Richard Dawkins = Larry Logic ~ Arse
Discussion
Martin4x4 said:
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.
All life is suffering ergo all life should be aborted according to your creed?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.
I think it was foolish of RD to attempt the topic via Twitter, was bound to be hijacked into the usual 'outrage' and hysterical BS that spills out every time someone dares say something direct.
However that said then yes if a foetus is tested positive for an incurable debilitating condition that will have a significant impact on their well-being then stop the pregnancy and try again.
Yes abortion is unpleasant and has a significant long term psychological impact (been there done that), it is the right thing to do, and unlikely to cause any physical harm to the mother if done correctly.
However that said then yes if a foetus is tested positive for an incurable debilitating condition that will have a significant impact on their well-being then stop the pregnancy and try again.
Yes abortion is unpleasant and has a significant long term psychological impact (been there done that), it is the right thing to do, and unlikely to cause any physical harm to the mother if done correctly.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It's a ridiculous question. Do you have evidence that unicorns don't exist? There is no onus on anyone to prove stuff doesn't exist. The onus rests with those asserting the positive, not the negative.
I find this comment rather ironic give a few days asked me to prove the absence of a specific law you claimed existed and I was going to post similar but decided to ignore it as pointless.As to the case in point, we can use Occams Razor to assert that God does not exist (as a deity) is objectively true.
I consider ethical objectivism is central to the question at hand. Should morality be drawn from the subjective ethics of 'devine judgement' or rational enlightenment. I think Dawkins and I share the view it should be the latter.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Friday 22 August 16:08
Martin4x4 said:
I'm an atheist not a Buddhist and my biggest weakness is my inability to suffer fools, so yes all fools should be aborted, unfortunatly we haven't yet invented precognition.
So you are in favor of Eugenics then? Given that many deliberating condition are inheritable and you don't want people to suffer it's surely immoral for people with such conditions to reproduce and likewise it's immoral for people not to seek such screening in the first place if it is available?
Martin4x4 said:
Deliberately bringing a profoundly disabled child into a life of suffering is absolutely
Yes but Dawkins was talking specifically about Downs. The disability is certainly significant but it isn't at all obvious to me that it causes a significant amount of suffering for the child.
Martin4x4 said:
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.
See earlier articles posted on the achievements and possible reality of being "downs". Perhaps if you stopped seeing the labels and saw the humans... You know, more would be possible... We're all a bit disabled aren't we martin?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
Pesty said:
Fred im wondering what your opinion is of the case linked above where the lady chose not to have an abortion.
I think hope springs eternal, you see some sort of twisted sadistic selfish act, I see hopeless optimism.Neither a moral position, which was my main gripe with Dawkins, his suggestion that it was a moral question.
It’s all about the terrible algebra. If you were to place all emotion and moral code aside and make your decision by plus and negatives on raising a DS child you would go with the abortion. However we’re not calculators and emotions and morals will always get involved in the decision. It is entirely a personal decision and until he’s impacting laws regarding the issue, his comments are honest and understandable.
On the flip side, it’s all a slippery slope, look at Swedish laws on the subject in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden). Where do you draw the line on disabilities as reasonable cause for abortion, how do you judge the quality of someone’s life. Should the poor be banned from having children as they will have a lower standard of life/happiness ?
On the flip side, it’s all a slippery slope, look at Swedish laws on the subject in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden). Where do you draw the line on disabilities as reasonable cause for abortion, how do you judge the quality of someone’s life. Should the poor be banned from having children as they will have a lower standard of life/happiness ?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
And he did follow it up with an apology which everyone seems to have conveniently ignored. 2 days ago at that.....https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-s...
Tankslappa, yes he did, all I'd suggest is his error is to think the logical decision is always the right decision.
I think veedubbigbird explained it succintly when he said we are not calculators! The 'logical' decision could be a regrettable decision, emotionally, and we can't argue that emotions are not important because that's a part of what makes us human. We know that at some point our children will disappoint us and most likely experience and cause pain, to what extent we cannot predict, one wouldn't abort to avoid that risk.
So yeah, feeding frenzy is OTT but he should be prepared to be challenged and criticised.
I think veedubbigbird explained it succintly when he said we are not calculators! The 'logical' decision could be a regrettable decision, emotionally, and we can't argue that emotions are not important because that's a part of what makes us human. We know that at some point our children will disappoint us and most likely experience and cause pain, to what extent we cannot predict, one wouldn't abort to avoid that risk.
So yeah, feeding frenzy is OTT but he should be prepared to be challenged and criticised.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff