[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Livia

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

[the truth]

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by the truth

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]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

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

[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...

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Stu

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?

[Redway]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Redway

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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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

[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?

[the truth]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by the truth

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]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

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

what are you pretending to be offended about now?

[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.

[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.



.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by 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.



.

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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 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