[Cherie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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

[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]

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 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

[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]

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

[Marsh.]

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by the truth

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]

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.

[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 Kizzy

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]

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 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

[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

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Originally Posted by 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-sy...ail/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]

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.