[the truth]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[MB.]

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

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by MB.

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

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by the truth

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]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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

[Tom4784]

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

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by the truth

? 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]

Originally Posted by Redway

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

No you missed my point.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by the truth

? 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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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

[Helen 28]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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?

[Marsh.]

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

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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

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. I pity you.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by the truth

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. 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.

[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.

[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]

'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.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

.

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