandments. Ignore the first 3 for the purposes of this discussion. (They're the ones about God). Look at the 'moral' ones. Is there anything you'd disagree with?
Honour your Father and Mother
Don't Kill
Don't Steal
Don't lie about somebody else
Don't be an adulterer
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's wife
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's property.
That's not a bad starter for a moral compass, regardless of what the various churches say after that.
Of course not. That was part of my point. We can have a debate about where these ideas originate from. You won't be surprised that I don't believe that a being in the sky presented them to a white-bearded prophet in tablets of stone on the top of Mount Sinai (with no witnesses present). My position would be to view the development of a generally accepted morality as part of the evolutionary process. Societies that didn't embrace these basic enabling principles of civilisation didn't tend to survive.
(Your post was perfect.)
What's so hard to believe about that?? :D
In fairness I avoid the "God exists, no he doesn't" debates because there's very little chance a consensus will come out of them, and everyone just gets annoyed :) Usually what happens is the religious guy starts issuing pronouncements about the other fella's soul, while the atheist starts calling the religious guy an idiot. Not exactly fodder for a good session of pints.
Quote from: T Fearon on September 04, 2014, 03:33:36 PM
Dawkins, just like the various Churches have been accused of doing, is tapping into secularism and making a more than decent living out of it, I'd say.
The essence of any moral code should be tolerance, of those who believe in religion by those who don't and vice versa.I look forward to seeing it breaking out on this Board.
And does that web of tolerance you are championing include tolerance of gays?
Am I being intolerant when I condemn and argue against those who, often based on their religion, would deny rights to gays.
Can we not have this thread derailed, mmkay?
Quote from: deiseach on September 04, 2014, 12:37:25 PM
If a churchman said that choosing to abort was an immoral choice, he would be lambasted (and rightly so) for imposing extra pressure on someone in an already difficult situation. The reverse is also true, and that's why I would have a problem with Dawkins' viewpoint. NB saying "I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else" after everything that came before is weasel-minded bollocks.
Quote from: deiseach on September 04, 2014, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on September 04, 2014, 03:35:39 PM
People are obviously reading snippets from that statement to suit their own opinions. There is nothing contentious in his statement from what I can see, when I try to put myself in the mind of a person considering the dilemma for real and having close knowledge of one middle aged couple in particular with a severe downs child.
I consider the bits I find objectionable to be objectionable and the bits I find unobjectionable to be unobjectionable. Is there some other way it's meant to work? You have to accept it all or reject it all?
OK deiseach
On the bits you find objectionable
Dawkins is not putting forward a dogma. He's putting forward the logic for his personal opinion on the subject if it were he having to make the decision. That is very very different that what you would get from the church.
He goes out of his way to accept that "I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn" and then again makes sure the individual he is replying to understands that by him giving his honest opinion, he does not want to put undue influence on her by explicitly stating "Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else."
What is weasely about it? Can one not put forward reasoned positions and leave it to others to consider them and come to their own conclusions? That's all the man is doing
Quote from: theskull1 on September 04, 2014, 03:59:44 PM
OK deiseach
On the bits you find objectionable
Dawkins is not putting forward a dogma. He's putting forward the logic for his personal opinion on the subject if it were he having to make the decision. That is very very different that what you would get from the church.
He goes out of his way to accept that "I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn" and then again makes sure the individual he is replying to understands that by him giving his honest opinion, he does not want to put undue influence on her by explicitly stating "Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else."
What is weasely about it? Can one not put forward reasoned positions and leave it to others to consider them and come to their own conclusions? That's all the man is doing
The essence of what you are saying is that his observations are value-neutral. Well, they're not. Phrases like morality, "sum of happiness" and "reduce suffering" are loaded with meaning. I don't think you can utilise phrases like these to defend your point of view then claim that they don't want to pass any comment on choices that, as far as they are concerned, are immoral, reduce the sum of happiness and increase suffering. And that is why he is a weasel.
Quote from: theskull1 on September 04, 2014, 03:35:39 PM
People are obviously reading snippets from that statement to suit their own opinions. There is nothing contentious in his statement from what I can see, when I try to put myself in the mind of a person considering the dilemma for real and having close knowledge of one middle aged couple in particular with a severe downs child.
Well speaking as someone who has experience of being a Dad of a child with Down Syndrome I can tell you his opinion and reasons for aborting a 'Down child' ::) are based on ignorant and outdated stereotypes and misinformed bullshit.
I can completely understand a mother or couple having fears and worries at the diagnosis of Down Syndrome and I wouldn't judge anyone whatever their decision would be.
But as a parent to be told I was morally wrong to bring my son into the world and that I am condemned to a life of suffering and unhappiness is so far from the truth and reality.
That's the problem I have with his opinion.
A couple who are in a position now where they have to make a choice could read that article and because it is full of inaccurate and outdated information could quite possibly make a decision to abort because of it.
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 04, 2014, 03:30:04 PM
Thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't dare criticise your posting skills. I'd be too nervous you'd spot a misplaced apostrophe of mine!
In fairness, I have no problem with athiests or agnostics or zealot religionists, as long as they don't harm anyone else. I would accept that religious zealots have far more track record in harming people than scientists or evolutionists.
I myself believe in God. I also believe in evolution. I also don't need a church to tell me what's right and wrong in their eyes. I trust myself to know the difference.
However, all that aside, if you look at the old 10 commandments. Ignore the first 3 for the purposes of this discussion. (They're the ones about God). Look at the 'moral' ones. Is there anything you'd disagree with?
Honour your Father and Mother
Don't Kill
Don't Steal
Don't lie about somebody else
Don't be an adulterer
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's wife
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's property.
That's not a bad starter for a moral compass, regardless of what the various churches say after that.
Yeah not a bad set of principles to lead your life in a simplistic kind of way.
theskull1, I find it curious that you can find "nothing contentious in his statement from what I can see" even though the Man Himself says "I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn". I'm sure he'd be proud of you for thinking for yourself, but maybe you should be arguing with him on whether it's contentious! ;)
Quote from: johnneycool on September 04, 2014, 04:42:40 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 04, 2014, 03:30:04 PM
Thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't dare criticise your posting skills. I'd be too nervous you'd spot a misplaced apostrophe of mine!
In fairness, I have no problem with athiests or agnostics or zealot religionists, as long as they don't harm anyone else. I would accept that religious zealots have far more track record in harming people than scientists or evolutionists.
I myself believe in God. I also believe in evolution. I also don't need a church to tell me what's right and wrong in their eyes. I trust myself to know the difference.
However, all that aside, if you look at the old 10 commandments. Ignore the first 3 for the purposes of this discussion. (They're the ones about God). Look at the 'moral' ones. Is there anything you'd disagree with?
Honour your Father and Mother
Don't Kill
Don't Steal
Don't lie about somebody else
Don't be an adulterer
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's wife
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's property.
That's not a bad starter for a moral compass, regardless of what the various churches say after that.
Yeah not a bad set of principles to lead your life in a simplistic kind of way.
The first four yes I can agree with but ffs live a little, not on this shit hole for long ;)
Quote from: deiseach on September 04, 2014, 03:55:05 PM
Can we not have this thread derailed, mmkay?
"mmkay"?? ;D
Quote from: laoislad on September 04, 2014, 04:24:07 PM
But as a parent to be told I was morally wrong to bring my son into the world and that I am condemned to a life of suffering and unhappiness is so far from the truth and reality.
That's the problem I have with his opinion.
LL I think you know he is not telling you that. He was giving his reasons why he would think it to be morally wrong. There is a very subtle but huge difference here. Its a sensitive issue and its very easy for people to get offended.
On the life of suffering and unhappiness, when you say its far from reality in your situation (which is fantastic) is it your opinion that every DS child would bring the same joy and have the same quality of life? Of course not. Surely you'd accept its a life of sacrifice for some with little reward emotionally or for that matter quality of life for the person they are caring for ...........Remember too, his comments refer to something hypothetical which has not made it into the world, so its not like he is targeting his opinions toward a real person. No different than considering the hypothecical son you could have borne had you not have been strangling your granny ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: deiseach on September 04, 2014, 04:48:34 PM
theskull1, I find it curious that you can find "nothing contentious in his statement from what I can see" even though the Man Himself says "I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn". I'm sure he'd be proud of you for thinking for yourself, but maybe you should be arguing with him on whether it's contentious! ;)
Are you tokin there big lad? :o
Look , the very fact he made the statement "I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn" helps makes what he says less disputatious.
He is putting his considered point of view forward and has considered the fact that, yes his views are contentious and that there could be the possibility that he could be enlightened to take a different perspective.....so he's acknowledging that he's open to well considered opposing positions rather than just accepting that he is right. What's there not to respect about his position?
Dawkins shouldn't be on Twitter. That's like Tony McCoy on a rocking horse. "Look, he's shite"
The sheer smugness of the likes of Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins have always been very off-putting for me. Always try to be open to new ideas or perspectives but not (ironically, I guess) when they're put forth with such dogmatic elitism.
And that Richard Darwin was full of shit.
Quote from: theskull1 on September 05, 2014, 12:08:42 AM
Quote from: laoislad on September 04, 2014, 04:24:07 PM
But as a parent to be told I was morally wrong to bring my son into the world and that I am condemned to a life of suffering and unhappiness is so far from the truth and reality.
That's the problem I have with his opinion.
LL I think you know he is not telling you that. He was giving his reasons why he would think it to be morally wrong. There is a very subtle but huge difference here. Its a sensitive issue and its very easy for people to get offended.
On the life of suffering and unhappiness, when you say its far from reality in your situation (which is fantastic) is it your opinion that every DS child would bring the same joy and have the same quality of life? Of course not. Surely you'd accept its a life of sacrifice for some with little reward emotionally or for that matter quality of life for the person they are caring for ...........Remember too, his comments refer to something hypothetical which has not made it into the world, so its not like he is targeting his opinions toward a real person. No different than considering the hypothecical son you could have borne had you not have been strangling your granny ;D ;D ;D
His reasons that he gives that it would be morally wrong ,as I said before,are based on ignorant and outdated stereotypes.
And I don't see why I shouldn't speak against him just because it is his opinion and that he's not speaking about any individual or family.
QuoteSurely you'd accept its a life of sacrifice for some with little reward emotionally or for that matter quality of life for the person they are caring for
For some,yes of course. But surely the same could be said about any child that is brought into the world? You have no idea how any child will turn out.
With kids with DS there are so many Early Intervention programs now, that they didn't have even as short as 20 years ago,that the possibilities for them now are endless.
I have met dozens of families in the same situation as myself in the last few years and I don't think I have met one yet that is suffering or unhappy.That includes families with adult sons/daughters who wouldn't have had the same early intervention as my son is getting.
I have met loads of older siblings who have said that the single biggest influence on their lives have been their brother or sister with DS,and from my research that same goes for anyone that has had a brother or sister with any sort of special needs.Surely that's a good thing no? There are plenty of studies done that prove that a sibling with special needs can have a huge positive effect on the entire family but especially for other siblings.
Look,I had never heard of this Dawkins guy before. I don't care about his beliefs or non beliefs regarding God or whatever.
I'm not easily offended on this either btw. I use to be,but you grow a thick skin very quickly because there are a lot of ignorant people out there that make sweeping generalisations about this topic just like this Dawkins guy has.
You like everyone else are entitled to your opinion skull,but I'm a little surprised at you that you are defending everything this guy is saying on this particular subject.
Quote from: laoislad on September 05, 2014, 08:02:38 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on September 05, 2014, 12:08:42 AM
Quote from: laoislad on September 04, 2014, 04:24:07 PM
But as a parent to be told I was morally wrong to bring my son into the world and that I am condemned to a life of suffering and unhappiness is so far from the truth and reality.
That's the problem I have with his opinion.
LL I think you know he is not telling you that. He was giving his reasons why he would think it to be morally wrong. There is a very subtle but huge difference here. Its a sensitive issue and its very easy for people to get offended.
On the life of suffering and unhappiness, when you say its far from reality in your situation (which is fantastic) is it your opinion that every DS child would bring the same joy and have the same quality of life? Of course not. Surely you'd accept its a life of sacrifice for some with little reward emotionally or for that matter quality of life for the person they are caring for ...........Remember too, his comments refer to something hypothetical which has not made it into the world, so its not like he is targeting his opinions toward a real person. No different than considering the hypothecical son you could have borne had you not have been strangling your granny ;D ;D ;D
His reasons that he gives that it would be morally wrong ,as I said before,are based on ignorant and outdated stereotypes.
And I don't see why I shouldn't speak against him just because it is his opinion and that he's not speaking about any individual or family.
QuoteSurely you'd accept its a life of sacrifice for some with little reward emotionally or for that matter quality of life for the person they are caring for
For some,yes of course. But surely the same could be said about any child that is brought into the world? You have no idea how any child will turn out.
With kids with DS there are so many Early Intervention programs now, that they didn't have even as short as 20 years ago,that the possibilities for them now are endless.
I have met dozens of families in the same situation as myself in the last few years and I don't think I have met one yet that is suffering or unhappy.That includes families with adult sons/daughters who wouldn't have had the same early intervention as my son is getting.
I have met loads of older siblings who have said that the single biggest influence on their lives have been their brother or sister with DS,and from my research that same goes for anyone that has had a brother or sister with any sort of special needs.Surely that's a good thing no? There are plenty of studies done that prove that a sibling with special needs can have a huge positive effect on the entire family but especially for other siblings.
Look,I had never heard of this Dawkins guy before. I don't care about his beliefs or non beliefs regarding God or whatever.
I'm not easily offended on this either btw. I use to be,but you grow a thick skin very quickly because there are a lot of ignorant people out there that make sweeping generalisations about this topic just like this Dawkins guy has.
You like everyone else are entitled to your opinion skull,but I'm a little surprised at you that you are defending everything this guy is saying on this particular subject.
Great post, Laoislad
Quote from: theskull1 on September 05, 2014, 12:08:42 AM
Quote from: deiseach on September 04, 2014, 04:48:34 PM
theskull1, I find it curious that you can find "nothing contentious in his statement from what I can see" even though the Man Himself says "I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn". I'm sure he'd be proud of you for thinking for yourself, but maybe you should be arguing with him on whether it's contentious! ;)
Are you tokin there big lad? :o
Look , the very fact he made the statement "I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn" helps makes what he says less disputatious.
He is putting his considered point of view forward and has considered the fact that, yes his views are contentious and that there could be the possibility that he could be enlightened to take a different perspective.....so he's acknowledging that he's open to well considered opposing positions rather than just accepting that he is right. What's there not to respect about his position?
Did you read what I said? More to the point, did you read what you said? You find nothing contentious about what he said even though he admits what he said is contentious! Just saying "This is going to be contentious" doesn't make what you say any less contentious, no more than free speech gives you the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. At this stage I think you are determined to cast anyone who objects to Dawkins' comments as closed-minded so I think it's best to take my leave of the conversation.
For the record ... I am not agreeing with everything the man says. I am stating that I am impressed with his ability to put forward his opinions in an articulate and precise way. He has every right to hold his opinion and articulate it as long as its been well considered and he is prepared to listen to alternative views.
In its entirety I'm saying I can appreciate his point of view on the subject which is discussing his opinion if a foetus was abnormal, not a child with special needs (which someone knows and loves), so why are we getting our backs up regarding the latter?
Quote from: Syferus on September 05, 2014, 12:56:50 AM
The sheer smugness of the likes of Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins have always been very off-putting for me. Always try to be open to new ideas or perspectives but not (ironically, I guess) when they're put forth with such dogmatic elitism.
There's plenty of smugness on the religious side too. Do you find that off-putting?
Quote from: theskull1 on September 05, 2014, 11:50:21 AM
For the record ... I am not agreeing with everything the man says. I am stating that I am impressed with his ability to put forward his opinions in an articulate and precise way. He has every right to hold his opinion and articulate it as long as its been well considered and he is prepared to listen to alternative views.
In its entirety I'm saying I can appreciate his point of view on the subject which is discussing his opinion if a foetus was abnormal, not a child with special needs (which someone knows and loves), so why are we getting our backs up regarding the latter?
It's not a case of people getting their backs up about his opinion. People are just disagreeing with his opinion. I don't think anyone is trying to tell him that he isn't allowed to hold that opinion. People may make a decision to view him differently because of that opinion but again that's their prerogative to do so. As Deiseach (I Think) said if a church came out with such a view people would be quick to jump to condemn or condone the comments. So his comments are no different considering he has such a big following. And sticking "It's only my opinion" doesn't immune his comments from criticism.
Dawkins is putting forward his opinion and is happy to debate the pros and cons of his position. The church puts forward a dogma that's not up for debate. I dont mind you coming up with a better comparison, but that one does not work
The fact large numbers of people appreciate his ability to approach certain taboo subject areas with rational thought and has the conviction to express his view really has nothing to do with the argument.
Quote from: theskull1 on September 05, 2014, 02:50:23 PM
Dawkins is putting forward his opinion and is happy to debate the pros and cons of his position. The church puts forward a dogma that's not up for debate. I dont mind you coming up with a better comparison, but that one does not work
The fact large numbers of people appreciate his ability to approach certain taboo subject areas with rational thought and has the conviction to express his view really has nothing to do with the argument.
Haven't read a whole pile on Dawkins, but has he any thoughts on abortion and when life begins? I presume he's not against abortion by that last snippet on the Down Syndrome foetus, but from a scientific perspective when does he believe life actually begins?
Not that you're his spokesman for him on this board ;D , just that you may be more aware of his opinions on this!
Dawkins spokesman. There would be a poisoned chalice :)
Quote from: theskull1 on September 05, 2014, 03:05:43 PM
Dawkins spokesman. There would be a poisoned chalice :)
Well Séany Brady has one, why not Dawkins. 8)
I have huge objections to this statement, for personal reasons and also because Dawkins has been making some very unsettling noises recently about reviving the "positive" side of eugenics.
Personally, I have had a lot of experience of children's cardiac wards because of a situation in my own family, and you see and meet a lot of DS infants and children there. For anyone to to cast a moral doubt on these sweet, brave kids existence turns my stomach. The courage and stoicism they display, the strength they give their own parents (as all kids really do in those situations) all point to a higher/more valid (depending on your secularity) reason to existence than mere intellectual capacity. Their moral right to live is as strong as any child's (including my own son), and it is a small walk down the logician's line before you start positing that kids with heart conditions detected in the womb should be aborted as well, whatever their mental capabilities.
Dawkins has been talking up eugenics recently, saying that the Nazis discredited it, and we could, as a race, breed children with higher talents, such as musical ability or artistic bent. Again, it is a very short walk before objective judgement of desirable values becomes subjective oppression of undesirable attributes.
Dawkins is the best and worst thing to happen to atheism. I'm secular and probably best described as agnostic and some of his work is really exciting. But he might just end up like Enoch Powell "driven mad by the remorselessness of his own logic."
The quote mining to suit peoples own prejudice is just crazy.
QuoteGiven a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. ...........I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare
Quote mining? That's a fairly clear statement of his own opinion, which he is entitled to hold, and which I am equally entitled to find abhorrent.
As for my "prejudices" I'm sure I had some before I met DS children. But having met them and their parents in situations of terrible suffering, I also feel entitled to say that a decision to keep a DS child should not be categorized as "immoral". If Dawkins had actually spent some time in their company, I dare say his opinion would be revised accordingly. Because to do so is to view them as the individuals they are, rather than an argument point in his ongoing quest to prove that atheism has a moral code equal to/ greater than organised religion.
Dawkins great problem is his immaturity. He has some great ideas, which have had some really positive applications (in my own life as well as, I'm sure, with many other people throughout the world) but he argues them like a first year student in a debating competition.
It's quite telling that when he expanded his view off twitter, he just reiterated the original point.
Even admirable men can have off days, skull. Try this piece from the Guardian a week ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2014/aug/29/nobody-better-at-being-human-richard-dawkins
Quote from: theskull1 on September 05, 2014, 05:08:29 PM
The quote mining to suit peoples own prejudice is just crazy.
That's just nonsense and I think you know that yourself. It's a pretty clear statement he has made and IMO his opinon while he is entitled to it is both misinformed and ignorant.
I'll be honest, you are starting to sound like T Fearon on the Brady thread. You are defending the indefensible as far as I'm concerned.
What Dawkins wrote has absolutely nothing to do with eugenics as DS is rarely passed through genes.
I think I read somewhere that he doesn't consider the foetus to be a person until it develops a nervous system - around 3 months?
His view, and as LL says it may be way off radar, is that it can be argued that not to abort may be immoral as the DS child and parents will suffer more unhappiness than happiness.
Quote from: laoislad on September 05, 2014, 05:40:59 PM
I'll be honest, you are starting to sound like T Fearon on the Brady thread. You are defending the indefensible as far as I'm concerned.
I just knew the gaaboard equivalent of Godwins law wasn't far off :-\
Quote from: theskull1 on September 05, 2014, 02:50:23 PM
Dawkins is putting forward his opinion and is happy to debate the pros and cons of his position. The church puts forward a dogma that's not up for debate. I dont mind you coming up with a better comparison, but that one does not work
The fact large numbers of people appreciate his ability to approach certain taboo subject areas with rational thought and has the conviction to express his view really has nothing to do with the argument.
Not everything that comes from church representatives is Domga. Some express their Personal opinion and rightly or wrongly receive critism for their views. Dawkins is no different. A large number of people follow the churches as well. Again that doesn't insulate them from critism.
That specific quote was not about eugenics O'Neill - but if you follow that link I posted, it is an article about that comment and some of his recent views, which, when put together, I find troubling.
As for Godwin's law skull, you were complaining about prejudice immediately after my post, in which, I didn't think I displayed any prejudice. I would have been a fan of his writing, I would have always taken the rationalist rather than religious viewpoint, though i am not an atheist. I just think that on this point, he is mistaken, and I find his views repugnant on it. The strength of my disgust comes from my own personal experience with DS children, and I don't think that qualifies as prejudice on my part.
The decision to terminate a pregnancy when confronted with illness in a foetus is a terrible, private grief for many people - so just as I would never presume to comment on the morality of those who make the decision to terminate it, I certainly wouldn't label the decision to continue the pregnancy as immoral. People is people - everyone has their own God/conscience/flying spaghetti monster to face. Dawkins rails against the clergy who would oppose abortion on moral grounds, he's on thin ice when he attaches morality to the opposite decision.
Can you not distinguish religious morality from universal morality?
Once again someone voicing their disgust based on their personal experience with people they know. Dawkin's is not talking about them so why are you using that as a stick to beat him with? His comments are about a foetus with an abnormality. This is not someones loved one we are talking about.
Lads I'll explain this as slowly as I can
1. My own personal, visceral disgust with Dawkin's opinions does come from my own personal experience - and it was my own personal experience with DS children which led to me losing my own prejudices about them. Dawkins can say what he wants - just as I am entitled to critique his statements and hold my own opinions, which I form through the prism of my own experience. Which is how most people do it. As for Dawkin's views, they relate to his own morality as he clearly states, and hold as much or as little water as my own.
2. My disgust with Dawkin's opinion comes from his labeling the decision to have a DS child as an immoral act within his belief system. I know he is talking about a foetus with an abnormality - if you read my posts you'll see I use the terminology of foetus within my posts. I am not personalizing the foetus - I have a (slight) insight into the choices people may make when confronted with such abnormality - it is a terrible decision to have to make, and I support the right of those who wish to terminate as much as I deride the labeling of the act to have and bring up a DS child. I believe that the provision of abortion to women is an essential part of their reproductive rights. What we are talking about is a very specific set of circumstances, prompted by one case, that Dawkins commented on and then expanded on.
I think Dawkins is tone deaf emotionally, and I feel ,as much as intellect, emotion is an essential part of humanity. Which does explain my feelings towards DS kids, for the emotions they beautifully display and inspire in others. Just because it can't be quantified scientifically does not mean that it does not have value.
3. I can distinguish between religious morality and universal morality. I don't believe Dawkins can though, and his attempts to conflate the two are his downfall. Surely we are not suggesting that Dawkins views in a twitter feed represent universal morality? Even his expanded opinion leaves him open to argument to a great many people like me, who do not share his views on the morality of having a DS child. Does this leave me outside some agreed universal moral code, that Dawkins has the patent on? Yet he behaves almost exactly like the mullahs and monsignors he has battled all through his life, completely convinced of his own virtue (or however he would describe it). His original reply to the woman in question was as peremptory and brutal as a priest telling a parishioner to keep the child on pain of eternal damnation. All that was missing was the slam of the confessional closing.
I never believed religion had the exclusive rights to wisdom - I certainly don't think Dawkins has either, and on this subject, I disagree strongly with him.
I believe everyone's morality is made up of a bedrock of enviroment and nurture - then your own experiences through life lead you to refine or reassess that view. My own experience with DS children and their parents leads me to strongly disagree with him. I don't think that makes me prejudiced against the man, but everyone can make mistakes - I think he has been making a few recently, and this is the worst of them.
Quote from: theskull1 on September 05, 2014, 06:57:44 PM
Once again someone voicing their disgust based on their personal experience with people they know. Dawkin's is not talking about them so why are you using that as a stick to beat him with? His comments are about a foetus with an abnormality. This is not someones loved one we are talking about.
How can you not get this?
The fact that he is not talking about my child or someone else's child is completely irrelevant.
He has expressed an opinion that he believes it is morally wrong to give birth to a child with DS.
His reasons being that he believes the child will bring untold suffering and unhappiness to the family.
This,based on actual real life experience of my own, and of dozens of people I have met in the same situation is completely untrue.
Do you seriously think I have no reason to be annoyed with his opinion simply because he isn't talking about me specifically?
I mean really, do you actually think someone in my position shouldn't be annoyed or argue against his opinion simply because he is talking about a fictional unborn child.
I'm not beating him with a stick. As I said before I know nothing about the man and I don't care about his other beliefs or non beliefs.All I can go on is what he said in the article that AZOffaly posted at the start and I'm giving my reasons why I believe he is wrong. And as I said these are reasons based on real life experience and not outdated stereotypes like he is using to explain his opinion.
Honestly,if you can't see why I or someone else in my position would take issue with his statement then I'm not sure if there is much point in me continuing this conversation.
Quote from: J70 on September 05, 2014, 01:29:14 PM
Quote from: Syferus on September 05, 2014, 12:56:50 AM
The sheer smugness of the likes of Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins have always been very off-putting for me. Always try to be open to new ideas or perspectives but not (ironically, I guess) when they're put forth with such dogmatic elitism.
There's plenty of smugness on the religious side too. Do you find that off-putting?
Yip, just as much. Dawkins and Maher are de facto arch-bishops of sneering atheism, just as Pope Benny was the poster child for clerical intransigence, as concerned with pointless rewording of mass rituals as he was with rampant child abuse and humility and contrition.
I guess the most obnoxious voices tend to be the loudest ones in any field. It all becomes a bit rote on both sides after you've seen enough of the dramas play out, you could plot out reactions and controversies as easily as a Choose Your Own Adventure book.
This wasn't particularly constructive or intelligent by Dawkins, unless was intention is to garner attention. He seems to revel in being the one poking people with sticks.
There is DS in both mine and in my wifes family. I see both ends of the spectrum. At one end I absolutely see exactly what you we're referring to in your initial posts. At the other end I see what Dawkins is referring to in terms of happiness and suffering. Looks like I'm not allowed to think or say that though :-\
QuoteThe quote mining to suit peoples own prejudice is just crazy.
QuoteOnce again someone voicing their disgust based on their personal experience with people they know. Dawkin's is not talking about them so why are you using that as a stick to beat him with? His comments are about a foetus with an abnormality. This is not someones loved one we are talking about.
these were your responses to my initial post and my second post. In my first post I did not refer to you at all skull, just the comment from Dawkins. To any reasonable reader, it would come across as you being upset with my opinion than vice versa.
I'm not in any way saying you can't support Dawkins or his opinions - I'm just saying why I disagree with it.
Quote from: theskull1 on September 05, 2014, 08:53:50 PM
There is DS in both mine and in my wifes family. I see both ends of the spectrum. At one end I absolutely see exactly what you we're referring to in your initial posts. At the other end I see what Dawkins is referring to in terms of happiness and suffering. Looks like I'm not allowed to think or say that though :-\
Now you're just making stuff up.
I think I even said in a previous post that you are entitled to your opinion as is this guy Dawkins.It doesn't mean I'm not going to argue your or Dawkins opinion if I disagree with it
If anything I feel like I'm the one not allowed to say or think how I feel about his opinion because apparently I have no reason to take issue with what he said because he wasn't talking about my kid... ::)
So you're just entitling me to have an opinion and then dismissing it. Would that be right? You don't at any level accept anything I said in my previous post then in regard to seeing both sides of the debate? Maybe you do?
You absolutely have a right to express how you feel about what he has written as long as you're responding to what it is he's actually said. Of course I know this is a sensitive subject, consequently it makes it difficult to keep any discussion of what he's written on an even keel.
Five pages on Dawkins. I can't imagine ANYONE aborting a child on the basis of his opinion.This isn't the 1800s so the decision to abort a child would surely be an informed decision; informed by a wider group than one person.
Quote from: theskull1 on September 05, 2014, 09:42:07 PM
So you're just entitling me to have an opinion and then dismissing it. Would that be right? You don't at any level accept anything I said in my previous post then in regard to seeing both sides of the debate? Maybe you do?
You absolutely have a right to express how you feel about what he has written as long as you're responding to what it is he's actually said. Of course I know this is a sensitive subject, consequently it makes it difficult to keep any discussion of what he's written on an even keel.
Accepting that you're entitled to hold an opinion is totally different to accepting that opinion as correct. That is the bit you seem to struggle with.
Assuming you do actually know what a question mark is for, could explain to me how you came to think that conclusion? If it was a cheap dig it was a pretty poor effort.
Quote from: theskull1 on September 05, 2014, 09:42:07 PM
So you're just entitling me to have an opinion and then dismissing it. Would that be right? You don't at any level accept anything I said in my previous post then in regard to seeing both sides of the debate? Maybe you do?
You absolutely have a right to express how you feel about what he has written as long as you're responding to what it is he's actually said. Of course I know this is a sensitive subject, consequently it makes it difficult to keep any discussion of what he's written on an even keel.
I fully understand that you have seen both sides of the coin and I am only too aware that there is a spectrum range with down syndrome.I'm also aware that if you were placed in a position where you and your partner had a choice to make that you would have to consider both sides based on your experience and come to a decision based on that.And I wouldn't judge you or your partner whatever decision you made. I might not agree with it but I certainly wouldn't judge.I don't have a problem with any of that. I had issues dealing with it myself when my son was born.We didn't know until after he was born. I have often wondered how I would have felt if I had known before.
I do however have a problem with you saying that I or other people in my position shouldn't take issue with what Dawkins said simply because he isn't talking about my actual kid.
I also take issue with Dawkins saying that a child with DS will bring unhappiness and suffering to a family and that he believes it is immoral to bring the baby to full term. That is what he actually said,unless who can tell me about some sort of secret code he used or hidden meaning? It is what he said and it is what I have an issue with and what I have been posting about from the start. I'm not sure what you are suggesting when you are saying it's ok to respond to what he said as long it is about what he actually said because it's pretty clear to me what he said and what he is suggesting.Abort it and try again he says also..How many times do you keep aborting? and where does it stop?
I know you have said you know of a family that has a child with a more severe case of DS, but can you honestly tell me,hand on heart, that this family is unhappy because of their child? If the child does bring nothing but unhappiness and suffering to them well that is rather sad and I feel sorry for the child to be in a family that see them as an inconvenience. In my experience though they would be very much in the minority and not as Dawkins would have you believe the norm.
In fact as I have said already I have yet to meet a family that are in an eternal state of unhappiness and suffering because their child has DS and I'm including families of kids that fall into every range on the spectrum.
Believe me,a quick trip into the childrens ward in Temple Street or Crumlin and you will see having a child with Down Syndrome is not by a long shot the worst situation to be in.
Quote from: theskull1 on September 05, 2014, 10:38:26 PM
Assuming you do actually know what a question mark is for, could explain to me how you came to think that conclusion? If it was a cheap dig it was a pretty poor effort.
It wasn't a cheap shot, poor or otherwise.
QuotePeople are obviously reading snippets from that statement to suit their own opinions. There is nothing contentious in his statement from what I can see, when I try to put myself in the mind of a person considering the dilemma for real and having close knowledge of one middle aged couple in particular with a severe downs child.
The above quote tries to imply that his opinion wasn't contentious, when I don't see how it could be considered anything other than. You then use your own personal experience to justify why you don't think it's contentious. But then you pull easy tiger and LL for using their personal experiences to argue against his opinion and accuse people of "quote mining". You just seem very defensive of criticism of his opinion.
Thanks for that LL. I enjoyed reading that post
Heres Dawkins himself defending himself (point 5 is the one that you would be interested in)
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/ (https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/)
On your last paragraph
I cannot speak for the parents obviously, but personally I see the impact that its had on their lives. They make all the nurturing efforts and sacrifices that any parent would. They do it all with love but knowing the people they were beforehand to me they're putting on a brave face. I don't see a wile lot of happiness and enjoyment to be had as they face a life of little or no feedback, poor motor skills, nappies. Thats so far away from the other end of the spectrum that I'm also familiar with. That is a complete joy.
But seriously I don't believe this part of our discussion has anything to do with what Dawkins said. Read that link I posted
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 05, 2014, 11:18:37 PM
The above quote tries to imply that his opinion wasn't contentious, when I don't see how it could be considered anything other than. You then use your own personal experience to justify why you don't think it's contentious. But then you pull easy tiger and LL for using their personal experiences to argue against his opinion and accuse people of "quote mining". You just seem very defensive of criticism of his opinion.
He has explained in detail every sentence he wrote on the topic
When misinterpreted then yes its clear his views are contentious. I'm obviously reading them a different way than you. Go back and read his full explanation before you go out of the way to get offended and tell me what is contentious about what he has said (or meant to have said ...detailed in subsequent explanations)...I just don't see it
Again you're using words like "misinterpreted" and going "out of my way to get offended". It's quite possible that I fully understand his view point, but just disagree with it. In particular this bit.
QuoteGiven a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare.
He is starting from a view point that having a Downs child is going to be a life of suffering. I totally disagree with this. And as this is the core element of his opinion, it's the reason I disagree with him. I'm not going out of my way to be offended, I'm just disagreeing with his views.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 06, 2014, 08:33:34 AM
Again you're using words like "misinterpreted" and going "out of my way to get offended". It's quite possible that I fully understand his view point, but just disagree with it. In particular this bit.
QuoteGiven a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare.
He is starting from a view point that having a Downs child is going to be a life of suffering. I totally disagree with this. And as this is the core element of his opinion, it's the reason I disagree with him. I'm not going out of my way to be offended, I'm just disagreeing with his views.
No, he is not saying having a down syndrome child IS going to be a life of suffering. He is making a hypothetical risk calculation about a foetus with an abnormality and deciding that from his definition of morality that it would be wrong not to abort at that point in time. You say in one hand you wouldn't dare judge someone who when faced with this dilemma had to make these sort of decisions. I don't understand why you don't grant him his right to give HIS OWN thinking if he was in that very situation. Remember HIS OWN opinion if he were in that position
Here is his own response to this point on that link above
Now to the upset itself. The haters came from various directions:-
.
.
Those who thought I was bossily telling a woman what to do rather than let her choose. Of course this was absolutely not my intention and I apologise if brevity made it look that way. My true intention was, as stated at length above, simply to say what I personally would do, based upon my own assessment of the pragmatics of the case, and my own moral philosophy which in turn is based on a desire to increase happiness and reduce suffering.
.
.
To conclude, what I was saying simply follows logically from the ordinary pro-choice stance that most us, I presume, espouse. My phraseology may have been tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding, but I can't help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand.
I am sure the babies happiness is fcuked when their brains and bodies get scrambled!
Dawkins is an arrogant tosser!
I find it strange that he refers to people who disagree with his opinion as 'haters'....
Anyway skull I have read the link you posted and to be honest there is nothing in it that I hadn't read before and there is nothing in it that would make me change my mind.
I think I have made valid points and I've been pretty clear on why I hold those views.
I really have nothing more to add to the topic as I feel at this stage I'm really only repeating myself and there isn't much point to that.
Quote from: theskull1 on September 06, 2014, 09:53:04 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 06, 2014, 08:33:34 AM
Again you're using words like "misinterpreted" and going "out of my way to get offended". It's quite possible that I fully understand his view point, but just disagree with it. In particular this bit.
QuoteGiven a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare.
He is starting from a view point that having a Downs child is going to be a life of suffering. I totally disagree with this. And as this is the core element of his opinion, it's the reason I disagree with him. I'm not going out of my way to be offended, I'm just disagreeing with his views.
No, he is not saying having a down syndrome child IS going to be a life of suffering. He is making a hypothetical risk calculation about a foetus with an abnormality and deciding that from his definition of morality that it would be wrong not to abort at that point in time. You say in one hand you wouldn't dare judge someone who when faced with this dilemma had to make these sort of decisions. I don't understand why you don't grant him his right to give HIS OWN thinking if he was in that very situation. Remember HIS OWN opinion if he were in that position
Here is his own response to this point on that link above
Now to the upset itself. The haters came from various directions:-
.
.
Those who thought I was bossily telling a woman what to do rather than let her choose. Of course this was absolutely not my intention and I apologise if brevity made it look that way. My true intention was, as stated at length above, simply to say what I personally would do, based upon my own assessment of the pragmatics of the case, and my own moral philosophy which in turn is based on a desire to increase happiness and reduce suffering.
.
.
To conclude, what I was saying simply follows logically from the ordinary pro-choice stance that most us, I presume, espouse. My phraseology may have been tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding, but I can't help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand.
We're going round in circles. I'm not telling him he can't have that opinion. I'm saying I totally disagree with it. Therefore my opinion differs from his. I really don't know how much more I can add to that.