Richard Dawkins = Larry Logic ~ Arse
Discussion
FredClogs said:
the morality of baby murdering,
I wish to stress that I am not aiming this at you directly, but I have found, without exception, anyone using this sort of emotive term to be bigoted fundamentalist nutjob cretins of the highest order. I'm willing to concede you may be the exception, but it isn't looking good.
The main problem with these arguments is that it throws cognitive dissonance into it.
Id like to think we are all well adjust good people at heart, we do not want to harm anyone, but understand that there is both good and bad that come from either side.
It's just when you start looking for your absolute stance on the subject, you get stressed and become a mardy and angry daily mail commenter.
Id like to think we are all well adjust good people at heart, we do not want to harm anyone, but understand that there is both good and bad that come from either side.
It's just when you start looking for your absolute stance on the subject, you get stressed and become a mardy and angry daily mail commenter.
Justayellowbadge said:
FredClogs said:
the morality of baby murdering,
I wish to stress that I am not aiming this at you directly, but I have found, without exception, anyone using this sort of emotive term to be bigoted fundamentalist nutjob cretins of the highest order. I'm willing to concede you may be the exception, but it isn't looking good.
s2art said:
Dawkins states the bleedin obvious, hard of thinking are outraged. Is there anything more to say?
How about: Dawkins makes a statement based in cold logic. Those who realise that real life contains a number of moral and emotional factors feel it's a subject worthy of more indepth discussion?FredClogs said:
I was rather hoping it would stick on the subject at hand, the morality of baby murdering,
FredClogs said:
but some people just can't help themselves from spoiling for an argument...
It seems soYour rather extensive and thoughtful reply to an earlier question of mine seems completely at odds a with every other post of your on this thread.
I think there is only one person here with a very fixed view spoiling for an argument.
I am in the unfortunate minority of people who have had to make this choice. My view before the pregnancy and our actual decision were poles apart, therefore I would suggest to those who are preaching that abortion is wrong and joke of killing babies is that you be careful what you wish for.
We didn't ask for any screening for our third child, nor did we for the first healthy two, but the sonographer picked something up during the 12 week scan and refered us to the consultant. Further scans and tests confirmed downs syndrome and other complications.
It is an awful experience and the most difficult decision that my wife an I have ever had to make, however given our circumstances and consideration for siblings (i.e. if we were to die prematurely then responsibility for looking after their Downs brother would likely fall to them) we know we have made the correct decision. We terminated the pregnancy which again is an awful experience I wouldn't wish on anyone. If I had the chance to make the decision again I would make the same choice.
If the sonographer had not picked up any problem then we would have loved our child regardless but we were given the choice as do all those parents who have children with disabilities.
If it had been our first pregnancy our decision may have been different, it may not, to be honest it's a very difficult and personal decision that the individuals need to be supported through and their personal circumstances taken into account.
Now with three healthy children (we didn't ask for screening for the fourth pregnancy either) I can say that conception wasn't affected by the procedure and given the method used at the stage most DS babies are terminated it is unlikely to cause any issues, except perhaps mentally for the parents.
We didn't ask for any screening for our third child, nor did we for the first healthy two, but the sonographer picked something up during the 12 week scan and refered us to the consultant. Further scans and tests confirmed downs syndrome and other complications.
It is an awful experience and the most difficult decision that my wife an I have ever had to make, however given our circumstances and consideration for siblings (i.e. if we were to die prematurely then responsibility for looking after their Downs brother would likely fall to them) we know we have made the correct decision. We terminated the pregnancy which again is an awful experience I wouldn't wish on anyone. If I had the chance to make the decision again I would make the same choice.
If the sonographer had not picked up any problem then we would have loved our child regardless but we were given the choice as do all those parents who have children with disabilities.
If it had been our first pregnancy our decision may have been different, it may not, to be honest it's a very difficult and personal decision that the individuals need to be supported through and their personal circumstances taken into account.
Now with three healthy children (we didn't ask for screening for the fourth pregnancy either) I can say that conception wasn't affected by the procedure and given the method used at the stage most DS babies are terminated it is unlikely to cause any issues, except perhaps mentally for the parents.
Pesty said:
FredClogs said:
I was rather hoping it would stick on the subject at hand, the morality of baby murdering,
FredClogs said:
but some people just can't help themselves from spoiling for an argument...
It seems soYour rather extensive and thoughtful reply to an earlier question of mine seems completely at odds a with every other post of your on this thread.
I think there is only one person here with a very fixed view spoiling for an argument.
MarcoD said:
I am in the unfortunate minority of people who have had to make this choice. My view before the pregnancy and our actual decision were poles apart, therefore I would suggest to those who are preaching that abortion is wrong and joke of killing babies is that you be careful what you wish for.
We didn't ask for any screening for our third child, nor did we for the first healthy two, but the sonographer picked something up during the 12 week scan and refered us to the consultant. Further scans and tests confirmed downs syndrome and other complications.
It is an awful experience and the most difficult decision that my wife an I have ever had to make, however given our circumstances and consideration for siblings (i.e. if we were to die prematurely then responsibility for looking after their Downs brother would likely fall to them) we know we have made the correct decision. We terminated the pregnancy which again is an awful experience I wouldn't wish on anyone. If I had the chance to make the decision again I would make the same choice.
If the sonographer had not picked up any problem then we would have loved our child regardless but we were given the choice as do all those parents who have children with disabilities.
If it had been our first pregnancy our decision may have been different, it may not, to be honest it's a very difficult and personal decision that the individuals need to be supported through and their personal circumstances taken into account.
Now with three healthy children (we didn't ask for screening for the fourth pregnancy either) I can say that conception wasn't affected by the procedure and given the method used at the stage most DS babies are terminated it is unlikely to cause any issues, except perhaps mentally for the parents.
Thanks for that. It is not black or white but emotions of grey - your emotions.We didn't ask for any screening for our third child, nor did we for the first healthy two, but the sonographer picked something up during the 12 week scan and refered us to the consultant. Further scans and tests confirmed downs syndrome and other complications.
It is an awful experience and the most difficult decision that my wife an I have ever had to make, however given our circumstances and consideration for siblings (i.e. if we were to die prematurely then responsibility for looking after their Downs brother would likely fall to them) we know we have made the correct decision. We terminated the pregnancy which again is an awful experience I wouldn't wish on anyone. If I had the chance to make the decision again I would make the same choice.
If the sonographer had not picked up any problem then we would have loved our child regardless but we were given the choice as do all those parents who have children with disabilities.
If it had been our first pregnancy our decision may have been different, it may not, to be honest it's a very difficult and personal decision that the individuals need to be supported through and their personal circumstances taken into account.
Now with three healthy children (we didn't ask for screening for the fourth pregnancy either) I can say that conception wasn't affected by the procedure and given the method used at the stage most DS babies are terminated it is unlikely to cause any issues, except perhaps mentally for the parents.
Story appeared in the mail today.
This baby is going to suffer a lot of pain and a short life. The mother was offered an abortion. She declined. I think in this case it was cruel to take the course she did.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2730960/...
This baby is going to suffer a lot of pain and a short life. The mother was offered an abortion. She declined. I think in this case it was cruel to take the course she did.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2730960/...
Edited by Pesty on Thursday 21st August 22:00
FredClogs said:
I was rather hoping it would stick on the subject at hand, the morality of baby murdering,
Care to explain that?Murder isn't a moral term, it's a legal one. My understanding is that in order for it to be possible murder it has to satisfy 3 criteria.
It must result in death. You can't commit murder if your victim didn't die.
It must be intentional. You can't murder by accident, that's manslaughter or some other lesser offence.
It must be unlawful. Putting a chicken to death isn't murder, it's just plain killing. Because it isn't illegal.
Abortion is legal. Therefore it isn't murder. You are free to think it should be murder, and the law should be changed. But the fact that you call it baby murdering now when it obviously isn't leads me to believe you have some form of warped catholic bulls
t agenda. That's a favourite m.o. of the catholic mafia, using highly emotive language to add weight to a rubbish argument. But maybe I have misjudged you, so I'll let you explain the used of the term baby murdering,
Far be it from me to speak for Matt/Fred, but I think you need to read what he wrote and understand the context of it.
He used a very emotive phrase - murdering babies - and then said that some people are spoiling for an argument. The point being that by using a phrase such as that, he appears to be the one looking for an argument. It's irony.
He used a very emotive phrase - murdering babies - and then said that some people are spoiling for an argument. The point being that by using a phrase such as that, he appears to be the one looking for an argument. It's irony.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Care to explain that?
Murder isn't a moral term, it's a legal one. My understanding is that in order for it to be possible murder it has to satisfy 3 criteria.
It must result in death. You can't commit murder if your victim didn't die.
It must be intentional. You can't murder by accident, that's manslaughter or some other lesser offence.
It must be unlawful. Putting a chicken to death isn't murder, it's just plain killing. Because it isn't illegal.
Abortion is legal. Therefore it isn't murder. You are free to think it should be murder, and the law should be changed. But the fact that you call it baby murdering now when it obviously isn't leads me to believe you have some form of warped catholic bullst agenda. That's a favourite m.o. of the catholic mafia, using highly emotive language to add weight to a rubbish argument.
But maybe I have misjudged you, so I'll let you explain the used of the term baby murdering,
OK, OK, Baby Killing then.....Murder isn't a moral term, it's a legal one. My understanding is that in order for it to be possible murder it has to satisfy 3 criteria.
It must result in death. You can't commit murder if your victim didn't die.
It must be intentional. You can't murder by accident, that's manslaughter or some other lesser offence.
It must be unlawful. Putting a chicken to death isn't murder, it's just plain killing. Because it isn't illegal.
Abortion is legal. Therefore it isn't murder. You are free to think it should be murder, and the law should be changed. But the fact that you call it baby murdering now when it obviously isn't leads me to believe you have some form of warped catholic bulls
t agenda. That's a favourite m.o. of the catholic mafia, using highly emotive language to add weight to a rubbish argument. But maybe I have misjudged you, so I'll let you explain the used of the term baby murdering,
TTwiggy said:
That's a pretty bold statement - do you have evidence that god doesn't exist? And remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 
I think it's more to do with his opponents being provably wrong than Dawkins being provably right. Have you watched some of the idiots he debates with ?Dawkins said there was a moral imperative to abort a Downs foetus.
That is a bold claim and asking for it to be justified is entirely reasonable.
Is a Downs life not worth living? That's a pretty difficult case to make.
Personally I think aborting any foetus is damn nearly morally neutral.
Looks to me like this is a case of Dawkins speaking rather causally and then claiming that is somehow his audience's fault.
I happen to agree with a great number of his conclusions, but the way he argues his points when it comes to religion and morality often leave me cringing.
That is a bold claim and asking for it to be justified is entirely reasonable.
Is a Downs life not worth living? That's a pretty difficult case to make.
Personally I think aborting any foetus is damn nearly morally neutral.
Looks to me like this is a case of Dawkins speaking rather causally and then claiming that is somehow his audience's fault.
I happen to agree with a great number of his conclusions, but the way he argues his points when it comes to religion and morality often leave me cringing.
MarcoD said:
. . . i.e. if we were to die prematurely then responsibility for looking after their Downs brother would likely fall to them . . .
I wouldn't dream of judging you.This point I've quoted was raised by a woman my wife and I chatted to, the mother of a Downs Syndrome kid, about 20 - 25 years, in a Starbucks. The lad was ordering the coffee, something that was just about within his capabilities. The mother said that he was a lovely 'boy', but dependant on her for most things. She'd given up work to look after him so money was tight and, as she had had the lad late in life - she must have been around 60 years - the worst thing of having a disabled child was not the extra work but that once she and her husband died, the standard of care the lad received would plummet.
The lad brought the coffees, in paper cups with lids on, to the table and his joy in doing so was obvious.
But it doesn't take a lot of imagination to realise what must have been going through the woman's mind at every one of her birthdays.
My daughter's partner works with disabled adults in a home run by Brighton council. The standard of care is quite high and the individual needs of his charges are taken into consideration. But the care is being sold off, and to the highest bidder. It doesn't take a lot of working out what will happen to the inmates.
I don't know what my decision would be in similar circs and I certainly would not criticise anyone for choosing either option. I'm just relieved I was not put into the situation of having to do so.
Given the OP start the thread with a pre-emptive adhominem attack, I'll retaliate in kind.
Anybody that draws their ethics from an imaginary friend has an imaginary morality.
Deliberately bringing a profoundly disabled child into a life of suffering is absolutely immoral and anybody that thinks it is a good idea must by definition be a sadist. It is no different from mistreating them after they've been unwittingly brought into the world.
Anybody that draws their ethics from an imaginary friend has an imaginary morality.
Deliberately bringing a profoundly disabled child into a life of suffering is absolutely immoral and anybody that thinks it is a good idea must by definition be a sadist. It is no different from mistreating them after they've been unwittingly brought into the world.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Friday 22 August 12:55
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff