Richard Dawkins - "Abort it, try again".

[crashtestdummy]

Note: What I say below assumes a fairly strong pro-choice stance. If you view abortion as murder, then the rest of this discussion becomes moot.

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

He does still have something of a point. 50 years ago, many parents absolutely might have aborted a gay child if there were a genetic test for it. Had that happened, there might never have been enough gay people alive to push for the rights that they are just now starting to have.

There is a value to diversity of outcomes, even if many of those are, on the face of it, negative ones. We can't say with 100% certainty that in selecting out certain traits, we aren't denying ourselves some future appreciation for those traits.

The more important question is when is the value of that diversity completely overwhelmed by the burden it places on the parents? The big line I would draw between a gay child and a Down's child is that the latter will likely never be self-sufficient. Being gay might be a change in the parent's expectations, but that child will still be able to be a full adult that can support him/herself. As I said much earlier, I don't know what I would do in that situation, and frankly I'm glad I didn't have to, but I do think that option should be there.

As an even tougher gray area, think about things like autism or deafness. Both carry with them unique qualities, skills, and personalities, but they also place a large burden on the family and those kids tend to have worse life outcomes.

 

[witeken]

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

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

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

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

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

Why do you think that (the majority of the) people will do this abort and try again strategy until they get a 'perfect' child? I don't think it's a big deal and I think people know that properties like being left handed don't tell anything about the person who is born.

 

[Retro Rob]

As an even tougher gray area, think about things like autism or deafness. Both carry with them unique qualities, skills, and personalities, but they also place a large burden on the family and those kids tend to have worse life outcomes.

Indeed, hence the backlash of a parent:

Dawkins, an "ignorant idiot".

Jessica Skelton, 16, achieved six passes in the week that biologist Richard Dawkins caused fury by insisting it is right to abort Down's foetuses.
Atheist author Dawkins provoked fury when he suggested it would be "immoral" to bring a Down's child into the world "if you have a choice" during a Twitter debate. Today Jessica's father Tim, 47, said: "Dawkins is an ignorant idiot sitting in an ivory tower.

 

[MrPickins]

There is a value to diversity of outcomes, even if many of those are, on the face of it, negative ones. We can't say with 100% certainty that in selecting out certain traits, we aren't denying ourselves some future appreciation for those traits.

Down syndrome is not a genetic trait. It's a birth defect, and a major one at that.

Indeed, hence the backlash of a parent:

Dawkins, an "ignorant idiot".

You can't expect that parent to argue from anything but an emotional position, though.

 

[jpeyton]

It's the woman's choice. A bunch of men dickering on the internet about what's right and what's wrong is pointless.

 

[justoh]

It's the woman's choice. A bunch of men dickering on the internet about what's right and what's wrong is pointless.

I guess the social forums are pointless, in a sense, but you still posted, probably for the same reasons everyone else does: affirmation and/or entertainment.

 

[witeken]

Indeed, hence the backlash of a parent:

Dawkins, an "ignorant idiot".

That doesn't mean anything. From Dawkins' response:

5. Those who took offence because they know and love a person with Down Syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right to exist. I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one. [...]

 

[JackBurton]

5. Those who took offence because they know and love a person with Down Syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right to exist. I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one. [...]

Exactly.

 

[zinfamous]

If miscarriages justifies abortion.

Then cancer justifies murder.

In other words its an absolutely retarded argument.

miscarriages challenge the notion that the moment of conception = life.


once again, nehalem injects his own interpretation into an argument that he fails to understand.

 

[nehalem256]

It's the woman's choice. A bunch of men dickering on the internet about what's right and what's wrong is pointless.

Heaven forbid anyone question any decision a woman makes

miscarriages challenge the notion that the moment of conception = life.

once again, nehalem injects his own interpretation into an argument that he fails to understand.

How exactly does the fact that fetuses can die in anyway challenge the notion that they are alive?

 

[bshole]

How exactly does the fact that fetuses can die in anyway challenge the notion that they are alive?

They are alive in the same way sperm is alive. Sperm is indeed alive and nobody sheds a tear when it is murdered in the act of masturbation.

I spoke with God the other day and he told me that a fetus becomes human when the umbillical cord is cut, at that exact moment he enfuses the fetus with a soul and instills it's humanity. He told me that he has no problem with killing fetuses because they are not people but only potential people in the same way that sperm is a potential person.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Richard Dawkins, The University of Oxford professor told one mother that if she found out she was carrying a baby with Down syndrome she should 'abort it and try again.' He issued an apology on his website a day later. The comments came just weeks after other controversial statements he made about rape.

 

[JEDIYoda]

miscarriages challenge the notion that the moment of conception = life.

not true at all! There are many reasons miscarriages take place.....your statement cannot be considered absolute!

 

[ch33zw1z]

Dawkins has his opinions. I don't know if he should of apologized though. Good PR to do so, but meh.

 

[zinfamous]

not true at all! There are many reasons miscarriages take place.....your statement cannot be considered absolute!

I didn't make a statement about absolutes. My statement, in fact, challenges the spurious notion that such a definition is absolute.

--that conception = life = absolute.

I am saying that this is absolutely not true.

 

[alzan]

Indeed, hence the backlash of a parent:

Dawkins, an "ignorant idiot".

Wow, you've really got a hard-on for Dawkins.

Let me break it down for you:

- Dawkins' morals do not necessarily match yours, the mother in the OP or anyone else's; which is perfectly okay because morals are personal.

- The mother in the OP asked Dawkins's opinion which he gave

- Dawkins apologized; I'm not sure why.

 

[Hugo Drax]

I don't get the hate, seems like good advice.

 

[davmat787]

At what point does aborting due to down's syndrome end and eugenics begin? Aren't the two the same except for their respective degree of technology? Eventually abortions could be based off of DNA samples. Besides downs syndrome, what other conditions place the fetus on tomorrow's vacuuming schedule?

Doesn't change my personal opinion fwiw, I realize it should be legal for many reasons, but when do abortion for disease end and eugenics meet? Why not keep aborting and trying until you get one with blue eyes and blonde hair?

 

[Exophase]

At what point does aborting due to down's syndrome end and eugenics begin? Aren't the two the same except for their respective degree of technology? Eventually abortions could be based off of DNA samples. Besides downs syndrome, what other conditions place the fetus on tomorrow's vacuuming schedule?

Doesn't change my personal opinion fwiw, I realize it should be legal for many reasons, but when do abortion for disease end and eugenics meet? Why not keep aborting and trying until you get one with blue eyes and blonde hair?

No they're not the same, because eugenics is an externally controlled social policy. I've said it before in this thread, but aborting a fetus because of its potential attributes is no more eugenics than choosing to have sex with men you find handsome in order to increase the odds of having children you think are handsome. Something that has been happening for a very long time.

If somebody wants to keep aborting their children until they get the one with subjective traits they want that's their prerogative, and is no more destructive than refusing to have children in the first place. It's not going to act like eugenics because you'll never get society agreeing they only want blue eyed and blonde haired children just by letting them abort - to get that would require some asshole brainwashing a big swath of people into thinking those types of children are objectively better.