Dawkins & it being immoral to bring Down's syndrome babies into the world

[sandandfoam]

What do you think of his view?

Last week, Professor Dawkins was at it again, this time on Twitter. Responding to a woman who said that she would face a real ethical dilemma if she became pregnant with a baby with Down’s syndrome, his advice was thus: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

source
Nobody is better at being human, Professor Dawkins, least of all you | Giles Fraser | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you think of his view?

source
Nobody is better at being human, Professor Dawkins, least of all you | Giles Fraser | Comment is free | The Guardian

The author's article is full of inuendo, allusion, demonization & speculation.
He's short on detail in his case against Dawkins. Is it really about the author's
opposition to abortion? Because if abortion is ethical, then the mother has
a choice of her child having Down syndrome or not. In which case, it's
reasonable to say that imposing this disorder on a kid is immoral.

 

[LuisDantas]

If a woman feels she is not prepared to deal with a child with Down, I am inclined to take her at her word. It is hard enough to be an otherwise healthy neglected kid, so I can't take issue with Dawkins' advice.

Although I suppose it is preferable for any potential parents to have a safety network of willing adoptioners or at least extended helpful family. Alas, that far easier said than done.

 

[sandandfoam]

If a woman feels she is not prepared to deal with a child with Down, I am inclined to take her at her word. It is hard enough to be an otherwise healthy neglected kid, so I can't take issue with Dawkins' advice.

Although I suppose it is preferable for any potential parents to have a safety network of willing adoptioners or at least extended helpful family. Alas, that far easier said than done.

Is it advice?
It seems to me to be stronger than that - he said it was 'immoral' to bring a child with Downs into the world.

 

[sandandfoam]

In which case, it's
reasonable to say that imposing this disorder on a kid is immoral.

That seems like a very harsh stance to me - that if a person knowingly gives birth to a child with Down's they are behaving in an immoral way.
I cannot agree.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well...I am against abortion since I've known Gianna Jessen's story.

I think that if a person doesn't want to raise a child with Down's syndrome, it means they are not apt to become parents. And they should remain childless.

Having the capability to bear and raise children is a huge responsibility.
and in this world, only few people are really capable of assuming that kind of responsibility.

 

[Orbital]

That seems like a very harsh stance to me - that if a person knowingly gives birth to a child with Down's they are behaving in an immoral way.
I cannot agree.

Why do you not see it as an immoral act? Down syndrome is a genetic disease that has clear negative effects on a person's life. If one decides to give birth to a child, assuming the previous stance that abortion is moral, you are knowingly letting an individual attain and live a life with this disease. I am curious as to why you do not see this as immoral.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is it advice?
It seems to me to be stronger than that - he said it was 'immoral' to bring a child with Downs into the world.

If the woman herself claims to be in a dilemma, it seems to me that it would be immoral for her to do that. I must admit that I did not read the article, though.

 

[Orbital]

I think that if a person is not likely to raise a child with Down's syndrome, it means they are not apt to become parents. And they should remain childless.

Surly you must see that the requirements to raise a child with Down syndrome takes vastly more resources than it does to raise a child without? If so, how can there be no situation of a parent that has the proper resources to raise a child without Down syndrome, but not the proper resources to raise a child with Down syndrome?

 

[Estro Felino]

Surly you must see that the requirements to raise a child with Down syndrome takes vastly more resources than it does to raise a child without? If so, how can there be no situation of a parent that has the proper resources to raise a child without Down syndrome, but not the proper resources to raise a child with Down syndrome?

well...my speech can sound a bit cynical, but I think that in an overpopulated world like ours, only people with lots of money should have children.
Future is uncertain.
By the way in my country the state helps through free medical support those families

 

[Orbital]

well...my speech can sound a bit cynical, but I think that in an overpopulated world like ours, only people with lots of money should have children.
Future is uncertain.
By the way in my country the state helps through free medical support those families

Free medical support is quite common in those cases, in many countries.

"lots of money" is very loose, if a couple has the ability to properly raise a child, is that considered "lots of money"? Furthermore, money is not the only resource in question here. For example time is a very important variable, especially when comparing the raising of a child with down syndrome.

 

[Revoltingest]

That seems like a very harsh stance to me - that if a person knowingly gives birth to a child with Down's they are behaving in an immoral way.
I cannot agree.

I expect a lot of disagreement over this.

I see it thus:
Parents plan to have 1 child.
To abort the one with Down syndrome means that one without it will be born.
So Down syndrome becomes a choice, one which would impose a pretty severe
burden upon the child. Tis a valid perspective to call that choice immoral.

Of course, if one is opposed to abortion, then my reasoning would not apply.

 

[LuisDantas]

well...my speech can sound a bit cynical, but I think that in an overpopulated world like ours, only people with lots of money should have children.
Future is uncertain.
By the way in my country the state helps through free medical support those families

Money isn't always helpful. One of the most broken individuals I met is nearly the only child of a wealthy couple that spoils her rotten.

And one of the most succesfull families I know was just above poverty level when I met them.

 

[YmirGF]

By the way in my country the state helps through free medical support those families

So, everyone shares the financial burden. No wonder Italy is in such great financial shape.

 

[4consideration]

I think it may be immoral for one person to tell another person what to do to resolve a dilemma, based solely upon one's own ideology, when it may not be the same as the other person's ideology.

IMO, when giving advice, if one does not consider the person's own thoughts/beliefs and the expected potential impact on the individual, and one relies only on one's own ideology, one is placing one's ideology ahead of a response specific to the situation.

In this case, I think he is taking the risk of giving advice to a person to "simply do away" with a problem, and perhaps have to deal internally with a battle of incongruent beliefs/thoughts, and of grief for doing something one may consider horribly wrong, for whatever reason.

Whatever her choice would be, I think it would be best for her to be considering for herself why, and on what issues, she has a dilemma, and take it from there. IMO, his response is a very narrow-minded one.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is certainly immoral to pressure another person in such a personal choice (except perhaps when one is a spouse or close relative).

I don't think answering a question without even having the means to exert pressure is in the same neighborhood.

 

[4consideration]

It is certainly immoral to pressure another person in such a personal choice (except perhaps when one is a spouse or close relative).

I don't think answering a question without even having the means to exert pressure is in the same neighborhood.

That's a good point.

I was thinking that if someone asks such a question to someone in the public eye, someone whose opinion they value, there may be an increased likelihood of giving that person's opinion more weight than other people's opinion, or of considering that advice to be somewhat like "expert advice".

 

[LuisDantas]

People certainly have a responsibility to attempt to predict how their words will be taken, and how seriously.

On the other hand, listeners also have to decide how much of their choices' responsibility they will surrender to someone else's judgement. And that is perhaps an overlooked important challenge in these times of huge crowds, huge distances which are not always readily apparent, and such indirect political representation.

The human instinct to seek "strong leaders" is rather odd, come to think of it.


Something else to consider is that there is quite a difference between rising to a pulpit of some kind to tell people what they should do or avoid and instead simply talking one's mind - particularly when questions are made. It is a subtle yet important difference: a preacher must be either obliged, ignored, fooled or challenge, while a debater should expect and accept to be simply ignored or overruled whenever the other party wishes to do so.

 

[sandandfoam]

Why do you not see it as an immoral act? Down syndrome is a genetic disease that has clear negative effects on a person's life. If one decides to give birth to a child, assuming the previous stance that abortion is moral, you are knowingly letting an individual attain and live a life with this disease. I am curious as to why you do not see this as immoral.

Frankly I find it disturbing that anyone would write off a whole cohort of people as diseased in such a cavalier and off hand fashion. Some people have a genetic anomaly we call Down syndrome. But first and foremost they are people.
I have a lot wrong with me. Most people do. Where do we set the bar as to who deserves life?


This is what one organisation working with people that have Down's syndrome had to say

We at Down Syndrome Ireland are appalled at comments made by Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins on the social networking site Twitter.
People with Down syndrome can and do live full and rewarding lives, are loved by their families, and make a valuable contribution to our society every day.
We at Down Syndrome Ireland do not believe Down syndrome in itself should be a reason for termination and we are appalled that a respected academic should make such hurtful comments on a public platform.
DSI strives every day to ensure that all prospective parents are given accurate and up-to-date information about the condition and what life might be like today for someone with Down syndrome.
We would hope that in the future Prof Dawkins would refrain from engaging in such commentary which cause great offence and hurt to our members and people with Down syndrome and their families everywhere.

Where are they wrong?

 

[sandandfoam]

It is certainly immoral to pressure another person in such a personal choice (except perhaps when one is a spouse or close relative).

I don't think answering a question without even having the means to exert pressure is in the same neighborhood.

If for arguments sake I found out that my partner was pregnant with a child that had Down's syndrome and we decided to have and raise that child would you consider us immoral? Let us not dance around it - that is the point being made.