'Down's syndrome babies should be aborted before birth', says Richard Dawkins

[Redway]

"CONTROVERSIAL scientist Richard Dawkins has sparked anger once again - this time by claiming foetuses with Down's syndrome should be aborted.

The outspoken atheist author said parents should abort unborn babies with the condition and "try again".

He made the comments during a Twitter debate, provoking fury from many online.

Down's syndrome is a genetic disorder that delays growth and causes intellectual disability."

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/s-syndrome-babies-aborted-birth-says-Richard/story-22790505-detail/story.html

[GiRTh]

I like and respect Richard Dawkins but I think he may have gone too far in this instance.

[Crimson Dynamo]

"I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma."


was the question

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

was his reply

----------------------------

he also added this

"“For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort,” he says about what he would tell a parent of a baby diagnosed in the womb with Down syndrome. “And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do.”

And, again, Dawkins says it would be immoral not to kill such a baby in an abortion.

“I personally would go further and say that, 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 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,” Dawkins says.

Dawkins then deplores the horrible way in which parents of children with Down syndrome are forced to provide them with a loving home and care and support simple because they have a certain genetic condition. His comments are sure to stoke the fires of condemnation coming from parents and families of people with Down syndrome.

“In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice,” he writes.

Dawkins then aplogizes for the tweets, only in the sense that they did not offer his complete thoughts on the matter.

“Of course I regret using abbreviated phraseology which caused so much upset,” he says — ignoring the fact that his longer position paper issued today essentially makes the same arguments for killing babies with Down syndrome."


I see no issue here. I agree with him

[Tom4784]

He's pretty much turned himself into Katie Hopkins, makes an obscene remark every once in a while to remind everyone he exists. He is a parody of himself.

[Crimson Dynamo]

He's pretty much turned himself into Katie Hopkins, makes an obscene remark every once in a while to remind everyone he exists. He is a parody of himself.

what utter nonsense

[Ramsay]

He's pretty much turned himself into Katie Hopkins, makes an obscene remark every once in a while to remind everyone he exists. He is a parody of himself.

The sad truth.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Many women undergo amniocentesis and make a decision. Its a fact.

[AnnieK]

I don't think they can detect downs till after 12 weeks so there is little chance of an "early termination". It's obviously down to personal circumstances and peoples strength to deal with a child with special needs but I don't think I could abort my child because of Downs Syndrome

[Cherie]

There are plenty human beings who should be denied birth, Down's syndrome kids wouldn't be in that category imo

[Cherie]

Many women undergo amniocentesis and make a decision. Its a fact.

Yes of course some decide to keep the child. That is also a fact

[Crimson Dynamo]

Yes of course some decide to keep the child. That is also a fact

Indeed but Mr Dawkins has his opinion and backs it up. There is no drama here.

[Cherie]

Indeed but Mr Dawkins has his opinion and backs it up. There is no drama here.

Healthy babies can end up being disabled through illness or accident, should parents turn their backs in that scenario as well?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Healthy babies can end up being disabled through illness or accident, should parents turn their backs in that scenario as well?

how would a parent know a healthy fetus would end up that way?

[JoshBB]

What the hell :( He's the reason I began labelling myself as a Humanist, he's not very humanist-like.

[Toy Soldier]

He's pretty much turned himself into Katie Hopkins, makes an obscene remark every once in a while to remind everyone he exists. He is a parody of himself.

True. No idea why he felt the need to pipe up about this. It's a completely personal decision for the parents involved and there is no "right" or "wrong" answer.

[Stu]

Dawkin's gimmick is an increasingly tired one. He's about as affecting as Louise Mensch. I hope there is truth behind his fundamentalist attitude to material science because the idea of his soul knocking about for eternity is a real kick to the knees of anyone's day.

[joeysteele]

I don't agree with him at all.

[JoshBB]

Looking at his twitter, this was hugely taken out of proportion. Disappointed that you made me think so badly of him.

The real tweet:
If I were a woman with a DS fetus I personally would abort. So do most women in fact. If you wouldn't, good luck to you, it's your decision,

[Livia]

He's the antithesis of a religious fundamentalist... but just as irritating.

[the truth]

hes an attention seeking scumbag, I cant believe how many people fell for his hateful bile

[the truth]

"I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma."


was the question

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

was his reply

----------------------------

he also added this

"“For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort,” he says about what he would tell a parent of a baby diagnosed in the womb with Down syndrome. “And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do.”

And, again, Dawkins says it would be immoral not to kill such a baby in an abortion.

“I personally would go further and say that, 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 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,” Dawkins says.

Dawkins then deplores the horrible way in which parents of children with Down syndrome are forced to provide them with a loving home and care and support simple because they have a certain genetic condition. His comments are sure to stoke the fires of condemnation coming from parents and families of people with Down syndrome.

“In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice,” he writes.

Dawkins then aplogizes for the tweets, only in the sense that they did not offer his complete thoughts on the matter.

“Of course I regret using abbreviated phraseology which caused so much upset,” he says — ignoring the fact that his longer position paper issued today essentially makes the same arguments for killing babies with Down syndrome."


I see no issue here. I agree with him
this particular line is right up there with the nazis

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

[Kizzy]

Someone with an opinion that is not the norm... I assume he is being hunted down like a dog as we speak?

Having an ethical/moral debate without looking at the practical/medical aspects is impossible.

[the truth]

Someone with an opinion that is not the norm... I assume he is being hunted down like a dog as we speak?

Having an ethical/moral debate without looking at the practical/medical aspects is impossible.

murdering babies because theytre disabled is not acceptable. its a shame this evil attention seeking twat wasnt aborted for all the damage hes doing.

[JoshBB]

murdering babies because theytre disabled is not acceptable. its a shame this evil attention seeking twat wasnt aborted for all the damage hes doing.

Wishing for him to have been aborted is just as bad.

[the truth]

Wishing for him to have been aborted is just as bad.

he wants to murder millions of innocent baies, i just want to murder him retrospectively...so his thought crime is millions of times worse

[Cherie]

how would a parent know a healthy fetus would end up that way?

That is my point no one would become a parent if they thought about all the ifs and buts, one of his arguments is the burden and worry a downs child will bring down the road, but that can be said of any child. As someone else said there is no right or wrong decision.

[Stu]

Someone with an opinion that is not the norm... I assume he is being hunted down like a dog as we speak?
He has made millions more from being a turgid poster boy churning out impasse pop science soundbytes to atheists who want their own beliefs reinforced than he has in his more based academic career, I'd imagine.

Meaning he has a pretty decent set of driveway gates and an even better alarm. No match for those who whatever their slant on abortion surely felt his remarks maybe needed a bit more time to defrost before being put out on to a public forum.

That doesn't mean he's not allowed do it, of course. Just that implying that people with down syndrome add to the depth of human suffering is a bit churlish. Most of them are pretty happy from what I can see. And most of their parents are probably not regretting the choice they made.

There's nothing too ****ing demonic about agreeing some of what he has said, I know that, but more than anything else it's just sad to see just how logic based the guy is. Sure I'm an emotional fool but he swings too much the other way.

Better build a supercomputer to ascertain how happy we are as a species right now before anyone gives birth to some manic depressive weirdo who might need a bit of support.

I'm rambling. Point is ... Dawkins is a right toolbag.

[Redway]

Someone with an opinion that is not the norm... I assume he is being hunted down like a dog as we speak?

Having an ethical/moral debate without looking at the practical/medical aspects is impossible.

It's not just about having an opinion that isn't quite the norm, though, is it? Like someone else said people with Down's are usually very happy people for one so it's pointless getting into a debate about how much their lives are worth living like it's any of our responsibility to do that. And whilst profound cases will be challenging and limiting people with mild Down's can get all sorts of work etc so god forbid we don't abort someone who may well end up contributing much more to society than "normal" people.

[Kizzy]

He has made millions more from being a turgid poster boy churning out impasse pop science soundbytes to atheists who want their own beliefs reinforced than he has in his more based academic career, I'd imagine.

Meaning he has a pretty decent set of driveway gates and an even better alarm. No match for those who whatever their slant on abortion surely felt his remarks maybe needed a bit more time to defrost before being put out on to a public forum.

That doesn't mean he's not allowed do it, of course. Just that implying that people with down syndrome add to the depth of human suffering is a bit churlish. Most of them are pretty happy from what I can see. And most of their parents are probably not regretting the choice they made.

There's nothing too ****ing demonic about agreeing some of what he has said, I know that, but more than anything else it's just sad to see just how logic based the guy is. Sure I'm an emotional fool but he swings too much the other way.

Better build a supercomputer to ascertain how happy we are as a species right now before anyone gives birth to some manic depressive weirdo who might need a bit of support.

I'm rambling. Point is ... Dawkins is a right toolbag.

There's nothing wrong with a logical aspect to a discussion, it's great to see the religious hand wringers response though.
When religion is killing people en masse it's hard to get your head around why his comments are being taken as emotionless, he hasn't experienced the scenario he describes so it all hypothetical... Why don't we focus on real inhumanity and not just a perceived one?

[Stu]

I'm not religious in the slightest and I think his comments were daft. A quick browse of the online reactions to this would show in large part general disdain for his comments too, ranging from general disgust to "wow what a knob". Atheists are disowning him en masse like the prat you don't want showing up to the work party even though he is on your team.

People are focusing on real inhumanities. What are you even mean? Some people are. Some people aren't. This is about what Dawkins said. Which is why people are talking about what Dawkins said in a talk about stuff Dawkins said. What?

Also isn't the fact that he hasn't experienced the scenarios he is so quick to describe with such typical ****ing bawdiness the problem in the first place?

[Kizzy]

Soz stu I didn't mean you when I said the religious, just in general .. I'll pick up after BB :)

[Stu]

S'cool. I'm not nearly driven by angst enough to go around in circles on the internet anymore so I CBA.

Hope yer well.

[the truth]

I'm not religious in the slightest and I think his comments were daft. A quick browse of the online reactions to this would show in large part general disdain for his comments too, ranging from general disgust to "wow what a knob". Atheists are disowning him en masse like the prat you don't want showing up to the work party even though he is on your team.

People are focusing on real inhumanities. What are you even mean? Some people are. Some people aren't. This is about what Dawkins said. Which is why people are talking about what Dawkins said in a talk about stuff Dawkins said. What?

Also isn't the fact that he hasn't experienced the scenarios he is so quick to describe with such typical ****ing bawdiness the problem in the first place?

correct. hes ridden on the soap box of anti religion and the naivety of atheists looking for a leader. an utterly vile idious creature with no set values, whose only goal is self adulation cheap fame and money

[Nedusa]

The problem with this viewpoint is that where do you draw the line, you might start with trying to ensure Down's syndrome babies are not born but then it's babies with cleft lips or slight facial irregularities , then it becomes small babies or black or albino babies ending up only with babies of choice like gender preferences etc..

A very slippery and dangerous road to go down.



.

[JoshBB]

correct. hes ridden on the soap box of anti religion and the naivety of atheists looking for a leader. an utterly vile idious creature with no set values, whose only goal is self adulation cheap fame and money

I really hope you didn't just say atheists are naive.

[the truth]

The problem with this viewpoint is that where do you draw the line, you might start with trying to ensure Down's syndrome babies are not born but then it's babies with cleft lips or slight facial irregularities , then it becomes small babies or black or albino babies ending up only with babies of choice like gender preferences etc..

A very slippery and dangerous road to go down.



.

if dawkins was running the show maybe hed save the termination till after theyre born

[the truth]

I really hope you didn't just say atheists are naive.

what are you pretending to be offended about now?

[Kizzy]

Well this descended into a straw man argument of epic proportions....
I mean it was a hypothetical... nothing more.
He will never be in the position so any speculation as to what he would do is ridiculous really.
I'm guessing he couldn't care less for a knee-jerk internet reaction though, he isn't a mouthpiece for all atheists so what they think is irrelevant... logically it's just the rather skewed opinion of one man.
In the grand scheme of things with all the destruction happening in the world this just doesn't seem important is all.

[the truth]

Well this descended into a straw man argument of epic proportions....
I mean it was a hypothetical... nothing more.
He will never be in the position so any speculation as to what he would do is ridiculous really.
I'm guessing he couldn't care less for a knee-jerk internet reaction though, he isn't a mouthpiece for all atheists so what they think is irrelevant... logically it's just the rather skewed opinion of one man.
In the grand scheme of things with all the destruction happening in the world this just doesn't seem important is all.

the murder of millions of unborn children and disabled children isnt important? what the almighty hell ???? this tool influences millions of people and has a platform given to him by fools and he uses it like this, his disgusting bigotry has to be destroyed immediately before the idea of killing babies because they may be disabled grows in the minds of the cruel and impressionable

[Marsh.]

Let's just execute idiotic old people before they get so annoying. :idc:

[Kizzy]

the murder of millions of unborn children and disabled children isnt important? what the almighty hell ???? this tool influences millions of people and has a platform given to him by fools and he uses it like this, his disgusting bigotry has to be destroyed immediately before the idea of killing babies because they may be disabled grows in the minds of the cruel and impressionable

Don't put words in my mouth please.

There are plenty of 'holy' books doing that already...

[Toy Soldier]

He's the antithesis of a religious fundamentalist... but just as irritating.

Yes! Exactly. And he is muddling the simple issue of Atheism and, better descriptions not being available, "giving it a bad name" even though it isn't a "movement" at all. People have started associating Atheism with "that Dawkins guy" and certain beliefs and doctrines and treating it like a pseudo religion. "Oh you're an atheist so you must believe that...X is because y... Dawkins thinks... "
**** Dawkins. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a god or Gods and because I DON'T subscribe to an organised belief system. There's nothing more to it than that.

[Kizzy]

Yes! Exactly. And he is muddling the simple issue of Atheism and, better descriptions not being available, "giving it a bad name" even though it isn't a "movement" at all. People have started associating Atheism with "that Dawkins guy" and certain beliefs and doctrines and treating it like a pseudo religion. "Oh you're an atheist so you must believe that...X is because y... Dawkins thinks... "
**** Dawkins. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a god or Gods and because I DON'T subscribe to an organised belief system. There's nothing more to it than that.

That has nothing to do with this topic though, as well as being an atheist he is a geneticist.. I think it would be this that inspired the comment.
Unless it was the use of the word 'immoral' as it seems only people who subscribe to a religion are afforded morals.

[Livia]

Yes! Exactly. And he is muddling the simple issue of Atheism and, better descriptions not being available, "giving it a bad name" even though it isn't a "movement" at all. People have started associating Atheism with "that Dawkins guy" and certain beliefs and doctrines and treating it like a pseudo religion. "Oh you're an atheist so you must believe that...X is because y... Dawkins thinks... "
**** Dawkins. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a god or Gods and because I DON'T subscribe to an organised belief system. There's nothing more to it than that.

Yeah, I agree with all that. I think a lot of his followers and those who think he's got the perfect right to say inflammatory stuff like this aren't actually Atheists at all, but simply people who are anti-religion and don't know any other way to voice that. Reading some of the support he has online I think he's become a Messiah for the unreligious and anti-religious masses rather than a spokesman for Atheists.

[the truth]

Don't put words in my mouth please.

There are plenty of 'holy' books doing that already...

im not putting words anywhere and stop trying to change the subject.....and also stop blaming religion. religion has nothing to do with dawkins evil beliefs

[joeysteele]

It's not just about having an opinion that isn't quite the norm, though, is it? Like someone else said people with Down's are usually very happy people for one so it's pointless getting into a debate about how much their lives are worth living like it's any of our responsibility to do that. And whilst profound cases will be challenging and limiting people with mild Down's can get all sorts of work etc so god forbid we don't abort someone who may well end up contributing much more to society than "normal" people.

I love this post from you Redway and thank you for making it.
One of my cousin's children was born with Downs,the picture you paint above in your post is very accurate as to probably a great majority of children born with it.

I was only going to leave my contribution here in the post I made earlier, saying I didn't agree with him at all as to this,however after then reading your post had to come in again and commend you on it.
Well said and pointed out.

[the truth]

Yeah, I agree with all that. I think a lot of his followers and those who think he's got the perfect right to say inflammatory stuff like this aren't actually Atheists at all, but simply people who are anti-religion and don't know any other way to voice that. Reading some of the support he has online I think he's become a Messiah for the unreligious and anti-religious masses rather than a spokesman for Atheists.

in that case its time for loud mouthed atheists to distance themselves from this psycho. just as religious leaders criticize psychotic radical preachers, then leaders of the atheist movement need to do the same to dawkins

[the truth]

I love this post from you Redway and thank you for making it.
One of my cousin's children was born with Downs,the picture you paint above in your post is very accurate as to probably a great majority of children born with it.

I was only going to leave my contribution here in the post I made earlier, saying I didn't agree with him at all as to this,however after then reading your post had to come in again and commend you on it.
Well said and pointed out.

everyone has health problems.....everyone has difficulties, so to start culling innocent unborn babies because of disabilities they may have is deranged and needs to be stopped. as you and redway infer, people of all ages abilities contribute in millions of different ways to this world. who is dawkins to play anti God and decided who lives and dies, how can this fool quantify what contributions an unborn child may give to the world? revolting sick bsard

[daniel-lewis-1985]

"CONTROVERSIAL scientist Richard Dawkins has sparked anger once again - this time by claiming foetuses with Down's syndrome should be aborted.

The outspoken atheist author said parents should abort unborn babies with the condition and "try again".

He made the comments during a Twitter debate, provoking fury from many online.

Down's syndrome is a genetic disorder that delays growth and causes intellectual disability."

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/s-syndrome-babies-aborted-birth-says-Richard/story-22790505-detail/story.html

Down's syndrome is a far more complex condition than "a genetic disorder that delays growth and causes intellectual disability".

I know someone who got pregnant post 40 and I think its standard that they test the foetus after that age but that someone was going to abort if it was confirmed which I disagreed with but then I couldn't imagine having to look after a disabled child for the rest of my life so its easy to give an opinion when you're not the one in the actual situation.

Thankfully she gave birth to a healthy little boy :)

[Kizzy]

Yeah, I agree with all that. I think a lot of his followers and those who think he's got the perfect right to say inflammatory stuff like this aren't actually Atheists at all, but simply people who are anti-religion and don't know any other way to voice that. Reading some of the support he has online I think he's become a Messiah for the unreligious and anti-religious masses rather than a spokesman for Atheists.

He has got the right, we are all born with free will; I read a book on it.
I'm anti religion so you could be addressing me here, though I know you're not.
I can say he is not a messiah for atheists or the anti-religious as far as I can see that would infer that they all feel as he does on the subject and as we see from the comments made to him following this they don't, just the same way as a religious person wouldn't agree with Irelands stance on abortion following a rape... it's a very personal moral dilemma.

[Toy Soldier]

That has nothing to do with this topic though, as well as being an atheist he is a geneticist.. I think it would be this that inspired the comment.
Unless it was the use of the word 'immoral' as it seems only people who subscribe to a religion are afforded morals.

Why would this comment be inspired by being a geneticist when the hereditary component of down's syndrome risk is less than 1%, though? Add to that the fact that very few people with down's syndrome even go on to reproduce at all, and it becomes a complete non-issue from the point of view of "preserving the gene pool".

He'd have been better to tell people to stop waiting until they're middle aged to have children, if his concern is prevalence. Risk is 1 in 2000 with a maternal age of 20 years old, 1 in 900 at 30, 1 in 100 at 40 and (for the menopausal IVF advocates)... At 49 the risk is 1 in 10.

If his concern ISN'T prevalence then his judgement is not at all from a geneticists point of view... Like I said in my first post, the decision about whether or not it's something they are able to take on is completely down to the parents. It affects literally no one else.

He's using shock tactics for screen time, he's been doing it a lot over the past couple of years and it's pathetic. And especially sad, as his earlier academic work is fascinating (The Selfish Gene, etc.). Of course, The Selfish Gene is a (brutally) hard read for a niche interest. Much more money in hooting and hollering to the retarded masses on Twitter for exposure.

[Kizzy]

Why would this comment be inspired by being a geneticist when the hereditary component of down's syndrome risk is less than 1%, though? Add to that the fact that very few people with down's syndrome even go on to reproduce at all, and it becomes a complete non-issue from the point of view of "preserving the gene pool".

He'd have been better to tell people to stop waiting until they're middle aged to have children, if his concern is prevalence. Risk is 1 in 2000 with a maternal age of 20 years old, 1 in 900 at 30, 1 in 100 at 40 and (for the menopausal IVF advocates)... At 49 the risk is 1 in 10.

If his concern ISN'T prevalence then his judgement is not at all from a geneticists point of view... Like I said in my first post, the decision about whether or not it's something they are able to take on is completely down to the parents. It affects literally no one else.

He's using shock tactics for screen time, he's been doing it a lot over the past couple of years and it's pathetic. And especially sad, as his earlier academic work is fascinating (The Selfish Gene, etc.). Of course, The Selfish Gene is a (brutally) hard read for a niche interest. Much more money in hooting and hollering to the retarded masses on Twitter for exposure.

What about the child? He may be speaking as to the quality of life a severely affected Downs child has and their life expectancy.
As a geneticist if he can detect before birth how affected a child would be then I believe he is right to advise as he does.
The retarded masses on twitter will find a new thing to flail their arms about tomorrow no doubt.

[Toy Soldier]

What about the child? He may be speaking as to the quality of life a severely affected Downs child has and their life expectancy.
As a geneticist if he can detect before birth how affected a child would be then I believe he is right to advise as he does.
The retarded masses on twitter will find a new thing to flail their arms about tomorrow no doubt.

The only prenatal indicator of downs is the extra chromosome, there's no way to determine the severity even at birth. It can go either way, from very high functioning (not even requiring a carer) to completely disabled, you just have to wait and see how the child develops.

I personally am very dubious about anyone who decides to take it upon themselves to determine another persons quality of life and whether it's "worth living"... Or determining whether or not they get to live at all... Especially When there's such a wide range of potential outcomes.

[Stu]

^ well said.

[the truth]

The only prenatal indicator of downs is the extra chromosome, there's no way to determine the severity even at birth. It can go either way, from very high functioning (not even requiring a carer) to completely disabled, you just have to wait and see how the child develops.

I personally am very dubious about anyone who decides to take it upon themselves to determine another persons quality of life and whether it's "worth living"... Or determining whether or not they get to live at all... Especially When there's such a wide range of potential outcomes.

brilliantly said its nazi-ism returned....if we start murdering babies because of disabilities they may have, where does one draw the line?

[the truth]

I like and respect Richard Dawkins but I think he may have gone too far in this instance.


he is an evil attention seeking scumbag. hes wasted all his so called studies and alleged intellect. what in hells name does this brutal discrimination and attempts to support the mass extermination of millions of innocent unborn children achieve? I personally think this crosses the boundaries of free speech and veers into the same territory as evil war mongering street preachers.

[Livia]

The only prenatal indicator of downs is the extra chromosome, there's no way to determine the severity even at birth. It can go either way, from very high functioning (not even requiring a carer) to completely disabled, you just have to wait and see how the child develops.

I personally am very dubious about anyone who decides to take it upon themselves to determine another persons quality of life and whether it's "worth living"... Or determining whether or not they get to live at all... Especially When there's such a wide range of potential outcomes.

Great post TS, this really is the crux of the matter: who is he to determine whether someone else's life is worth living?

[Marsh.]

The only prenatal indicator of downs is the extra chromosome, there's no way to determine the severity even at birth. It can go either way, from very high functioning (not even requiring a carer) to completely disabled, you just have to wait and see how the child develops.

I personally am very dubious about anyone who decides to take it upon themselves to determine another persons quality of life and whether it's "worth living"... Or determining whether or not they get to live at all... Especially When there's such a wide range of potential outcomes.

:clap1:

His arrogance makes me sick.

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'

A mainstream Down's Syndrome student is celebrating her GCSE success.

Jessica Skelton, 16, achieved six passes in the week that biologist Richard Dawkins caused fury by insisting it is right to abort Down's foetuses.

Atheist author Dawkins provoked fury when he suggested it would be "immoral" to bring a Down's child into the world "if you have a choice" during a Twitter debate.

Today Jessica's father Tim, 47, said: "Dawkins is an ignorant idiot sitting in an ivory tower.

"Jessica's success is proof people with Down's Syndrome can live successful lives and I have no doubt she will work in the future and have a happy, independent and full life.

"When she was born, doctors painted a rather bleak and negative picture. They said Jessica would never be able to achieve what other children did.

"At the time, I remember saying if our daughter got one GSCE in the future it would be the equivalent to having a child who went to Oxford - now she has six."

Jessica passed English literature, English Language, combined sciences, art, dance and performance and textiles all at E grade.

Tim, a head baker at Sainsbury's in Bournemouth, said: "She was disappointed because she had hoped for As and Bs but then she has such high expectations of herself - just like everyone else in life."

Jessica, a student at the Bishop of Winchester Academy in Bournemouth, was one of the area's first Down's pupils to attend mainstream school.

Today she started a new Saturday job in a cafe in the city.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031#ixzz3BErvf8KZ
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031#ixzz3BErW0i3S
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

[GiRTh]

Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'

A mainstream Down's Syndrome student is celebrating her GCSE success.

Jessica Skelton, 16, achieved six passes in the week that biologist Richard Dawkins caused fury by insisting it is right to abort Down's foetuses.

Atheist author Dawkins provoked fury when he suggested it would be "immoral" to bring a Down's child into the world "if you have a choice" during a Twitter debate.

Today Jessica's father Tim, 47, said: "Dawkins is an ignorant idiot sitting in an ivory tower.

"Jessica's success is proof people with Down's Syndrome can live successful lives and I have no doubt she will work in the future and have a happy, independent and full life.

"When she was born, doctors painted a rather bleak and negative picture. They said Jessica would never be able to achieve what other children did.

"At the time, I remember saying if our daughter got one GSCE in the future it would be the equivalent to having a child who went to Oxford - now she has six."

Jessica passed English literature, English Language, combined sciences, art, dance and performance and textiles all at E grade.

Tim, a head baker at Sainsbury's in Bournemouth, said: "She was disappointed because she had hoped for As and Bs but then she has such high expectations of herself - just like everyone else in life."

Jessica, a student at the Bishop of Winchester Academy in Bournemouth, was one of the area's first Down's pupils to attend mainstream school.

Today she started a new Saturday job in a cafe in the city.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031#ixzz3BErvf8KZ
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031#ixzz3BErW0i3S
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on FacebookGreat post. Makes Dawkins look quite ignorant.

[Marsh.]

Excellent. :clap1:

[Kizzy]

The only prenatal indicator of downs is the extra chromosome, there's no way to determine the severity even at birth. It can go either way, from very high functioning (not even requiring a carer) to completely disabled, you just have to wait and see how the child develops.

I personally am very dubious about anyone who decides to take it upon themselves to determine another persons quality of life and whether it's "worth living"... Or determining whether or not they get to live at all... Especially When there's such a wide range of potential outcomes.


Yes there is, following the diagnostic evaluations between 11-18 weeks depending on the method then the fetal development can be monitored to diagnose heart and gastrointestinal viability.

[Redway]

Yes there is, following the diagnostic evaluations between 11-18 weeks depending on the method then the foetal development can be monitored to diagnose heart and gastrointestinal viability.

As I'm sure you know Down Syndrome is a lot more than having physical deformities ... testing for certain viabilities doesn't say a great deal about the overall picture. You can't give an unborn baby an IQ test.

[Kizzy]

As I'm sure you know Down Syndrome is a lot more than having physical deformities ... testing for certain viabilities doesn't say a great deal about the overall picture. You can't give an unborn baby an IQ test.

It says everything about the overall picture if the child is found to be so compromised that they'll have a severely restricted quality of life and the chance of them surviving until maturity is slim.
Would I as a mother want to be faced with that choice? No. It's unimaginable.

[Ammi]

“In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice,” he writes.


..I've only just read what he said...I worked with a Down's Syndrome child for several years...she was cheeky, she was funny, she was lazy, she was intelligent, she was affectionate, she was hateful, she was happy, she was angry, she was one step forward and a million steps back some days but those one step forward days were some of the best in my life...she exhausted her parents....so fairly much like every other child...I don't know how much going to mainstream school will benefit her in the future, maybe not at all.. but her presence at a mainstream school benefitted everyone else there/children and adults...she was very vulnerable to illness and that caused and will cause many health issues..maybe she won't have as long a lifespan as her parents would like her to...and maybe her presence in their life has many restrictions on them, a bit more than the average parent..and I know that circumstances in their case meant they didn't know their child would be Down's Syndrome before she was born ...but I do know that even if she were never to reach adulthood and no matter how difficult it's been for them to parent her ...whatever time they've spent with her and however much time they will all have in the future, they would not have been without her in their lives for one split second ..she's lucky to have amazing parents but they know how lucky they are to have her as well...

[joeysteele]

“In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice,” he writes.


..I've only just read what he said...I worked with a Down's Syndrome child for several years...she was cheeky, she was funny, she was lazy, she was intelligent, she was affectionate, she was hateful, she was happy, she was angry, she was one step forward and a million steps back some days but those one step forward days were some of the best in my life...she exhausted her parents....so fairly much like every other child...I don't know how much going to mainstream school will benefit her in the future, maybe not at all.. but her presence at a mainstream school benefitted everyone else there/children and adults...she was very vulnerable to illness and that caused and will cause many health issues..maybe she won't have as long a lifespan as her parents would like her to...and maybe her presence in their life has many restrictions on them, a bit more than the average parent..and I know that circumstances in their case meant they didn't know their child would be Down's Syndrome before she was born ...but I do know that even if she were never to reach adulthood and no matter how difficult it's been for them to parent her ...whatever time they've spent with her and however much time they will all have in the future, they would not have been without her in their lives for one split second ..she's lucky to have amazing parents but they know how lucky they are to have her as well...

Yes to all the content above, what an amazing post.

[Kizzy]

This is the statement in full ( if he had more than 140 characters with which to explain)..

“Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, 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 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 agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else.”

There we have it, it was his opinion is all.. we all have one as a scientist it was offered without the shackles of emotive language.

[Vicky.]

This is the statement in full ( if he had more than 140 characters with which to explain)..

“Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, 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 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 agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else.”

There we have it, it was his opinion is all.. we all have one as a scientist it was offered without the shackles of emotive language.
Well that is quite different to how it comes across earlier in the thread..

Its a very common view to have, not that that makes it right or wrong. Most women have the downs screening..I had it myself. I never really gave it any serious thought but the midwife just mentioned it slightly and asked if I wanted it (at my 12 week scan) and I said yes..my risk was something like 1/250k so it was never something I had to think about in seriousness anyway really.

Its hard to get across what you actually mean on twitter..

[Stu]

Shackled? :joker:

He made that tweet himself. Chose exactly what that character limit would send out into the internet. What crux of the issue he would want encapsulated in a soundbyte. Then surely thought it through - no matter what his 'apology' would have you believe - and clicked send.

He done a pretty **** job of it. He might be a gifted geneticist but when it comes to Twitter he's rubbing shoulders with Joey Barton and the Iron Sheik.

[Kizzy]

Well that is quite different to how it comes across earlier in the thread..

Its a very common view to have, not that that makes it right or wrong. Most women have the downs screening..I had it myself. I never really gave it any serious thought but the midwife just mentioned it slightly and asked if I wanted it (at my 12 week scan) and I said yes..my risk was something like 1/250k so it was never something I had to think about in seriousness anyway really.

Its hard to get across what you actually mean on twitter..

I knew it was a risk for older mothers but didn't realise how much more either.
Pre-screening probability
The risk of Down's syndrome varies with maternal age:[1]

1:1,500 at 20 years
1:800 at 30 years
1:270 at 35 years
1:100 at 40 years
>1:50 at 45 years and over

[Kizzy]

Shackled? :joker:

He made that tweet himself. Chose exactly what that character limit would send out into the internet. What crux of the issue he would want encapsulated in a soundbyte. Then surely thought it through - no matter what his 'apology' would have you believe - and clicked send.

He done a pretty **** job of it. He might be a gifted geneticist but when it comes to Twitter he's rubbing shoulders with Joey Barton and the Iron Sheik.

Yeah shackles, what are you supposed to do compose a mini gnostic gospel for every tweet?
:hehe:

[Stu]

The word would imply his hand was forced.

Mine you you knew that was the point I was making anyway.

[Jules2]

As the mother of a disabled daughter, none of us has the right to play god. A disabled child, may be born with a brain which could help the suffering in the world. Each situation is different. He would but many wouldnt.

[Kizzy]

The word would imply his hand was forced.

Mine you you knew that was the point I was making anyway.

No the word doesn't imply that in this context, I said the 'shackles of emotive language'
Meaning scientists don't always conform to explaining their views in a way that are unnecessarily embellished or wordy.

[Stu]

But he did explain them in that bit you posted. He still chose to send out a bit of a crap tweet. Not conforming to explaining their views in a way that are unnecessarily embellished or wordy is one thing but wow, slow down Maurice.

You're kind of implying he was trapped by the character limit in certain moments. Now he was actually freed from having to go on a big long spiel about it. I'm confused. Which is it?

I've realized I'm using this as arsenal against his character more than any implied fascism of his material morality [because it can and all likelihood in a future society will be as fascist in it's implications than any religious code of conduct that came before it. Or I read too much Philip K. Dick].

He is entitled to post whatever he likes of course. The argument - for whatever it is because it immediately became blown out of proportion by it's very nature and context -really just rests on where you put it on a scale of pharisaical crassness.

He obviously must have felt some of that sting himself because he did come out and make a half hearted apology. Why? Either he genuinely believes like I do that it was in poor taste or the vainglorious prat really is that quick to buckle and retract over a bit of backlash.

That he knew he was going to get. It's beyond silly and I've included myself in it :(.

[Kizzy]

'pharisaical crassness' for speaking from a scientific perspective this is what I meant, we are not scientists so his blunt logic is shocking seemingly.
Mind you the use of the word 'immoral' is where it gets a bit sticky for me, I can see it from the perspective of the amount off suffering and quality of life, but if it was wholly the impact on the parents and/or society then it falls down.
It could too be his own view, don't I agree with it no but he has the right to say what he feels I guess.

[Livia]

Scientists should be excused from planting their foot in their mouth because generally they can't express themselves well verbally? What a strange argument to make for someone who has published so many books and knows as well as any of us, the power of the written word.

He knew what he was doing when he put this on Twitter. And it's worked.

[Kizzy]

Scientists should be excused from planting their foot in their mouth because generally they can't express themselves well verbally? What a strange argument to make for someone who has published so many books and knows as well as any of us, the power of the written word.

He knew what he was doing when he put this on Twitter. And it's worked.

No, that isn't what I'm saying at all, I'm saying he was speaking in his tweet as a scientist would, and as someone who extols the virtue of applying logical thought.
He expressed himself very well,nobody was in any doubt as to his stance were they?
Is this a debate that anyone could have in 140 characters?.. No.
He elaborated due to the perceived offence he caused.

[Scarlett.]

No, that isn't what I'm saying at all, I'm saying he was speaking in his tweet as a scientist would, and as someone who extols the virtue of applying logical thought.
He expressed himself very well,nobody was in any doubt as to his stance were they?
Is this a debate that anyone could have in 140 characters?.. No.
He elaborated due to the perceived offence he caused.

If he's so logical, then why did he tweet something that pretty much everyone would find offensive?

[Ninastar]

15 members vs Kizzy.... who will win? I wonder

[Beastie]

There are a lot of normal people out there who are healthy and cause much more distress than a Down's person would do. It's up to the mother herself. If she wants to keep it then fine. If she wants to get rid then that is also fine.

[Beastie]

I rather our tax money goes more to the disabled of the country rather than capable people sponging off the system with their XX amount of kids sitting on their fat arses watching Jezza Kyle.

[Stu]

slagging off a good third of the forum, there

Leave Jezza out of it.

[Beastie]

slagging off a good third of the forum, there

Leave Jezza out of it.


Matthew Wright on the Wright Stuff >>>>>>> Graham >>>>>>> Jezza Kyle.

[Kizzy]

If he's so logical, then why did he tweet something that pretty much everyone would find offensive?

People spend too long being offended by everything these days.

[Kizzy]

15 members vs Kizzy.... who will win? I wonder

Well during an adult debate I don't usually look around to see how many people agree with me I just have an opinion.
Nobody 'wins'.

[the truth]

No, that isn't what I'm saying at all, I'm saying he was speaking in his tweet as a scientist would, and as someone who extols the virtue of applying logical thought.
He expressed himself very well,nobody was in any doubt as to his stance were they?
Is this a debate that anyone could have in 140 characters?.. No.
He elaborated due to the perceived offence he caused.

livia wasnt talking about your opinion? she was talking about this evil bigotted idiots discriminatory nonsense
as for your claim that scientists are the sole arbitrator of logic? logic works in 1001 different ways. what about the logic of how much potential an unborn child has, how much disabled children achieve, how much love they give and receive, how much talent, how much they develop skills to counter their inabilities etc etc logically how can this immoral fool possibly try and quantify that for all the millions of unborn disabled children he wants to see aborted....wheres the mathematical scientific equation for that? its attention sekeing bigotted immoral nasty illogical drivel from an evil twat

[the truth]

There are a lot of normal people out there who are healthy and cause much more distress than a Down's person would do. It's up to the mother herself. If she wants to keep it then fine. If she wants to get rid then that is also fine.

a baby is a life its not an it:nono:

[Toy Soldier]

No, that isn't what I'm saying at all, I'm saying he was speaking in his tweet as a scientist would, and as someone who extols the virtue of applying logical thought.
He expressed himself very well,nobody was in any doubt as to his stance were they?
Is this a debate that anyone could have in 140 characters?.. No.
He elaborated due to the perceived offence he caused.

His tweet ventured into "morality" which is as subjective and unscientific as it gets, to be honest.

The tweet was opinion based and not factual. Ergo; not science.

[anne666]

He's established a bit of celebrity for himself and ventured into areas with opinions which Katie Holmes probably steals. His anti-religion stance is as stale as an old loaf, he has nothing new to say and very often looks as bad as religious fanatics in his blinkered atheist fervour.

[Marsh.]

I'm afraid I can't respect that he's "simply giving an opinion" when he uses such insulting and derogatory language.

Including "I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort" how insulting to the Downs people and their parents.

Bringing a child into the world and caring for them, loving them and enjoying life with them is somehow immoral? Coming from someone who's proposal is to murder them? :think:

[Crimson Dynamo]

I agree fully with him

[FlippingEck]

There are plenty human beings who should be denied birth, Down's syndrome kids wouldn't be in that category imo

:clap1: not imo either Cherie.. it's a hideously ridiculous thing to say.. he clearly opens mouth before engaging brain.

[Toy Soldier]

I'm afraid I can't respect that he's "simply giving an opinion" when he uses such insulting and derogatory language.

Including "I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort" how insulting to the Downs people and their parents.

Bringing a child into the world and caring for them, loving them and enjoying life with them is somehow immoral? Coming from someone who's proposal is to murder them? :think:

Well exactly. "it's the parents choice but if that's what they choose then they are immoral and not sensible :)."

It is an opinion but it's a very pointed, and deliberately inflammatory opinion. It's like saying "in my opinion you are an idiot and you smell like ****. But you can't get angry, it's just my opinion!"

[Kizzy]

His tweet ventured into "morality" which is as subjective and unscientific as it gets, to be honest.

The tweet was opinion based and not factual. Ergo; not science.

Are scientists not entitled to an opinion based on moral and ethical reasoning?
His opinion has been formed during a career working in ethology so he is qualified to comment on the impact on the children and families affected I would say.

[iRyan]

How is it immoral to bring a child with down syndrome into the world? People with down syndrome are the sweetest, kindest people you will ever. We NEED more people with that inner loving light in this world.

[Toy Soldier]

Are scientists not entitled to an opinion based on moral and ethical reasoning?
His opinion has been formed during a career working in ethology so he is qualified to comment on the impact on the children and families affected I would say.

Yes, they are entitled to that, but opinions based on moral and ethical reasoning are not scientific. If Wayne Rooney goes out for a game of tennis, he cannot be described as playing football just because "he's a professional footballer".

A scientist Dawkins may be... But he did not have his scientists hat on when he made this tweet. As you say: it's an opinion based on ethics and morals. It is not a theory based on experimentation or scientific observation. It isn't science.

It's a scientist giving a bog-standard human opinion and dressing it up as anything else is just false.

In many people's eyes (including my own) , the opinion he is offering absolutely stinks and is perfectly fair game for criticism.

[Kizzy]

Yes, they are entitled to that, but opinions based on moral and ethical reasoning are not scientific. If Wayne Rooney goes out for a game of tennis, he cannot be described as playing football just because "he's a professional footballer".

A scientist Dawkins may be... But he did not have his scientists hat on when he made this tweet. As you say: it's an opinion based on ethics and morals. It is not a theory based on experimentation or scientific observation. It isn't science.

It's a scientist giving a bog-standard human opinion and dressing it up as anything else is just false.

In many people's eyes (including my own) , the opinion he is offering absolutely stinks and is perfectly fair game for criticism.

Whatever you or anyone else thinks is irrelevant here, we're not discussing what the general consensus on twitter/forums are.

You have reduced it to a 'bog standard opinion' which based on his career I don't think it could be.
How you can differentiate what 'hat' he was wearing is as a man or as an evolutionary biologist, where is it written that in place of moral/ethical debate science only has logic?

I don't know how Wayne Rooney fits in even as an analogy, Again I think that unlike maybe other branches of science biologists are more likely to include moral and ethical considerations as they're sometimes accused of 'playing god'?

[Livia]

Yes, they are entitled to that, but opinions based on moral and ethical reasoning are not scientific. If Wayne Rooney goes out for a game of tennis, he cannot be described as playing football just because "he's a professional footballer".

A scientist Dawkins may be... But he did not have his scientists hat on when he made this tweet. As you say: it's an opinion based on ethics and morals. It is not a theory based on experimentation or scientific observation. It isn't science.

It's a scientist giving a bog-standard human opinion and dressing it up as anything else is just false.

In many people's eyes (including my own) , the opinion he is offering absolutely stinks and is perfectly fair game for criticism.

I get what you're saying. Sometimes there's just no argument left, and yet people will still argue for the sake of it. It turns from a debate to a really tedious battle that gets further and further away from the point.

Dawkins knew what he was doing when he posted that comment. He knew exactly which words he would choose and the reaction they'd get. It's the trouble with the Internet, it gives a platform for free speech to the stupidest, the cruellest, the most ill-informed people on the planet in a way no other medium has ever done before and there are an army of people determined that those stupid, ill-informed, cruel people have a right to spout their bullshyte however ridiculous it might be. Pre-Internet those people would be reduced to standing on a box in Speaker's Corner so we can all laugh at them, now, they're taken seriously and their "opinion" must be protected. Protected on a forum which is moderated and where we're not allowed to give our full and unbiased opinion on some things. The Internet is both a blessing and a curse.

[Kizzy]

As Richard Dawkins held the 'Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science' at Oxford 95-08 I'm sure you can't mean him there?
If some are upset, offended or misunderstand his logic for whatever reason then logic dictates that's just to be expected given the diversity of users.

[the truth]

As Richard Dawkins held the 'Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science' at Oxford 95-08 I'm sure you can't mean him there?
If some are upset, offended or misunderstand his logic for whatever reason then logic dictates that's just to be expected given the diversity of users.

theres nothing logical about anything he is saying nor is it moral or decent. In fact I think he should be arrested for inciting hatred of the disabled and encourage their mass extinction. Can he accurately and scientifically evaluate the entire life of all the millions of unborn children who may potentially develop downs syndrome in the future? FOREVER AND EVER? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he? can he? can he? can he? can he ? can he?

NO HE CANNOT SO HE SHOULD SHUT THE HELL UP

[Livia]

Academics can sometimes be very stupid. As Sandy Toksvig said, Cambridge is full of people who can split the atom but can't change a light bulb. How true... yet in their field some academics - scientists especially - have a God-like status. I think that's the trouble with Dawkins: for an intelligent man he's a ****ing idiot.

[Toy Soldier]

Science first and foremost, at the very core of everything that makes it science at all, must be evidence-backed. Science doesn't deal in opinions, ever. Theory, yes, but that has to be backed up with observed statistics and facts to be scientific.

The Rooney example, what I'm saying is, just because Rooney is a professional footballer does not mean that just because he's playing a game, the game automatically becomes football.

Likewise, just because Dawkins is a professional scientist, does not mean that everything he says must be scientific.

This is basic casual opinion. He would abort - fine. He decided to throw in a comment about the "senselessness" and "immorality" of not aborting - why? I suppose only he knows.

None of it can even be described in the loosest of terms as "science".

In my opinion, he is a very clever man, and as such the comment wasn't made thoughtlessly. It's a clear and deliberate shock tactic to increase his (very profitable) notoriety.

I even think I have a good idea why. His academic and scientific works are complex and wonderful. However, he realised at some point that they are ultimately pointless, because people are not on the whole very intelligent, and can't hope to grasp it.

People en masse, being idiots, are good for only one thing: exploiting that idiocy for financial and personal gain. Something that he has done expertly for years.

The only choice that really makes sense, sadly.

[the truth]

Science first and foremost, at the very core of everything that makes it science at all, must be evidence-backed. Science doesn't deal in opinions, ever. Theory, yes, but that has to be backed up with observed statistics and facts to be scientific.

The Rooney example, what I'm saying is, just because Rooney is a professional footballer does not mean that just because he's playing a game, the game automatically becomes football.

Likewise, just because Dawkins is a professional scientist, does not mean that everything he says must be scientific.

This is basic casual opinion. He would abort - fine. He decided to throw in a comment about the "senselessness" and "immorality" of not aborting - why? I suppose only he knows.

None of it can even be described in the loosest of terms as "science".

In my opinion, he is a very clever man, and as such the comment wasn't made thoughtlessly. It's a clear and deliberate shock tactic to increase his (very profitable) notoriety.

I even think I have a good idea why. His academic and scientific works are complex and wonderful. However, he realised at some point that they are ultimately pointless, because people are not on the whole very intelligent, and can't hope to grasp it.

People en masse, being idiots, are good for only one thing: exploiting that idiocy for financial and personal gain. Something that he has done expertly for years.

The only choice that really makes sense, sadly.

complete and utter rubbish. everything deals with opinions and judgements and moral issues, even science, in fact science moreso than anything
do we test the drugs on the animal? do we risk £10 billion studying new treatments? do we spend billions on journeying further into space? do we allow a man to live or die? do we terminate pregnancies? do we have enough public money to afford each sick and disabled child all he/she needs ? to get around to assist their daily living? should we clone? what should we clone? how much often often and why?

its an endless journey into the unknown, most of which is based on trial and error and a faith that some progress and breakthroughs will be made. the majority of scientists down the centuries have been religious men too. as are many surgenons and doctors.....go to any hospital in the world, visit the hospital church and watch the surgeons pray between surgeries

[MB.]

The only thing I've learnt from this is that The Truth's copy and paste function works quite well

[Marsh.]

The only thing I've learnt from this is that The Truth's copy and paste function works quite well

:laugh2: :clap1:

[the truth]

:laugh2: :clap1:

yeah hilarious
you laugh as millions of babies get burned?
you dont even possess a sense of humour

[Marsh.]

yeah hilarious
you laugh as millions of babies get burned?
you dont even possess a sense of humour

You're just like Dawkins aren't you?
You don't even possess common sense or a capital letter.

[the truth]

You're just like Dawkins aren't you?
You don't even possess common sense or a capital letter.

Clearly a capital letter is more important to you than the mass murder of innocent babies , nice set of priorities on you mArSh:conf:

[Tom4784]

You can't murder what isn't alive in the first place.

[Marsh.]

Yes, that's right truth. :thumbs: Obviously I love a bit of mass murder. :idc:

[the truth]

You can't murder what isn't alive in the first place.

? 1 million babies are killed in the womb every 6 years in the uk

[Redway]

? 1 million babies are killed in the womb every 6 years in the uk

I think you missed his point about not being able to kill what isn't alive.

[the truth]

Yes, that's right truth. :thumbs: Obviously I love a bit of mass murder. :idc:

Tasteful so called humour as ever. So in your mind marsh clearly mass murder of babies is far less important than the use of capital letters. :facepalm: I pity you.

[the truth]

I think you missed his point about not being able to kill what isn't alive.

No you missed my point.

[Tom4784]

? 1 million babies are killed in the womb every 6 years in the uk

Embryos are not babies and they aren't alive, they are cells with no self awareness or concepts of life or death.

Saying that it's murder is ridiculous and ignorant.

[the truth]

Embryos are not babies and they aren't alive, they are cells with no self awareness or concepts of life or death.

Saying that it's murder is ridiculous and ignorant.


saying that is itsnt is ridiculous and ignorant and immoral.
you dont even bother to consider the timescale, shame on you:nono:

[Kizzy]

Science first and foremost, at the very core of everything that makes it science at all, must be evidence-backed. Science doesn't deal in opinions, ever. Theory, yes, but that has to be backed up with observed statistics and facts to be scientific.

The Rooney example, what I'm saying is, just because Rooney is a professional footballer does not mean that just because he's playing a game, the game automatically becomes football.

Likewise, just because Dawkins is a professional scientist, does not mean that everything he says must be scientific.

This is basic casual opinion. He would abort - fine. He decided to throw in a comment about the "senselessness" and "immorality" of not aborting - why? I suppose only he knows.

None of it can even be described in the loosest of terms as "science".

In my opinion, he is a very clever man, and as such the comment wasn't made thoughtlessly. It's a clear and deliberate shock tactic to increase his (very profitable) notoriety.

I even think I have a good idea why. His academic and scientific works are complex and wonderful. However, he realised at some point that they are ultimately pointless, because people are not on the whole very intelligent, and can't hope to grasp it.

People en masse, being idiots, are good for only one thing: exploiting that idiocy for financial and personal gain. Something that he has done expertly for years.

The only choice that really makes sense, sadly.

So because his work makes no sense to you it's pointless? that makes no sense whatsoever.
I'd say there were moral and ethical considerations to gene science you can't place the two on separate sides or that really would be nazi territory.

[Kizzy]

Academics can sometimes be very stupid. As Sandy Toksvig said, Cambridge is full of people who can split the atom but can't change a light bulb. How true... yet in their field some academics - scientists especially - have a God-like status. I think that's the trouble with Dawkins: for an intelligent man he's a ****ing idiot.

I'm not sure what Sandy Toksvigs opinion is on academics, I don't know any who are given god like status and in Richard Dawkins case to afford him that would be an insult considering he can't acknowledge his existence...

The trouble with dawkins is that too many are conditioned into a certain mindset and a specific list of social mores that compartmentalise things very neatly, not allowing for any self exploration whatsoever to even consider he may have a point.
We fear what we don't understand is all and masque our own ignorance with mockery and censorship.

[Helen 28]

Embryos are not babies and they aren't alive, they are cells with no self awareness or concepts of life or death.

Saying that it's murder is ridiculous and ignorant.

Absolutely correct.

[Marsh.]

Tasteful so called humour as ever. So in your mind marsh clearly mass murder of babies is far less important than the use of capital letters. :facepalm: I pity you.

Yes, as I've already said, I love mass murder. Can't get enough of it.

If Hitler was alive I'd love to serve him.

I pity you for not engaging in such a fun hobby.

[Toy Soldier]

I'm not sure what Sandy Toksvigs opinion is on academics, I don't know any who are given god like status and in Richard Dawkins case to afford him that would be an insult considering he can't acknowledge his existence...

The trouble with dawkins is that too many are conditioned into a certain mindset and a specific list of social mores that compartmentalise things very neatly, not allowing for any self exploration whatsoever to even consider he may have a point.
We fear what we don't understand is all and masque our own ignorance with mockery and censorship.

...I've been accused of plenty, but I can't say that includes being socially conditioned in mindset or ignorant of the facts.

I also read The Selfish Gene cover to cover when I was 15 and found it utterly fascinating, and agree wholeheartedly with a lot of what he has to say in the media.

I just know the difference between Dawkins the academic and Dawkins the attention *****. If he doesn't make statements like this one to deliberately shock and cause controversy, then he is an idiot. And he is not an idiot. Therefore, it is his intention. For recognition, for notoriety, to maintain his status as a "household name". Failing to see what's right in front of your face whilst accusing others of being ignorant, is utterly baffling.

[Anaesthesia]

Of course embryos are not babies, that's a given, surely.

The question is one of eugenics, a tetchy subject at the best of times. You have to balance emotion, economics and evolution and subsequently question a contribution to future society.

I have two healthy children. Was I tested for downs and other birth defects? Yes. Would I have aborted if it was shown I was carrying a downs or other severely disabled child? Yes.

I realise I am likely to be hated on for this post but if I am I think it will be emotion-based rather than anything. One of the greatest things about humanity is its ability to empathise, sympathise, and protect. In evolutionary terms, this is a weakness.

The next evolution will be a human / technological hybrid. There will be little room for emotion. There will be massive wars between the humans and the androids. The ones that will survive will be those that still have some semblance of control over the hybrids.

Does this sound like SF? The more we develop AI, the more it will become reality. Birth defects will become a thing of the past, and inhumanity (not meaning evilness) will prevail. It's up to us to keep a lid on that if we can.

[the truth]

I'm not sure what Sandy Toksvigs opinion is on academics, I don't know any who are given god like status and in Richard Dawkins case to afford him that would be an insult considering he can't acknowledge his existence...

The trouble with dawkins is that too many are conditioned into a certain mindset and a specific list of social mores that compartmentalise things very neatly, not allowing for any self exploration whatsoever to even consider he may have a point.
We fear what we don't understand is all and masque our own ignorance with mockery and censorship.

the trouble is dawkins is conditioned in an evil mindset and clearly hes affecting your mindset too

[Kizzy]

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins · 12h
I apologise for impugning the morality of the approximately ten percent of women who deliberately choose NOT to abort a Down's fetus.

Well there we have an apology, let's hope that keeps the twitterati happy...

[the truth]

what a nasty irrelevant twat he is and his pitiful petty response is not even scientific or logical either

[Kizzy]

...I've been accused of plenty, but I can't say that includes being socially conditioned or blinkered.

I also read The Selfish Gene cover to cover when I was 15 and found it utterly fascinating, and agree wholeheartedly with a lot of what he has to say in the media.

I just know the difference between Dawkins the academic and Dawkins the attention *****. If he doesn't make statements like this one to deliberately shock and cause controversy, then he is an idiot. And he is not an idiot. Therefore, it is his intention. For recognition, for notoriety, to maintain his status as a "household name". Failing to see what's right in front of your face whilst accusing others of being blind, is utterly baffling.

If you're alluding to me here I didn't say anyone was blind or blinkered, you did.

[Toy Soldier]

If you're alluding to me here I didn't say anyone was blind or blinkered, you did.

The trouble with dawkins is that too many are conditioned into a certain mindset and a specific list of social mores that compartmentalise things very neatly, not allowing for any self exploration whatsoever to even consider he may have a point.
We fear what we don't understand is all and masque our own ignorance with mockery and censorship.

...?

[Kizzy]

...?

See I did not say 'blind' or 'blinkered' please don't misquote me.

[Toy Soldier]

See I did not say 'blind' or 'blinkered' please don't misquote me.

"conditioned into a mindset" and "ignorant" aren't synonymous with "blinkered"?...

OK, if you insist, I have edited the post. As you can see, it now reads completely differently. Or alternatively, exactly the same, because it still means the same thing.

...I've been accused of plenty, but I can't say that includes being socially conditioned in mindset or ignorant of the facts.

I also read The Selfish Gene cover to cover when I was 15 and found it utterly fascinating, and agree wholeheartedly with a lot of what he has to say in the media.

I just know the difference between Dawkins the academic and Dawkins the attention *****. If he doesn't make statements like this one to deliberately shock and cause controversy, then he is an idiot. And he is not an idiot. Therefore, it is his intention. For recognition, for notoriety, to maintain his status as a "household name". Failing to see what's right in front of your face whilst accusing others of being ignorant, is utterly baffling.

[Kizzy]

"conditioned into a mindset" and "ignorant" aren't synonymous with "blinkered"?...

OK, if you insist, I have edited the post. As you can see, it now reads completely differently. Or alternatively, exactly the same, because it still means the same thing.

Well I could consult a thesaurus and reconstruct your posts but I won't.
If you are blinkered to facts you can't see them even when looking.
If you're ignorant to facts you just don't know about the facts yet...

Very different.

socialisation and religion can condition a person into a mindset, it's not a slur to highlight that.

[Livia]

I'm not sure what Sandy Toksvigs opinion is on academics, I don't know any who are given god like status and in Richard Dawkins case to afford him that would be an insult considering he can't acknowledge his existence...

The trouble with dawkins is that too many are conditioned into a certain mindset and a specific list of social mores that compartmentalise things very neatly, not allowing for any self exploration whatsoever to even consider he may have a point.
We fear what we don't understand is all and masque our own ignorance with mockery and censorship.

I'm sure you don't know any academic scientists who are given God-like status. I'm sure you don't know any academic scientists... full stop.

I find your last sentence very strange. You begin "the trouble with Dawkins" and continue with a rather insulting summing up of everyone who doesn't agree with him, and by extension, with you. And now the debate has degenerated into the usual argument about semantics.

As for his "apology"... it's just one of those "I'm sorry that you feel that way" apologies that mean nothing.

[Kizzy]

I'm sure you don't know any academic scientists who are given God-like status. I'm sure you don't know any academic scientists... full stop.

I find your last sentence very strange. You begin "the trouble with Dawkins" and continue with a rather insulting summing up of everyone who doesn't agree with him, and by extension, with you. And now the debate has degenerated into the usual argument about semantics.

As for his "apology"... it's just one of those "I'm sorry that you feel that way" apologies that mean nothing.

Do you mean personally...then no, I don't in reality how many do?

I haven't insulted anyone, I'm sorry you feel that way.
The trouble with dawkins is that he goes against everything some have been taught, is that a better description, not sure I can make it any clearer.

TS misunderstood my inference and I corrected it, no semantic drama.

[Toy Soldier]

Do you mean personally...then no, I don't in reality how many do?

I haven't insulted anyone, I'm sorry you feel that way.
The trouble with dawkins is that he goes against everything some have been taught, is that a better description, not sure I can make it any clearer.

TS misunderstood my inference and I corrected it, no semantic drama.

I didn't misunderstand it, you were inferring that anyone who takes issue with what Dawkins had to say on the issue simply doesn't understand it (or even is incapable of understanding it).

Which is rather a bold statement to make, and you can't really be surprised that people aren't particularly happy about it.

"Don't worry, it's not YOUR fault that you are incapable of understanding the flawless reasoning of this great mind".

It's nonsense.

[Kizzy]

I didn't misunderstand it, you were inferring that anyone who takes issue with what Dawkins had to say on the issue simply doesn't understand it (or even is incapable of understanding it).

Which is rather a bold statement to make, and you can't really be surprised that people aren't particularly happy about it.

"Don't worry, it's not YOUR fault that you are incapable of understanding the flawless reasoning of this great mind".

It's nonsense.

Nope, you did that....

'I even think I have a good idea why. His academic and scientific works are complex and wonderful. However, he realised at some point that they are ultimately pointless, because people are not on the whole very intelligent, and can't hope to grasp it.

People en masse, being idiots, are good for only one thing: exploiting that idiocy for financial and personal gain. Something that he has done expertly for years.'

Again please don't put words in my mouth.

[Livia]

Nope, you did that....

'I even think I have a good idea why. His academic and scientific works are complex and wonderful. However, he realised at some point that they are ultimately pointless, because people are not on the whole very intelligent, and can't hope to grasp it.

People en masse, being idiots, are good for only one thing: exploiting that idiocy for financial and personal gain. Something that he has done expertly for years.'

Again please don't put words in my mouth.

And you did this:

"...too many are conditioned into a certain mindset and a specific list of social mores that compartmentalise things very neatly, not allowing for any self exploration whatsoever to even consider he may have a point.
We fear what we don't understand is all and masque our own ignorance with mockery and censorship."

[Toy Soldier]

Nope, you did that....

'I even think I have a good idea why. His academic and scientific works are complex and wonderful. However, he realised at some point that they are ultimately pointless, because people are not on the whole very intelligent, and can't hope to grasp it.

People en masse, being idiots, are good for only one thing: exploiting that idiocy for financial and personal gain. Something that he has done expertly for years.'

Again please don't put words in my mouth.

I'm referring to his academic works, not his "moral reasoning". His science is niche, it doesn't appeal to a mainstream audience, and he knows this. Banding around controversy on Twitter, as always, DOES sadly have mass appeal. Therefore, he now mostly does just that.

He at some point has decided that he values his fame over his academic integrity. Completely understandable and I'm not even saying he's wrong to do so.

But the point stands: his twitter comments are deliberately designed to spark outrage and further his notoriety. They are his opinion, overinflated and bluntly stated for effect. It is NOT SCIENCE.

That has been my one and only point. His ethical opinions are not somehow more weighted because he is a scientist. They are just a man's opinions. Just another squawk amongst the tweets.

If the question being debated was actually to do with the ins and outs of genetic science, that might be different. But it isn't. It's human interest musings.

[Kizzy]

And you did this:

"...too many are conditioned into a certain mindset and a specific list of social mores that compartmentalise things very neatly, not allowing for any self exploration whatsoever to even consider he may have a point.
We fear what we don't understand is all and masque our own ignorance with mockery and censorship."

Yes I did, what's your point?

[Kizzy]

I'm referring to his academic works, not his "moral reasoning". His science is niche, it doesn't appeal to a mainstream audience, and he knows this. Banding around controversy on Twitter, as always, DOES sadly have mass appeal. Therefore, he now mostly does just that.

He at some point has decided that he values his fame over his academic integrity. Completely understandable and I'm not even saying he's wrong to do so.

But the point stands: his twitter comments are deliberately designed to spark outrage and further his notoriety. They are his opinion, overinflated and bluntly stated for effect. It is NOT SCIENCE.

That has been my one and only point. His ethical opinions are not somehow more weighted because he is a scientist. They are just a man's opinions. Just another squawk amongst the tweets.

If the question being debated was actually to do with the ins and outs of genetic science, that might be different. But it isn't. It's human interest musings.

The original tweet was a reply to another user, so not intentionally provocative.
You may not feel his opinion as an academic carries any more weight than yours or mine but I do. Simply due to the fact he and his contemporaries have wrestled with moral and ethical considerations due to their branch of science on this issue.

[the truth]

The original tweet was a reply to another user, so not intentionally provocative.
You may not feel his opinion as an academic carries any more weight than yours or mine but I do. Simply due to the fact he and his contemporaries have wrestled with moral and ethical considerations due to their branch of science on this issue.

you may put your own worth beneath that of the evil dawkins, thankfully the majority have greater self worth and see him for what he is , a nasty attention seeking idiot. if you believe that the masses of people would allow a psycho like him carte blanche to effectively murder all disabled babies , you must be from another planet.

[Livia]

Yes I did, what's your point?

LOL this is hard work. If you've got time to go round and round in circles, I haven't.

[the truth]

LOL this is hard work. If you've got time to go round and round in circles, I haven't.

At least we have time to waste livia, these disabled babies wouldnt get any chance to live and would all be killed off if dawkins had his way. I can honestly say ive never heard anything so evil since that austrian psycho took over europe.

[Toy Soldier]

The original tweet was a reply to another user, so not intentionally provocative.
You may not feel his opinion as an academic carries any more weight than yours or mine but I do. Simply due to the fact he and his contemporaries have wrestled with moral and ethical considerations due to their branch of science on this issue.

Well, I disagree that a reply can't be intentionally provocative, e.g.

"Hello, would you like me to get you anything while I'm at the shop?"

"No, go and **** yourself :) "



... On the rest of it, I have absolutely no problem with us disagreeing on the weight that his reply should be afforded. You are perfectly entitled to give it more credence. Just... Be wary of implying that when people don't agree, it's down to ignorance or a failure in comprehension. It's arrogant.

[Kizzy]

Well, I disagree that a reply can't be intentionally provocative, e.g.

"Hello, would you like me to get you anything while I'm at the shop?"

"No, go and **** yourself :) "



... On the rest of it, I have absolutely no problem with us disagreeing on the weight that his reply should be afforded. You are perfectly entitled to give it more credence. Just... Be wary of implying that when people don't agree, it's down to ignorance or a failure in comprehension. It's arrogant.

No it isn't arrogance, I suggested that we masque our own ignorance, as in we are ignorant of facts... Not once did I infer anyone personally was ignorant.

[the truth]

No it isn't arrogance, I suggested that we masque our own ignorance, as in we are ignorant of facts... Not once did I infer anyone personally was ignorant.

so if you were in charge how many more babies would you want to see murdered ?

[Kizzy]

LOL this is hard work. If you've got time to go round and round in circles, I haven't.

I don't mind applying reason to my logic, anytime.

[the truth]

I don't mind applying reason to my logic, anytime.

what reason is there for murdering millions of disabled babies?

[Redway]

what reason is there for murdering millions of disabled babies?

:facepalm:

[Kizzy]

'Sentient beings in the present can suffer, and so can those who love them. Future potentially sentient beings can't.'

Richard Dawkins latest tweet on the subject.

[Nedusa]

Thank you all for such a good debate on this thread.

Whilst I have some time for Richard Dawkins and his very well researched views on atheism and the futility of religion, I find him ultimately conceited, egotistical and smug in the extreme.

His comments about aborting babies that may have Down;s syndrome as I have said earlier are outrageous as they suggest further down the line we could abort any baby with any type of deficiency or abnormality.

And if I remember correctly a certain Austrian madman had the same sort of ideas.

Mr Dawkins should keep his nasty ill-conceived views to himself.




.

[Livia]

Thank you all for such a good debate on this thread.

Whilst I have some time for Richard Dawkins and his very well researched views on atheism and the futility of religion, I find him ultimately conceited, egotistical and smug in the extreme.

His comments about aborting babies that may have Down;s syndrome as I have said earlier are outrageous as they suggest further down the line we could abort any baby with any type of deficiency or abnormality.

And if I remember correctly a certain Austrian madman had the same sort of ideas.

Mr Dawkins should keep his nasty ill-conceived views to himself.

.

Well, that's it... in a nutshell.

[the truth]

'Sentient beings in the present can suffer, and so can those who love them. Future potentially sentient beings can't.'

Richard Dawkins latest tweet on the subject.

yeah dawkins its only stupid sentiment that stops us killing millions of babies? what a psychopathic twat

[LukeB]

mean basterd

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Embryos are not babies and they aren't alive, they are cells with no self awareness or concepts of life or death.

Saying that it's murder is ridiculous and ignorant.

But what about a baby at 24 weeks which is the final stage you can get it aborted?

Is that neither a baby or living?

[Kizzy]

Logically anything that is growing is alive.

[Josy]

Right can we stop sniping to and about each other and not derail the thread please. The debate has being a good one so far and I really don't want to close this thread.