Richard Dawkins on Down Syndrome

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus

I agree with him.

Also, this isn't true generally:

"People with Down’s syndrome can and do live full and rewarding lives, they also make a valuable contribution to our society."

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Viva Emptiness

This just in: Women get the vote, man lands on moon, and other thing that happened a long time ago.

Reply 2

Tiger Rag

Can I ask why you think people with Downs Syndrome can't make a contribution to society? It's not always about paid employment.

Reply 3

nohomo

Original post by OU Student

Can I ask why you think people with Downs Syndrome can't make a contribution to society? It's not always about paid employment.

Just read the wikipedia page on Down syndrome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

Reply 4

Tiger Rag

Original post by nohomo

Just read the wikipedia page on Down syndrome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

Because of course, Wikipedia is such a reliable source of information...

Reply 5

nohomo

Original post by OU Student

Can I ask why you think people with Downs Syndrome can't make a contribution to society? It's not always about paid employment.

Also, it bothers me that we treat our intelligent mentally ill less well than people with Down syndrome. Down syndrome people probably won't get their benefits cut off, and everyone is really nice to them, while the intelligent mentally ill are treated with suspicion.

It's like the euthanasia argument where they say we treat our dogs better than humans when we put them down.

Reply 6

nohomo

Original post by OU Student

Because of course, Wikipedia is such a reliable source of information...

OK then, what is their contribution?

They're nice people? I've met some who aren't. Most people can be nice AND do useful things.

Reply 7

RayApparently

Original post by OU Student

Because of course, Wikipedia is such a reliable source of information...

inb4 read the NHS page on Downs Syndrome.

Reply 8

ChaoticButterfly

I would be happy to abort early on if it was known the potential child would have some major genetic defect. As per usual it is up to the parents and ultimately the women who is pregnant.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 9

RayApparently

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

I would be happy to abort early on if it was known the potential child would have some major genetic defect. As per usual it is up to the parents and ultimately the women who is pregnant.

This statement has a rather feminine vibe I'm afraid.

Reply 10

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by RayApparently

This statement has a rather feminine vibe I'm afraid.

I am a women.

Reply 11

blue n white army

If you were pregnant and knew that the baby would be born with down syndrome you then face a choice of knowingly bringing a child in to the world who will live a disadvantaged life and possibly suffer to some degree for a large amount of their life with a far lower life expectancy and less possibility of living independently, OR you could choose to spare the suffering and abort it before it is a concious being.

If you were asked whilst trying for a baby "would you prefer your baby to be down syndrome or free from any disability or mental condition" everyone would say that they'd want their baby to be normal. Further more raising a down syndrome child is (I assume) a far greater commitment and effort and dare i say it burden? Why not choose the option that is easier for the parent and fairer on the baby.

Reply 12

RayApparently

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

I am a women.

WTF?

That was quick.

Reply 13

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by RayApparently

WTF?

That was quick.

I was double bluffing the whole time :ninja:

I am the ultimate catfish

Reply 14

Tiger Rag

Original post by nohomo

I do wonder if you really know what Downs Syndrome is? I have friends whose children have it.

They won't get their benefits cut, because in general, they have some pretty serious medical issues. Some don't talk, they may be incontinent, they have some form of learning disability, etc.

Not all intelligent mentally ill people are treated with suspicision.

Reply 15

RayApparently

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

I was double bluffing the whole time :ninja:

I am the ultimate catfish

Reply 16

Mackay

Original post by Viva Emptiness

This just in: Women get the vote, man lands on moon, and other thing that happened a long time ago.

Hahaha.

Reply 17

tazarooni89

Personally I'd disagree with him.

Dawkins is saying that it is immoral not to abort a child who will have Down syndrome. That is to say, a life with Down syndrome is worse than no life at all.

It may not be the optimal life to be born into, and it may be a less happy or fulfilling one than most other people's lives. However, Dawkins is not in a position to decide or predict whether or not it will turn out to be worse than no life at all. That is down to the individual in question. Perhaps some people with Down syndrome are able to live their lives just as contentedly as the next person, with lots of care and few worries.

Reply 18

Schmeckel

Original post by nohomo

Dawkins can be a real Farquaad. Most of the time, what he says makes me shake my head. Don't know how Sally Hitchens can stand to be friends with him---he seems to have his nose so high up in the air that when it rains, it fills up with water.

On the other hand, what he says here is right. If I didn't get tarred with Godwin's brush, I'd call myself a eugenicist. I believe that a categorical imperative exists for humanity to better itself---it was built in God's image, you know!

For lack of a better word, culling feti which have reliably been proven to have developed an incurable intellectual disability (such as trisomy 21) is a humane responsibility. Some chlorine in the gene pool often goes a long way.

I believe that humanity is going, at this time, in a rather well-delineated direction. Humanity is becoming technocratic and celestially expansionist. I believe there are traits ill suited to such an environment. Most of these we call mental diseases.

The argument has been made that the "differences" caused by a syndromic mental disorder might in fact be useful if humanity goes in some other direction, and so we oughtn't really call them diseases at all. The stand-out in this case is obvious: in an increasingly technocratic society, a minor case of very-high-functioning autism may be beneficial. This argument, on the whole, has merit. Humanity, however, is not going in a direction favouring trisomy 21 for the foreseeable future, and I doubt it ever will.

Now, I wouldn't go so far as to advocate genocide, or compulsory anything at all, but I would stress that terminating a pregnancy with a problem is not only acceptable, but also a humane imperative. Self-sterilisation in the case of a genetic disorder would also be a humane imperative.