Down's Syndrome...

... Meets Richard Dawkins.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has become embroiled in another Twitter row, claiming it would be "immoral" to carry on with a pregnancy if the mother knew the foetus had Down's Syndrome.

The British author made the comment in response to another site user who said they would be faced with "a real ethical dilemma" if they became pregnant with a Down's Syndrome baby.

Professor Dawkins tweeted: "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

He faced a backlash for his comment, with 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."

Prof Dawkins later defended his view, saying he would not apologise "for approaching moral philosophic questions in a logical way".

Some users supported the God Delusion author, agreeing with his assertion that there is a difference in deciding on a termination before a child is born, and suggesting after the child is born that it should have been aborted.

The Down's Syndrome Association (DSA) issued a response to Prof Dawkin's initial comment.

They said: "People with Down's Syndrome can and do live full and rewarding lives, they also make a valuable contribution to our society.

"At the Down's Syndrome Association, we do not believe Down's Syndrome in itself should be a reason for termination, however, we realise that families must make their own choice.

"The DSA strives 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's syndrome.

Previously Prof Dawkins caused controversy on Twitter when he said the world's Muslims had won fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College Cambridge.

http://home.bt.com/news/uknews/dawkins-in-downs-syndrome-row-11363928157255


Thoughts?

I have known people with certain genetic diseases that it is certain the child will get and will severely limit living quality and length of life and yet still choose to have children.

I would never tell someone to abort there child based on it, but in regards to my experiences, which are a little different but similar(as they knew beforehand what would happen) I was a bit appalled.

I will also say(from experience) that down syndrome children and adults can be very taxing to work with, and not just in regards to patience, but money as well...

People with Down Syndrome can lead full lives....depending on how bad there case of Down Syndrome is, and it does get worse as they get older.

If the foetus is (in principal) capable of developing into a person with a happy, fulfilling life then I don't see why you'd abort them just because they have Down's Syndrome. It's rough on parents of Down's Syndrome kids because every parent wants their child to have every opportunity in life, but that's part of having kids. If ultrasounds had shown one of my kids to have been developing with an arm missing or something, I would have been upset, but I clearly wouldn't have debated aborting them.. just because things aren't ideal or as planned doesn't mean they can't still be great.

I'm pro-choice, but abortion quite obviously isn't something anyone should (or, realistically, does) take lightly - his offhand comment ignores the profound physiological and psychological factors involved in abortion, or in the fact there is a potential (small percentage) genetic predisposition for conceiving kids with Down's Syndrome - knowing a predisposition exists at all and having opted to end your pregnancy once, would it ever be as easy as just "trying again"? I doubt it.

Yet another example of Dawkins sliding from the kind of considered and reasoned discussion which used to distinguish him into the kind of tactless, attention-grab assertions which mean his points won't get heard except by those who already agree with them. Twitter's ruined him, for me.

I dont know if this is even a discussion that should be had on twitter.

Absolutely agreed, but in recent years Dawkins hasn't let that stop him.

Message content vs delivery of message... an ongoing problem for the internet.

This is a great topic for discussion, so first, thank you!

While I see what Dawkins is trying to say from a logical standpoint, it is going to be very difficult for him to defend it in a public forum like Twitter. He can argue the morality of his view, but he's going to have a lot of difficulty finding people objective enough to have any constructive conversation about it.

Personally, I tend to think that nature (or the Force, if you wish) is still pretty good at determining who lives and dies. Despite our best efforts to advance modern medicine, nature still finds new and exotic ways of killing us. Throw in the multitude of genetic mixes and mutations possible, and human life really does look a lot more like a crap shoot.

Down's Syndrome will either disappear through natural selection, or it will continue to become more prevalent as the genetic condition is passed along by more and more who carry it and survive. It seems Dawkins believes, at least in terms of morality, that we should help nature along the path of eliminating the possibility of passing the condition along. This seems like a pretty egotistical view to have. I would say that nature doesn't need our help either way, and the morality of it all is a personal matter.

Honestly, I see where Prof. Dawkins is coming from logically.

This was something I've thought about before but even more so lately since I'm pregnant. My answer is "I couldn't do it." Partly because I believe that a fetus is human life and it's wrong to kill without a life-or-death situation. And partly out of cowardice because I know those "what if" questions would haunt me for the rest of my life. How bad would she have really been? Could she have been happy? Could she have lived her life just fine? Who would she have impacted?

Down's Syndrome will either disappear through natural selection

Actually, there are many studies being done to isolate and treat it within the womb, or, even eradicate it before that as an option.

We are reaching frontiers where we do not have to wait for natural selection, but engineer it.

I think I have put some of them in the "This week in Science" thread.

Still, its in the works, but there have been some breakthroughs in the last couple of years.

Which will have its own moral conundrums for people to ponder.

I do not think there is a sensitive way to say someone should get an abortion though.

In the article, it is wrote: The British author made the comment in response to another site user who said they would be faced with "a real ethical dilemma" if they became pregnant with a Down's Syndrome baby.

The answer to the dilemma is abort it, and start over, or birth it...

He gave his opinion... Nothing wrong with that...

He faced a backlash for his comment, with 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."

So, she choose the "birth it" option...

And I applaud her...

But, that doesnt mean she should get all bent out of shape over Dawkin's opinion...

Her 'identity' is "mother with a downs child", not as "xyz", and would probable tell the mother Dawkin's offered his opinion to, to also birth it...

IN which case, others would fill with rage that she is advising someone else to take on a burden they may not be ready for...

Khaos wrote: People with Down Syndrome can lead full lives....depending on how bad there case of Down Syndrome is, and it does get worse as they get older.

My wife refused the "in vitro(right?)" test because she didnt know if she could carry a downs child full term...

I have a 75 year old downs uncle in a home right now who developed alzheimers here in the last few years....

Who takes care of the downs person if they outlive their family? The state... And we all know how well the government does stuff... :lol:

Fortunately, my uncle has three younger sisters, and the rest of us...

Jestor wrote:

In the article, it is wrote: He faced a backlash for his comment, with 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."

So, she choose the "birth it" option...

And I applaud her...

But, that doesnt mean she should get all bent out of shape over Dawkin's opinion...

Her 'identity' is "mother with a downs child", not as "xyz", and would probable tell the mother Dawkin's offered his opinion to, to also birth it...

IN which case, others would fill with rage that she is advising someone else to take on a burden they may not be ready for...

I think that there may be an issue with Prof Dawkin's de-humanizing those with Down's Syndrome. He doesn't come out and say it but I think part of what got under people's skin is how he's very nearly saying that they're not worth keeping alive. Like they're these half-baked cakes to be tossed out because they're not rising.

Like any other abortion issue, I think it's up to the individual's choice, and the Professor was just offering his extremely logical views. Not one I can personally get behind but one I can understand.

My wife refused the "in vitro(right?)" test because she didnt know if she could carry a downs child full term...

I have a 75 year old downs uncle in a home right now who developed alzheimers here in the last few years....

Yes, its common enough to refuse, and Down Syndrome is only one of the things we can fidn now.

Still there are those with ones that are certain to be passed on and I am not sure how I feel about people making choices like that to have children and going in knowing they are sentencing them to certain things.

As for your uncle 75 is damn good for someone with Downs Syndrome.

Hell, thats good for a fully functioning healthy person.

Healthy being somewhat relative.

Kamizu wrote:

Jestor wrote:

In the article, it is wrote: He faced a backlash for his comment, with 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."

So, she choose the "birth it" option...

And I applaud her...

But, that doesnt mean she should get all bent out of shape over Dawkin's opinion...

Her 'identity' is "mother with a downs child", not as "xyz", and would probable tell the mother Dawkin's offered his opinion to, to also birth it...

IN which case, others would fill with rage that she is advising someone else to take on a burden they may not be ready for...

I think that there may be an issue with Prof Dawkin's de-humanizing those with Down's Syndrome. He doesn't come out and say it but I think part of what got under people's skin is how he's very nearly saying that they're not worth keeping alive. Like they're these half-baked cakes to be tossed out because they're not rising.

Like any other abortion issue, I think it's up to the individual's choice, and the Professor was just offering his extremely logical views. Not one I can personally get behind but one I can understand.

But, if he doesnt say that, here anyway, how can it be said that, that is what he meant?

Jestor wrote: But, if he doesnt say that, here anyway, how can it be said that, that is what he meant?

People like to read into things more than what is present. I've seen people get more upset over what was NOT said than what was. Shoot, I've done it too. We're really good at 'filling in the blanks' and when we do it, we tend to fill it with our own biases. Many people who care for disabled people tend to get very defensive.

"Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

can read like "It's broken, just toss it and make a new one. You're a bad person if you brought a person with Down's Syndrome into the world."

Abortion is a hot subject to begin with. It's one people like to jump all over it. Add in a disability and we've got a fire!!!

I've spent my career working with people with Down Syndrome. Most of those I've known seem to have happy and fulfilled lives. They are often an example to me on how to enjoy the simple things in life and live in the moment! Having said that I have no problem with Dawkins expressing his opinion, although I don't agree with it, and it is up to the parents to decide whether or not they want to abort of course.

Looks to me he's just making some noise to get attention? I'm pro choice not because I think it's right but it's a womens decision, hopefilly, with support/imput from the father. I don't think it's right, can't say it's wrong for someone else, and couldn't do it myself. Tough call.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Dawkins really gets off demonstrating Jung's assertion that opinion is thought based on feeling and therefore an inferior function of the psyche. He knows he won't get along with most people, I doubt that he cares, and it's so satisfyingly ironic when someone who doesn't realize they are in the cult of Scientism acts in a way that could be described as 'self-righteous.' Delicious.

Down's syndrome is not 'passed on,' rarely if ever do the afflicted produce offspring. Actually, I don't know for certain but they may not even be able to create viable gametes. It's not like the birth of a Down's baby makes it more likely for others to develop Down's.

I have an aunt with Down's who is 65 years old and as happy as a lark (mostly ) She has been very well cared for by her family and a private facility we were able to get her into.

I disagree with Mr Dawkin's opinion. I also happen to believe that as soon as egg and sperm form zygote we have a moral and ethical obligation to help that embryo continue development into a fully mature human adult which it will, like most others, most likely do if it is given the proper environment and resources. That is my opinion, which is also the result of an inferior function of my psyche.

One exception: I wish I could abort Richard Dawkins (Before I get into trouble let me say that I say that tongue-in-cheek...mostly)

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-apologises-downs-syndrome-tweet

Richard Dawkins has apologised for the "feeding frenzy" triggered by his tweet claiming it would be immoral to carry on with a pregnancy if the mother knew the foetus had Down's syndrome.

The geneticist's latest Twitter row broke out after he responded to another user who said she would be faced with "a real ethical dilemma" if she became pregnant with a baby with Down's syndrome.

Dawkins tweeted: "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

In a fuller explanation on his website – entitled Abortion & Down Syndrome: Apology for Letting Slip the Dogs of Twitterwar – the author tried to set the record straight.

He wrote: "To conclude, what I was saying simply follows logically from the ordinary pro-choice stance that most of us, I presume, espouse. My phraseology may have been tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding, but I can't help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand."

The backlash for his comment had included one mother, who has a child with the genetic condition, saying: "I would fight until my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma" while Dawkins said accusations of "Nazism, vile, monstrous fascistic callousness" and "fireballs of hatred" had been hurled his way.

He wrote: "If your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down's baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare."

I mean, really, does this dude think he has the ability to read people's minds and souls? How can he know how much suffering someone does or doesn't feel? Does he have visions where the sum total of human suffering is his to observe objectively so he knows what to push for and where to increase the total? His 'logic' is deeply flawed on this issue.

What I mean to say is, IMHO, his apology is a pretty crappy example of what an apology sounds like.

Damned if you do and damned if you dont.

Does not twitter not act like facebook in a way?

I mean Richard Dawkins and his replies are not unknown, so I would think anyone within his contacts would expect a certain response...

Hes not known for being the nicest person in his replies.

Down's syndrome is not 'passed on,' rarely if ever do the afflicted produce offspring. Actually, I don't know for certain but they may not even be able to create viable gametes. It's not like the birth of a Down's baby makes it more likely for others to develop Down's.

No, not in the case of Downs, however there are others with different genetic disorders that knowingly pass on such things, which is where I think it highly irresponsible of the adults in regards to child bearing.

I have an aunt with Down's who is 65 years old and as happy as a lark (mostly ) She has been very well cared for by her family and a private facility we were able to get her into.

Which is fine, but I have had to work with people with Downs that have been prone to violent outbursts ,etc. On residents and staff.

Also, not all facilities are created equal, neither are all Downs patients.