[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

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]

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.

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

His arrogance makes me sick.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[Urban Cragou]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

[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.