One for the unbelievers and not so sures

[theskull1]

 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 

[easytiger95]

The quote mining to suit peoples own prejudice is just crazy.

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.

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.

[laoislad]

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...

[theskull1]

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.

[Tony Baloney]

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.

[trueblue1234]

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.

[theskull1]

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.

[laoislad]

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.
 

[trueblue1234]

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.

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.

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. 

[theskull1]

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/

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

[theskull1]

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

[trueblue1234]

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.

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.

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.

[theskull1]

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.

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.

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.

[stew]

I am sure the babies happiness is fcuked when their brains and bodies get scrambled!

Dawkins is an arrogant tosser!

[laoislad]

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.