Forum Index            

Cookies Consent Information
SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Join to post comments.
Share
Try These Selectors:
Best college values

Good jobs in gig economy

Right religion for you

Presidential candidates

Best US city for you

Know your philosophy

Landmark decisions
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...

Posted by tuk22 
Sam
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 03, 2014 12:56AM
I do believe you believe that but there could be said to be something quite advantageous in homosexuality for population control. Equating homosexuality with flawed genetics is ignorant. There is no concern for suffering. It's a matter of having the most functional and successful genes. Your emotions get in your way. A human is not a person until it has a personality which it obtains the second it becomes conscious and breathing, imo. Guess you didn't get the bun in the oven thing. Fetuses are just like dough except there are only two ingredients, one whole egg and dash of sperm. Think about it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2014 01:04AM by Sam.
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 03, 2014 01:09AM
Dawkins argument was about reducing suffering... Your argument is eugenics and social engineering with a heavy dose of the naturalistic fallacy...
Sam
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 03, 2014 02:59AM
We already practice eugenics with laws against incest and marrying and reproducing with family members. You have a problem with that? Where does Dawkins mention suffering? You are simply just too emotional. Your OP is evidence of that when you said Dawkins should shut his pie hole, lol...Why? Because YOU disagree with him? Suggesting homosexuality is a genetic problem comparable to DS demonstrates not only your ignorance and runaway emotion but a slippery slope fallacy. I do believe the problem here is not in saying a DS fetus should be aborted but that a DS baby should HAVE BEEN aborted which are two different things and does speak to the subjectivity of the matter in emotional terms. In purely objective terms, it makes more sense to abort an unhealthy fetus than it does to have it. Need I mention the disability payments received by so many who choose to have disabled kids come from taxpayers? I also think people on welfare should be sterilized after losing custody of kids for abuse, abandonment or neglect. Stupid people, too.
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 03, 2014 03:39AM
And I think there should be a law stating hillbilly rednecks shouldn't reproduce...

Dawkins moral argument is about reducing suffering, just google Dawkins/Down's syndrome practically nobody it seems is defending him and the small amount of people who do are shooting themselves in the foot. Its not about what each individual ought to do, it might make moral sense to abort a fetus depending on the situation. The argument is that a women has a moral obligation to abort the fetus if it's tested positive for DS and that nonsense isn't defensible... It also strips away a women's freedom of choice... The freedom to do what she pleases with her own body... It devalues the lives of people with DS implying the world is somehow better off if they never existed... Who are you to decide if non existence is greater than having DS?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2014 03:47AM by tuk22.
Sam
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 03, 2014 04:35AM
I am not defending Dawkins. Just trying to interpret him in the way I understand it and I saw no mention of suffering in the article you posted. Who knows what he meant and who cares? He still has the right not to "shut his pie hole", lol. Your slippery slope fallacies are based on personal prejudices against homosexuals and redneck hillbillies which are not a burden to society or defects in the gene pool unless they have too many children on disability and welfare income. Again from the perspective of natural selection, if we have the ability to cull the herd of disability it would be the moral thing to do if morality means doing what is best for the herd. If it's not, what is it?
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 03, 2014 04:58AM
It's called sarcasm I don't have a prejudice with homosexuality... Or rednecks...

And it's not surprising you don't understand ethics... it has nothing to do with evolution...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2014 04:59AM by tuk22.
Sam
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 03, 2014 05:21AM
Dawkins is an expert on evolution. This is about Dawkins' statement, isn't it? So how can it NOT be about evolution? Ethics/morality is entirely subjective. You think one thing, Dawkins another and I another. You have lots of emotion in your version. Not sure about Dawkins but I try not to judge these things based on anything but what I think is best (most rational) for humanity as a whole. Why do you think I don't understand ethics? Because you disagree with me? You didn't answer my question: if morality is not what is best for the herd, what is it? No need to get personal or emotional here. Just use your intellect alone for a minute. If you can.
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 03, 2014 05:40AM
It has nothing to do with emotion other than my disgust at your reasoning... If one believes it's a moral imperative to abort DS fetuses it's up to them to speak logically and consistent... If you defend amorality or moral relativism you are speaking nonsense when you claim someone ought to do something... If you argue evolution or natural selection determines right from wrong you commit naturalistic fallicies... That and you go against moral foundations like the golden rule...

All men are created equal. From an evolutionary perspective this is nonsense. All men are not created equal; there exists both genetic and environmental differences in all of us... But as a ethical rule it does makes sense and allows us to further reason that it's wrong to treat other people as inferior or not worthy... Unless there is some other moral judgment to make...
Sam
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 03, 2014 06:04AM
I don't think Dawkins said it is a moral imperative to abort DS fetuses. I know I didn't say that. I also didn't say anyone ought to do anything. I just said if morality is defined as what's best for the human species (and you've certainly avoided giving me a better definition) then it's moral to abort any fetus with any disability and immoral not to. I'm all for treating PERSONS as I would want to be treated. Fetuses are not persons, imo. I don't believe all men are created at all much less created equal. Also, neither Dawkins nor I have said anything about inferiority or worthiness. Those are emotional aspects unless you are talking specifics such as one person is inferior to another in basketball or worthless as a tv repairman. Please enlighten me as to what a naturalistic fallacy is. Btw, your emotional outrage was evident in your first post and subsequent ones before I got here so it's not just your disgust with me (yawn) that is driving your responses. Do you have a DS kid in your family or something?
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 03, 2014 06:26AM
Yes he did, his morality is based on increasing happiness and reducing suffering... Read his blog... Read the entire thread, I'm on my iPhone and I'm not going to repeat myself...

You already gave the best definition of morality... The golden rule... Logic and the golden rule are the foundations of business ethics IMO the most well thought out ethical system in existence...

And yes, there is good reason to be disgusted at Dawkins because he's an idiot... There is no good reason to abort all DS fetuses...
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 03, 2014 06:55AM
I find it interesting that everytime Tuk gets flustered he pulls out his wingnuts. His redneck and the gay comments are "sarcasm" just like his "liberal" slander in every other post... He's not really a righwing blowhard moralist trying to tell people how to live their lives. He believes in a woman's right to choose - really, he does... he just can't think of a single instance where it would be okay to actually utilize that right... eye rolling smiley

By the way, if we are using the Golden Rule as our moral guideline - then we must ask the mother if she would be okay suffering from Down's Syndrome herself. Since she has already expressed the opinion that she might opt for abortion if her unborn were DS - I think we already have the answer.
Sam
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 03, 2014 07:22AM
No need to throw a fit. We're just talking. I'm not obsessed enough with Dawkins to read everything he says. I did read his daunting book The Ancestor's Tale and thought it brilliant. As for his personal opinions I don't really care but I will give him the benefit of the doubt that his views are aligned with evolutionary science which as a whole makes sense to me as the foundation upon which morality should be built. Survival of the fittest, seek pleasure, avoid pain.

Where does logic enter into your view? Does your golden rule apply to fetuses, all fetuses? What if it was severely deformed or had nothing but a brain stem in its head? A fetus with two heads or only one eye in the middle?

Since I assume you would not want anyone ending your life should I also assume there is no example of a fetus which you would think abortion was the moral or best choice? If you are against all abortion scenarios then your argument against Dawkins opinion that it would be immoral not to abort DS fetuses (if that is in fact what he thinks) is just fluff. Just say you are against all abortions and be done with it. Maybe you just have a personal problem with Dawkins and don't like anything he says and this is just an opportunity for you to rant about him? Maybe you got butt hurt because you have a Down's kid of your own and can't even imagine not having him/her to love and love you back? Emotion is too subjective to base morality upon, imo.

There could be a very good reason to abort a DS fetus: because the mother (and/or father) doesn't want to have or raise it. If only people were lining up to adopt disabled kids (or abled ones for that matter) then abortion would probably not even be an issue. But they're not. Try to be realistic. Maybe you and your wife could contact your local DHS and find some kids that are suffering to help out with a loving family? Until then your anti-abortion rant is all bark and no bite. If you are not going to walk the walk, don't talk the talk.
Sam
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 03, 2014 07:30AM
Good Night, tuk. Don't know when I'll be back around (going camping tomorrow if the weather is good) but I do wish you the best even if we rarely if ever agree on anything. It was nice chatting with you. Take care...
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 03, 2014 04:38PM
Back in the early 90's when I was with my first wife, she was taking some pretty hardcore medications for various afflictions she had. For a few months she had been taking this one particular one, I can't recall what it was, that all of a sudden made the news about being pretty conclusively tied to horrific birth defects. Thalidomide-type stuff. As luck would have it (ours anyways), even though we had been using birth control, she became pregnant. Though it was emotion-wrenching, it was not even a choice for her. She wanted an abortion from the moment she found she was pregnant. I don't think I could have talked her out of it, although I didn't try to very hard. Yes, I was involved and my opinion mattered, but I saw it as her decision. We had discussed having children but neither of us was ever very driven to do it. We were having a lot of financial problems and never saw our way clear to bringing a baby into the situation. But her being on that medicine sealed the deal. It was the only time that she ever got pregnant. It was the closest I have ever been to having offspring. But it was her decision and she flat-out did not want to carry that baby to term. I can't imagine living in a system where being able to make such a decision was not allowed.

Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 03, 2014 06:53PM
I can. With the Supreme Clowns currently occupying the highest court in the land and the ludicrous, wholly unfounded decisions they've made already? Scalia overturning his OWN previous decisions when it's politically expedient? I'm expecting Roe to be overturned as soon as someone gets some fraudulent case that far up the chain of command. Or - as in the case of Citizen's United - some case that has nothing at all to do with abortion. The idiots on the right who have no business in a court room, much less on a court bench will decide to overturn simply because they can.
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 04, 2014 04:37AM
I will give him the benefit of the doubt that his views are aligned with evolutionary science which as a whole makes sense to me as the foundation upon which morality should be built. Survival of the fittest, seek pleasure, avoid pain.

IOW might makes right, and I have used that phrase in the past to demonstrate a lack of morality. Both pleasure and pain, not counting physical pain, is subjective. Do you even care about a rational ethical system?

[www.selectsmart.com]

It's serious business, guys. It's important to discuss right and wrong, what one ought to do... Yeah, you can have that careless 'nobody tells me what to do' attitude if you desire so but IMO you are not contributing to the greater good of society. Just think of the importance of of civility, of respectful disagreement in a face-to-face public setting...

If you want a material explanation for morality, assume a naturalistic foundation for the golden rule. Evolution has no moral compass or goal. Yeah, there might be some teleology to our world but that isn't science. Morality just isn't scientific...

Where does logic enter into your view? Does your golden rule apply to fetuses, all fetuses?

No, only persons...

Since I assume you would not want anyone ending your life should I also assume there is no example of a fetus which you would think abortion was the moral or best choice?

I believe if we knew that a newborn would be in constant pain and suffering it's our moral duty to abort as it is our moral duty to euthanize in similar circumstances as well. That's is basically what hospice care is... There is no choice for the fetus so it's a different matter, but to knowingly allow a baby to suffer just seems cruel. OTOH, having a DS baby doesn't imply a life of pain and suffering. Most of the time it's the opposite. DS people are some of the most caring loving people on the planet. If any of you have actually spent time with someone with DS you would know this...

There could be a very good reason to abort a DS fetus: because the mother (and/or father) doesn't want to have or raise it. If only people were lining up to adopt disabled kids (or abled ones for that matter) then abortion would probably not even be an issue.

I said this... If the state cared for people with DS the abortion rate would plummet...

Until then your anti-abortion rant is all bark and no bite

You mean my disgust at Dawkins? It's completely justified. How is it that a women who chooses to have a DS baby is committing an immoral act?
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 04, 2014 04:20PM
I think that morality can be a natural result of sufficient intelligence. I don't think it needs a metaphysical constituent or beliefs to imbue it into humanity. Conversely, I think the same can be said of evil. We don't need invisible beings, gods and devils, or belief in them to be responsible for or the driving forces for the good and bad of humanity.

Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 04, 2014 04:44PM
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 04, 2014 05:48PM
There seems to me that there exists some material cause for our desire to be treated in a certain way... Morality is a logical extension of that desire... The sense that we ought to treat others as we desire to be treated...

There also seems to be universal moral rules. Not universal as in necessary; they must exist in all possible worlds... Universal meaning existing within all humanity. But there is exceptions like psychopath's and people with similar brain disorders... It's just that they seem to exist in all people with good mental health. Eg unnecessary suffering is wrong. The unnecessary destruction of value is wrong...
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
September 05, 2014 07:39AM
Psycopaths, people with brain disorders and Republicans. All of them unnecessarily destroy value. The only one morally wrong however is the Republican who does it as a matter of policy - the psycopaths and the people with brain disorders have a legitimate excuse. I think we can all agree that the last person who has room to lecture on morality is the voter who pulls the R lever every... single... time... Not that I'm pointing the finger at anyone in particular. eye rolling smiley
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login


This forum powered by Phorum

Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!