Bitcoin Forum

http://www.progressivestoday.com/dawkins-almost-apologizes-for-abortion-comments/

Would disagree, tend to swing the other way on this one
The important thing is that both sides respect each others views in tis complex and painful topic

Depends on what's "moral". For something to be immoral, it would have to go against morals, whosever they may be referring to.

The claim of immorality implies some objective, universal sense of right and wrong, which would make it harder for one person's "right thing to do" to simultaneously be accepted as someone elses "wrong thing to do".


Sounds like typical Dawkins-y blundering through n00b-level philosophy. Is he still a nihilistic-atheist or whatever?

I do admire Dawkins for what he's done for science and people's general scientific knowledge and I realize that everyone has the right to an opinion on this subject. That being said, I disagree that he says in a vacuum that it is immoral to have the child without looking at the circumstances specific to each case. There are many families that would be blessed to have a down syndrome child; many others that abortion would be the right thing to do. Don't think its a matter to be taken at 100% correct thing to do. Also if he's saying that it's immoral and unfair to the child to be born with Down's syndrome, I don't quite agree with this either. Down syndrome people will still feel joy in their lives and can still accomplish good lives.

For the record, I partially agree with the stance that -- considering the availability of modern technology and genetic testing, and that <13 week abortions are basically just a specially induced menstrual period (and utterly overblown by religious zealots) -- government assistance should be reduced or somehow limited as a punitive response to irresponsible parenting decisions.

Why should tax-payers have to cough up 10,000s for a lifetime of special-ed and rehab, when the parents could just try again instead? In fact, they probably shouldn't try again, because it's probably an age-related problem and genetic diseases hit a brick wall when the parents are past around 36 years. If they really want to have a kid, adopt.

Good point. As soon as the famous "gay gene" is discovered, parents should have the moral obligation to abort a gay baby, based on a long life of mocking, bullying and rejection. We all need to keep this from happening. The same should be true for "wrong skin, eyes and hair color" genes too.................. ::)

Incorrect. Age related genetic disease probability increases gradually. Depending on your definition of a wall, a woman still only has a 1% chance of Down syndrome at 40. Maybe at 45 they should stop trying.

http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/womens_health_issues/detection_of_genetic_disorders/overview_of_genetic_disorders.html

my girlfriend has a master in Psychology and whatever the fancy title i forget the exact name.

but she really opened my eyes to the whole other truth on a different side of reality in life.

yes we may have went to school and they had a "special kids" section and they seperated those people at lunch from the rest of us(if you want to a public school).

but they are people to. some of them are fully functioning but just need taken care of at a basic level,. they go to work, they talk to people, they are helpful but just a little slow. the compassion liberals/progs have is not there for these types of people. look at sweden and other liberal institutions. where they "assist suicides". extremely barbaric things that get "instituionialized" and the parents dont even have to be notified if their 14 yr old kid wants to die the doctor can just do it.

talk about opening up a whole new immoral area and huge potential abuse of power. there are people who thrive on killing others and taking lives.

Morality is nothing more than opinions about what is right, and opinions vary.
The bible says it is immoral to eat shellfish or loan money; and that morality requires the stoning to death of disobedient children. 

I heard they can already do rudimentary "designer babies" with gene testing on IVF. I think the movie Gattaca did some extrapolation of that. Maybe if selective breeding is such a bad thing, they'll be another generational "one hit wonder" as per inbred royalty.


My objection was to the government funding, not so much the personal decisions of parents who might want their child to be more special for whatever reason. When strangers are asked to provide financial support, maybe they should also be allowed to have some input to the decision? I feel abused when I have to work harder to fund someone else's abortion-free lifestyle. Then again, I'm not a total libertarian/an-cap, and I'm capable of accepting that a small portion of my money will be diverted to some cause that I disagree with, as long as the rest seems well-spent.

Not sure what you mean with the gay gene. That seems more like xenophobia. If anything, gays seem to pay for themselves with ridiculous talent and above-average intelligence. #StephenFry !

This is not true.  The terms Downs has come to include a vast swath of trisomy 21 errors - so now the current definition includes more aberrations.  Because of this the base risk starts at around 1% for Downs at age 35.  When I did my residency we were taught the risk goes up roughly 2.5% per year after 35, so a 40 year old would have a 13.5% risk of some form of trisomy (some are worse than others).  With the latest in genome sequencing we're finding out that the rate doesn't seem to increase at 2.5%, at least not in all groups of women.  Some women clearly have a higher risk and others lower - I think the current estimate is closer to about 1.7%, so it would still be about 10% risk for trisomy on 21 at age 40.

It is too bad Isis took over from the old testament nowadays hmm?

Your taxes are paying for millions of "free" abortions right now. Every year. You don't mind your $$ be used for abortion but you would mind for people NOT to abort. Interesting.

Xenophobia? Don't you mean homophobia?  ;)

What I meant was if you use that tool to kill a down syndrome baby because you do not want to pay in part for his or her life, or you do not want to see him or her on your sidewalk, where you eat etc... If the gay gene is discovered will it be OK to abort that baby too because of the parents' view on homosexuality? It was a simple counter position. I was not expecting an answer...

Negligible cost for a pill and/or minor procedure vs many $1000s for each disabled person, annually. Depending on the level of disability, one parent often ends up resigning entirely from their career aspirations to become a stay-at-home caregiver. A noble but also extremely costly cause. And that's not counting any paid services or medical care.

All that fuss because people feel bad about aborting a small bit of genetic material, about the size of a thumbnail.



Who said anything about killing babies?

Fetus = Small blob of practically lifeless genetic material, about the size of a thumb nail. The thoughts and feelings of such tiny things are probably about as diverse as what a bit of skin cancer or scar tissue might have. Not even remotely similar to an actual baby which, sadly, is often treated like a fetus because too many other people treated it like a baby at the wrong time when it actually was a fetus.

Dawkins has been given undue credit for far too long. He should stick to being a scientist, not some attention mongering demogauge spewing half baked garbage based only on his very fragile academician's ego.

He clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

I believe life starts even before the sperm and the egg meet.
When you think life came from nothing, you tend to think in ways like that.  ::)

That's atheistic morality for you. Morality defined by those with power. If it’s an inconvenience, if it gets in the way, if it would make me feel bad to look at it... kill it.
This dude makes me sick.

Life begins at conception.

There are few instances there abortion is an option - primarily those concerning pregnancy due to violence, rape, incest, or a situation where carrying through the pregnancy would most definitely cost the life of the mother.

In the last case, it is a matter of weighing one life for another. It would be up to the mother, medical professionals, and involved people to make the decision.

The idea that abortion is a female rights issue or bitching about 'stay out of my womb' 'don't try to control my womb' is a laughable idea. Even if females contribute a great deal to the pregnancy, it does not give them the right to terminate life as they see fit. It is one of the greatest dilemma and loaded issue - while a woman may acknowledge her importance in the event, it is impertinent to think that she gets to call the shots on whether her baby gets to live or not.

It is not her body. It's the baby's life. Sometimes, it's not always about a woman's body.

That being said, aborting a child due to severe defect is a matter left up to the medical professionals, not 'thinkers' and 'educated' peoples who believes morality and ethics is their domain (LOL).

Your position is now crystal clear regarding parents who want to keep their down syndrome baby. Thank you for playing.

He is not the only one who has the same view. Just look at this thread...

This is the first time I heard people claiming life starts before the sperm meet the egg.

What is the basis for the believe? And what is the argument for it?

I like Dawkins for the most part but he doesn't handle some situations well and this was one of them. I don't think he chose the right words here at all. It's definitely not immoral to knowingly bring a Downs child into the world and that would be quite offensive to those that did.

Depends what you define as "life". Are you religious?


It is her body and therefore she has ultimate say in the matter. I'm sure you would hold a much different opinion were you a woman.


And yet you are here thinking this is your domain.

you are here in the bitcoin forum.

so here your answer: its like giving birth to a broken coin. Would you do it? Or would you change it? No emotions.

Not sure what the outrage is here, aborting a child with Down's Syndrone is completely acceptable from my point of view. It's the choice of the mother (and father) whether they want to terminate their fetus.

Not really a fair or valid comparison. There's also a difference between 'changing' something and terminating it.


The outrage is probably down to the language he used. Maybe it is acceptable, but I think its unnaceptable to say it's immoral not to do it.

Once egg and sperm merge and begin the process, that is the beginning of human life. Human egg and sperm merging does not produce anything other than a human being. What does religion have anything to do with this most basic fact? Do you believe any belief, including that of women or religious reasons, is grounds for changing facts? Your feelings are worthless when it comes to deciding what defines life. Try not to over step your bounds.

Where do you get the idea that the baby, another human being, is yours to decide whether to live or die? Where do you get the bizarre idea that the baby is 'your' body? What the baby is is another human being - not a piece of your own tissue. Your feelings based on your gender is not a basis for deciding anything - much less that of life and death of another.

'Feel differently if you were a woman' - shall I tell you that it is also very possible to justify rape and violation of woman on the basis that 'you are not a man and therefore would not understand'? It is, afterall, genetically inspired gender instinct for a man to impregnate as many woman as possible. The fact that you cannot understand this idea and dared to air such inane 'argument' of being a woman shows how pathetically shallow your 'understanding' is - made worse by the fact that your tone betrays a degree of spoiled attitude belief that you know anything.

You are quite correct, because this is my domain when fools decide arbitrarily to whine, bitch and moan that they somehow are above facts based on their feelings.

It is because pregnancy is such a complex, delicate issue that rape is a grieveous crime - not only does it destroy a woman's ability to choose, but also places a blameless life in an extremely untenable position of being born unwillingly and unwanted, burdens which the new life did nothing to deserve save for the fact that someone forced themselves on the woman.

I stated that there are cases when abortion is permitted, for reasons that are both painful but obvious.

This is not a woman's rights issue to begin with. You have no rights to decide anything about life of another, no matter your role in the process. Ultimately, this is what makes rape and incest such heavy crimes.

Try to be more of a woman. You sound like a girl that has yet to fully mature into something real.  

This is a tough, highly emotive topic
I have healthy kids but I couldn't truthfully say what we would have done if we had been told at a post natal stage that our baby has Downs

But sperm and eggs have human chromosomes and genes even before they merge, just a slightly different number. In that sense, the focus on Down's is a kind of Trojan Horse. If you want to defend life with chromosomal abnormalities, then explain why masturbating is not mass murder, unlike abortions, which are murder. ;)

Maybe that is the definition of when life starts, but what does that have to do not allowing abortion? And your feelings are worthless when it to deciding what defines life. Try not to over step your bounds.


Where do you get the idea that it isnt?


It's really not. Maybe for you it is though.


I find this ironic considering you continuously confuse your own perverse opinions as facts and deal with anybody else's opinion you disagree with with childish insults and mocking as if that's your only real argument here.

This is why a young girl shouldn't try to argue. You are simply incapable of seeing the most basic of objective facts and gets mouthy when you should learn to watch your lips.

I can guarantee you I have as much right to rape and violate as you think you have the right to abort another life. You better recognize the incongruity of gender instinct driven idea that you are entitled to anything - you have no idea what you are getting yourself into.

No man or woman is above having to answer to certain standards of respect. Those like you who are incapable of rising to the occasion because they lack as a woman/man are simply that much less valuable as an individual, and your opinions such as they are, are useless.

Lastly, the fact that something pokes at your soft, spoiled 'sensibilities' doesn't make them insults. It's very predictable you are practicing a great deal of cognitive dissonance to attempt to warp facts to your liking.

A bitch like you needs to check herself, what with that spoiled attitude that's soft as a jell-o. All anyone can really hear in your arguments just boils down to a 5 year old's 'nuh uh'. You present no arguments, only opinions. There is a difference, but I doubt you even knew what you are saying when you started running your mouth.

what in the fuck? Do you hold a funeral when your woman has her period and then hold a memorial every time you jizz for the millions upon millions of lost life that comes spewing forth from your balls? I mean honestly I don't mean to be harsh but you are just as bad in your thought process to the other extreme and ridiculous.

I think people should be free to have a DS baby, if they don't want abort it.
It is debatable if it is immoral to bring someone that will always be dependant on others for his/her welfare.

What I think is totally immoral is, IMHO, delivering the baby with the understanding the costs associated to his welfare will be paid (mainly) by others.
It is immoral to force others to pay for your moral or ethical choices making easier for you to make these choices.
If a mother (the father a little to say in this matter given the existing laws) want deliver a DS baby when she have the option to abort him/her, she MUST be forced to bear the costs of his welfare until the day the newborn die (even if it is 20 or 40 years after the mother).

We are all gays with someone else ass, generous with someone else money and virtuous when it cost nothing to be so.

oh god I came back to this and have to argue more. Dude that is not atheist morality AT ALL. Atheist morality is just morality not based on religion and that your current actions aren't influenced by what (could) happens to the soul in afterlife but that does not mean a lack of a moral code. Just as all religious people don't have the same morals all atheists don't either. Most atheists's morality is based on the golden rule as well- treat people how they want to be treated. Atheists that argue for abortion of the Down's Syndrome child argue that the world is one in which they will just suffer- the decision to abort it depends not only on the inconvencience to the family and society but to the fetus's welfare. Just like really do you honestly think what you said? That all atheists are like psycho??

IMO if you aren't prepared for a serious task - to take care for life for a sick human being, you shall go to the doctor immediately.

Abort it and try again - ok fine fair enough some might have this opinon how can you argue with someone's opinion right?

It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice - haha ok some now you are making an objective judgement, seems like a troll comment to sell more books?

 ::)

I knew I had you on ignore for a good reason, but I can't remember exactly. You were probably trying to scam newbies on the main forum. Now, reply to my earlier post, sperm murderer.

I dont think Honeypot has tried to scam anyone... yet, though it wouldn't surprise me if he did. He just likes to post really racist and exenophobic stuff then cries hysterically about it like a scolded child when someone puts him in his place.

Feds Still Studying Why Lesbians Are Obese
Update: Total government funding now $2.87 million
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-still-studying-why-lesbians-are-obese/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder if Dawkins Moral Implication could be applied to this subject....  ;)

 

His right of opinion should be respected, but I totaly disagree and find it immoral to kill because of a disease or else why not kill, kids and full grown up when we are at it.
Why did I say kill instead of abortion because, unless I'm mistaken, to be able to diagnosed of Downs syndrome the age of the fetus should be advanced and nearing birth

We are able, now, to diagnose DS (and others genetic diseases) just with a sample of blood from the mother (because there alway be some cells from the baby in the blood of the mother).
The costs are a bit high but not as high as a team of technicians and surgeons to do an amniocentesis.

Hmmm... I want that dawkins guy to look at his child now and imagine him/her with down syndrome. I dont think he can abort it. If he can, then he is not to be a father

Why is it immoral? Killing an innocent child is immoral. Dawkins should fill up an ISIS application form

Unfair for the child. He will suffer for the rest of his/her life

Theres a lot that you should need to consider here. I couldnt blame him on his statement

What should you consider? Like what?

A lot of mental gymnastics being played here :D

Semantics and games too. There's that escape button called 'ignore' if you can't handle being put in the spot light. More than a few opted to do so since they ran out of bull shit to throw down, but that's what passes for 'educated' these days.

Dawkins is a small boy playing with his mouth - plain and simple. He should head back on to the labs and leave the public bitching work to professionals like al sharpton or democrats.

I know some people with Down's Syndrome and they are friendly, kind, and caring. It comes down to whether your are pro-abortion or pro-life.

It's not moral or immoral. It's a choice that is best left up to the parents. Yes, a Down's Syndrome child is likely (with occasional exceptions) to be a drain on society, but that is not enough to make it immoral to let them be born, after all, close to half the population is likely a "drain on society". Personally, I think having a child with no serious disorders is challenging enough, and would not want the extra burden of caring for a child with this kind of issue, nor do I believe that they would be likely to live a full life. I would likely do as Dawkin's said... try again. But, other individuals may make a different choice, and that is entirely up to them. Trying to dictate morality in matters that should be left up to free choice is counterproductive.

I agree. Abortion itself is immoral.


They are suffering. I know Down Syndrome People, and they are happy!

Thats like saying you should commit suicide if you are a paralyzed from the waist down...

I've met a few in my life time and they actually seem happier than a lot of 'normal' people. Dawkin's comments were wrong on this.




The irony is that you seem to think you're what passes for educated these days, shame you're too ignorant to see that. I also find it laughable and furthermore ironic that you often seem to complain about small boys running their mouth and bitching when that's literally all you do, except unlike Dawkins and those you often criticize they dont just do it from hiding behind a computer screen

Worry not, my identity is no secret :)

Feel free to visit anytime, friend.

In the mean time, you obviously haven't done some much needed self reflection. That comes after you learn to watch your mouth. I haven't heard anything constructive from you besides bitching. I outlined my thoughts clearly - and all anyone could do in return was 'i dun wanna'.

So I presented an equitable trade of my impression of such people.

Clear enough?

It's a secret to me. Feel free to post as much details as you like though, not that I really care, but I think you may be under the impression that you've offered something constructive above, but all I see is more bitching and weirdly talking like a child 'i dun wanna'? What is that meant to be or is that some sort of attempt at a puerile putdown? There's nothing of value in your above post at all unless you seem to think telling people to 'watch their mouth' is some kind of valid point.

There you go, my stance on the issue addressed to the letter :)

Whether you 'feel' I am anything other than reasonable is irrelevant. I have shown my stance and have explained in detail why my impression of your kind is a valid one, one which you didn't even try to argue.

Your feelings are worth as much as your opinions, when you cannot argue the facts.

And your opinions are worth about as much as your feelings. You just seem to have some stock responses that you just like to copy and paste over and over. I don't really know what facts I've got to argue here either, but I see I'm not going to get anything enlightening out of you, especially after seeing the post you just quoted.

I believe you meant "unfair for the parents. They will have no more night life"...

Exactly, the freedom of choice on what to do with your body ends where your body stops and where another body begins.

If you vary another body inside you, even if that body is 1 second old. You are now not only responsible for your own body, but for the body of your child as well.

If you do anything that could damage your baby's body it's (attempted) murder, this includes unhealthy diet, smoking, use of alcohol during pregnancy, use of drugs, risky sports, etc.

Abortion is not a choice a woman can make, because it decides not the fate of her body, but the fate if her child's body. It's killing another human life.

Otherwise I could also provide the argument: "I have the authority to kill the person in front of my because  he walked into my personal space, and I should have the freedom to do whatever I want in my personal space"

Which is of course a ridiculous argument.

Our freedom ends where it interferes with the freedom of others. Period.

Of course, leave it up to fools to not understand the difference between facts and opinions :)

Enlighten yourself with what's difficult to hear, instead of chasing after convenient lies. Too hard to get it through your thick ass skull? Or do you need someone to repeat themselves because you lack the ability to understand what's in front of you?

Lol, the irony once again. You clearly don't know the difference between facts and opinions. Posting irrelevant nonsense and coming out with childishness isn't the way to win an argument but you sadly seem to think it is, it just makes me pity you even more, so keep trying.

:)

Conception is not dependent upon your feelings. Hard to understand?

That's a fact. Get the idea?

Common sense escapes people in these parts. They wouldn't get anything unless someone takes em by the cuffs and beat it into them, a fitting way to teach these cheeky fucks.

Obesity is a much bigger burden on society. Why not let fat baby die?

well I'll give a reason: fat babies don't always grow up to be fat people but down babies always grow up to be down people. your ball.

How is the child suffering?

And morals or this argument arent dependent on your feelings either, but again, you seem to be confusing your opinions with facts.

The subject is too massive to talk about. I dont believe that it all comes down to whether if you are pro abortion or pro life. There is a lot to consider. How about if both parents die, how will the child live? He couldnt get a job or what. There is a lot to consider.

Yeah, but still it all boils down if you are pro abortion or pro life

That is still your son/daughter. Your blood. Can you imagine putting an end to the life of your own child?

Abort it and try again?

That is an absolutely disgusting word choice, he could have certainly phrased it better than that

How about if both parents die, how will the child live? He couldnt get a job or what. There is a lot to consider.

So there is a need to kill the child in case the parents die in a car accident maybe in the future? Nice.

That's fallacious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)

NO! I will not do that if it was me.. The thing is, its your own child. Youre going to kill him/her?

Pain receptors are formed in a baby within seven weeks. Abortions beyond that point better be worth it.

If you do not believe in God, you can do abortion.

So you are alive because your parents believed in God?

You "can" perform an abortion, he never suggested you "must" carry out an abortion

So if you do not believe in God you have much much more freedom to decide to abort or not your DS baby. If you believe in God you are forcing the parents and society the burden of a child no one wanted. Interesting


Eugenics:
is the belief and practice of improving the genetic quality of the human population. It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits (positive eugenics), and reduced reproduction of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics)

Wilikon, the first example of eugenics comes from God, in Genesis, when he cleanses the world of "wickedness", Noah's flood, the water symbolizes cleansing the world.

So it is OK for eugenics to play God, especially when they are atheists like dawkins (not saying he believes in eugenics but...)?

"If God did it in a book of fiction I don't believe in, that gives me the right to do it and impose my self indulged righteousness upon others!"

Yep. Thank you for using the Bible as an example for what dawkins believes...  ;D :D ;D

That wasn't what I was implying, I'm just saying that it is a poor argument from the religious folk.

I researched a lot on Eugenics last year, and it turns out, the religious did it the most.

I did not know adolph was such a religious dude, when most know how passionate he felt about eugenics and trying so hard to keep his score on top of the killing pyramid...

But you may be right: religious folks did worse than him and his belief in Übermensch, based on your research last year...  ::)

A belief in Ubermensch, untouchables in Hinduism, infidels in Islam, apostates in Christianity

Even if you include islam it is not enough to out score adolph's killing spree and his belief in eugenics... According to my research last year... ;)

Hitler was either carrying out Eugenics, or he was following the Bible (The word "Holocaust" comes from the Bible, and translates from Hebrew to "A sacrifical burnt offering")

No christian 'apostate' in mainstream christianity has to flee to another 'free' country in fear of their lives.

It's laughable how people think they can take pot shots are christianity to somehow paint theirs in less than negative light.

Unless you're in Uganda

I did not know hitler himself not only had named his own death plan "The Holocaust" but also could have been following the Bible, a book mostly about... Jews? Interesting. Yeah, I have the feeling he was carrying out his eugenics vision into reality....

Funny you mention hitler. Did you know he was not a fan of Down syndrome babies? He found a way to deal with them.
What Would Dawkins Do?

Argumentum Ad Hitlerium

Funny you mention hitler... Again. I guess you agree with dawkings and his position regarding DS babies if you keep talking about anything but him.

I'll say having children period is immoral, your bringing them into a world where they will feel pain, where their labor will be taxed away at every turn. Better not to have children at all, gives more wealth to the people already living.

I'm heartless sometimes in this case I think that it's a choice in the end
But I would say aborting is a reasonable decision here if the child would suffer for their life because of it then one could persist through but in honesty it really is a tough choice to make.
People who are arguing from their viewpoint have a right to opinion and discussion and I would also do a half assed apology for these people sure your entitled to your opinion don't spoon feed me your bull because you think I offended you for speaking my mind.

(that said there is such a thing as tact in your word choice and there are much better ways to get the same message across here)

That's Buddhist ideology, and I totally agree

We all struggle to live. A Down's kid is struggling to live even harder. Aborting a kid who is struggling so hard to live sounds cruel to me.

:)

Not everyone were born in a test tube, without parents like you... ::) ;) ::)

Now, now. Be gentle. Full Spectrum doesn't realize that he isn't as full as he thinks he is.

:)

As long as he realizes he had to be alive, feel pain and pay taxes to let the world knows everyone else should stop procreate after his birth AND share their wealth (to him who else). Of course if he was born without a navel in a Martian lab then I stand corrected  :)

Of course the kids he is talking about will feel pain. But they will have a lot of fun making more kids who will feel pain and have a lot of fun making more kids who will feel pain and have a lot of fun making more kids who will feel pain and have a lot of fun making................

:)

Obviously it is up to each family to do what they believe is the right thing for them, I would never judge anybody having to decide whether to abort a child. But, much as I admire Richard Dawkins, that is precisely what I object to him doing. He says not aborting a fetus is "immoral" - why? And who is he to judge?

I think Down's syndrome is a special case because many can live worthwhile lives and give pleasure to those around them. Of course they do require some additional support and if the parents, who are often older than the average because of the way Down's is generated, may become ill or even die before their Down's offspring - who are now living longer than the three or four decades that they used to. But society is prepared to support people who are fit and healthy but unemployable for whatever reason.

What's a fun fact is that Stephen Hawkings would have been declared unfit and denied a right to live, sending us back about forty years in astrophysics.

He's got a point, ya know. It's not just an issue of the child's rights, either, it's an issue of responsibility. Most parents can't afford to pay for the medical costs of raising children with certain disorders, yet choose to have them anyway knowing full well they'll be a tax burden on society. I kind of have a problem with that.

Some people have a problem with sex change operations paid by society too.

Down's varies in people. Some people you would never guess that they have it. Others are vegetables, barely alive. Abortion is murder.

:)

A real scholar with a physical handicap is of course better than any wannabe demagogue like dawkins. One has substance, the other has nothing but mouth.

Doubt it. He wasn't diagnosed with his disease until he was in his early twenties, but that's besides the point.


Funny seeing as 'nothing but mouth' adequately describes your input here.

I don't agree with his wording, but at the end of the day it has to be the choice of the parents and nobody else. I believe that people with Downs Syndrome can make a hugely positive contribution to society, but I have also seen cases where people who are more severely affected by the condition are abandoned to the system when their parents pass away or become too old to look after them. This is a particular problem as Downs parents tend to be older when the child is born. This is a heartbreaking decision for any expectant parent to make and there is no right or wrong answer.

Edit: never mind, misunderstood

I totally agree with this. I've been around quite a few people with Downs syndrome and some are really nice people and can care for themselves but some are literally vegetables. "Abort and try again" - Has this guy ever been a parent? That's fucking disgusting.

He's always trying to be the center of attention. Whether he's making controversial rape comments (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-says-date-rape-is-bad-stranger-rape-is-worse-on-twitter-9634572.html), complaining about the terrorists winning because he lost his honey (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10424202/Richard-Dawkins-said-terrorists-have-won-as-airport-security-took-his-honey.html), talking about how babies with Down's should be aborted (http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Richard-Dawkins-s-syndrome-babies-aborted-birth/story-22797954-detail/story.html), or making sexist comments (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name) about women, Dawkins will never be famous for what he was supposed to be famous for, his crappy book.

Down's children have a lot more positives than negatives in terms of character. If he wants to get rid of people on the basis of imperfections lets start with psychopaths and sadists. Laughably all of these toe rags would have passed is subjective little test! Lets think just for one minute how the world will be when scientists are allowed to play God. Who exactly is going to define perfect in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years as the human quest for a marketing man's ideal person reaches ever more ridiculous specifications?

The first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights is the right to life.



Dawkins can take his eugenicist fascist ideology back to the UK, where they are all miserable and restricted.

actually the first amendment is freedom of speech, which Dawkins is doing.

Not the first amendment, I'm talking about the Bill of Rights

The "Right to Life, love, liberty"

You can detect whether someone is going to be a psychopaths or a sadist in the womb?  ::)

Gene technology is progressing us to that point

Besides, it doesn't really matter, since the Elite of the world need to drastically reduce world population, anyway.   ;)

One good side of gene tech detection: less people like dawkins in the future?  ::)

That's just being the thought police

I'm thinking we can use it to get rid of people like Honeypot to be honest  ;D. Jk, I'm not a Nazi eugenicist unlike him.

Unless you were implying so in an optimistic manner. You could declare education and health care a human right, not a privilege to those who can afford it (like in 'Murka!). Once you make education readily available to all citizens regardless of race/sex/religion, the world would see a much smaller chance of producing more HoneyPots

Of course, Health Care is simply another way of raping the world using the idea that there is real health care available from them.

:)