Richard Dawkins = Larry Logic ~ Arse
Discussion
I know there are quite a few Larry Logic types on here, just wondered whether they'd like to have a crack at defending Richard Dawkin's latest twitter debacle?
http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/uk_national_news...
I don't claim to speak for Dawkins, but it seems to me that concepts of morality stem from a frame of reference, and as so are essentially relative to that frame. Someone with an essentially utilitarian outlook might agree with Dawkins, others may not.
There is no absolute right and wrong in matters of moral judgement, although of course there are some matters on which people generally agree despite the differences in their perspectives.
There is no absolute right and wrong in matters of moral judgement, although of course there are some matters on which people generally agree despite the differences in their perspectives.
Gaspode said:
I don't claim to speak for Dawkins, but it seems to me that concepts of morality stem from a frame of reference, and as so are essentially relative to that frame. Someone with an essentially utilitarian outlook might agree with Dawkins, others may not.
There is no absolute right and wrong in matters of moral judgement, although of course there are some matters on which people generally agree despite the differences in their perspectives.
Utilitarianism is most usually defined as a course of actions which increases utility (general benefit) and reduces suffering to others - I can't see how premature death in the womb can be seen as a reduction of suffering to others.There is no absolute right and wrong in matters of moral judgement, although of course there are some matters on which people generally agree despite the differences in their perspectives.
But what you're saying is that from his frame of reference (i.e him being a t
t) then he could argue his moral position, well yes, but that could be the cause of a lot of needless arguments with other tts and their opinions.FredClogs said:
Utilitarianism is most usually defined as a course of actions which increases utility (general benefit) and reduces suffering to others - I can't see how premature death in the womb can be seen as a reduction of suffering to others.
But what you're saying is that from his frame of reference (i.e him being a tt) then he could argue his moral position, well yes, but that could be the cause of a lot of needless arguments with other tts and their opinions.
It appears that your frame of reference is that (a) abortion is wrong, and (b) you dislike Dawkins. Does this make you morally superior, inferior, or equal to those who do not share these views?But what you're saying is that from his frame of reference (i.e him being a t
t) then he could argue his moral position, well yes, but that could be the cause of a lot of needless arguments with other tts and their opinions.Dawkins tends to have his comments from a larger discussion taken out of context by the media, see the 'rape' debacle a month or two ago. Not sure if this is the case here though.
I've noticed that he likes to pose 'thought experiments' a lot. Maybe what he is actually trying to discuss is that you should have a choice and not feel morally obligated by things that are totally your decision.
I assume he's very pro-abortion so I guess his point is this: If people get abortions to not have children to improve their future quality of life, what's different about aborting a down syndrome foetus for the same reason?
I've noticed that he likes to pose 'thought experiments' a lot. Maybe what he is actually trying to discuss is that you should have a choice and not feel morally obligated by things that are totally your decision.
I assume he's very pro-abortion so I guess his point is this: If people get abortions to not have children to improve their future quality of life, what's different about aborting a down syndrome foetus for the same reason?
FredClogs said:
KingNothing said:
Given the choice if my partner was scanned and discovered that the foetus had down syndrome, I'd want it aborted.
That's not quite what Dawkins was saying, he was suggesting what other people should do.So many debates go this way.
You have the same "argument" when talking about population control, "there are too many people, families should think about only having 1 or 2 children"
"CHILD MURDERER! I HAVE 18 WONDERFUL CHILDREN ARE YOU SUGGESTING I DROWN 16 OF THEM IN A CANAL, OR SHOULD I GAS THEM... YOU, YOU NAZI!!!!!"
Clearly Dawkins' point is not about a woman with a down's kid actually killing that kid but that's where it ends up.
article said:
one mother, who has a child with the genetic condition, saying: "I would fight til my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma."
As if Dawkins had suggested killing her son.You have the same "argument" when talking about population control, "there are too many people, families should think about only having 1 or 2 children"
"CHILD MURDERER! I HAVE 18 WONDERFUL CHILDREN ARE YOU SUGGESTING I DROWN 16 OF THEM IN A CANAL, OR SHOULD I GAS THEM... YOU, YOU NAZI!!!!!"
Clearly Dawkins' point is not about a woman with a down's kid actually killing that kid but that's where it ends up.
Edited by Hackney on Thursday 21st August 14:00
KingNothing said:
Given the choice if my partner was scanned and discovered that the foetus had down syndrome, I'd want it aborted.
Its not 100% that it will be just a higher probability. The thing is if you abort you may never conceive again - or what happens if you do and its the same scenario. Aborting is a massive impact physically for the lady and it most certainly impacts both partners mentally, to think otherwise is naive.
KingNothing said:
FredClogs said:
KingNothing said:
Given the choice if my partner was scanned and discovered that the foetus had down syndrome, I'd want it aborted.
That's not quite what Dawkins was saying, he was suggesting what other people should do.Religious types trying to stir up any s
t they can at the enemy.This is infinitely better than religious people who say thngs like downs children were evil in a past life. Didn't Glenn hoddle and that guy from coronation street say something like that?
I've got a few books of Dawkins and I agree with most of his views on religion.
However, believing in a god or gods is not a moral decision whilst aborting a foetus due to inconvenience most certainly it.
A fried of mine fostered a Downs Syndrome kid, around 14 or so. She had as full a life as some others less limited. She had a delightful sense of humour.
The president of my rugby club ran a charity for kids with disabilities, he had Downs Syndrome twins, and if you wanted to realise just how lucky you are spend a day at the horse riding day. But some of the kids were thoroughly enjoying themselves.
I would not judge anyone who chose either option. I know what our decision, that of my wife and me, would be but that has no relevance to anyone else.
Downs Syndrome is a range of disabilities and the test doesn't reveal how serious the condition is. There is a Downs Syndrome youngster who works at a supermarket we go to.
It's a personal choice and I think Dawkins is wrong to suggest that he knows better.
However, believing in a god or gods is not a moral decision whilst aborting a foetus due to inconvenience most certainly it.
A fried of mine fostered a Downs Syndrome kid, around 14 or so. She had as full a life as some others less limited. She had a delightful sense of humour.
The president of my rugby club ran a charity for kids with disabilities, he had Downs Syndrome twins, and if you wanted to realise just how lucky you are spend a day at the horse riding day. But some of the kids were thoroughly enjoying themselves.
I would not judge anyone who chose either option. I know what our decision, that of my wife and me, would be but that has no relevance to anyone else.
Downs Syndrome is a range of disabilities and the test doesn't reveal how serious the condition is. There is a Downs Syndrome youngster who works at a supermarket we go to.
It's a personal choice and I think Dawkins is wrong to suggest that he knows better.
Welshbeef said:
KingNothing said:
Given the choice if my partner was scanned and discovered that the foetus had down syndrome, I'd want it aborted.
Its not 100% that it will be just a higher probability. The thing is if you abort you may never conceive again - or what happens if you do and its the same scenario. Aborting is a massive impact physically for the lady and it most certainly impacts both partners mentally, to think otherwise is naive.
I did a little reading into this ages ago when bored at work.
I seem to recall the (American, at least) medical community recommended aborting the pregnancy if the baby was found to be Down Syndrome. All came down to available care, quality of life for all involved (I think the gist was that most people wouldn't cope with the strain - physically and mentally)
In my mind, this makes sense. Too few parents are mentally, physically and emotionally equipped to deal with such a demanding life. That's not to say they aren't out there, just that, the vast majority would struggle. There were numerous documented cases of physical abuse aimed at the Downs child.
For reasons I'll never fathom, I got into this very debate with a Mumsnet type group on Facebook once.
I was actually called 'Hitler' at one point. Which I found weird, because if you're that blinkered as to dismiss the whole debate in such an emotive fashion, you're probably not up to the task of raising a child with Down's syndrome...
Happy to be corrected on any aspect of this.
I seem to recall the (American, at least) medical community recommended aborting the pregnancy if the baby was found to be Down Syndrome. All came down to available care, quality of life for all involved (I think the gist was that most people wouldn't cope with the strain - physically and mentally)
In my mind, this makes sense. Too few parents are mentally, physically and emotionally equipped to deal with such a demanding life. That's not to say they aren't out there, just that, the vast majority would struggle. There were numerous documented cases of physical abuse aimed at the Downs child.
For reasons I'll never fathom, I got into this very debate with a Mumsnet type group on Facebook once.
I was actually called 'Hitler' at one point. Which I found weird, because if you're that blinkered as to dismiss the whole debate in such an emotive fashion, you're probably not up to the task of raising a child with Down's syndrome...
Happy to be corrected on any aspect of this.
Hackney said:
So many debates go this way.
You have the same "argument" when talking about population control, "there are too many people, families should think about only having 1 or 2 children"
"CHILD MURDERER! I HAVE 18 WONDERFUL CHILDREN ARE YOU SUGGESTING I DROWN 16 OF THEM IN A CANAL, OR SHOULD I GAS THEM... YOU, YOU NAZI!!!!!"
Clearly Dawkin's point is not about a woman with a down's kid actually killing that kid that's where it ends up.
^^^^^ THIS.article said:
one mother, who has a child with the genetic condition, saying: "I would fight til my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma."
As if Dawkin's had suggested killing her son.You have the same "argument" when talking about population control, "there are too many people, families should think about only having 1 or 2 children"
"CHILD MURDERER! I HAVE 18 WONDERFUL CHILDREN ARE YOU SUGGESTING I DROWN 16 OF THEM IN A CANAL, OR SHOULD I GAS THEM... YOU, YOU NAZI!!!!!"
Clearly Dawkin's point is not about a woman with a down's kid actually killing that kid that's where it ends up.
He has given a view, no doubt informed by the fact that he is an evolutionary biologist with a scientific grounding in genetics. He hasn't said he wants to murder downs syndrome people so why should a mother be compelled to say that she would fight to save her Downs son? Save him from what? Nobody is trying to harm him.
Sensationalist newspaper nonsense.
Welshbeef said:
Its not 100% that it will be just a higher probability.
The thing is if you abort you may never conceive again - or what happens if you do and its the same scenario. Aborting is a massive impact physically for the lady and it most certainly impacts both partners mentally, to think otherwise is naive.
Yes all options need a lot of thought, the procedure carries risks. Who is thinkng otherwise? The thing is if you abort you may never conceive again - or what happens if you do and its the same scenario. Aborting is a massive impact physically for the lady and it most certainly impacts both partners mentally, to think otherwise is naive.
So would going through with the birth and having a severely disabled child, couldn't that effect both partners mentally as well in your opinion ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff