Dawkins pissing people off again with his arrogant opinions

[JimC]

Given these facts, what is a reasoned ethical argument about whether Down's syndrome people should have children?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Given these facts, what is a reasoned ethical argument about whether Down's syndrome people should have children?

There are two things to consider. Firstly, the chance of passing on the condition. Secondly, whether someone with severely reduced mental capacity (often equivalent to a 5-8 year old) can give informed consent to sex.

A minefield I would hesitate to tiptoe into...

[JimC]

A minefield indeed...

[pErvinalia]

It is the moralizing on a medium that only allows 140 characters is where Dawkins errs time and again.

The whole point of being pro-choice is to allow a woman to decide with the advice of her doctor whether to continue a pregnancy. That is where the discussion should end.

Deciding to terminate a pregnancy based on a known genetic disability is a matter for personal morals, not some global, one-size-fits-all code of ethics passed down by Richard Dawkins or anyone else!

What about SD?

[pErvinalia]

It's just as absolutist for Dawkins to pronounce that carrying a Down's Syndrome foetus to delivery is immoral as it is for a religious leader to proclaim aborting it to be immoral. As others in the thread have said, it is a difficult ethical decision, to be made by the parents, with support and advice, if requested, from medical professionals. Other people can fuck right off.

Yep.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It is the moralizing on a medium that only allows 140 characters is where Dawkins errs time and again.

The whole point of being pro-choice is to allow a woman to decide with the advice of her doctor whether to continue a pregnancy. That is where the discussion should end.

Deciding to terminate a pregnancy based on a known genetic disability is a matter for personal morals, not some global, one-size-fits-all code of ethics passed down by Richard Dawkins or anyone else!

What about SD?

Standard deviation?

[pErvinalia]

My God!1, the level of criminal trolling of Strontium Dog has reached event horizon proportions!! When will this injustice end?!!1

[mistermack]

There are two things to consider. ...........Secondly, whether someone with severely reduced mental capacity (often equivalent to a 5-8 year old) can give informed consent to sex.

And of course that also applies to when they refuse sex. They're not really qualified so they need someone to make the decision for them.

So that's how it was, your honour, I was only trying to help.
The defence rests.

[MrJonno]

It's just as absolutist for Dawkins to pronounce that carrying a Down's Syndrome foetus to delivery is immoral as it is for a religious leader to proclaim aborting it to be immoral. As others in the thread have said, it is a difficult ethical decision, to be made by the parents, with support and advice, if requested, from medical professionals. Other people can fuck right off.

Yep.

Why is is someone not allowed to say something is right or wrong whether you are religious or an atheist. People are quite entitled to get upset but so what may be need a bit more upset in this world, might actually get people to think.


Nice to see some people actually get on the fence and have a clear opinion. You never get it from it from politicians. Dawkins obviously doesnt give a shit about his knighthood now (which he deserves)

[mistermack]

Why is is someone not allowed to say something is right or wrong whether you are religious or an atheist. People are quite entitled to get upset but so what may be need a bit more upset in this world, might actually get people to think.


Nice to see some people actually get on the fence and have a clear opinion. You never get it from it from politicians. Dawkins obviously doesnt give a shit about his knighthood now (which he deserves)

I think it's down to the lack of words. The way he wrote it, it looks like he's proclaiming that it's immoral, but if it was possible to tweet at greater length, I'm sure he'd say that that's his opinion, not that it's set in stone.
But he's crafty. He knows that phrasing it like that makes an arrogant statement that will invite people to get all het up, and then he can just say, '' oh well, it was a tweet, I couldn't say everything in so few words'' so he gets his publicity from the bit of furore that he stoked up, and is still able to ''clarify'' what he meant later.
I doubt if he's the only one who will exploit twitter in that way, to keep his name in the press.

[pErvinalia]

It's just as absolutist for Dawkins to pronounce that carrying a Down's Syndrome foetus to delivery is immoral as it is for a religious leader to proclaim aborting it to be immoral. As others in the thread have said, it is a difficult ethical decision, to be made by the parents, with support and advice, if requested, from medical professionals. Other people can fuck right off.

Yep.

Why is is someone not allowed to say something is right or wrong whether you are religious or an atheist. People are quite entitled to get upset but so what may be need a bit more upset in this world, might actually get people to think.


Nice to see some people actually get on the fence and have a clear opinion. You never get it from it from politicians. Dawkins obviously doesnt give a shit about his knighthood now (which he deserves)

The problem is that he is allegedly intelligent. Intelligent people understand there are no absolute morals. They also hopefully have an understanding of social issues, unlike Dawkins. He's like SD, he doesn't realise the effect his words have in a social environment.

[Scott1328]

SD knows exactly the effect his words have. He just doesn't give a shit what those effects are.

[cronus]

SD knows exactly the effect his words have. He just doesn't give a shit what those effects are.

They should screen for people with low empathic potential before birth and do the other thing also.

[MrJonno]

The problem is that he is allegedly intelligent. Intelligent people understand there are no absolute morals. They also hopefully have an understanding of social issues, unlike Dawkins. He's like SD, he doesn't realise the effect his words have in a social environment.

Does saying you think something is immoral mean there are absolute morals?,

[Strontium Dog]

SD knows exactly the effect his words have. He just doesn't give a shit what those effects are.

It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what?