Dawkins pissing people off again with his arrogant opinions

[pErvinalia]

Dawkins is at it again..

The scientist Richard Dawkins has become embroiled in another Twitter row, claiming it would be “immoral” to carry on with a pregnancy if the mother knew the foetus had Down’s syndrome.

The British author made the comment in response to another user who said she would be faced with “a real ethical dilemma” if she became pregnant and learned that the baby would be born with the disorder.

Dawkins tweeted: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014 ... MP=soc_567

[Strontium Dog]

He's right. Again.

[mistermack]

If he's a true atheist, than he's on shaky ground proclaiming that something is immoral, or moral.

But of course, the sub-plot is that HE thinks it would be immoral. That's what moral and immoral are.
Our individual opinion of what's right or wrong.
What's immoral to him, isn't, to someone else.

I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't claim that there is somewhere out there, an absolute definition of right and wrong.

[pErvinalia]

He's right. Again.

Not surprised you support poorly thought out offensive opinions. :

[tattuchu]

If it's a foetus, not a child yet, then why let it develop into a child? It sounds cruel, but why bring a developmentally disabled child into the world when you don't have to?

If he's a true atheist, than he's on shaky ground proclaiming that something is immoral, or moral.

But of course, the sub-plot is that HE thinks it would be immoral. That's what moral and immoral are.
Our individual opinion of what's right or wrong.
What's immoral to him, isn't, to someone else.

I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't claim that there is somewhere out there, an absolute definition of right and wrong.

I don't think we need religion to decide what's moral or immoral. Concepts of morality were usurped by religion but religion doesn't own them. Morality exists independently. And, yes, morals vary from person to person, but they vary from religious text to religious text (or even within an individual text) as well. So it's not like religious morality is particularly meaningful or absolute in that regard either.

[pErvinalia]

It's not a clear cut decision like Dawkins makes out. A lot of down's sufferers lead happy fulfilling lives. It's just his arrogance in delivery that are getting worse and worse with age. I wonder if he is going a bit crazy.

[tattuchu]

It's not a clear cut decision like Dawkins makes out. A lot of down's sufferers lead happy fulfilling lives. It's just his arrogance in delivery that are getting worse and worse with age. I wonder if he is going a bit crazy.

Doesn't help, either, that Twitter posts have a 140-character limit, so it's impossible to elaborate and explain yourself.

[pErvinalia]

Maybe PeeZee is his idol and he's trying to emulate his obnoxiousness.

[Doubtdispelled]

If it's a foetus, not a child yet, then why let it develop into a child? It sounds cruel, but why bring a developmentally disabled child into the world when you don't have to?

You make it sound so easy...

You should try being the pregnant woman who has to make the decisions. Of which there are many. First, you have to decide whether or not to have the tests which will tell you that there may be a problem, bearing in mind that the level of developmental 'damage' will not be truly known until the child is born and starts to grow up. And you have to take that decision first because you know that once given a result, if it shows abnormalities, then you know you will be faced with other decisions. Some might decide it's better not to know. But then even before making the decision to go ahead and have the tests, you think about the other decisions because you can't help it. You wonder whether you could cope with a down's child, you wonder about the impact on your other children, your marriage, your whole life..... and whether you would want to live with the knowledge that you may have aborted what could have been a child who was different, but happy.

I got lucky, I only had to take the first decision, but then I'd already worked out what the second would be if the news was bad. I think. Thankfully I wasn't tested to the limit.

It seems ludicrous to have say it, but only a pregnant woman can know what it's like to be that pregnant woman, with her own feelings and her own set of circumstances, and everyone else should butt out and leave it to her. But offering support whatever she decides, and leaving all judgements and moral arguments aside. Completely.

[mistermack]

I think Dawkins is a bit of a headline junkie.
He likes to post something that will provoke apoplexy among the politically correct, and then defend it by saying it's logical.
He's right to say that many people abort fetuses that have Downs.
But very few people would agree that it's immoral not to abort. So if right and wrong are in the eye of the beholder, he's wrong there, by common consent, anyway.

[cronus]

Eugenics creep. Doesn't he know that evolution is a blind watsitmaker? Maybe the next Downs syndrome kid will indirectly influence the next Darwin in pursuing biology? Absolute chaos is required to make a shining star.

[Tero]

All those Downs parents: why didn't you just get a dog? They love you.

[pErvinalia]

[laklak]

Well, dogs chew shoes. I don't think Downs kids chew shoes. Mind you, they both drool and let their tongues hang out and both can be house trained. I guess it's down to personal preference.

[Strontium Dog]

He's right. Again.

Not surprised you support poorly thought out offensive opinions. :

Not surprised your response is kneejerk, emotional and simplistic.

I don't care about offending idiots. In fact, I would be doing something wrong if I wasn't.