Jump to content
IGNORED

Richard Dawkins: Immoral not to abort a fetus with Down's


ILikePie

Recommended Posts

Because there are no rules being broken. This is FJ and we can't value free speech only when it's speech that we LIKE or it's not really free speech. As long as IFTR is not using the language that is specifically verboten or breaking any other rules posts will be approved just like they would be for anyone else.

As a disabled person myself, I'm obviously not thrilled with this stance, but I think it's clear by now that the best we can hope for is that here on FJ, IFTR understands that this type of thing is not tolerated. The more people get spooled up about it and react the more you give incentive to keep getting people spooled up.

True. But is so hard not to when the person just revels in ignorance and enjoys pushing buttons. And I guess when you are saying posts are bring "approved", someone is on a journey to heart. :nenner: I don't mean to be such a pain about this, but bigotry is so hard for me to swallow. If people don't stand up for their principles and what is right, and just ignore bad things, then the bad things win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 243
  • Created
  • Last Reply

"The geneticist's latest Twitter row broke out after he responded to another user who said she would be faced with "a real ethical dilemma" if she became pregnant with a baby with Down's syndrome.

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

His response was badly phrased, but he was speaking to one specific woman who had raised the fact that she wouldn't be comfortable continuing with a pregnancy if she knew the baby had Downs Syndrome. I wouldn't either - my second pregnancy was deemed at high risk of chromosomal abnormality through the nuchal translucency screening. I had an amnio fully intending to terminate the pregnancy if the fetus had a chromosomal abnormality - I didn't feel that I could adequately care for a child with such high needs and didn't want the responsibility for that care to eventually fall to my daughter, who was then only six months old. The child, thank goodness, did not have a chromosomal disorder, and is now a thriving 9 year old. But I can't fault someone for advocating the choice I would have made.

The problem lies in the assumption that continuing such a pregnancy would be immoral for anyone, and of course it wouldn't be. Someone who feels able to care for such a child and wants to continue the pregnancy of course should do so. But I do think it's immoral for parents to deliberately continue the pregnancy of ANY child that they don't feel able to care for.

Of course children are born with all sorts of issues and parents do the best they can with the hand they are dealt. But as a pro choice person I don't see any issue with parents choosing to terminate if, for whatever reason, they don't feel that they are up to the challenges of parenting a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conversely, the best way to handle an attention seeker and all trollish behavior is attention seeking, is to withhold the attention. It will die much faster if it is simply ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conversely, the best way to handle an attention seeker and all trollish behavior is attention seeking, is to withhold the attention. It will die much faster if it is simply ignored.

Assuming we cross posted and that wasn't directed at me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming we cross posted and that wasn't directed at me?

I think it was aimed to me! And I understand, intellectually, CF. Emotionally, the can of worms is much harder to close!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming we cross posted and that wasn't directed at me?

Absolutely.

I think it was aimed to me! And I understand, intellectually, CF. Emotionally, the can of worms is much harder to close!

I understand. I really do, but I'm not going into it and feed the troll. It takes a lot to let certain things pass, but I fear in this case it's the only approach that has a chance of working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. But is so hard not to when the person just revels in ignorance and enjoys pushing buttons. And I guess when you are saying posts are bring "approved", someone is on a journey to heart. :nenner: I don't mean to be such a pain about this, but bigotry is so hard for me to swallow. If people don't stand up for their principles and what is right, and just ignore bad things, then the bad things win.

IFTR is on a JTTH for speculating on the sexuality of a minor, actually. Another boundary push. As a new member, I look at it like testing the fences for weak spots. Eventually, she will learn that we don't have weak spots in our fences and will either stop testing or will continue to suffer the consequences of testing. I think she's smart enough to stop testing, but I've been wrong before ;)

The "bad thing" was not ignored. A whole new rule and change in the ToU was made specifically for the bad thing. It did not win. She's still allowed to have opinions whether we agree with them or not. She's also still allowed to express them using words that are not verboten, again whether we agree with them or not.

I don't think the *original* intent was to offend, but then she discovered it was a hot button issue for many people, got a massive reaction and dug in. If there is less reaction/no reaction it's not as much fun.

As I have said several times in the last couple days, I think she's a valuable member of the site MOST of the time and since this is one website on the entire internet that has a handful of words that can't be used, that she will decide that being part of the community is worth more than spooling people up over something that wasn't actually intended to offend people in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IFTR is on a JTTH for speculating on the sexuality of a minor, actually. Another boundary push. As a new member, I look at it like testing the fences for weak spots. Eventually, she will learn that we don't have weak spots in our fences and will either stop testing or will continue to suffer the consequences of testing. I think she's smart enough to stop testing, but I've been wrong before ;)

The "bad thing" was not ignored. A whole new rule and change in the ToU was made specifically for the bad thing. It did not win. She's still allowed to have opinions whether we agree with them or not. She's also still allowed to express them using words that are not verboten, again whether we agree with them or not.

I don't think the *original* intent was to offend, but then she discovered it was a hot button issue for many people, got a massive reaction and dug in. If there is less reaction/no reaction it's not as much fun.

As I have said several times in the last couple days, I think she's a valuable member of the site MOST of the time and since this is one website on the entire internet that has a handful of words that can't be used, that she will decide that being part of the community is worth more than spooling people up over something that wasn't actually intended to offend people in the first place.

No, no, no, I did not mean YOU and the gang ignored the bad thing! I was responding to CF about how hard it is for ME PERSONALLY to let it go. Honestly, I have gotten much better over the years at letting go. But this one gets under my skin, likely because of the work I do and my 26 weeker who is thriving but has minor disabilities.

Just wanted to clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My belief is that Downs, like any genetic condition, has legitimate medical and care issues (ones that are far more complex beyond "I don't want a non-perfect kid"), and it is up to the family to decide for themselves what they are able to handle. Once they make their decision either way, they deserve emotional support from friends and family and should not be judged for making the best decision they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really are awful, aren't you? You need to keep your opinions about people with disabilities to yourself. Then go get some therapy.

If this thread goes off the rails, it is because a certain poster is a bigot and likes to show it off. I don't know why the bigot keeps getting a pass, but substitute race with her opinions on disability, and the uproar would be insane.

Hi again, smellybelly! So nice to hear from you.

You get really upset when people disagree with you, don't you? I don't need to see a therapist since I'm not the one with a problem. I like engaging with you :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure she means it. She only picks on the disabled. This person shows a frighteningly severe lack of empathy.

Smellybelly, don't exaggerate. We both know that there is only one specific subgroup of disabled, whose name is apparently so traumatising and offensive that we must protect adults from reading it, that I dislike.

For instance, I like Curious, even though she punishes me :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm invoking Godwin's Law. The last time we had a mass kill-all-the-disabled, the leader in charge, who shall remain nameless, was a devout Christian. Interesting how a devout Christian and devout atheist can be so much alike.

It's Fun to Run: Listen. Down's doesn't make life painful to the person with Down's. You seem to think it would be like a disease where all the skin melts off a child's body every day, where the child would suffer for being born. Children with Down's doesn't suffer for it in the ways you think. So what makes giving birth to a child with Down's so immoral?

I don't think the people with Down syndrome suffer, I think the people around them do. And the smart children who have to sit in classes with thirty kids while the Down's ones get a few kids to class and a private helper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. But is so hard not to when the person just revels in ignorance and enjoys pushing buttons. And I guess when you are saying posts are bring "approved", someone is on a journey to heart. :nenner: I don't mean to be such a pain about this, but bigotry is so hard for me to swallow. If people don't stand up for their principles and what is right, and just ignore bad things, then the bad things win.

You like to use the word "ignorant" to describe people who understand your argument, but disagree with it.

Also :nenner: to you because being punished by Curious is really hot :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IFTR is on a JTTH for speculating on the sexuality of a minor, actually. Another boundary push. As a new member, I look at it like testing the fences for weak spots. Eventually, she will learn that we don't have weak spots in our fences and will either stop testing or will continue to suffer the consequences of testing. I think she's smart enough to stop testing, but I've been wrong before ;)

The "bad thing" was not ignored. A whole new rule and change in the ToU was made specifically for the bad thing. It did not win. She's still allowed to have opinions whether we agree with them or not. She's also still allowed to express them using words that are not verboten, again whether we agree with them or not.

I don't think the *original* intent was to offend, but then she discovered it was a hot button issue for many people, got a massive reaction and dug in. If there is less reaction/no reaction it's not as much fun.

As I have said several times in the last couple days, I think she's a valuable member of the site MOST of the time and since this is one website on the entire internet that has a handful of words that can't be used, that she will decide that being part of the community is worth more than spooling people up over something that wasn't actually intended to offend people in the first place.

It's actually news to me about the reason for jtth. I assume you are referring to the "wide stance" post, which I made believing it was clear that no one would think I was seriously speculating on the sexuality of a two year old. Nevertheless, i 'm sorry and I won't do it again.

Smellybelly, what Curious is trying to tell you, albeit in nicer terms, is that "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." People on the internet are going to have all kinds of opinions, if you out get upset over them, you're going to have a bad time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IFTR is on a JTTH for speculating on the sexuality of a minor, actually. Another boundary push. As a new member, I look at it like testing the fences for weak spots. Eventually, she will learn that we don't have weak spots in our fences and will either stop testing or will continue to suffer the consequences of testing. I think she's smart enough to stop testing, but I've been wrong before ;)

The "bad thing" was not ignored. A whole new rule and change in the ToU was made specifically for the bad thing. It did not win. She's still allowed to have opinions whether we agree with them or not. She's also still allowed to express them using words that are not verboten, again whether we agree with them or not.

I don't think the *original* intent was to offend, but then she discovered it was a hot button issue for many people, got a massive reaction and dug in. If there is less reaction/no reaction it's not as much fun.

As I have said several times in the last couple days, I think she's a valuable member of the site MOST of the time and since this is one website on the entire internet that has a handful of words that can't be used, that she will decide that being part of the community is worth more than spooling people up over something that wasn't actually intended to offend people in the first place.

I'd prefer to pm you instead of hijacking this thread, but you literally left me no choice.

You are seeing malice where there is none. The "wide stance" post was a bad judgement call and poorly worded, but I didn't think anyone would seriously take it as speculation. When I posted explicit pictures without a warning that was a brain fart and I was actually embarrassed about that because if it had occurred to me to make a spoiler I would have, I just forgot. When I got into the "redacted" discussion, FJ had a wonderful "we are a free speech zone, we don't moderate shit, don't whine to us" policy, so I wasn't breaking any rules, and if you haven't noticed, I haven't said "redacted" again except in PMs and real life.

If you think that I sit around trying to think up new ways to test the boundaries, that's not the case at all. The only time I did that was with the locations, and I took those down because I was sorry.

Are there any other sins that we should discuss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IFTR is on a JTTH for speculating on the sexuality of a minor, actually. Another boundary push. As a new member, I look at it like testing the fences for weak spots. Eventually, she will learn that we don't have weak spots in our fences and will either stop testing or will continue to suffer the consequences of testing. I think she's smart enough to stop testing, but I've been wrong before ;)

The "bad thing" was not ignored. A whole new rule and change in the ToU was made specifically for the bad thing. It did not win. She's still allowed to have opinions whether we agree with them or not. She's also still allowed to express them using words that are not verboten, again whether we agree with them or not.

I don't think the *original* intent was to offend, but then she discovered it was a hot button issue for many people, got a massive reaction and dug in. If there is less reaction/no reaction it's not as much fun.

As I have said several times in the last couple days, I think she's a valuable member of the site MOST of the time and since this is one website on the entire internet that has a handful of words that can't be used, that she will decide that being part of the community is worth more than spooling people up over something that wasn't actually intended to offend people in the first place.

I don't mean to keep hijacking this thread, but I need to address Curious and Happy Atheist and I don't have another way:

Far be it from me to tell you how to do your jobs, but I've noticed a lot of lack of/failure of communication on this website regarding rules and discipline. For instance, only by reading this post did I learn that I'm in JTTH because of the "wide stance" post. First I had assumed it was for not giving a warning for an explicit picture, because I saw that a mod had edited that, and I remember it was one of the rules, so it made sense. I also noticed that my location had been erased, but there was no explanation so I thought maybe it happens automatically in JTTH, so I put it back up; only when I got an email from Happy Atheist with the subject "location" (I assume you know that in JTTH you can't read private messages, only see the subject) did I realize that the location had upset the admins.

If I don't know what is upsetting you, I'm probably not going to change it. If I didn't see this, I would have assumed it was fine to joke about babies having a "wide stance", but now that I know it is a no-no, I won't do it again. Unlike in real life :lol: I'm actually quite obedient on FJ, but it only works if you communicate. Also, there's no reason not to let me out of JTTH now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawkins seems to be going out of his way to be obnoxious. He wants to sound like some sort of martyr for talking about "taboo" subjects - which means that he tweets shit about how date rape may not be as bad as stranger rape (I posted a thread about that a couple of weeks ago), and about how it would be immoral not to abort DS fetuses.

There was also this incident: http://www.thewire.com/national/2011/07 ... nts/39637/

Look, this entire site is dedicated to discussing and snarking on hot button topics, so this isn't about being nice and PC. I'm just not going to declare that someone is heroic for discussing taboo subjects, when that discussion is rightly being called out for being completely uninformed and hurtful and perpetuating harmful stereotypes.

I suspect Dawkins loves generating controversy to get attention. You don't use twitter to make a deep, insightful analysis of the moral issues involved with termination for medical reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawkins seems to be going out of his way to be obnoxious. He wants to sound like some sort of martyr for talking about "taboo" subjects - which means that he tweets shit about how date rape may not be as bad as stranger rape (I posted a thread about that a couple of weeks ago), and about how it would be immoral not to abort DS fetuses.

There was also this incident: http://www.thewire.com/national/2011/07 ... nts/39637/

Look, this entire site is dedicated to discussing and snarking on hot button topics, so this isn't about being nice and PC. I'm just not going to declare that someone is heroic for discussing taboo subjects, when that discussion is rightly being called out for being completely uninformed and hurtful and perpetuating harmful stereotypes.

I suspect Dawkins loves generating controversy to get attention. You don't use twitter to make a deep, insightful analysis of the moral issues involved with termination for medical reasons.

Yeah, I never had any positive or negative feelings about Dawkins until recently. And he's starting to come off as an asshole. He says terrible, triggering stuff with little or no context (like the date rape thing or the Downs thing), and then when people get upset, he tells them to "go away and learn how to think." He goads people into an emotional reaction and then shames them by claiming that his views are "logical" so what he said was okay. That's gaslighting, and it's an abusive technique. Though I don't IN ANY WAY think he espouses the shitty ideas/philosophies we see in the MRA movement, I'm starting to understand how that movement is largely composed of white, atheist men. They seem to have a similar attitude to Dawkins-- the complete, unquestionable belief that they are right and that being right gives them the right to be assholes.

I've been using this little pithy saying for a while now: "Being right doesn't give you the right to be an asshole."*

*Not that I'm saying he is right about the Downs thing or any specific thing he's said... but he is certainly quite sure he's right.

Edited for riffles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people like Dawkins are no different than fundies. His concept of god is simply radical atheism. A lot of the organized "atheist" types are like that. A friend of mine was recently dating a former Catholic hardcore atheist who was very active in an organized atheist group. This group has weekly meetings, rituals and a hierarchy, along with what appears actual services. I didn't see much difference between that and worshipping a god, except their god is not having a god. I think it is very instinctual for people to look for some sort of answers to the great mysteries of life. These radical atheists just fill voids with denying the experiences of ANY religion, and make that into a religious in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people like Dawkins are no different than fundies. His concept of god is simply radical atheism. A lot of the organized "atheist" types are like that. A friend of mine was recently dating a former Catholic hardcore atheist who was very active in an organized atheist group. This group has weekly meetings, rituals and a hierarchy, along with what appears actual services. I didn't see much difference between that and worshipping a god, except their god is not having a god. I think it is very instinctual for people to look for some sort of answers to the great mysteries of life. These radical atheists just fill voids with denying the experiences of ANY religion, and make that into a religious in itself.

Yes.

To me, being a "fundie" as opposed to simply being religious is about feeling the need to not just observe a religion yourself, but to shove your beliefs down someone else's throat. Fundies do not value tolerance.

An atheist like Dawkins perfectly capable of being a fundie. To him, it's not just about his personal lack of belief. He has certain views, he insists on sharing them, and he believes that those who disagree are simply incapable of rational thought. He's not particularly tolerant of those who don't share his beliefs or lack thereof.

I also worry about those like him and Sam Harris, who are scientists, who seem to believe that their science background makes them experts on religious belief, and on morality itself. Science is a tool which can help with ethical decisions, but it doesn't define morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd prefer to pm you instead of hijacking this thread, but you literally left me no choice.

You are seeing malice where there is none. The "wide stance" post was a bad judgement call and poorly worded, but I didn't think anyone would seriously take it as speculation. When I posted explicit pictures without a warning that was a brain fart and I was actually embarrassed about that because if it had occurred to me to make a spoiler I would have, I just forgot. When I got into the "redacted" discussion, FJ had a wonderful "we are a free speech zone, we don't moderate shit, don't whine to us" policy, so I wasn't breaking any rules, and if you haven't noticed, I haven't said "redacted" again except in PMs and real life.

If you think that I sit around trying to think up new ways to test the boundaries, that's not the case at all. The only time I did that was with the locations, and I took those down because I was sorry.

Are there any other sins that we should discuss?

Your locations were removed because I deleted them, not because you thought better of them and felt sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aww... Happy Atheist, I had clicked on here hoping you had replied to my post on the idea that we can have fundamentalist atheists. I was hoping for your take!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your locations were removed because I deleted them, not because you thought better of them and felt sorry.

So the sin of lying is the next one that needs to be discussed. :lol:

I'm hoping that this poster is very, very young so that there is a bigger chance she will grow out of thinking this way about an entire group of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi again, smellybelly! So nice to hear from you.

You get really upset when people disagree with you, don't you? I don't need to see a therapist since I'm not the one with a problem. I like engaging with you :)

Ah, name-calling, the hallmark of an intelligent, well-reasoned argument. It's nice that you have so much confidence in your beliefs that you allow them to speak for themselves. It's incredibly mature of you. Well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 !  {TEXT1}:
It's super easy to add someone to your Foe List, and you never have to see their posts again!

1. click on the username of the person you want to foe

2. click on "Add foe"

3. profit*

*profit in this case means "live a life free from trollish bigotry"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.