by Richard Dawkins
Those intrepid enough to venture onto my Twitter feed will have noticed a new feeding frenzy yesterday (20th August 2014), for which I apologise. The issue is the morality of abortion following screening for Down syndrome.
Down Syndrome, or Trisomy 21, results from the presence of an extra copy (or partial copy) of Chromosome 21. Symptoms vary but usually include characteristic facial features especially eye shape, abnormal growth patterns, and moderate mental disability. Life expectancy is reduced, and those who survive through adulthood often need special care as though they are children. Parents who care for their children with Down Syndrome usually form strong bonds of affection with them, as they would with any child. These feelings are sincere and mutual, and probably account for some of the hate tweets I have been experiencing (see below).
Screening for the chromosomal abnormality is normally offered, especially to older mothers who are more likely to have a child with the condition. When Down Syndrome is detected, most couples opt for abortion and most doctors recommend it.\
Yesterday a woman on Twitter, one of our respected regulars on RichardDawkins.net, said she would be unsure what to do if she found a fetus she was carrying had Down Syndrome. I replied to her, beginning my reply with @ which – or so I thought (I’m told Twitter’s policy on this might recently have changed) – meant it would not go to all my million followers but only to the minority of people who follow both her and me. That was my intention. However, it doesn’t stop people who go out of their way to find such tweets, even if they don’t automatically pop up on their Twitter feeds. Many did so, and the whole affair blew up into the feeding frenzy I mentioned.
Here is what I would have said in my reply to this woman, given more than 140 characters:
“Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. 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. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else.”
That’s what I would have said, if a woman were to ask my advice. As you might notice, it takes a lot more than 140 characters! I condensed it down to a tweet, and the result was understandably seen in some quarters as rather heartless and callous: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.” Of course I regret using abbreviated phraseology which caused so much upset. I never wanted to “cry havoc”!
Now to the upset itself. The haters came from various directions:-
- Those who are against abortion under any circumstances. The majority fell into this category. I’m not going to get into that old debate. My position, which I would guess is shared by most people reading this, is that a woman has a right to early abortion, and I personally would not condemn her for choosing it. If you disagree, fair enough; many do, often on religious grounds. But then your quarrel is not just with me but with prevailing medical opinion and with the decision actually taken by most people who are faced with the choice.
- Those who thought I was bossily telling a woman what to do rather than let her choose. Of course this was absolutely not my intention and I apologise if brevity made it look that way. My true intention was, as stated at length above, simply to say what I personally would do, based upon my own assessment of the pragmatics of the case, and my own moral philosophy which in turn is based on a desire to increase happiness and reduce suffering.
- Those who thought I was advocating a kind of mob rule, when I pointed out that a majority of women, when facing this dilemma, as a matter of fact do choose abortion. Wasn’t that like saying “Hanging is right because if you took a plebiscite most people would bring back hanging.”? No, I was not advocating mob rule. I was simply suggesting that those hurling accusations of Nazism, vile, monstrous fascistic callousness etc., should reflect that their fireballs of hatred might as well be aimed directly at the great majority of the women who have actually faced the dilemma. Might that not give you pause before you accuse one individual of being a brute simply because he spells out the thinking behind the majority choice?
- Those who thought I was advocating a eugenic policy and who therefore compared me to Hitler. That never entered my head, nor should it have. Down Syndrome has almost zero heritability. That means that, although it is a congenital condition – a chromosomal abnormality that babies are born with – there is very little tendency for susceptibility to trisomy to be inherited genetically. If you were eugenically inclined, you’d be wasting your time screening for Down syndrome. You’d screen for genuinely heritable conditions where your screening would make a difference to future generations.
- Those who took offence because they know and love a person with Down Syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right to exist. I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one. It is one of a common family of errors, one that frequently arises in the abortion debate. Another version of it is “The Great Beethoven Fallacy” discussed in Chapter 8 of The God Delusion. I combated it in a tweet as follows: “There’s a profound moral difference between ‘This fetus should now be aborted’ and ‘This person should have been aborted long ago’.” I would never dream of saying to any person, “You should have been aborted before you were born.” But that reluctance is fully compatible with a belief that, at a time before a fetus becomes a “person”, the decision to abort can be a moral one. If you think about it, you pretty much have to agree with that unless you are against all abortion in principle.The definition of “personhood” is much debated among moral philosophers and this is not the place to go into it at length. Briefly, I support those philosophers who say that, for moral purposes, an adult, a child and a baby should all be granted the rights of a person. An early fetus, before it develops a nervous system, should not. As embryonic development proceeds towards term, the morality of abortion becomes progressively more difficult to assess. There is no hard and fast dividing line. As I have argued in “The Tyranny of the Discontinuous Mind”, the definition of personhood is a gradual, “fading in / fading out” definition. In any case, this is a problem that faces anybody on the pro-choice side of the general abortion debate.
To conclude, what I was saying simply follows logically from the ordinary pro-choice stance that most us, I presume, espouse. My phraseology may have been tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding, but I can’t help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand.
810 comments on “Abortion & Down Syndrome: An Apology for Letting Slip the Dogs of Twitterwar”
My wife and I faced this moral dilemma when she was pregnant with our son. We were older parents, and considered the risk that a trisomy-21 child would impact our ability to provide for our (then 3-year-old) daughter. We opted for amniocentesis, and we decided that we would terminate the pregnancy if this condition were present. It was not a decision made lightly. Fortunately, we did not have to act on our resolution.
Just as strongly as I (we) feel that this was the right decision for us, I believe others in the same situation should be free to choose differently. My heat breaks for several friends and colleagues who have special-needs children, and I would never suggest that they made the wrong decision. But I have no apologies for my potential actions.
I am sorry Dr. Dawkins has had to field so much criticism. I understand what he meant to say, even in the abbreviated format used. Sadly, as he indicated, many of his critics would have considered his point of view wrong under any circumstances.
Steve
Report abuse
I would proscribe a Twitter-ectomy. It is impossible to say anything meaningful in 140 characters, apart from witty, pithy or vitriolic one liners. Argue you case, as you did above, if you must on another “Crime Against Humanity”, Facebook, but argue it as you did above, with space to construct a rational argument. You are a watched and targeted person. If you don’t spell it out rationally, so the quick on the drawn can comprehend it (If they have the attention span to read anything longer than 140 characters) , and negate their arguments before they reach for the QWERTY, this type of storm will follow you to the grave, and likely continue after you’ve gone on to meet Hitch in atheists heaven. Cancel your twitter account.
Report abuse
Whenever I see a family with a Downs Syndrome child, I feel really sorry for them. I don’t feel sorry for the child because they normally present a rather cheerful picture. Other children in the family can be adversely affected because this situation impacts on their lives as well.
If I were in that situation I know that I’d undergo a termination, though I certainly wouldn’t want this to be mandatory, just advisable.
I’m not opposed to abortion of a healthy foetus so I think it would be hypocritical of me to advocate that a special needs child be brought into the world.
Report abuse
Many Down’s foetuses spontaneously abort at around 12 weeks. ‘God’ is the great slayer. The few that are born beat odds more staggering than those faced by the rest of us in order to live. Had I known my wife was carrying a Down’s baby I am certain we would have opted for abortion. The reasons for this are complex and not all of them are noble one’s but that is human’s being human. We are all fearful of things we don’t understand or things we don’t feel we can cope with. As it happens my wife nearly lost our daughter at the 12 week stage and our lives might have been different. Rest and care averted the miscarriage and our daughter emerged full term. Doctor’s immediately alerted us to a potential issue and tests later confirmed their fears. That was 33 years ago. We brought her back to the UK for heart surgery by the late great surgeon Leon Abrams and worked like demons to educate her. She is now a healthy adult, manages most of her own money and affairs, buys her own clothes, goes shopping for essentials. She’s literate, fairly numerate and can use computers and all the latest iPhones etc etc. Loves good food music and dance and basically she has a good life. I’m so glad I wasn’t given the opportunity to deprive her of these few decades of consciousness. It has been staggeringly hard but I have no regrets. I would not however take issue with anyone who thought abortion was the best option. It’s their opinion and there is something to be said for it. Some parents who have Down’s kids can’t or won’t cope and abandon them to the state.
Report abuse
Dude…
I understand what you were trying to say, but Twitter just doesn’t seem to be your thing. Not your fault, but the format is too limited for the type of conversation that you’re creating.
Report abuse
Sir,
With respect, it seems to me that Twitter is not your best medium. This post comes on the heels of your recent tweets – and subsequent clarifications – on taboo subjects, in which you used rape as an example. “Dear Muslima” also comes to mind. While I am sympathetic with your use of social media to connect with a larger audience, might I suggest that nuanced and thoughtful commentary such as this is not best served with a 140 character limit?
Best regards,
Jay Lonner
Bellingham, WA, USA
Report abuse
Admittedly, I cringed when I saw the tweet that started this tweetwar even though I understood what you meant, and agree with it in context. But it sounded very harsh in the constrained format as you described. I do think if I were you in this scenario (unsolicited advice coming), I would publish a simple apology, unfettered with explanation or defensiveness. Have the debate on semantics and intentions on another page, another thread or in another venue. But a simple apology like “I’m sorry to those offended by my tweet, especially to those with or who care for someone with Down Syndrome. I can see how it came across as insensitive even though that was not my intention.”
Seems like that would have put the fire out for most people–maybe not the anti-choice folks, but for most of the people who appreciate your great contributions to science and skepticism. I think far too often, when we try to apologize, especially public figures, the temptation to justify and defend overshadows the sincerity of the actual apology and just gives opportunity for more misunderstanding, more fighting over semantics and more hurt.
Wish you the best.
Report abuse
I would definitely not want RD to stop using twitter but I do agree with D. Allen that his account is watched closely by the perpetually outraged with hopes of something to jump on. The hate storm that follows is sad, misinformed and ridiculously over blown. These kinds of topics are best tackled in a blog post and twitter used to link to it…in that order.
Report abuse
Hi Richard,
Might I suggest you get someone to read whatever you might want to tweet whenever you feel like tweeting, before you post it? I’ve followed you for some time and I know you always have a good point to make, but even lectures can’t be just a torrent of information – you need to make it tasty, or at least not distasteful for your audience.
Hope you take this into consideration. Cheers.
Report abuse
You need not feel sorry for people simply because you do not understand their situation. When you or anyone else shares pity for those who have a family member with DS is simply an expression of your unfortunate ignorance. Be brave and allow for the possibility that it is your family who deserves our pity.
Report abuse
Richard,
I do completely agree with what you mean. I do however sometimes wish you could be more like Christopher Hitchens. By the way you sometimes talk in discussion, you seem to alienate people from our cause. You get angry (understandable if you see what kind of people you are up against), or you seem to be talking down to people. Richard please continue with your work, but look at some of the videos of discussions of you and of CH. Try to see how you could improve and be a little bit more like him.
Oh and thank you for your years of good work.
With kind regards,
Report abuse
I agree with Richard’s answer. Yet I don’t see the word “father” anywhere. I tend to think it can be undervalued. Clearly the mother is a priority, yet in many cases there is another individual fully engaged.
Report abuse
@M
I expected such a response though I hope you appreciate the fact that I was being brutally honest and not resorting to fake sentimentality. At one stage of our lives we lived next door to a family who included a mature girl with Downs Syndrome. The remaining four children paid a price, more’s the pity. These considerations should be factored in by the parents when making life decisions
Parents of special needs children must love them dearly, I’m sure. They need to be fully aware of the long term prospects nevertheless..
Report abuse
The assessment that it would be ‘more moral’ to abort the child does essentially seem to entail the suggestion that women who have not taken this choice have acted immorally. But that is the problem with the kind of utilitarian calculative morality espoused by Dawkins that assumes that various discrete instances of things like happiness and suffering can be parsed into commensurable units and counted; you end up with a hard division between moral and immoral, the dividing line being somewhere between acts-that-infinitesimally-increase-suffering and acts-that-infinitesimally-decrease-suffering. A further problematic implication of this is that it is unclear where (if anywhere) to draw the line; what amounts to an ‘acceptable’ or ‘bearable enough’ disability to make it not immoral to proceed with the pregnancy? If doing the right thing means doing the thing that will overall increase net happiness (assuming some kind of implausible informational omniscience where we could even know what that would be) then there ought to be a whole lot of abortions.
Report abuse
Mr. Dawkins, fellow secularists;
It seems as though a great many Americans have invaded this twitter feed like a Las Vegas buffet. I have to admit that I was a bit surprised when Mr. Dawkins took to twitter; sir twitter is a convention of sub literates for the most part, and one that never ceases, much like Hitchen’s parody of the religious afterlife. Consider your audience, share perhaps an anecdote, although this would surely sail over the heads of those who through willful ignorance strive to misunderstand and misrepresent your point of view. Try not to hold it against us, we’re a young country with a teenagers perspective concerning secularism. We have yet to outgrow our childish attachment to religion; regrettably this statement is an insult to children everywhere. Carry on. Cheers
Report abuse
Lucas, really? With king regards please try and be more like Christopher Hitchens? I miss him to, he’s a hero to many of us of course. What our community needs is a greater variety of speakers and activists. I get your point, but the religious spokespersons need to be knocked on their asses now and again.
Report abuse
Professor Dawkins,
That’s it, I’ve had enough. I’m out.
I have been a follower of yours for 20 years now. I marvelled at the Selfish Gene and Blind Watchmaker, both of which I devoured as part of my adolescent intellectual awakening. I thrilled at the God Delusion and publicised it wherever I could. I dismissed those who said you were too divisive, too angry.
I stared at my feet as you began offending regular people through Twitter, thinking you might get the hang of it soon, you’re a reasonable man.
But you’ve lost me now with your comments on Down Syndrome.
It’s not even that I disagree with your reasoning, it does make sense on a purely dispassionate level. But that’s not the point, is it? You have to understand that your comments are not private but are read by millions.
You are acting like Mr Spock, the emotionless Vulcan from Star Trek who cannot understand that others may have motivations that aren’t purely logical.
And then these mealy-mouthed apologies where you continue to defend your reasoning, inflaming passions further rather than pouring oil on troubled waters. Just say sorry, let it be and think more about feelings next time.
You’re losing credibility and a few more supporters each time you get embroiled in one of these Professor. It’s not becoming.
Yours,
Dr Danny Morland.
Disclaimer: I am a pro-choice atheist and have a son who has Down Syndrome.
Report abuse
M,
I am sympathetic to your position, I fully support your right to choose as you have. And I can understand how given your choice you may feel that Richard having said what he did in his tweet you might feel personally attacked. However, unless you wish to tar yourself with the same brush you are accusing Richard of then you should back off the aggression. There will be people on this site who have with great consideration made the opposite choice than you. Your comments seem to indicate the same level of vitriol you are claiming Richard is guilty of. One guy I work with has a profoundly mentally handicapped son he suffers from a multitude of other related issues and I mean suffers. The father deeply loves and cares for his son and will be doing so until he drops. I have asked him if he had known in time if they would have aborted he says yes. Now, I’m sure you get attitude from people who you brindle against with various judgements questioning your choice to not abort. But please don’t assume you are the only one to have made a valid decision, unless you wish to submit others to your judgement. Please take some care for others who may have made the opposite decision to you for perfectly good reasons.
Report abuse
Thank you Danny,
Beautifully put, and not only my sentiments as well, but a lot of my atheist friends are saying the same. I would love Professor Dawkins to take a long hard look at himself and the way he relates to the world. I think we need people like Professor Dawkins, but not if they seem not to understand the basics of human interaction. This isn’t fluff – it’s at the heart of how ideas are communicated and arguments are made truly persuasive.
Martin Jacobs
Report abuse
Richard,
Firstly, please consider your titles before posting these wildly intelligent statements. We are of course all duty-bound to bow down to your superior intellect, but I must point out what I am sure is a very rare error for somebody of your stature. The title would be more accurate if it read “Abortion & Down Syndrome: An Apology for all those arseholes disagreeing with my offensive bollocks”. Just a thought.
Whether a person feels, like a certain German chap, or perhaps the bearded terrorist and his hate filled mates, that all people should look and act the same; or whether a person is a tolerant and socially educated person, generally I feel that most would agree that we should keep our offensive thoughts within our heads, or perhaps within closed groups of like minded ignorant individuals…but then again, we’re heading back to Adolf and Osama’s ways with that idea so maybe not such a good plan.
Anyhow Richard, what I’m getting at is simple, we’re taught from a young age that we should think before we speak, or type in your case. You have upset a lot of people. People who did not look for your comments, people who did not seek to misunderstand you, nor did they want a twitter war. They are parents, friends, family of people with Down’s Syndrome, and people who also have the extra chromosome themselves. For the offence, hurt and anger you have caused with your ignorance, or educated opinion, depending on how your prefer to describe it, the upshot is not pleasant. The world is moving on Richard, and whilst I agree with many of your standpoints, this is not one I can subscribe to, because I have been there. I have had the news, I have had the worry, I have had the sympathetic looks but above all I have held both of my children and fell head over heels immediately.
I have a beautiful daughter, and a handsome son. I didn’t have to grow to love either, I simply did, unquestionably and without reservation. One of my children has provided extra challenges, extra emotional stress and worry, but so has the other. They are going through their own development pathways, with their own challenges, sadly one of them will have to face the upset that people with your views cause.
For someone who is so against religion, you appear to enjoy playing God a little too much for my liking! Anyway, congratulations to your publicist, a few more people now know your name, you’ve reached a whole new group of people, good people who have enough to worry about but now have the extra upset and worry that they are somehow immoral for loving their child regardless of how many copies of C21 they have.
Now Dick, grow some balls and apologise
properly
Report abuse
I think RD has more than clarified his position in this post. But then, being pro-choice myself maybe my opinion is a bit biased… However the morality/ happiness arguments made here got me thinking…
I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering…
Thousands of female children in India are abandoned/ aborted every year (despite the strict laws forbidding sex determination in ultrasound clinics). The girl child is considered undesirable (at least in rural India) in a society where getting daughters married (with dowry et al) causes entire families to drown in a sea of financial debt that cannot be paid in one lifetime. Can the “increase happiness/ reduce suffering” argument then justify their actions in the face of immense social pressure and economic burdens that are a part of raising a girl child, in an extremely patriarchal, male-centric society?
If the answer is “no”, then where does one draw the line? Is there a degree of “handicap” in an unborn child that can justify an abortion?
Report abuse
Dawkins would probably fail your post under the category of the “tyranny of the discontinuous mind.” Yes, the logical conclusion is that he is saying that those who knowingly chose to have a DS child acted immorally, using his own definitions (which I agree with). It is, of course, more complicated than that given all other mitigating factors, but let’s focus on your central premise.
Your discontinuous mind feels the need to equate this “immoral” decision with, say, genocide, but that is your limitation. Others are quite content with the concept that something which causes only a minor decrease in unhappiness is only slightly immoral.
Report abuse
So, H3000, is it your contention that the decision of mothers to bring to the world a Down Syndrome child knowingly, i.e. having been told prenatally about the condition their child would have if born, is morally justified? Knowing a child will have a mental disability and likely, a reduced life span? Knowing chances will be that child may never be able to look after itself and will therefore require constant care? I guess those mothers who choose to abort such fetuses follow the ‘utilitarian calculative morality’ you obviously do not hold much regard for, as I am sure such mothers (and fathers) undergo the painful but thorough process of drawing the ‘dividing line being somewhere between acts-that-infinitesimally-increase-suffering and acts-that-infinitesimally-decrease-suffering’, in order to make the decision for abortion.
Report abuse
Do you have a list of topics at hand about which we should avoid talking logically? That would be most convenient for everyone concerned. Even if you can’t see the absurdity of that, consider that your list would differ from everyone else’s list of sensitive topics and we’d end up with very little that we could indeed discuss rationally.
You say that you marveled at the Blind Watchmaker and were thrilled by the God Delusion. Did you find them to be well balanced between rational argument and emotional sentiment? I, personally, did not find any patronizing emotional arguments in those two, and if there had been they would not only be unreadable, but insufferable. Why should your sensitivities trump those who are offended by analyzing religion too closely?
Yes, it is harder to be calmly rational about a topic that you personally find sensitive, but if you can’t stomach that then you never understood the principles to begin with (and you’d be a hypocrite). The test of free speech is allowing speech that you disagree with or find offensive.
Dawkins fully understands that others have motivations that aren’t purely logical (or logical at all). What he doesn’t understand is that others will not tolerate when he wants to analyze a sensitive topic logically. (Actually, of course, he understands that too, he just doesn’t care.)
Report abuse
Good phrase, David: “Richard, you are a watched and targeted person.” Given that Twitter is linguistic communication at its most basic, it seems ill advised to use it for hot button topics that require nuanced explanation.
Report abuse
Do you think that aborting females results in more happiness for the people of India or less? If the people of India are ultimately better off by this practice then how could you possibly be against it?
You don’t need Dawkins to answer for you.
Report abuse
Do religous clergy think of others while they preach their belives? I do not think so and no one has come up to fix them.
Report abuse
Aborting a fetus, no matter if it had any abnormalities, should and is in most of the civilized world accepted although frowned upon as a type of after-the-fact birth control by a minority, which personally I can’t accept is as common as some would say.
If the reason for the pregnancy is to have a child, then aborting when there is an abnormality, of the sort that anyone would opt out of if they could, is totally understandable, and in fact I agree with RD that it is in a way a moral decision of the good kind.
a test question, I put this before people when talking about abortions and these abnormalities, and I often do, because I work with people with disabilities ( DS is one of the lesser cases) and I do so very well, because people who are already in this world for what ever reason, should and usually do (at least in my country) get a very good life given their conditions. But on to the question.
lets say there is something called a soul, and in a very slowed down time scale, there is a line of them waiting for the next body down on earth that’s available, so as soon as another body is born, you “jump in” so to speak, utter non-sense of course, but imagine it anyway 😛 , now, there is a red button at the gateway, and before you jump through the gateway into your respective body, you get information about it’s condition, and everyone gets to use the red button as a “no thank you, lets try once more and see if I get something else” , would you press the button if, when you’re up for the next body, you got the information that your body had DS, or some other abnormality.
I haven’t met a person so far that hasn’t said that they would press the button of course!
Report abuse
Dear Mr Dawkins.
on many things i agree with you but on this you are so wide of the mark. im amazed a seemingly intelligent man like you would stoop to such generalisations regarding people born with down syndrome.
my recently departed brother lived a full and active life for his 59 years on this planet. he contributed not only to society with his work and activities but also took part in numerous research projects to aid the development of services catering for people with his condition. Your assumption is that anyone with down syndrome will be some kind of burden to society but this is simply not the case, its a huge generalisation on your part and displays both arrogance and ignorance. I urge you to take time out from your cosseted academic world and go into an adult centre and experience the lives of the people there. I think it will be of great advantage to you and your development as a human being.
all the best.
Report abuse
I agree Zubin, he has clarified his position, but unfortunately that position is pretty much I’m sorry that you’ve taken offence, but that’s your problem!
I am generally pro choice, however with pro life asterisks without the religious issues that go with it! My issue with RD’s statement is that it is offensive, hurtful and not accurate. His response is arrogant and insincere and it is that I take issue with and if he chooses to make such statements he should accept the twitterwar that should ensues. In short, live and let live and if your thoughts may offend then keep them as just that!
On the subject of female children in India, working in child protection myself, I see this as a horrific practice. I have a colleague who has seen the bins that baby girls are thrown into on the streets. It’s one of many cultural issues which is not acceptable and needs to be eradicated.
For me, choice should sit with justifiable reasoning, which in itself is a fluffy and vague statement. I know form my own experience that the aborting of a child was not acceptable to me unless they would knowingly suffer. I knew my little one would have certain additional health issues, but correctable and research the consultants presented me an my wife with showed an overwhelming case for our baby to thrive, which she is doing, ignorant of her chromosomal set up. I don’t agree however with a friend of mine’s decision to chose that a child, with no issues or identifiable problems, should be aborted because it wasn’t the right time.
An interesting debate that will live on forever more no doubt
Report abuse
Dawkins did not say anything like what you’ve attributed to him.
The fact that you felt the need to go into such detail about your brother is evidence that he is the exception. To pretend that DS children are not statistically more likely to be a financial and emotional burden is disingenuous.
Report abuse
RD is not just a person but an authority. When he voices a personal opinion, many people take his opinion as a prescription by an authority. From the above article, it is clear that RD meant, “By my personal moral system, it is wrong to X.” It’s unfortunate that it came across to many (myself included, initially) as “In my position as authority, I declare that it is wrong to X.”
A large part of the problem is the text-based brevity of the tweet format. Perhaps a small part of the problem is RD’s trust that others will apply a scientific attitude to his comments, and see his opinions as merely one data point in a debate. I’m not sure how realistic it is to expect people to apply that attitude by default, given the weight his opinions now carry.
Report abuse
Alex, RD never said it was immoral to love your child and I am sure he and anyone else would agree that loving your own child is the most natural thing in the world, we’re programmed to do just that, it’s not magical, it’s oxytocin, and just because we know what’s happening inside our bodies and brains that makes us feel a certain way, doesn’t diminish the importance of that feeling, but just accept the fact it isn’t magical, i.e. love.
my second point would be to not confuse the rights of life, liberty and happiness of a person already born, no matter the number of C21 they have, with a fetus and parents choice in aborting said fetus.
because if I had a genetic disease that diminished the quality of my life and I couldn’t do a lot of things because of that disease, should I be personally upset when I read that someone was advocating the abortion of fetuses that had the same disease as I do?
Absolutely not !
and saying that life is not always the same, we should embrace diversity etc etc, doesn’t mean we should condemn another Future living being into an existence, we would (given the choice) never choose for ourselves.
playing the hurts feelings card doesn’t give your argument any more weight, I live and thrive in the world of disabled people, I help provide them with the best life they can have, because I and the society I live in thinks they deserve it, but it isn’t much, and nobody would choose their life as their own, it may sound harsh, but it’s the truth, diversity be damned when it comes to a life of mostly eating, drinking (not alcohol), sitting, going for drives, sitting in the sun, unable to connect meaningfully with another human being, pain, unable to express your feelings or physical well being or lack there of, unable to understand your feelings, crying, screaming and medicated just to be able to not go through your day in pain.
but everything he gets, he deserves, all the care, all the considerations, all the free medication, free housing, free food, because he’s a human being and already in this world.
would I think it moral to have aborted this person when he was still a fetus, hell yes!
Report abuse
Dawkins is not in the habit of making “declarations” that should simply be taken on faith and followed blindly. If people choose to believe that about him, (or anyone!) then perhaps he is teaching two valuable lessons here.
Report abuse
This is not an apology, unless you count ‘I’m sorry you were all so thick’ as an apology.
You say that your morality is based on a “desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering”. Fine, but before condemning people’s decisions as ‘immoral’ and telling people what to do based on this morality, you need to be pretty sure that what you are condemning and recommending is immoral and moral respectively by your own standard.
Where do you get the certainty that a decision not to terminate a pregnancy where the foetus has Down’s syndrome necessarily reduces the sum of human happiness? Please show your workings, to include a definition of ‘happiness’ . Please also explain why you can dismiss the actual experience of people with Down’s and their families as irrelevant. Of course their reaction is emotional, but happiness is an emotional state. It seems odd to dismiss emotion when it is the very foundation of your morality.
I know you would object to my accusation of ‘telling people what to do’, but you are an influential person and you have basically said ‘it’s entirely up to you what you but if you do X then in my view it would be immoral’. Telling people what to do in a passive-aggressive manner is still telling them what to do in my book.
Report abuse
I get Richards point here, but I can understand why lots of people don’t. It’s a matter of when a conception becomes a person. If you a take a 5 year old child, healthy or with DS or some other condition – they ARE a person. That’s clear, it’s also clear that if you take an individual sperm and an individual egg, they are NOT a person.
So when does a conception become a person?
I think what Richard Dawkins is actually saying is a bit like, if you were having IVF with pre-implantation diagnosis and of the several fetus offered, one was DS – you would select one of the none-DS fetus for implantation. I suspect most people would agree that at that point where you are asked to select a fetus – nobody would choose a DS one over a none-DS one. Irrespective of how emotive we feel about children and adults with DS, DS presents significant risks. It’s a broad spectrum syndrome, some DS individuals are indistinguishable from none-DS and lead equally fulfilling and successful lives.
It’s a little bit like if during pre-implantation, one fetus was found to have a gene which meant it was more susceptible to cancer and likely to die before it was forty. Or it showed the multiple CAG triplets that indicate Huntingtons Syndrome. You would choose a fetus that did not have the cancer gene or HS gene over the one that did.
Dawkins is simply taking this one step further – saying at the point of diagnosis, the fetus hasn’t formed the neural pathways in order to be truly self-aware and as a person – they only really exist as a potential. He’s arguing I think – that that potential might be better transferred to another fetus who might theoretically have a better shot at life.
My fear I suppose is that pregnancy can be difficult. DS tends to affect older women, who maybe don’t have the physiology for making multiple attempts at pregnancy. It might be that she’d made several attempts at IVF and saw it as her last chance to rear a child. I think there’d be a significant risk of regret, if they were unable to conceive afterwards. In that case the potential that Richard Dawkins is advocating transferring to another fetus – would have been lost.
I would also say this. if you were using pre-implantation diagnosis, and you had for example four fetus to choose from, one Downs, one Huntingtons, one Douchenne syndrome and one which meant childhood cancer was essentially inevitable – you should probably choose the Downs Syndrome fetus.
Personally I’m opposed to abortion in generally. I’m more opposed to taking away people’s choices though. It shouldn’t be seen as a form of contraception and I think 20 weeks is really too late. I’d argue that if you reach 20 weeks you should carry the child to term and offer it for adoption rather than abort – for your own emotional welfare if nothing else. It’s a complex thing isn’t it? When is a person a person? When are they entitled to rights afforded to a person?
I suppose it’s a bit like the speed limit, or drinking age. 32 miles per hour isn’t really more dangerous than driving at 28 miles per hour. Letting kids drink alcohol at 17 years and 6 months wouldn’t be particularly more risky than changing the drinking age to 18 years and 6 months. As a society we just have to choose where to draw the line.
Personally where to draw that line, I don’t know. All I know is I feel people should not be allowed to abort a healthy fetus, even if DS in late pregnancy – but I have no objection to aborting even healthy fetus in early, early pregnancy.
If you took this logic to the extreme, any IVF patients who have multiple fetus ready for implantation, even frozen for later pregnancy are acting immorally by not carrying all fertilized fetuses to term. You could take it a step further and say every time a woman COULD get pregnant, she SHOULD. Which would lead to an uncomfortable life as a living incubator for her and a massive problem of over-population for the world.
We’re in a strange position aren’t we? We’re sentient and self-aware, but biologically we’re just animals like all the rest of the non-human population of the earth. I suppose it’s partly a question of how much we are prepared to allow our emotions to control our rational decisions. Perhaps because unusually, as a species we are able to make that choice.
Martyn
Report abuse
If the birth of a girl will lead to severe financial hardship on the part of a family where the birth of a boy would not, then it is an outcome that will decrease the sum of human happiness. If you have the choice (because you identify the sex of the foetus during the pregnancy) then by Professor Dawkins’s standard it would be immoral not to terminate the pregnancy and try again.
Report abuse
Egill
Thanks for the reply. My comment was emotive because RD’s comments were hurtful. He made statements which caused me and many people offence and upset.
Now to clarify, trisomy 21 is not a disease. People with DS do not sit dribbling in bed without the brain function to get themselves to the toilet. They live full and rewarding lives. The majority of research into life expectancy is outdated and based on institutionalised cohorts.
Now, if there were an antenatal screening test for ignorance…
Report abuse
Hit the nail on the head Donald
Report abuse
Well, I almost entirely agree with you.
My problem is that, in this particular case, the lessons you mention will not be learned by those that could do with learning them. They will simply feel more hostile towards RD. If one really wants to reach people, one must do one’s best to avoid communication traps, and I think RD fell in one here. If the tweet had included ‘(personal opinion)’, I suspect a lot of the furore might have been avoided – though to be fair perhaps not.
Report abuse
That’s not quite right. That would be merely a selfish choice, which is not (always) the moral choice.
Report abuse
Exactly! If some shitehead clergymen said this child is god’s punishment for your wrongdoings I doubt there’d be more than a few raised eyebrows. I’ve even heard the other extreme from some simpering religios who say that god gives his special children only to special parents. What utter bollox and the most patronising, vapid and infantile ignorance.
Keep posting Richard you won’t please ’em all and the daft responses you get from some twitterati are not representative of an entire population. There are doubtless thousands who agree with you but won’t put their 140 in the ring.
Report abuse
Another tempest in a teapot. Carry on, Richard.
Report abuse
Dr Dawkins, I have to say you have entirely missed the point of at least of what some of us found objectionable in your tweets.
The first problem is that you seem unable to recognise that “it would not be immoral to…” is different from “it would be immoral not to…” The first is permissive, the second is prescriptive. You were prescriptive – you stated, as though it were an authoritative fact, not a personal opinion – that to knowingly bring a baby with Downs into the world is immoral. That has nothing to do with pro-choice, and everything to do with Richard Dawkins, male scientist, thinking he knows what choice all women should make, and that he has a right to tell them what it is. It’s no different from some male religious guy saying: to knowingly terminate a Downs pregnancy would be immoral. Pro-choice women over the world cringe.
The second problem is, ironically, a logical error. You claimed that that a person with Downs, unlike a person with autism, apparently, would not “contribute to society”, forgetting, apparently, that society includes people with Downs and autism! You seem to regard society as some kind of exogenous entity (a deity?) that requires “contributions” from … from whom or from where? Society IS the network of social interactions between people. The only person who does not “contribute to society” is a person who cuts him/herself off from all contact with other people and lives off-grid. People with DS are part of that society and can’t NOT contribute to it, unless you mean “contribute” in some narrow economic sense. But if you meant it in that narrow economic sense, your entire “logical” position hangs on the implicit assumption that it is only a person’s potential economic “contribution” to society that justifies their entry into the world, even though, clearly, economics is merely a poor proxy measure for human happiness and welfare.
I don’t suppose you actually think that a person who voluntarily visits a lonely elderly person is contributing less to her welfare (and thus to “society”) than the person paid to sign off on her winter-fuel-allowance, but that is the “logical” conclusion of your implicit equation of “contribution” with economic value.
And if you aren’t equating “contribution” with “net contribution to the economy” then your logic fails anyway, because, as you readily concede, people with DS can, like all people, bring great joy into the lives of others.
There is no prenatal diagnostic test for being a selfish jerk, and even selfish jerks probably contribute something.
Report abuse
Dawkins knows what he’s doing, he is simply unwilling to water down or filter his thoughts to the extent that some people would wish. It is unlikely that he would reach those who take such issue with him and that is not really his role (and certainly not his obligation), IMO. His style of teaching does not suit those who do not wish to learn. If others have a desire to teach the same lessons in their own ways to reach a different audience then they are welcome to it, but I seriously doubt they would have any more success.
However, you can be absolutely certain that what you do see from him has already gone through several mental filters and edits before it gets released in the wild. Just not as many as you would like (although already more than I would).
Report abuse
Of course it’s not right, but it is consistent with Professor Dawkins’s concept of morality, as set out above.
There are two possible outcomes for a pregnancy: a boy or a girl. Based on the information available to the parents at (let’s say) 12 weeks, the two outcomes are identical in terms of happiness (on the part of both the child in question and the family) other than the requirement to provide a dowry if the foetus is female. The obligation to provide a dowry will impose financial hardship and therefore suffering on the family, and/or suffering on the part of the child if the family is unable to provide a sufficient dowry, preventing her from marrying. A boy is therefore the outcome that will result in less suffering and contribute more to human happiness. By Professor Dawkins’s measure it would be immoral not to terminate the pregnancy if the foetus is a girl.
In a way this is actually a more clear-cut case than the case of a Down’s foetus, since many individuals with Down’s and their families report levels of happiness that are at least on a par with that experienced by non-Down’s individuals and their families, so predicting more suffering and less happiness as a result of proceeding with a Down’s pregnancy can be done with less certainty than predicting the suffering that results from payment of a dowry.
Report abuse
Agreed! It seems that for some people we should not only discuss things that are not proscribed but only talk about them in an approved way. Just like the anti abortion catholic shower!
Report abuse
After reading the comments so far, one would think that terminating the pregnancy of a DS baby was a rare event! A procedure only undertaken by selfish parents who do not want the bother of having a disabled child. If this is the case, why is screening routine especially when it applies to the older mother? Today’s parents invest a great deal in their small families. They’re given every opportunity to make an informed decision and they should not be made to feel guilty about that decision.
Report abuse
The issue here is not one of style, it is one of substance. His more considered and emollient follow-up is just as wrong as the original tweet.
Report abuse
The experiences of those who have DS or have it in their family is certainly emotional, which is fine. It’s also anecdotal and biased, which makes it far less useful.
Are you willing to say that introducing another DS child into the world increases the overall happiness or are you just saying that nobody (especially Dawkins) should have an opinion on that until it is proven to your satisfaction one way or the other?
As an “influential person” I guess Dawkins is indeed telling people what to do in the sense that he is offering them a shortcut: if you don’t want to think for yourself, do what I would do. Now if all the people who choose not to think for themselves simply accepted Dawkins pre-calculated opinions instead of the opposite then I would also consider that an improvement. Of course, we’d all rather they come to the same conclusion on their own, but Dawkins is at least willing to show his work so it’s not that hard for people to follow along.
Report abuse
The biggest enemy of good public discussion today is the enslavement to soundbites – Twitter is its highest contemporary form – for every subject trivial or serious. Be part of the solution, the fight-back against that. Just post a link on twitter to say there is a point to be discussed and direct them to it here. it’s not just Twitter, however. I became aware of this through a BBC article and they were as one-sided and emotional as possible, hence the “controversy” instead of vigorous discussion. The reputable BBC went with soundbite sensationalism just like the others.
Report abuse
and you have proof for that where ?
Report abuse
That gross misinterpretation of what Dawkins said might be understandable (yet still wrong) if it were a response to the original tweets, but it would take a very clouded or biased mind to believe that is what he is saying after reading the full article.
Report abuse
Of course it’s anecdotal and biased. Which non-subjective measures of happiness do you prefer to use?
Of course I’m not willing to say with certainty that introducing another DS child into the world will always increase the sum of human happiness. It is impossible to know, of course. But this is really the point: by condemning those who choose to continue with a Down’s pregnancy as immoral Dawkins is effectively saying that he does know.
He doesn’t.
Report abuse
That’s exactly it. To bring a child into existence in full knowledge of the fact that it will live and in various ways suffer (depending on the severity in each individual’s case) when we would never, never choose such a life for ourselves. That’s the crux of the issue here – condemning that early stage foetus to a reduced lifespan with a significantly higher potential of suffering when we would never choose such a life for ourselves. And that’s why, on a case by case basis, the mother and of course the father should be able to rationalise and decide what they think is the best outcome for their future child – whether they are prepared to bring a child into the world that will in so many ways have a reduced potential or, if it is still practically feasible and there’s a realistic chance of further pregnancy, to try again and give that child so many more opportunities and, potentially, happiness, than a DS child could have.
Report abuse
further to that , by your argument aren’t all children a financial and emotional burden.
as with Dawkins you have also displayed the ignorance of generalisation. Your entire assumption is based on seeing the syndrome, not the person. How can you possibly know that a foetus, whether downs or so called normal, will grow up to be a burden to society.
Report abuse
Explain.
Report abuse
That is truly a ridiculous question.
Before I offer my proof which disagreed with a statement you made (without proof) I would like you to say for the record that you believe that those with DS do not need any financial or other support from their community or government beyond what a non DS child receives.
Have you made an equal effort to correct every DS organization on the planet that has asked for special consideration and funding from governments and/or insurance companies?
Report abuse
It’s called maths. Some think it is overrated, I do not.
Report abuse
sorry but thats no argument at all. if thats all you have i’ll leave you to it
Report abuse
that isnt what i’m saying at all. of course some people require more assistance…but isnt that what SOCIETY is all about ? caring for those less advantaged or able is a central tenet to a functioning society, without that you enter a realm of heartless sterility. is that the kind of world you want to live in ?
Report abuse
Apparently you think it is impossible to have any scientific study on happiness or make any statistical estimations in that regard. Are people generally happier after their spouse dies in a car crash or not? Impossible to say, right?
Dawkins doesn’t know and doesn’t claim to know with 100% certainly. He has a solid opinion that is based on many factors and if you can provide any reason why his conclusion is wrong (e.g. introduce new evidence or studies that he hadn’t thought of), then by all means do so.
Until then I will continue to have the opinion that people are less happy when their spouses meet a fiery end. You are welcome to disagree and not prevent such events when they are in your control.
Report abuse
I was surprised to find someone so well educated speaking with so little humanity, but then again, I live in Sweden, a country where human beings with disabilities are given full citizens’ rights. Having worked with “these people” and people with a variety of handicaps I do not think that this is at all the most difficult thing a family can have to deal with. If we are to abort people with downs syndrome, then the list of “causes for justified abortion” would be long indeed. I think it would be far more moral to claim poverty as a valid reason for abortion. As more and more illnesses, diseases and “syndromes” can be tied directly to genes, how many of us would be left? How many of us would pass screening?
I come from a long line of schizophrenics, alcoholics and (perhaps worst of all) religious fanatics including Catholics. My father was a manic and substance abuser on his good days. The rest of the family is the kind of stuff good books are made of. My gene-pool is one of the worst going.
Should I have been allowed to live?
I wish that Mr. Dawkins could interact or even work with disabled people for an extended period of time. They are VERY human, have good days and bad days, just like everyone else. They are much more LIKE us then they are APPART from us. Don’t believe for one second that because they are different that they can’t be happy. Or love. Or stand up for their human rights. There are many organizations run by people with downs syndrome. Guess what they think!
I am not saying that the life they would live would be an easy one, but how many of us go completely unharmed and joyful through life. Hands?
I will, however, on all accounts concede the rights of any mother to terminate a pregnancy early on if it is her choice. It is, after all, her body and her life.
Report abuse
RD stated that the twitter conversation was private at first, then an outside person somehow got privy to it. cmiiw.
Maybe just a wild coincidence, but I did notice yesterday a tv movie and article in loving support of families with DS children. Kind of a “make love not war” approach, if indeed they were in response to the RD tweet.
Report abuse
So you choose to avoid the unpleasant truths, such as that DS children have a higher cost to society. I can see why Dawkins bothers you so much.
Caring for those who are disadvantaged is one thing. Choosing to bring more disadvantaged people into the world when you don’t need to is far different. Especially when your choice is paid for in no small part by the rest of society.
Report abuse
I do not think it would be impossible, but Dawkins has not done it, so he is not in a position to draw the conclusions he draws, or to condemn a decision made by thousands of people in good conscience as ‘immoral’.
Report abuse
This is the essential problem, and not any particular suggestion you may make. Since we cannot see the future, we cannot know how much happiness or suffering any action will cause and for whom. A moral stance like this would make sense only if we could know this. Otherwise each of our acts becomes as morally arbitrary as any other, and atheism devolves into amoralism.
In fact, the question of the existence of God can be reduced to the question of whether the structure of the universe is in any way “moral”. If the universe is not moral, why should we be? And if the universe is not moral, how do we distinguish between intelligibly between happiness and homeostasis? This is a condition possible only for a certain type of carbon chemistry at a certain level of organization, and there is no abstract and independent standpoint to separate happiness from our individual pleasure and suffering from our individual pain.
Under these conditions the only sort of person with a realistic view of life is the pure sociopath. To the degree that we deviate from this to call our actions moral or immoral we are implicitly undermining our own atheism, if we have any, and creating the conditions for permanent cognitive dissonance about any of our actions.
In the long run this permanent dissonance, if it becomes universal in mankind, is likely to have a negative impact on the survival of our species. This possibility clarifies the function of religion in society and culture, and the need for it for our survival–the avoidance of a world of total sociopathy.
This is the atheist equivalent of the old saying: Every man for himself and God against all.
Report abuse
If you don’t understand maths, particularly statistics and probability then I don’t know how I can explain any of this to you. If you wish to stick with your purely emotional arguments then you are in the wrong place.
Report abuse
Whether it’s this short version or the longer version in Richard’s statement above, the message is the same. It’s a perfectly reasonable position and, as already stated, it’s what happens in most cases anyway. In fact, it almost goes without saying that ‘aborting it and trying again’ is a valid option, otherwise why would doctors even bother to offer the test to women of a certain age?
I don’t completely agree with Richard’s advice because there are a whole bunch of variables to consider and a blanket ‘try again’ approach is obviously not for everyone. However, the reaction to his Twitter comment is ridiculously excessive. He’s not saying that everyone with Down Syndrome should be executed. He’s not some kind of Nazi. He’s not saying that parents with DS children are stupid or wrong or selfish. He’s stating his own position which, as already mentioned, is not only perfectly reasonable, it’s also what the majority of people already decide to do. Total storm in a teacup.
The statement was a bit abrupt and perhaps not wrapped up in as much flowery language as it could have been but the biggest issue here is the reaction, not the statement. People are almost queueing up to be offended. Some of the media coverage has demonized Professor Dawkins and presented his comment in an extremely negative manner. It says more about their agenda than his lack of tact. Even if he’d used the full statement (> 140 characters) they would still have reported it as “Famous atheist advocates murder of babies”.
Report abuse
Jimmy Kimmel has a fantastic section where celebs read aloud mean tweets written about them. Perhaps people could start filming themselves doing the same with Richard’s tweets. I wonder how that would make him look?
Richard may be intelligent but he lacks wisdom and compassion. Which means he creates divisions rather than unity. So I wonder how intelligent he really is.
Report abuse
yeah, i probably am, i’d rather not be part of a little club that considers the fixed and defined rules of physics and mathematics to be all there is in this world. as sentient beings to deny emotion as an inherent part of the human condition would render us pretty worthless as a species.
i shall leave you to your laboratory, enjoy your beautyless world my friend
Report abuse
Thanks Prof. Dawkins for taking the time to explain. Helps clarify my own (closely matching) intuitions on this point.
This whole reaction is below the belt and hopefully something you’ve learned to deal with. All the best!
Report abuse
Once again we are left with your premise that unless you have proven it with 100% surety then every answer is equally good.
Dawkins opinion is shared by an overwhelming percentage of the population (especially obstetricians), even if they do not vocalize it. It would seem to me that the burden of proof is on your side if you want to sway public opinion.
Many people “in good conscience” also choose to not have their children vaccinated for common childhood diseases. Are you okay with that choice as well?
You can certainly choose a different definition of morality than Dawkins offers, but you can’t keep using your personal definition to imply Dawkins believes something he doesn’t. He is saying that not terminating a DS fetus causes statistically more unhappiness than happiness, not that it is evil (as you imply).
Report abuse
What is limiting is believing that science and reason are mutually exclusive to beauty and emotion. Completely ignoring science and reason is a short term solution, at best.
Report abuse
I’d also add that if someone is meant to be so intelligent that they are giving advice on abortion, how on earth can they not know how the @ functionality works on Twitter.
Report abuse
“People with DS do not sit dribbling in bed without the brain function to get themselves to the toilet. They live full and rewarding lives.”
This is, sadly, a generalization that is not true for some Downs individuals. There is quite a wide range of expression of the extra chromosome, which is not clear until after the child is born. This makes it difficult to decide what to do when DS is detected early in pregnancy.
I am a dentist, and I have cared for DS children who are combative (some to the point of requiring sedation), with nasal discharge all over their faces and multiple decayed teeth. I’ve also had patients at the other end of the spectrum; in fact one of the dental assistants I work with is a very high-functioning DS individual.
This is one of the things that makes the decision to abort or not so difficult.
Steve
Report abuse
If you were trying to sound like a sociopath you certainly succeeded. Who is to say whether stabbing someone in the eye with a pen will cause more suffering or not? Why shouldn’t I drive 120 mph down the freeway? It’s impossible to say whether I will actually crash into someone or not.
Report abuse
Firstly, Dawkins is effectively saying that not terminating a Down’s foetus is evil, because he is describing the decision as ‘immoral’. If he had said ‘inadvisable in most cases’ we would not be having this discussion.
Secondly, I am not saying that every answer is equally good in the absence of 100% certainty. What I am saying is that a high degree of confidence is required before condemning people’s decisions as ‘immoral’, as Dawkins does. If he wants to make such absolute value judgements then I think that the burden of proof is on him.
Thirdly, I am not using my own definition of morality, I am using Dawkins’s definition (more happiness, less suffering). I happen to think that it’s a bit facile, but I am trying to address what he’s saying on his own terms.
And finally, I understand that Dawkins is saying that not terminating Down’s foetuses causes statistically more unhappiness than happiness, and this is precisely the problem because he has no evidence for it. Simply saying ‘it’s obvious’ is not good enough when set against the very large number of individuals with Down’s Syndrome and their families who report that the experience of being alive or having such people in their lives is a positive one. Of course others report a negative experience, but the position is clearly ambiguous: much more so than your example of dead spouses. In such circumstances absolute moral judgements are foolish.
Report abuse
Being in the public eye, expressing atheist views surely comes with much bashing. After all, it’s more fun to whack a tree with fruit than one which is barren. With all the Richard Dawkins bashing lately, I’ve realized it’s a tactic in attempt to bring Richard down. Yes, I do not like you on Twitter, Professor. Unless you’re good at dishing out one line zingers, it’s tough to get your point across. People pull out the line like cherry picking through Bible quotes. The line is then put it up on a digital platform with what is essentially flashing lights and arrows pointed at it in order for everyone to notice it. Yes, Professor you need to watch what you are saying, but what they are doing is an attempt at character assassination. People respond unfavorably and even several atheists as well. They found that this brings disharmony to the atheist community and I’m sure they are smiling about it.
I found it interesting that one article claimed that this abortion statement was in response to a mother. As far as I recall, In Your Face New Yorker, does not have children. Perhaps she does, but this was assumed by the article to further paint you as despicable and evil.
I’m getting tired of people creating drama to protect their sacred views. Most of the religious are actually deists and I think it’s time we point this out and create disharmony and division in their backyard.
Report abuse
I would suggest that to give advice on Twitter on anything, let alone something as serious and potentially traumatic as abortion, does in itself indicate a lack of intelligence.
Report abuse
Or alternatively, let me explain.
Yes, my post is “a response to the original tweets”. That’s why I started with:
And my point is not which interpretation is “correct” but how readers of those tweets (including myself) interpreted them. And Richard Dawkins’ wording, in the form of a categorical assertion that:
is an assertion precisely of the form:
In other words, it is exactly the kind of anti-choice assertion that religious (mostly male) leaders have been beating women around the womb with for far too long. That is one reason why at least some of us found his tweet objectionable.
To say, oh well he really didn’t mean it, it’s just his opinion, he wasn’t telling anyone what they should do, it was just that a tweet is too short to make that clear, is, frankly, bullshit. Let me try:
Oh, look, it’s shorter.
And to explain my second point: in subsequent tweets, Dawkins justifies his moral stance on the basis of whether a DS foetus will make a “contribution to society” – in contrast to an autistic person who could make an “enhanced” contribution to society. And my point is that this is not even logical, because Dawkins seems to forget that a DS person, like all people, is a component of that society – that society is a word that describes the entire network of social relationships, not an amorphous exogenous entity demanding “contributions”.
In this “apology”, it turns out that what he really meant by “contribution to society” was contribution to the sum of human happiness. Which makes no sense of his tweet – why should an autistic person have a greater capacity than a DS person to contribute to “the sum of human happiness”?
In other words, Dawkins is making the fallacy of equivocation. On the one hand he claims to base his morality on maximising the sum of human happiness and minimising suffering (which I do too), but then glibly equivocates, in his tweet, from contribution society as in contribution to the sum of human happiness to contribution to society as in something a autistic person has an enhanced ability to make to, but a DS person not. Which is, again, bullshit. And even if we, generously, take him to mean by sum of human happiness something like a healthy happy life and concede that people with DS often suffer frustration and physical pain – would he really insist that a person with DS will “statistically” be less happy and suffer more, than a person with autism?
These are good questions but by equivocating over how he actually evaluates “sum of human happiness” or “contribution to society” he ends up with a ludicrous moral stance in which he starts with his own gut prejudice (a DS person has less to contribute than an autistic person to the sum of human happiness) and elevates it into a position that carries the imprimatur of “logical”.
If he wants to make the point that we should think seriously about whether the moral decision to bring into the world a child that we know may have less chance of health and happiness than a different child, then he has made it in a thoroughly illogical manner, and his post hoc rationalisation merely reveals that his “logic” leads to the conclusion that poor people shouldn’t have children. Or, at any rate, girls.
Report abuse
I’m deeply offended by Dawkins and his so called logic yet again. I haven’t read twitter, the above apology or anything else related to this latest attack of his. I happened to get a momentary glimpse of part of a headline on the Daily Mail website while I was searching for like-minded people who wanted to rid our country of atheists, gays and foreigners, and I have to say, I’m seething. Is there no part of our great institution that this man won’t attack? Firstly he’s defending date rappers rather than extolling the virtues of a nice old fashioned personalised romantic poem, now he’s attacking us in our beds.
My wife and I have used Duck Down duvets for over 20 years, but Dawkins wants to get rid of them now does he? Morally indefensible to keep warm on a cold winter’s night with a natural and biodegradable material is it, Mr Scientist? The irony is that it’s your seeming insistence on the use of hollow fibre quilts that’s causing the global warming which leads to harsher winters in the first instance. And of course older people are more likely to use Duck Down than younger people. It’s because the circulatory system is less efficient as age increases. Or are you suggesting we throw old people on the same bonfire as the duvets eh Dr Mengele?
Yours truly,
Enraged Middle Englander.
Report abuse
Richard’s Twitter image is him wearing a shirt bashing religion, comparing it to a disease. Now, I’m an atheist too and I think it’s perfectly fine to express your own beliefs. Wear a shirt saying ‘i don’t believe in god’ if you want. But to pick on other’s views and to degrade them, that too is ‘bashing’ and some may say Richard reaps what he sows.
Report abuse
I Would say Richard does not have to apologise, but as a progressively minded human being he has , and will always do. It does not matter what throngs of ready-stone-anything-from-Dawkins mob say. The opinions are always received with freshness of attitude from the people who have good intentions for the human race, and the nature at large.
Report abuse
If you’re certain that a termination is merely the disposal of a cluster of cells rather than a life, then how is this moral framework even relevant? The reason for the termination is no longer important, because there’s not yet any life to extinguish. In weighing up the relative suffering of these impoverished Indian daughters or Down Syndrome children, you’re talking about individuals that never began to ‘exist’, little different from a child who only exists in the minds and plans of it’s future parents.
Report abuse
Alex:
That’s not strictly true. You could certainly say that a lot people were upset by Richard’s comments but there’s an important and distinct difference between the two. As he says himself: “I can’t help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand“.
The fact that you love your children, regardless of the extra stress and worry you endure, is not under attack. I certainly don’t see why Professor Dawkins should apologise for expressing his opinion. Yes, his wording could have been better, but he is entitled to say what he thinks and if anyone is upset by that then, with respect, that’s their problem.
Report abuse
If a moral framework isn’t relevant, how can a decision not to terminate be immoral?
Report abuse
Well, for anyone who has ever thought about disability issues before, there is nothing new in RD’s thinking. The Nazi comparisons are actually quite legitimate; in Nazi Germany it was, according to the prevailing mores of society, immoral to deliver a disabled child into the world, and the idea of “life unworthy of life” was used to argue that, for the disabled people’s own good, it would be better if they did not exist at all to begin with. The point is not to equate RD with Nazis here, I’m just saying that all this has been seen in that particular context already.
While I am certainly nearly persuaded by both the idea that disability is both objectively a challenge to the individual (I have a somewhat serious, heritable physical disability myself) and that a fetus is not a person and hence abortion is ok, the issues with RD’s statement are the categorical claim of immorality of creating Down’s people and this “better that you wouldn’t exist for your own good” argument.
Morality is the commonly agreed set of acceptable behaviours in society — it would be better to talk about ethics, not what is moral. A society’s own prejudices may predispose a group of people to fall victim to this idea that, because other people believe so, their existence is unwanted. The comparison to aborting gays is quite fitting here. For some people, homosexuality is immoral and thus gays end up at the receiving end of this segment of society’s shunning. One needs to tread carefully here when considering who exactly is the one who needs the enforcement of these moral rules.
In general we’re talking about a judgement call of the desirability of the existence of certain kinds of people in this world, so it’s necessarily a judgement of the actual lives of disabled people, even though these lives’ prevention would legitimately happen by aborting a fetus.
The desirability of disability by others is probably just simply a question of cost; I doubt it that anyone is particularly bothered by the mere sight of my wheelchair or anything else related to my disability.
Now, when an outsider needs to judge what the disabled person himself would want, or if he would want to live at all, is the tough bit, in particular if you’re going to keep your own cost-benefit calculations out of the equation. It’s no wonder that disabled people are up in arms by these lines of reasoning where the risk is we’re being deprived of agency over our lives — we’re understandably afraid of the slippery slope that ends with “it’s moral to euthanize you, and you’re being irrational not to understand it as your disability lowers your quality of life no matter what”. No amount of adaptation or general enjoyment of one’s life gets you past the deficiency you get into your happiness total, Peter Singer-style.
It’s a touchy issue and I’d hate to just shout RD down, no matter if he came across as too provocative even for my taste. It is obvious that really gross deformities in the fetus mean the possible child’s life really is short and full of pain; it is hard to see what gain there is in these situations for anyone. I am personally willing to admit to disability being something I’d rather do without… but I’m quite happy with my life. I’ve never wanted “not to have existed”. But then again, I wouldn’t want to pass this on to a child. I’m not sure the decision not to have biological children is much different from actually aborting.
Report abuse
This is absolutely right.
I might add something about logic.
Mr. Dawkins, from a logical point of view (you seem to like logic a lot), happiness is based on morality and not morality on happiness. And morality is based on humanity and not humanity on morality.
Can you disprove this logically? Never ever.
This means:
If someone wants to sum happiness (how well you did express yourself), he must act morally, to act morally, he must act with dignity.
I give an example:
One plans to marry to sum happiness, one should marry someone with a down syndrome, not an actress.
Report abuse
Richard,
Several years ago I was having an argument with a close friend of mine who is religious. We were talking about the existence/composition of the House of Lords and I was saying that it should be abolished but that the bishops in particular being in there was ridiculous. She tried to defend it and then as a concession started to say that as we are now a multicultural nation that it should not now be just bishops but other religious representatives too. I got really annoyed at this and I asked her, what about me, there must be 40 % at least of people in the UK who aren’t religious, I don’t want any bishops, or anyone else religious in there because none of those people speak for me. If there’s going to be representation for ‘belief’ or ‘philosophy’ in the House of Lords, then I want people like Richard Dawkins there, 40% (or whatever) of the total.
This stumped her. She didn’t have a reply and the very mention of your name seemed to strike something into her. She pretty much changed her opinion right then and there and agreed that maybe there shouldn’t be any ‘religious’ representation in the House of Lords.
My point is that I wonder if I could have won that argument today by using your name. I suspect that now she would immediately come back at me pointing out the rape tweets and now these about down’s syndrome and see you as someone to be ridiculed rather than recognised as someone with some of the best arguments re atheism.
Just one little story but I tell it as an illustration of why I think you need to pull back from these tweets that are giving your enemies a field day.
Report abuse
QuestioningKat:
It would appear that you are correct. On top of that, it should be remembered that the whole question of what IYFNY might do if she became pregnant with a DS baby was purely hypothetical!
Poor Richard; he is constantly criticized for attacking imaginary deities and now he’s under attack for wanting to abort an imaginary fetus!
Report abuse
This is absolutely right.
I might add something about logic.
Mr. Dawkins, from a logical point of view (you seem to like logic a lot), happiness is based on morality and not morality on happiness. And morality is based on humanity and not humanity on morality.
Can you disprove this logically? Never ever.
This means:
If someone wants to sum happiness (how well you did express yourself), he must act morally, to act morally, he must act with dignity.
I give an example:
One plans to marry to sum happiness, one should marry someone with a down syndrome, not an actress.
Report abuse
As the younger brother of man with Down Syndrome, reading about these comments from Richard hurts my heart deeply. I have read his comments and apology and clarifications, and while I believe I understand his point of view I can’t keep the pain away when I think how my life would have been different had I not grown up with my loving, compassionate, riotously funny, little big brother. My life without him could only have been one of reduced happiness. In stature I rise high above him. Were heart the measure of a man’s height he would tower high above me. And, because of his outgoing, open-hearted nature I have no doubt that he has enriched and positively touched many more lives during his life than the number of people I have simply met in mine.
Having shared the above, this whole incident has not diminshed my thankfulness for Richard and his writings. He holds a genius I could never attain, and I only wish there were more women and men like him.
Report abuse
What Professor Richard Dawkins said was very rational. No sane person would want to bring a child in to the world that would end up suffering. Professor Dawkins after all was just talking about terminating an embryo which doesn’t feel pain (After 25 weeks of pregnancy there are some that say embryos develop the ability to feel pain but the pain it may feel is nothing compared to say an animal being slaughtered for meat) . There’s a huge difference between an embryo and a child and if some people can’t see that then there allowing absolutism to cloud there judgement. Professor Dawkins is an honest and moral man despite what some people may say.
Report abuse
I am sympathetic to you. But isn’t it catastrophic for some one who has raised a child with an extra chromosome to hear that his/her child shouldn’t have been born. Same for the child also. I know a couple whose child still lives with them, at the age of about 22, and can’t read and write.
I know Your position, and I am sympathetic to it somehow.
Nature is Nature, and we cannot perhaps do much with it.
But isnn’t life strange. The bipedal fifth ape does have to have to accept evolution in its own terms.
Those mongoloids who have been born, we fellow humans must respect their integrity, and human value.
Report abuse
I saw that and thought it was hilarious. My only child is my cat, and I have no plans to have human children!
Report abuse
To R. Dawkins: I sympathise with you, however there are several problems with what you say in the above post.
Firstly, even taking into account the limitations of twitter, you still stated that it would be ‘immoral’ to bring a Down syndrome child to term. That aspect of your comment remains only slightly qualified in your longer statement above, where you say that you believe abortion would be the most sensible and moral course of action under such circumstances.
Therefore, while you did not call for forced abortions, you still expressed a categorical moral judgement about what it is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to do under such circumstances; and that goes beyond simply stating your opinion of what you would do given such-and-such a situation. Instead, it amounts to a moral condemnation of those people who choose to raise Down syndrome children.
Secondly, there is a fundamental problem with your opinion that aborting a Down syndrome child is the more moral course of action according to a utilitarian ethic of maximising happiness and minimizing pain. The problem being that this assumes that raising a Down syndrome child is on balance more ‘painful’ for the child and its parents than aborting it. However, as many studies have shown, over 90% of adults with Down syndrome report that they lead satisfied and happy lives; while many people with Down syndrome live independently without relying on their parents.
In summary, I wish you would be more responsible with your moralising, and take the time to do some research before broadcasting hasty moral judgements about issues involving vulnerable people who already have to deal with quite enough persecution and prejudice as it is.
Report abuse
Thanks for removing any residual doubt!
As someone with two feline and two human children, I can honestly say that your familial situation demonstrates great wisdom 🙂
Report abuse
This seems to be a question of after the fact feelings attached to a before the fact situation. That is a terrible fallacy, and that has made this conversation idiotic.
Arguably every parent loves a child after it is born, whatever the situation. The parents of Down children seem to be especially devoted. Perhaps it’s an acquaired pre-emptive strike against useless pity offered by stupid neighbours, or perhaps it is a beautiful part of human nature to be especially nurturing towards the weaker ones.
But it is fallacious to transfer those parental feelings to a situation, where the child has not yet been born, and that lovable person does not yet exist.
By the same logic, not having an infinite number of children would mean killing those prospective human beings by denying their chance to exist. By choosing to have a definite number of children, which should be reasonable by any moral guidelines, we are always denying another human a life.
And people usually do eventually try again. So, by aborting one insentient fetus, we give that spot to another fetus, which will develop into a sentient being. Give life to one fetus, you deny it from another, and vice versa.
Having our daughter, my spouse and I were about forty, so there was a certain Down risk. We took certain tests, except the amniocentesis, as we were told that there would be certain risks involved in in. The non-invasive tests already gave us a very high probability of a healthy fetus. We found the low risk of a trisomy 21 abnormality acceptable.
However, had there been an indication of a high possibility of a Down’s syndrome, we would not have hesitated for a moment. We would have aborted the fetus as soon as possible. It would have been a painless operation, causing suffering to no sentient being whatsoever.
Given our age, we were certain of not having more than one child. Giving birth to a Down fetus would have meant that a healthy child of ours would never exist. Aborting a Down fetus would have meant that a healthy child would be born with fair expectations of a long and healthy life.
Luckily, with such good odds, we didn’t really have to face that choice in reality. So it is hard to say how high a risk we would have been ready to accept.
The crazy thing is, there is a movement promoting the idea of disallowing the abortion of Down fetuses. Yet at the same time, these people wish to allow the abortion of healthy ones. So, they actually consider the life of a Down person more valuable than that of others.
Needless to say, I am pro-choice, whatever the reasons. I think the more control we sentient beings have on our lives, bodies, health and future, the better.
Report abuse
The problem is that there are many, many people born with Down’s Syndrome that are not suffering. A dimished intellect does not cause most of these people to suffer. Some common ailments may cause suffering (like heart disease), but these sufferings are no different than the sufferings that any human without Down’s Syndrome may suffer over the course of their lives – and not all Down’s people have these ailments. If the potential for heart problems in life was a risk factor that made parents choose to abort there would be a lot fewer people enjoying life on this planet. I would also wager that those people at high risk for heart problems would overwhelmingly choose life with heart problems over no chance at life at all.
Report abuse
I have some questions for readers here; if you were given a pill that substantially reduced the chances of having a child with birth defects, would you take it? Would you ask your spouse to take it? What if it were in the form of a vaccine that you could take early in life and would last through child bearing years, would you get it? Would you want your children to get it? Would you want the health service to provide it for the general population?
Would it make any difference to you if this pill worked by repairing genes or just causing sperm or eggs to not develop with defects? Would it make a difference if the pill worked by simply preventing conception? How about preventing cell division after conception? What if the pill prevented implantation? What if it causes miscarriages in the first month or two? Would you still take it?
Report abuse
@Cold Thinker
The point is that R. Dawkins states that, if one is concerned with maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering, the most moral action would be to abort a Down syndrome fetus.
Think about it. That logically implies that allowing people with Down syndrome to be born depletes the overall amount of happiness in the world – that on balance, people with Down syndrome suffer more and cause more suffering to their families.
You have to consider: what evidence does R.D. have for thinking this? Can he see into the hearts and minds of all of those people who have Down syndrome, or have raised Down syndrome children? How do you possibly compare amounts of ‘happiness’ and ‘suffering’?
In short, R.D.’s argument is based on a massive, unjustified, set of assumptions.
Report abuse
“I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare”.
Sir, your obvious misunderstanding of Down syndrome makes you horribly unqualified to make this statement. My family was surprised by the birth of our child with Down syndrome. Our doctor told my wife that we had a 1 in 4000 chance of the child having the condition. No further testing was needed. We were devastated at first. What life would this child have in a world that is so unforgiving? What I have found by raising this wonderful little boy, is that there is a side to the human condition that I believe you are not giving enough credit in your assessment. From the times Ardy and Lucy were gathering food with their arms to walk home, I must believe that they were motivated, in part, to not only improve their own condition but also those of their group. Down syndrome research today is helping to unlock the mysteries of Alzheimer’s and Dementia (something that should concern your advanced age), as well as some forms of cancer. The physical delays presented with Down syndrome are, today, being targeted by precision speech, physical and occupational therapies yielding incredible results. Children taught in inclusive environments and raised among typically developing peers are progressing further cognitively, then was every expected. This all without the pharmaceutical intervention that is currently in human clinical trials. (Phase II study: http://www.roche-trials.com/trialDetailsGet.action?studyNumber=BP25543) It is my strong belief that knowing all that society is and will benefit by people living with Down syndrome, you will please retract your, sorry to say, ignorant statement on the subject. Even with a typically mild to moderate intellectual disability, my child has the potential to be a contributing member of his community. I don’t just measure this success in a few individuals. Just 15 years ago there we’re only a handful of life programs in institutions of higher learning helping people with disabilities to transition towards independence. Today, in the US, there are over 200. The demand is there. These are kids ready and willing to take the next steps. Unfortunately, it is opinions like yours, based on past experiences that may as well be from the middle ages on this subject, that are hurting my son. Be careful that your opinion, and ignorance, is not doing more harm to him, then his disability. Please advocate treating the patient and not the condition. Like Lucy, you will not only be upright and walking, but also contributing positively to our collective future. I implore you, on this subject, to put down the pen and pick up a book. You will, as I am, be pleasantly surprised. A life with Down syndrome is, today, a far cry form the suffering so many people are describing. With such a positive outlook on helping individuals with the condition, my advise to that mother now, would be to have that child, love it and treat it like any other, precisely because it is the moral thing to do.
Daniel Sheire
Proud father of a son with Down syndrome
Washington DC
Report abuse
Mr. Dawkins, what is the basis for your assertion that a child with Down’s syndrome experiences less happiness or suffers more than a typically developing child? You say, after all, that it is immoral not to abort “from the point of view of the child’s own welfare.” That sounds like a naive and prejudiced view to me.
Report abuse
I had no doubt regarding the good professors integrity. I did see something about that on twitter & I concur fully that 140 characters does not allow one to fully express oneself on occasion. If in doubt, don’t jump to conclusions & look further into any matter. Due to Richards’ atheistic views some do get on the bandwagon. An unexamined life is not worth living; unexamined anything is not worth consideration. Abortion is personal choice & Richard never espoused otherwise. My partner & I would without question abort a baby with severely diminished prospects of a prosperous life due to diminished capacities for the exact same reasons Richard mentioned. They are the exact same reasons we concluded 8 months ago when we found out she was pregnant. Other serious reasons for abortion which Richard didn’t give may be the mothers survival, viability of the embryo; I have read stories of mothers refusing to abort despite the fetus not having a brain (the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.) Anyone who insists that the bible forbade’s abortion might like to know that the bible neglects to even mention abortion, yet espouses killing healthy viable living babies. I hope you do see this comment professor & the others that also agree with your position. May reason and rationale reign, because ‘god’ doesn’t. I couldn’t be more atheist if they invented Richard Dawkins pills & I took 100 per day!
Report abuse
Yep..
But I suspect this was not directed at me.
Report abuse
“What Professor Richard Dawkins said was very rational. No sane person would want to bring a child in to the world that would end up suffering.”
It’s not rational at all. If you were to discover your child would be blind, without a limb, or any number of abnormalities, should the child be aborted because they may suffer? Why just Downs? Why not just kill all embryos in third world countries where children most definitely could suffer from malnutrition, disease, poor social / economic issues. What about children in warzones? Children with AIDs? All these children suffer in some way. Children whose family genes show high levels of alcoholism?
It’s a nonsensical statement with little thought and highly selective.
Who is Richard to declare how much suffering someone should endure for their life to be forfeit?
As for your absolutism, you should check the mirror.
Report abuse
From Tunbridge Wells perhaps ?
Report abuse
I’m terribly sorry to be a pedant, but I believe that you might have meant to say that you would “prescribe a Twitter-ectomy”, rather than “proscribe”, which means to forbid or prohibit. This is in no way to detract from your argument or belittle you. I do not mean to offend.
Report abuse
Dear Mr. Dawkins,
While I agree with much of what you say, this topic is no doubt difficult because it requires that we judge all downs syndrome individuals as those who violate your moral philosophy of “a desire to increase happiness and reduce suffering.”
What if, those with Downs syndrome turn out to increase happiness and reduce suffering? There is an individual by the name of Tim Harris who is a restaurant owner and someone who has Down Syndrome. Not only is he a functioning member of society, his upbeat attitude and a desire to give his restaurant patrons a hug as they come through the door produces happiness and reduces suffering.
Here’s his story in 3 min:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6He0FWoFj0
Now granted, he may be the rare exception…but then if you speak to many parents of Down Syndrome kids, they refer to these kids as having “UP” syndrome, because their attitude to life can be very uplifting…thereby producing happiness for others and reducing suffering.
From an evolutionary perspective, the mutation that causes people to have Downs Syndrome may turn out to be one where nature accepts that individual because he serves to better draw out our humanity towards those who with some extra love will return that love back many fold. Not to compare someone with Down Syndrome to a dog, but think about the reasons why dogs continue to exist even though many breeds of dog would not survive in nature without people. They provide happiness to their owners and so we act as the nature which selects them. Why not have otherwise “normal” human beings select Downs Syndrome patients.
Think about that.
Joseph.
Report abuse
I don’t have Downs Syndrome. My life has been very difficult with many struggles. Bad things have happened to me, and sometimes, I have wondered whether it is immoral to have any children at all and subject them to this difficult life.
On the other hand, if we followed that line of thinking, we’d have no civilization…which is probably immoral.
Report abuse
Professor Dawkins
Like Danny, above, I have come to the end of my tether with you. You behaviour follows a recognisable pattern which repeats itself over and over again. This incident, and the mealy-mouthed evasive non-apology which you offer us here, is the final straw. You portray yourself as a misunderstood genius, hounded by ‘haters’ who deliberately take offence, when in fact, I think you are at heart a deeply unpleasant person whose character flaws cannot help revealing themselves with increasing frequency.
You have become a liability to the humanist/atheist movement, and it can only be a matter of time before it disowns you, regardless of the services you have rendered it in the past. I will now cancel my account here.
Report abuse
It seems to me that there is (at least) one other group of people who felt hatred towards your comments and whom you overlooked: people who have Down Syndrome. Your sweeping, ill-informed tweet “DS not enhanced” caused insult, hurt and, yes, hate amongst those I have spoken to.
Report abuse
This is absolutely right.
I might add something about logic.
Mr. Dawkins, from a logical point of view (you seem to like logic a lot), happiness is based on morality and not morality on happiness. And morality is based on humanity and not humanity on morality.
Can you disprove this logically? Never ever.
This means:
If someone wants to sum happiness (how well you did express yourself), he must act morally, to act morally, he must act with dignity.
I give an example:
One plans to marry to sum happiness, one should marry someone with a down syndrome, not an actress.
I hope, I did finally post my comment on the right place (@H3000),lol.
Report abuse
One way to test any philosophical argument is to test its logic at the boundary conditions, i.e. at the extremes.
The way I understand Dawkins’ philosophical argument is that he feels it is immoral to bring humans into the world who, I guess on net, don’t bring happiness and reduce suffering. I presume he means “on net”, because every human suffers or has unhappy moments in his or her life. And I cannot imagine that Dawkins is advocating aborting everyone. I also presume “on net”, because if folks with Down Syndrome experience some happiness or reduce some human suffering, which they clearly do (just look at the happiness of those who win in the special olympics as an example), Dawkins would still take the position of aborting those with that condition.
So Dawkins strays away from the boundary conditions. He does not abort everyone, even if everyone suffers in life, and he would not save some of those with Down Syndrome, who might only have a minimum of happiness.
So logically, I must conclude that Dawkins means, “on net”. Hence, I think Dawkins would advocate aborting any fetus, which might be deemed to suffer more than he doesn’t and be less happy than he is.
But that kind of logic would lead us to some sort of slippery slope whereby we start aborting not only those who have Downs, but really any disease, which we may judge (subjectively I might add) to cause more unhappiness and suffering on net.
But the problem with aborting many fetuses with bad diseases is that while it may ultimately reduce disease, vis a vis a eugenic type of philosophy, it will also take away the challenge from the medical community to find ways in which diseased individuals can find more happiness and less suffering on net through treatment. How can any treatment exist if we don’t have enough people with a disease requiring that treatment? But if we had treatment and those humans could be happier and have less suffering, then wouldn’t we want that?
I know it’s a chicken and egg problem…but I don’t think there a solution that can be objective when determining who on net will be happier and have less suffering.
Joseph.
Report abuse
Although abortion must not be the same like genocide, it is absolutely wrong to assume that a DS child means an increase in unhappiness and the abortion means a minor decrease in unhappiness.
Either Dawkins doesn’t know much about happiness and suffering or he is misleading because the truth about happiness and suffering is not going hand in hand with his other interests.
I have already write about this in my reply to H3000. But even a simple look at it, makes Dawkins mistake clear: Suffering is caused by not accepting when something doesn’t go the way we did expect it and sooner or later everything ends up in a way we didn’t expect it. Happiness is caused by growing (especially mentally and morally) on the situations which did end up in a way, we didn’t expect it. Although there are or might be some extreme situations where we cannot do anything about it, but a DS child surely doesn’t fall under those categories.
From DS child’s point of view, one might just ask a DS child, if it would rather “be or not to be”. The point is, being alive is intrinsically such a beautiful feeling (I guess, this did never came to Dawkins mind), that even in most extreme situations, ppl still prefer to be alive than death. The only exceptions are those who commit suicide and those who commit suicide they are usually handicapped with depression in the first place and not with DS.
One of the most important things which produce happiness, is the feeling that people care for you. Meaning that DS children who have parents who care for them, who did grow on this situation mentally and morally, might be/are way more happy than most children who don’t have really the feeling their parents do care for them appropriately.
Report abuse
Hmmm. What if that pill also worked “cure” homosexuality? Instead of changing the individual, why not change society?
Years ago, in fact, only a decade or two ago, homosexuality would mean a very difficult life of hiding, stigma, discrimination, etc. But eventually society started to change and accept homosexuality…many of whom have gone on to provide great value to society. Imagine what the world would be like if we aborted all homosexuals.
How do you know that a treatment won’t come about in the future which will enable those with Downs to not only become very functional in society, but also benefit society in ways that those without Downs wouldn’t otherwise be able to do?
Why not give science and technology a chance to turn disabilities into super abilities?
If you argue that there would be a lot of needless suffering of Downs patients before we come to that point…then you are also arguing that we should have had a pill to end homosexuality back in the 70s or 80s or whenever it was fatally unacceptable to society.
It’s a moving target. Instead of changing the individual with the perceived disease…change society to accept that individual and help him or her to become the best he or she can be…even with an extra chromosome…because what society deems today as non-functional may tomorrow see as very useful.
Warren Buffett once said that as successful as he is, if he were born in a prehistoric time, he would have been clubbed to death because he could not hunt a woolly mammoth. Imagine if during that prehistoric era, humans had found a way to abort all those like Warren Buffett. Where would we be today?
Joseph.
Report abuse
James, it’s clear that the main reason you take issue with Dawkins statements on DS and morality is that you are just totally unclear on the concept.
Dawkins is not saying that everyone should be selfish, think about only themselves and their family, and act in their own interests because that is the moral thing to do. Why would you think that?
The “sum of happiness” extends to all of humanity, not just to those you see in your immediate vicinity, that should be abundantly clear. What is perhaps less obvious, although logically consistent, would be that it extends into the future as well (e.g. it is not moral to steal from your future grandchildren to make your existing family better off).
So, if you want to make the case that the decision to terminate a female fetus by an Indian family increases the long term happiness of humanity and decreases overall suffering then you should celebrate such a decision.
However, if, like me, you believe that it causes more harm than good, then you should feel sad that Indian families are put in the position of having to make such a selfish decision in order to survive.
If we assume your opinion on the happiness of DS families were true then you should be an advocate of encouraging more DS children. Women should have birth at a later age, we should forgo prenatal testing and we should encourage parents who have a DS child to have another. This would maximize happiness, in your opinion. When you find the flaws in this thinking you will be further on your way to understanding Dawkins’ point.
Report abuse
Well said, Donald. I agree.
Report abuse
I agree with the Twitter-ectomy. If it can’t be said well in 140 characters – and very little can – then it should not be said on Twitter. Especially for someone like Richard Dawkins, who is constantly being followed by the Twitter-parazzi. You have better places to present your views, Prof. Dawkins.
Report abuse
You are under the false impression that “evil” is the opposite of “moral.” It is not. ISIS is evil, even Terry Jones was evil. Cheating on your wife or not tipping in restaurants is not. See above: “tyranny of the discontinuous mind.”
Dawkins gives his definition of immoral, which you fail to understand, and continue to misapply leading you to make absolute judgements that are not warranted. That is on you.
Finally, your opinion on the overall happiness as a result of DS children is faulty in so many ways, some of which I’ve illuminated already. Very few people actually believe that the world would be better off with many more new DS children in it. By your logic we should cut off funding for DS research (unless that research is in to finding a method to have even more children with DS).
Report abuse
We at Special Olympics have lots of reactions to what you wrote in your 8/21 post, Dr. Dawkins, but we will focus on just one aspect, and that is life expectancy.
People with Down Syndrome and other intellectual disabilities (often called learning disabilities in the UK) have shorter life expectancy in part because they consistently get drastically less and lower-quality health care than the general population. This happens for a lot of reasons – stigma, exclusion, medical professionals lacking training, poor communication, etc. A story in The Guardian on 3/19/13 provides a good overview.
You imply that the shorter life expectancy of people with Down Syndrome is one reason to consider termination of a pregnancy. But given the evidence on health care disparities, isn’t that like rigging the game against people with a disability or a difference –in this case, society failing to provide good healthcare to them—and then condemning them when they evidence the results of the injustice – in this case, through an abbreviated life expectancy?
By the way, the people in about 25 African countries have lower average life expectancy than that of people with Down Syndrome, which is 60 years of age. People in those African countries don’t get great health care either and many people in the world think that has something to do with injustice as well.
Through its Healthy Athletes and Healthy Communities programs, Special Olympics (http://www.specialolympics.org/) works every day in 170 countries to eliminate health disparities for people with intellectual disabilities, along with providing sports training and competition to millions of athletes. We do it because changing the world is a contact sport.
Report abuse
I agree with those who think twitter is not your friend, Richard. It is a terrible medium in which to express an argument or even just a non-trivial thought. And you don’t seem to understand how it works. NOTHING is private on twitter. Anyone can visit your time line and see what you’ve posted. Numerous people have lost jobs and public respect for posting tweets they thought were just between two people. Google Nir Rosen, for just one example.
You seem to think it is somehow unfair and sneaky for people to look in on your tweets. This shows you don’t really get the medium. The whole point of it is to make communication as public as possible.
Perhaps you could take some lessons in how to make twitter work for the secular movement, instead of against it, You are definitely not winning the movement any popularity contests.
Your friend in secularism,
Katha
Report abuse
Hi Joseph. I did not ask if you should take the pill, I asked if you would take it. Would you?
Report abuse
Mods, why was my August 21 comment removed?
First time in 5 years that has happened.
It was in no way harsh. I said I had been singing RD’s praises to a visiting relative, an influential surgeon who found RD’s books too “difficult” and now he would be even more averse to his books because of this thoughtless Twitter business.
Twitter is for The Twits (Roald Dahl) and should be called “Blurt” instead.
Report abuse
A slippery slope is inevitable, you demonstrate that yourself by raising the issue of a fetus with “severe” deformity. The solution is not to pretend it doesn’t exist or to choose one ridiculous extreme or the other.
Of course the issue for other people is about cost. But not just financial cost, also emotional cost and opportunity cost. You admit that you’d rather not have your disability and we agree. Not that you don’t have a right to exist in our society, by your birth you’ve earned that right. However, we’d rather have the you without the disability, that’s what the very blunt “abort it and try again” means.
(For purposes of keeping this thread simple, I’m assuming your disability were prenatal and detectable, at least in some universe.)
Report abuse
I think all the early comments have gone. They had a problem with the site.
Report abuse
Hi Quarecuss This isn't ringing any bells. We understand there were some technical problems with the site earlier today, and can only think your comment somehow got caught up in those. Sorry about that. The mods
Report abuse
The argument may be unproven, but it is far from unjustified.
Is it conceivable that there are a small number of people who are more fulfilled by having a DS child than having a child without DS? Yes, it’s conceivable, but that will be a very small number. Are those people capable of taking care of that child on their own without asking for help from the rest of society? Possible, but that number is even smaller.
The idea that adding a DS child into the world (rather than a ‘healthy’ child) increases overall happiness is the unreasonable assumption that needs to be proven. Coldthinker has pointed out some of the reasons why it’s convenient for you to believe that (perhaps even healthy for you to convince yourself of that), but it is not true and if you examined your own opinions carefully you would see the inconsistencies. It’s up to you whether you want to do that or not.
I will concede that an abortion is possibly harder for some people than raising a DS child, but that says more about their issues regarding abortion than it does about DS.
Report abuse
Exactly. I am pointing out that an a priori moral standard about actions is a necessity for human social organization. Whatever its truth or falsity, religion gives people this. So, of course, does the law, but the law is largely the product of religious people in the past and religious law has been the progenitor and archetype for all law derived from Western Europe.
Mr. Dawkins’ happiness/suffering gradient is simply not an adequate substitute for this. Most religions can be attacked for claims science does not support. Many religions can be attacked for the forms of law and punishment they advocate. I don’t think my religion (Buddhism) can be so impeached in any essential way, but there is no reason why I can’t be wrong about this. No one here, however, appears to have taken it on.
But the need for a usable moral standard remains, and my criticism of Mr. Dawkins, and of most Atheists I have encountered is that they have not really stepped up to the plate and addressed the issue of secular morality in a way that truly substitutes for what religion and the law between them provide.
I have no answer to this myself but I do think that Buddhism generally has the most logical form of such morality, given a small number of admittedly unprovable assumptions.
Report abuse
Hi Steve. It is a generalisation on my part, agreed, but the chap I was responding to was making wilder and far more inaccurate and dangerous generalisations that people with ds are a write off who live pointless lives with no hope of making any contribution. While people such as the professor promote such waffle, sadly many shall miss out on what is a very special experience.
Report abuse
Abortion is a topic I usually steer well clear of, just as Hitch tended to steer clear of it. What our response to it should rationally be is as per Pete Singer, where there is no consciousness and no accumulated experience there are no harms to be concerned about. Brains R Us and a functional one does not yet exist in a foetus for most of its existence.
Yet two things confound the rational, our moral heuristics and the sometimes up-screwing existence of oxytocin. Oxytocin starts a bonding process pre-birth, and thats a bitch. It confounds our reason with unreasonable emotion. The sensible choice to terminate hurts the more when it is delayed and bonding has begun. The morning after pill? No Probs, but after months of hopes and dreams…?
And what of these moral heuristics? It stands us in good stead to have a gut feel that we should do no harm. It stays our hand many times in our life. Don’t kill kith or those close is a good heuristic we have developed to aid us living together. We tamper with it at our peril. On every occasion to say yes but are we sure we shouldn’t just pop him off, he beats the kids horribly, is to slowly train us out of our handy cautious heuristic. There may be a risk to too often subverting our gut feels.
I’ve seen, close to, the unhappiness of a perfectly rational health related abortion. That bitch, oxytocin, can take as much as it gives. I suspect that Hitch may have been near to such an experience and so was slow like I am to espouse the simple moral calculus of Pete Singer, when the emotional calculus says elsehow.
The decision not to abort, may on balance be selfish, but the mum to be has every right to be. Most decisions to have kids are selfish decisions…
Report abuse
It’s their problem? In the same way that the victim of racism should just shrug it off? Or perhaps the man in a wheelchair should take discrimination on the chin?
I am very much in favour of free speech and debate. However to make judgement on a woman’s morality based on her decision to give birth to a child with down’s syndrome is out of order and offensive. That’s not acceptable and should be challenged.
Report abuse
Joseph, if there were a pill that guaranteed DS or another birth defect in your children would you take it?
It sure sounds like you would. Think of the super abilities your children might have!
I think you’re taking X-Men and other science fiction a little too seriously.
Report abuse
Craig, unless you have a compelling proof that the rest of us are unaware of, it is pretty hard to argue with Dawkins opinion that this is a possibility worth considering.
Report abuse
For the fifth time of asking…..Please, Richard, don’t tweet. Posting here is brilliant. This site has recently been transformed by your recent intellectual provocations. Tweet links for sure. But in tweeting single concepts in such a low bandwidth way, the delay in getting out the full arguments means the misunderstandings (malicious and otherwise) will have gone critical well before tweet two or three can get out and can no longer be managed.
Report abuse
Joseph, so what you are basically saying is that you want more unhappiness in the world. Your logic would also lead you towards afflicting more people with rare diseases so that we would then have enough to be worth searching for a cure for those rare diseases.
Not only do you misunderstand the utilitarian view on happiness (hint: it’s not just about making one individual happy), but you don’t even consistently apply your concept of testing the boundary conditions.
Report abuse
A challenge
Prof Dawkins, how about some field research into the impact on ds on the sum happiness of humanity? Come along and meet some people, with ds, and their parents, drink some tea and talk over your views with us all. Yoy never know, your own morality may be be challenged…
Report abuse
I am asking Dawkins for the evidence for his assertion that people with Down’s syndrome are less happy than people without Down’s syndrome. In my personal experience, this is not true. (If there is an identifiable trait for depression, Dawkin’s statement would be more defensible in that context.) You are putting the burden on me; how very unatheist of you.
In the regulatory context, putting a lower value on quality of life years for people with disabilities has come under fire for misrepresenting how those people actually report their own happiness. It is a bias–one which Dawkins has succumbed to. I do not have compelling proof one way or the other, but it is a topic of current research and debate. See, e.g., http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27554754. It is also likely very context-specific. For example, if you are healthy for most of your life and then become blind and have poor adaptability, then you will suffer because of your disability. But if you are born blind and have a different character, then you may indeed be happier than many sighted people.
Report abuse
I question the accuracy of your statement that those afflicted with DS receive less health care than others; searching for your Guardian article was fruitless so please provide a link or more info. It is quite possible (perhaps probable) that they receive inadequate healthcare given their special needs and that there is more we could and should be doing. However, the statement that they receive less healthcare by cost, by number of visits, (whatever metric you like) is surprising.
Regarding children in Africa. Dawkins argument would certainly not lead one to abort every African fetus, however it would lead one to abort a fetus that was significantly more unhealthy than the average African fetus (i.e. the relatively healthy fetus that the mother would have in her next pregnancy). Not doing so would seem exceedingly cruel given their even more limited resources.
Report abuse
Many people here have made the point that people with Down Syndrome can lead worthwhile lives and actually increase happiness and well-being in others. I’ve no doubt this is true.
But, of course, it’s also true that people without Down Syndrome or any other kind of disability can lead worthwhile lives!
Yet I’m sure if anyone were to recommend an abortion to a mother pregnant with a “healthy” foetus in a case where she was unsure whether or not she wanted a child, it wouldn’t cause half the furore, especially from pro-choicers who accepted that a foetus has no sentience at that point.
If a woman is pregnant with a “healthy” foetus at, say, a time she considers too early in her life, and chooses an early abortion, perhaps with the intention of trying for a baby later, many pro-choicers would support that decision without any issue. But if she were pregnant with a foetus known to carry some kind of disability and decided to have an early abortion with the intention of trying again for a child later, it seems to create a lot more unease. Yet, did the “healthy” foetus not deserve to live as much as the “less healthy” foetus?
I think if you accept that a foetus has no sentience at the time it may be aborted, there is no crime, no direct victim; so you must accept this is the case whatever the known state of “health” of the foetus. It doesn’t make the action of the abortion worse if the prospective health of the child would be worse. There should not be any shame or guilt attached to a mother’s decision to abort an “unhealthy” foetus if there would be none attached to a decision to abort a “healthy” foetus. And if mothers ask advice on whether or not they should have an abortion, there should be no guilt or shame attached to those who give their honest opinion, provided it is made with good intentions and as long as the final decision rests with the mother and she is fully supported in her choice.
Report abuse
Yes, Prof. Dawkins, PLEASE abort your twitter account! Have you not noticed the link between twitter post and shitstorm? Very little can be intelligently discussed and elaborated on in 140 characters. This latest twit (tweet) sounded to me like a fishing expedition in hopes that you would (and did) bite the foul bait and run out the line. You will always have a pack of angry, ready-to-be-offended, attack dogs nipping at your heals, just as any well-known politician does. What do you gain by throwing them these large, bloody chunks of twitter meat? You have spent much of your life attempting to spread and increase science literacy. These twitter fights are undermining much of what you have worked for. At the very least, if you insist on continuing this social media experiment, approach these moral landmines with a more detached and formal objective scientific mindset, avoiding any prescriptions for morality or anything that might come across as such. Forgive me for the pretension; that I would dare suggest what you as a distinguished scientist, educator, and intellectual ought to do, but I beg you, leave twitter to the rest of the twits, and go back to the long form science writing you are so good at.
Report abuse
Dawkins has put shame on women who decide to keep a child with Down’s syndrome–the woman’s decision is immoral, in his words.
Dawkins apology is based on the prejudice that people with Down’s syndrome lead less happy and fulfilling lives. That is not an apology–it is digging himself deeper.
Report abuse
Thank you! This is the point that the majority of posters are missing! Is this Superman’s Bizarro World? My daughter just had her second ultrasound ( at twelve weeks). Why did she have this? In order to detect abnormalities! If things were not progressing well, a termination would follow as a matter of course. This would be a sad event just as the first pregnancy that ended naturally at ten weeks was a sad event.
Richard was not advocating throwing a live baby to the wolves! Thankfully those days have passed! He was talking about the decision to terminate a pregnancy! A sound decision! The cloying rhetoric surrounding this topic is at odds with the reality of decisions made everyday by decent human beings.
Report abuse
First, I would ask you to identify where Dawkins made such an assertion. Answer: he didn’t.
It is still an open question as to whether those with DS in our modern, relatively welcoming society are approximately as happy as everyone else. It’s probably close enough one way or the other that it’s probably not worth spending too much time thinking about.
What is far more certain however is that those with DS are a heavier burden on society and contribute less (by whatever rational metric you choose). Without the special consideration (in time and resources) they are given they would no doubt be far less happy. This in no way means that those alive today with DS are any less deserving than anyone else or that they shouldn’t be given special consideration. Just that there is no reason to create an unnecessary burden when the benefit is so small.
This may not be a pleasant truth, but it is true nonetheless.
Report abuse
“I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare.”
Dawkins is presuming less happiness and more suffering for a child with Down’s syndrome.
Report abuse
When the abortion subject has been discussed here, in the past, I have often linked to this excerpt by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan from Billions and Billions as background. I did so in a post on this thread yesterday that was lost, so here it is again.
Report abuse
I assume you are going to complete that thought at some point.
Dawkins also said “I eat women and condemn short children” if you’re going to ignore context and make selective omissions.
Report abuse
Tell me how I am misinterpreting that sentence. He says “from the point of view of the child’s own welfare.” I am not quibbling right now with everything else you’re talking about, including costs to the mother and society. I am critiquing one assertion.
Did he not make this assertion; am I reading the sentence incorrectly?
Report abuse
Do you seriously not see the word “might” in there? What do you think that means? To most people it means that that is not an assertion of absolute fact, that it is open to question or debate.
That should be enough, but in the very next sentence he states “I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn.”
So is it your opinion that people should not have personal opinions that they are not willing to prove to your own satisfaction upon demand, or that they should just keep those opinions to themselves? You’ve expressed several opinions here yourself – are you willing to prove them all or are you going to retract them?
Report abuse
I am asking Dawkins to substantiate the basis for his opinion. His assertion is at odds with my personal experience with people with Down’s syndrome, which is that they tend not to be unhappy people. His opinion is also at odds with the current retreat from the devaluation of quality of life years for people with disabilities.
This is an example of the very arguments he suggests need to take place. I think his opinion is based on prejudice, not evidence.
Report abuse
Ok, but what if the woman/family unit was affected by the abortion to the point that the overall level of happiness was significantly less than her life would have had by having the child with Down’s Syndrome? Would she not then be morally obliged to have the child? I guess in essence that is a decision that people in this situation have to make. I think it is up to the mother/couple and their individual circumstances. Good luck, whatever the choice, I say.
Report abuse
Preposterous! Stating what his choice would be has nothing to do with anyone but himself. And shame is a decidedly religious tactic. He has not dug himself in deeper, nor do I think you will find many people on his website who agree with you.
Report abuse
Dear Prof Dawkins. Please stop using twitter to express opinions which require some subtlety, and that can’t be fully expressed in 140 characters. It’s like trying to hammer a nail using a saw. After your Downs Syndrome comments I was at a meeting at the local atheist club on my university. They referred to you as being like the crazy uncle every family has. Twitter is useless for the job you’re using it for, and it will only lead to embarrassment for other atheists.
Report abuse
Not so much wisdom as that I have no interest in having kids.
Report abuse
If a family were that likely to become prostrated with guilt, they wouldn’t have chosen abortion in the first place. You get to choose for yourself (well, you don’t because you’re not the one whose reproductive rights are protected by law). Each individual gets to decide for herself. It is not your place to butt in, interfere or even comment with agreement or dissent over the choice a woman makes. Do you get that? It is not up to you! Given your ridiculous comments here, I would suspect that you only gravitate toward people who think/behave exactly like you do, so this is all moot for you. Again, mind your business and let others tend to theirs.
Report abuse
“Cloying rhetoric” is a great description for some of the comments on here. Richard has simply been open and honest about an everyday occurrence that, for most people, normally remains quiet and private. It’s clearly yet another topic to add to the growing list of things he’s not ‘allowed’ to talk about for fear of a massive backlash.
Report abuse
“if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare.”
If a woman is happy to have a child regardless of Down syndrome, Dawkins’s statement implies that she would still be acting immorally to have that child because Dawkins believes the child will suffer and be less happy. I am doubtful that people with Down syndrome are actually less happy. And the woman might suffer more from having the abortion than having the child with special needs. That is why Dawkins’s statement is too sweeping and wrongly condemns women who consciously decide to have a child with Down syndrome.
Report abuse
His opinion is no more unfounded than your own and he is not exhibiting any more prejudice or generalizing any more than you are.
Since his opinion is the prevailing one, it would seem that the opening salvo of the debate should come from your side. If you are happy with the status quo, that disabilities on average lead to a lower quality of life, then by all means do nothing.
However, if you can make the argument that there is no overall downside to having a disability for those who have it and those who love them then Dawkins has offered you a large audience to make your case. Because if you can make that case then we are seriously overspending on researching cures and pursuing new treatment options.
Report abuse
Hi Barry.
It’s typical of the dishonesty generated by the believing public. I made a comment near the beginning and was immediately pounced upon. I made the comment knowing full well that this would be the case. Everyday realities are sugar-coated and homogenised. I’m very glad that our children do not have DS. I’m delighted that our only grandchild does not have DS. It’s to be hoped that our expected grandchild does not have DS though if perchance, he/she slips the net and is born so afflicted, I will love the child nonetheless. I’m living in the REAL world! Babies are aborted. The world population is seven billion and rising.
Report abuse
Apparently these questions raise far too many inconvenient truths.
Report abuse
You might have a point if religious standards were actually handed down by a true god, but since they are the somewhat arbitrary rules created by a group of men from long ago they are no more valid than any arbitrary rules we choose to come up with today.
I was trying to point out the absurdity of your claim that it is impossible to have any clue about whether a particular action (or rule against that action) would cause more or less happiness. That seems to have eluded you.
To you it seems that it’s okay for the rules to be arbitrary as long as they are fixed in time and never changing. Homosexuality is a sin now and forever. Fine. Poking others in the eye with a stick is also fine. It’s in the rules. Hey, don’t blame me I’m just following the religion (now I just need to con a billion others into agreeing with me).
If you have an example of a Buddhist precept that does not follow the rule of maximizing overall long term happiness for society then please tell me what it is and why you think we should follow it anyway.
Report abuse
The conversation should have been between you and the person you were responding to. If you were any regular Joe, this wouldn’t have gotten as much attention as it has. You don’t owe anyone an apology for your beliefs. But since we’re both already here on your post, why not take it a further step and encourage couples to undergo genetic testing. It’s costly sure, but children are even more expensive. Especially kids that require special care. If couples know beforehand what risks may be possible, they have the option to go a different route if they want children.
As others have said, Twitter is bs. You’re better off blogging here and then linking from Twitter. That’s all from me. Just came to show some support because the world can be a big scary ugly place. Gonna work on my homework. Anyone want to help with Physics? 🙂
Report abuse
I’m sorry, but this is nonsense. You are welcome to your opinion if that makes your life more bearable, but please don’t try to pass it off as anything rational or statistically valid.
Report abuse
Nitya, I agree with you. In fact, I came close to making this decision myself, in my third pregnancy years ago. I had preliminary results that indicated a possibility of DS in with that fetus. We opted to have the amnio because we agreed in about five minutes that in the case of a positive on the amnio we would choose to terminate. Yes, that’s right, abort it and try again.
This was not a decision based on emotion. It was based on practical concerns that every woman considers for any pregnancy that she carries. How will this future child affect my life? How will it affect my children that exist now? Do I have enough help to manage another child? How will this affect my marriage? What about the financial burden of another child?
These questions are part of a normal and natural calculation that is as old as our species. Now, thanks to medical science we have the means to make this decision quickly and pretty much painlessly. In times past, on discovery of serious birth defects or a perception by the mother that the newborn infant she had produced would endanger her already existing offspring or deplete her own meager fat reserves over a harsh winter and endanger her own life or enrage her current mate to violence when he suspects it’s not his own, or any other possibility, then the only option at that point was to abandon the child. There must have been an assumption of death in that mix on some level.
In the days between my own amnio years ago, and the day that they phoned in the results of that test, normal chromosomal configuration, I remember feeling anxious and sad, but I never wavered in my decision to terminate if given a positive result. Both of my daughters know about the circumstances surrounding that pregnancy. The have both assured me that if they are in the same position some day that they would do the same thing. (Even the daughter who WAS that pregnancy, mind you!) You see, they have an older brother who has suffered from mental illness issues his whole life. We know very well what happens to a family that has to deal with these problems. It’s a very long road that can end in suffering for everyone.
I hope you and your daughter fare well. What I now know about all of these daughters is that they have mothers (and hopefully governments) who will never railroad them into producing offspring that they don’t want. I only wish that all women could feel their own mother, parents, mates, siblings and friends rally strong behind them whatever their final decision on any pregnancy might be . This is reproductive freedom! It’s what we’re fighting for. That’s what I had and I’m ever grateful for it.
fist bump to you
Report abuse
How is there a comparison to racism or discrimination? Richard Dawkins is simply stating a valid and reasonable opinion based on his own moral values. He’s not attacking anyone.
With regard to his “judgement on a woman’s morality”, I would remind you that the point in question is only really relevant to people who have had a test carried out to see if their fetus might have Down Syndrome. I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but surely the woman in such a case must be at least considering an abortion in order to go ahead with the test in the first place.
Report abuse
I get your point, Dave. I wrote a post “longer than a Sam Harris book” on some of the pitfalls of communication under the topic dealing with the rape controversy. Richard does need “sensitivity training.” Yet, the author is guilty of a blatant attempt at painting Richard in a poor light.
As suspected IYFNY is not a mother. Why would an author state something on the lines of – Richard Dawkins tells mother to abort and try again? Strangely, I cannot find this article today. My assumptions are that IYFNY’s comment was read and the article was corrected or I’m just not finding the original article. Surely, Richard telling a mother to abort and try again is much more sensational and effective at stirring the pot than Richard telling a woman to abort and try again.
Yes, Richard needs to watch his wording and apologize when appropriate because it is OPEN SEASON on atheists and atheist leaders. The opposition lurks through Richard’s Twitter account like vultures hoping for a phrase that they can scoop up, emphasize, and proudly put it on display for everyone to see and comment. Their motives are transparent; they’ve found Richard’s Achilles heel. If you don’t think there is an effort to divide atheists, you have no idea of what’s coming. Yes, in essence, Richard has declared “war” on theists, so they will retaliate. Hopefully, these recent events will spur Richard onto finding better ways of expressing his views.
Report abuse
IYFNY, Can you still find that article? I just looked about an hour ago and had trouble finding it.
Report abuse
Hi Nitya.
Well said. I would feel exactly the same. This is the mistake people are making. Nobody is saying that everyone with Down Syndrome should be unloved or bumped off but there’s no doubting that life would usually be harder for all concerned in such a circumstance.
If a woman has had the test and then deliberately brings a DS baby into the world, then I think it’s perfectly reasonable to make an argument against that being the correct moral choice.
Report abuse
Hi LaurieB
It’s good to hear another rational, real world response. My daughter has had three pregnancies. The first brought with it great joy from all concerned. We were delighted and started making plans, as you do. We were all very disappointed when it ended ( the baby simply disappeared and was reabsorbed into her system I believe.) We all came to grips with the disappointment by saying that the baby was not developing properly in all likelihood and this is nature’s
way of self correction.
The second pregnancy was textbook perfect and resulted in a beautiful little boy. She’s now twenty weeks into her third pregnancy. If tests revealed an abnormality this would be extremely distressing but they have to live their lives aware of all the ramifications of bringing a special needs child into the world. It would affect the relationship our grandson would have with his peers. Some kids are really tough and can take occasional teasing but others are not.
As you said, it’s not an easy decision. The family need to weigh up every aspect with full knowledge of the impact on every member of the family. And I should add, why have the tests and scans if you’re not prepared to take action? It would be better to take pot luck and see how things turn out.
Report abuse
Congratulations, You have given the opposition exactly what they want to hear. Richard has done somuch for the atheist movement. Let’s give him some more time to figure things out and make an improvement.
My advice to you Richard – Stick to science, stick to atheism, avoid comparisons and avoid making quick comments when it should elaborated upon.
Report abuse
I don’t believe I said that I personally had a preference for every a priori moral standard. And from my vantage point the problem is not that the happiness/suffering gradient is wrong, but, rather, it is simply unworkable in the absence of knowledge of the future. We need to have a reliable standard of how to act, and this gradient simply doesn’t supply one.
Since you bring it up I’ll state the unprovable assumptions behind the Buddhist view: past and future lives, and a process casually called “karma”, but in detail is known as Action, Causation, and Consequences. Any action has long term consequences, but what those will be in any given life depends upon the contributing conditions available.
As a (rare) example of this in a single life consider long term tobacco use and cancer. Smoking has the potential to result in cancer, but it does not do so in every case. For a small minority of people, they can continue to smoke throughout their long lives (think of Winston Churchill) and not develop cancer, presumably due to the genes they have inherited. A somewhat larger minority die before the cancer matures. Everybody else contracts cancer. Good or bad genes, or other fatal consequences are the contributing conditions that make the emergence of cancer possible.
The Buddhist points out that many of our actions, even our bad actions have no apparent personal consequences (Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot all died in bed). This is due to the fact that it may take multiple lives to bring forth the necessary contributing conditions.
Now all of this is simply unprovable, so don’t ask me to try. The Buddhist has to treat these like axioms in mathematics: the basis for proving something else, but unprovable in and of themselves.
Therefore assuming these, the basis of Buddhist morality is quite simple: a bad action sooner or later has bad personal consequences for the individual who commits it. As an example, killing living things in this life shortens your lifespan in future lives and leaves you prone to being killed violently yourself.
This is all personal, focusing on the bad actions and the bad actor rather than the victims of bad actions. Everybody creates their own karmic problems, so the issue of “greatest general happiness” is disposed of.
Now, as I say, none of this is provable, and all of it may be false, but it certainly “makes sense”, it is consistent and controllable at the stage of action by any individual. This is what I mean by it having the simplest and most logical form of all the possible a priori moral standards.
But I would go further and say that any standard of morality must rely on some unprovable assumptions. Proponents of simple happiness/suffering gradient generally do not question the assumptions behind it and treat moral conduct as generally self-evident.
It isn’t.
Report abuse
You are hilarious. You brought up the word ‘evil’, implying it from my words when I myself had never used it.
I understand Dawkins’s definition of immoral perfectly. I just don’t think he is justfied in using it in this context. He himself comes very close to acknowledging as much when he says that his view ‘is contentious and needs to be debated further, possibly to be withdrawn’. He just doesn’t go the whole hog, admit he was wrong and apologise.
Your last paragraph is just complete gibberish. You haven’t illuminated anything other than your own confusion so I’m going to give up on you.
Report abuse
Yes, I did bring up the term “evil” because that was your implication by continuing to reiterate Dawkins opinion that such an action is “immoral.” If you meant no more than how Dawkins defined it (as reducing the happiness in the world) then why oh why do you keep emphasizing that term out of context!? You are trying to make the implication of something that isn’t there, to raise a ruckus and cause confusion in the minds of others.
My last paragraph highlights the hypocrisies of your position. You (collectively) want to claim that DS children and their families are better off (or at least no worse) while simultaneously asking for more support and funding for research. If there is no overall downside to DS then we are certainly wasting a lot of resources that could be used elsewhere. I know that it impossible for you to comprehend that you can’t have it both ways, but that’s the reality.
Report abuse
Right, so the equation of immorality with evil came from you.
Once again you have ascribed to me views that I have not expressed, and do not hold. This time you appear to have plucked them out of thin air. As a method of debate this is tedious in the extreme and renders the whole exercise completely pointless.
Good night.
Report abuse
Your cancer example is perfect.
Let us assume that someone with a terminal debilitating illness has their suffering alleviated by smoking cigarettes (or marijuana). According to your philosophy they should abstain from taking such relief because even though there is effectively zero risk in this lifetime it will eventually come back to hurt them.
In this single example you have just caused more unhappiness and suffering in the world.
Your philosophy has exactly the same holes as the utilitarianism you disagree with it. What inherently makes smoking bad? Has it always been bad or did it suddenly become bad once we established the link with cancer?
Why not use the best available knowledge at the time to determine whether the consequences are worth the action rather than make an arbitrary standard that is certain to be false (and by its religious nature cannot be improved upon). Yes it is imperfect, but it’s better than random.
The “golden rule” (which seems to be the crude basis for your Buddhism) is just as fine a starting point for the utilitarian concept of happiness. If you don’t want to get poked in the eye, it is immoral to go around poking others (even if you can get away with it, which has the same probability for both philosophies).
Report abuse
If you can explain your position fully without contradicting yourself by all means do so. Of course, as long as you keep your position vague and fuzzy it is far easier to defend (and live with).
Report abuse
I have done so. You just don’t understand it.
Report abuse
Richard,
You are so spot on. Humans have railed against nature, shielded ourselves from the ravages, no, the strengthening and self correcting hand of nature, but by doing so we take on the responsibility of guiding our own evolution. We have rested responsibility from the gods; we’ve eaten the fruit from the forbidden tree, and now we tremble in fear of the responsibility. How can any humane person, knowingly allow a child to be born with a debilitating defect, yes, defect! Human value is determined on human terms, not by nature, not every attempt at creating a human being is going to be successful, errors abound and nature aborts to try again, but we intervene instead. How selfishly cruel!
Report abuse
The problem with Dawkins is that he talks with such confidence about things of he knows so little. Moreover his arguments are at best simplistic and at worst fallacious.
According to a myriad of research papers people with DS are amongst the happiest in the world (see http://thetribalway.com/?p=273 ). Perhaps he ought to read Voltaire’s “The Good Brahmin” on this. For a more thoughtful and balanced view I suggest he read the Preference Utilitarian Peter Singer’s “Practical Ethics” in which Singer argues that from a Utilitarian viewpoint it is immoral to abort a foetus with DS. So, if as he says, his philosophy is driven by a desire to increase happiness he is has reached a perverse and irrational conclusion.
If you actually speak to mothers who have had children with DS, while they admit they probably would have likely had an abortion if a prenatal test has signified DS; most if not all also admit that this reaction would have been made out of ignorance, fear and pressure from the medical professionals. (See the article http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/once-i-would-have-agreed-with-dawkins-then-my-daughter-was-born-with-downs-syndrome-9684199.html ) .
A real worry is that the ignorant views of Dawkins will give fuel to the social and moral pressures on parents to have an abortion if their pre-natal screening identifies an abnormality. A consequence of this could be that we achieve a less tolerant society-with parents of such children being condemned by society for agreeing to see the pregnancy through. Remember Dawkins argues that to abort IS the morally right thing to do. Not to have an abortion would therefore be immoral. It is not hard to imagine that if this stance were adopted people with Down’s will be treated as a burden. Dawkins argues that parents of children with Down’s Syndrome have wrongly (and emotionally) argued and taken offence, saying that he is not suggesting that their children do not deserve to be alive. That he cannot see the implications and consequences of his views if adopted by society as a whole is staggering. He either has not thought about it or does not want to think about it. Either of which demonstrates a lack of intellectual rigour: something he regularly accuses those with whom he disagrees. Moreover, to say that the fact that most people choose to have an abortion proves his point is completely nonsensical. Would he argue that when most people kept slaves, slavery was proven to be moral? This is ethical relativism gone mad. I suggest he reads James Rachels (Elements of Moral Philosophy) on this point.
His views were shared by the English geneticist, Francis Galton, (a relative of Darwin, whom Dawkins admires to the point of worship). His views heavily influenced the Nazis. Of course blind Dawkins supporters will cry outrage and exaggeration at this association. Nevertheless, Galton proposed negative eugenics- which is exactly what Dawkins is proposing, as the moral right choice – which is exactly how the Nazis argued. This was enacted upon by the Nazis with at least 350,000 people with disabilities being murdered. Euthanasia practiced by Nazis was practice because they believed they were acting morally.
Of course it could be argued that it is irrational to suggest that people want to be born disabled. In response to this I am reminded by a disabled man who told me that people who were not disabled get this argument the wrong way around: “If I was asked ‘do you wish you had not be born disabled?’ The answer is yes, I wish I had not been born with a disability. But if you ask me ‘Do you wish you had not been born?’ The answer is no, I live a rich and fulfilling life and am glad I am alive. The problem is that people without disabilities get this the wrong way around.” Sums it up perfectly, Mr Dawkins.
Finally, perhaps we have an instance here where religions proof their worth. Dawkins sounds rational and many of his supporters will be sold by his rhetoric. Almost all religions would oppose the ethical stance Dawkins proposes, and perhaps they possess a wisdom of the past which embodies compassion.
Report abuse
Mr. Dawkins, how about to update your knowledge of Down Syndrome – the real thing we live and see everyday, not the lab and microscope stuff?
– “older mothers who are more likely to have a child with the condition”. That’s not what we SEE in fact, most mothers of DS children we know are around 30yo, not on mid 40s and even less around 50yo. What is the definition of older mother used as reference, the same from 40 years ago?
– “Life expectancy is reduced, and those who survive through adulthood often need special care as though they are children”. Things changes through time. New techniques, therapies and educational standards are contributing to a better development of those individuals. Today we see DS people as journalists, politicians, athletes, graduating on universities, etc, living their lifes with considerable autonomy. The main factor for this is how much stimulation the parents of a DS individual can provide since the first months of life. The more received, the more can be developed.
– “to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare”. Well, who said that a family with a Down Syndrome individual can’t be happy, and more important, that a DS child will live a hell on earth if allowed to come into this world? What could you tell us about hundreds of thousands families with “normal” born children who beat them, rape them, etc? And how about those families whose “normal” sons and daughters get lost to drugs or crime. Are you sure that allowing only “normal” children to born will be some guarantee for a happy and joyful life and that in any way this can happen with a family with a DS child?
I’m not talking about the abortion matter, but to think twice before write about something you don’t have full knowledge. I can’t talk about Science as you, a master on this field. In the other hand, I think you shouldn’t talk about how is to LIVE with a DS individual, having no deep experience on it as fathers and mothers of a DS children have. That’s the point I had the obligation to express after saw what you’ve written about DS.
Report abuse
You have repeatedly demonstrated that you misunderstood the concepts that Dawkins has carefully and concisely written. Not just once, but multiple times after multiple corrections. Yet you have no problem with repeatedly criticizing him for it.
Then after mention that you are making the implication that Dawkins thinks a non-abortion in this case is “evil” you agree with my assessment then you have the audacity to blame me for bringing the term into conversation. Which you admit was what you meant.
You are quite something.
Report abuse
Actually, I happen to like inconvenient truths, I just don’t sit in front of the computer all day responding immediately, so please excuse the delay. To answer your question, I happen to think that nature produces the “right” number of Downs, just like as an economist, I think capitalistic forces impart the right amount of income to any given businessman. I don’t think that anyone should centrally plan anything, not your income, not your education, and certainly not your life if you happen to be “undesirable” at a given moment in time. So to me, taking a pill that kills Downs children smacks very much of central planning or social engineering. I don’t think human beings should go about the business of killing someone based on a subjective determination of what is considered good. Again, my example if we killed all the Warren Buffets in the stone age for their inability to hunt woolly mammoth.
So to answer your question, I would neither take a pill that kills a Downs kid nor would I take pill that produces a Downs kid. I think the probability of Downs mutation occurs at the right level as determined by nature. We don’t need more. We don’t need less.
By the way, you should also read some of my other posts.
Joseph.
Report abuse
Sedan,
Please don’t put words in my mouth. Who said I was saying I want more unhappiness in the world? Also, what is the unit of happiness that you use? If each Downs kid had an iota of happiness, isn’t that a good thing? And what if those kids also bring joy to their parents and caretakers? Isn’t that a good thing?
Now, certainly, some unhappiness may be brought with a Downs kid, but why stop there? Why not put everyone who has more unhappiness than happiness (whether as an individual or as an aggregate to society) out of their misery and kill them? That would be wrong, in my view.
I get the sense that you didn’t even really read what I said. Hit the reset key, and please read again.
Joseph.
Report abuse
I might add that when I refer to treatment, I am simply stating that treatment can increase the ratio of happiness to unhappiness placing that individual back on the “no kill” list, per this philosophy espoused by Mr. Dawkins, as I understand it.
Yet by eliminating these kids from ever being born, we are not giving treatment and future treatment a chance.
Report abuse
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/philosopher-richard-dawkins-keeping-syndrome-babies-immoral-article-1.1911789
Report abuse
I think I see your confusion. The terminal illness in question is not caused by the smoking, it is unrelated; smoking comes after the diagnosis and is part of palliative care.
What in your philosophy would make smoking in that instance “bad?” If it’s not bad then how could someone possibly determine that and know what the consequences of their actions would be (in future lives)? Is it still bad if someone has a gene that makes cancer a very low risk? If you are going to make such judgements anyway why bother bring in the whole karma concept
The only value then is to make people feel better about their miserable lives or to feel better that others who have committed moral crimes will get punished. (Even though they won’t.)
Report abuse
It’s funny how you, post after post, try to make a delineation between emotion and logic, and yet Dawkins moral philosophy is about bringing greater happiness, an emotion, to the world. Kind of a disconnect, huh?
Report abuse
Joseph, I suggest you hit reset and read what you wrote yourself.
You have suggested that we would be better off with more people with rare diseases so that we would be more motivated to find a cure. While that is no doubt true, I can’t imagine that you can’t see the absurdity of that. To test the boundary conditions we should give DS to as many people as possible, right?
I’m not putting words in your mouth. These are the implications of what you have said whether you see it or not.
Terminating an already living person is a completely different situation, but even then it doesn’t fail your test. If killing a person adds to the overall long term happiness of the world then who are you to say it is wrong? Once again, you are advocating for decreased happiness in the world. The fact that you’re fine with that means that you are a cruel person, IMO.
Do we need to worry about you spreading disease (HIV, Ebola, …) in a Twelve Monkeys type situation because you think the world would be better off?
Report abuse
Not in the least.
Dawkins uses logic to bring more happiness to the world. Issues can be discussed rationally, research can be done and problems can be solved. Relying on emotion (or religion) to try to achieve the same result is at best a short term solution.
Report abuse
How is that life philosophy working for you? Have you looked into Christian Science, because I think that might work well with your philosophy of non-interference in the will of the creator.
Your philosophy on letting nature decide is pretty much downright crazy. Nature also gave us polio; are you longing for the days when science and medicine upended the natural balance? Once again, we’re talking Twelve Monkeys type crazy.
You are totally missing the lesson from the Warren Buffett example. They did try to kill the Warren Buffetts in the stone age, if they hadn’t tried then the Warren Buffetts would never have evolved to be as smart as they (we) are today.
Report abuse
If the treatment is cheap and effective enough so that the total unhappiness is not increased by DS then there is no issue, is there?
Will it ever get there? Maybe, but probably not, so why take a chance that is unnecessary?
“No kill” list, eh? If you want to try to distort the discussion into something it’s not then don’t insult us by being so obvious about it.
Report abuse
After reading this article and some of the comments, i have no one to argue with. The only thing i want to say is that, in reference to an increase of happiness and decrease of suffering, i only wish the determining factor in the decision was the child’s future, if he or she was born, rather than the parent’s. I understand the decision lies in the hands of the parents, and i am not saying yes abortion or no abortion, but if your reason for aborting the fetus is YOU will be unhappy, then YOU are selfish and your justification is nothing more. The only happiness or lack there of that should be considered is the happiness of the child. Will he or she live a life of apathy? of self-loathing? of social outcast? Will they wish they were never born as everyone stares at them in the store? as their classmates pick on them? as they are forever treated like someone who can never amount to anything or as they are treated like they can do anything when they know they will struggle with most everything? as they are treated differently? NOT all of these hypothetical outcomes will happen or maybe none of them will as there are different levels of severity with the syndrome (hopefully none but through personal observations i have seen these struggles in schools i have attended and places i have been) The reason i am only describing the possible sad life of the child is because i am not the parent making the decision and so i can not evaluate the good i can do for the child or the ways i would work for his or her happiness in my personal situation. It is up to YOU as to how hard you work for their happiness. The only factor you should consider when it comes to YOU is will you be so selfish that you can not give that child an actual life? A life worth more than the struggles of both you and them. If so, i recommend not having a child in general because with any child these situations are possible and by assuming the role of caretaker in the life of another human being, you should make their happiness worth more than your own as it should be the source of your happiness.
This message was not directed at anyone in particular and i am not accusing Mr. Dawkins or the comment writers of not valuing the child’s potential future. I only wish more people wrote about it. I was only commenting on the one aspect of this article and am in no way encouraging you to spoil your child as a means of happiness or to make them happy only so you feel happy.
All i am saying is, people are not a means to an end but an end in themselves.
Thank you for reading
Report abuse
I admire RD for expressing views based on rational thought rather than religious dogma. I don’t find it contentious. I find it refreshing.
Report abuse
A copy of what I replied on Facebook after being confronted by Dawkins Tweet (to lazy to re-write…):
Personally I would never have sex with a girl who would take an abortion. That’s a personal thing with me, but only that. I’m not trying to impose my decision on others and even though I’m personally against abortion, I would not dream of repealing the abortion law. It must be as it is today.
I’ve also worked with people with Downs and I absolutely loved every one I met. They are lovely people and I don’t want to be without that experience. It happened at a stage in my life where a lot of who I am today was created. If I change job in the future that is something I would love to go back to.
All that said, the fact is that Downs is one of the first things they look for now and it usually results in an abortion. I don’t judge those parents, not at all! But I hope I would have personally chosen differently (easy to say, right?). Dawkins is just mirroring what most people actually do. I often think we are cowards and say one thing while we in real life do another. Nobody wishes for a baby with illness, nobody believes a child with Downs is a good thing. It is a tragedy, but like all tragedies it also can bring out the best in us. And personally I like that diversity in our society.
That’s why I support Dawkins on this, not on all his personal opinions, but in the same way I would have supported a good friend who had taken an abortion when Downs was detected early in the pregnancy. His opinion on this subject is no different from the actions of most people today. And that is what I love about Dawkins! He could have chosen to sit back and protect his position as one of the most admired atheists today, but he does not care about that. He believes we should be able and allowed to discuss everything – even when it is controversial. And I love that!!! That is why I respect him highly.
I really hope Dawkins keep stirring up debate and controversy, we really need that to keep the debates and our grey cells alive!
Report abuse
James,
..By Professor Dawkins’s measure it would be immoral not to terminate the pregnancy if the foetus is a girl.
That is exactly the logical fallacy and moral dilemma I was trying to point out in the “happiness equation” in RD’s post. You got the crux of my argument. Thanks for putting it so succinctly 🙂
Report abuse
I’m amazed at the vitriol in this thread.
The decision to abort or to keep a foetus is a personal question. If you find yourself in that situation, you either make the decision or it will be made for you. Regardless if you let emotion or calculation guide your decision, it is yours, and only yours.
When nonpregnant people are asked if they would have a termination if their fetus tested positive, 23–33% said yes, when high-risk pregnant women were asked, 46–86% said yes, and when women who screened positive are asked, 89–97% say yes.
This shows how radically different the situation appears when you are faced with the situation rather that just speculating about what other people ought do.
Some people in this thread have Down Syndrome children have taken it upon themselves to criticize everyone with a different opinion. Presumably because they feel they have more experience in the matter. I find this remarkably silly since regardless of their experiences, the decision to abort is still mine and my spouses alone.
I understand, and strongly support Prof. Dawkins position. Advice was sought and advice was given. End of story. Prof. Dawkins was not forcing a abortion. Prof. Dawkins was not unduly pressuring the woman. And yet we have the klaxons of righteousness howling about how uncaring he is.
Report abuse
I totally agree.
James has succinctly put your incorrect argument based on a false assumption. Well done, James.
Report abuse
danny,
you are running away from the discussion rather than engaging in it. If we couldn’t discuss the difficult issues, why discuss at all? I emphasize with your situation, but you should nor be an apologist for Prof. Dawkins, neither should you run away when his opinion offends you.
denonde
PS. Thanks for the “Dawkins the Vulcan” image. It gave me many little snickers throughout the day.
Report abuse
I think Sedan’s description of this as “downright crazy” is a nice concise way of expressing the many reasons why this is such a ridiculous statement.
I’m afraid you’ve also taken Quine’s ‘imaginary pill’ out of context too. The idea was that the pill could reduce the chances of having a DS baby. It wasn’t “a pill that kills a Downs kid” as you so unfairly put it.
Report abuse
I agree this question of the decision not to abort being “immoral” is the part I have most difficulty with. I’m still trying to think that one through to see if there is any justification for saying that. I was making the point that a decision or recommendation to abort a Down Syndrome foetus or any other foetus with a health issue is definitely not immoral, and should bring absolutely no cause for shame or guilt.
Report abuse
You are an almost perfect example of one of the ‘haters’ that Richard describes in his five-point description above. And then you nicely finish off with
There we go then. The answer is simple – if one is against ignorance, slavery and mass euthanasia of the disabled then one needs only to embrace religion. Would you recommend a particular one..?
Report abuse
Having read Richard’s explanation again, I note that he does accept that the opinion that it would be immoral not to abort “is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn.” He also “regret[s] using abbreviated phraseology which caused so much upset.”
So I am satisfied that he has already explained his position satisfactorily and accepted his misjudgement in the initial phraseology of his tweet.
Report abuse
This is being an interesting discussion (more than one head think better) and those that commented here should be kind of glad that Richard Dawkins always put aside his pen to communicate and hear others, otherwise, no one would be commenting here, including so emotive and reasonable views on the subject.
If you’ d know me, you d probably notice that I early developed interest on alike/aside subjects (by the way I had a cousin with a Nazi tattoo, that died recently, and that tattoo when observed by me as a child or teenager was a motive for reflection, and as far as chosen to course anthropology and eugenics was/is a strong subject within social sciences.)
When it comes to emotions, I think I cannot make good decisions and in difficult times, I ve benefited more than once from psychological support, so I would never dare to think that my reason would overcome my emotional difficulties (or immaturity).
So I care for every comment in here. and could reply or comment myself, when I decided just to reply this one, not that I haven t read all comments carefully either.
Not only Germans responsive for eugenics actions, of course (you could yourself read the book The Mismeasure of Man for instance (or the book from where I had to study which resumed all of them).
I just leave some video and new link(s) here:
– video: Nazi Germany and eugenics, James Watson
-video: Campaign against Indian infanticide
–On the news: Indian boy berried alive-because he is son of a non married mother- dreams to going to school
Can science, not free from ethical duty of course. -for ethics means exactly that no one is free from participating in a largest social duty, not that science does nothing for ethics and religion does it better- help to think if this behaviour has so far genetic predisposition, I mean could socio-biologist as E. O. Wilson help here? Is this a behaviour typical from males/females mammalian brain? (a male kills offspring to assure his progeny, or that the female could reproduce again, rather than expecting the female nurture the offspring with milk, inhibiting her ovulation?)
The discussion held in here was however worth , this is only my silly wondering.
Report abuse
There is nothing sociopathic or hedonistic about the utilitarian philosophy. This is a misunderstanding that has been repeated countless times on this page and I will no longer repeat my clarification.
You seem to be willing to endure suffering (and impose it upon others) for the infinitesimally small chance that you happened to pick the one true religion and that you happen to guess right on all of its subtle and arbitrary rules and prohibitions (smoking good/bad? who knows, homosexuality? throw a dart).
I am not willing to make such an impossible gamble. Not with my one and only life (and the lives of those I care about).
Report abuse
I have to say I didn’t detect any hatred in Andrew’s post. It was well-argued and dispassionate.
You could get a job at Fox News with those editing skills though, Barry.
Allow me to do with your comment what you did with Andrew’s.
So you’re saying Richard is of below average intelligence and we should despise him for it?
Report abuse
uhhhhhhhhh, it takes time to appear a reply with links. when my other comment will be published, I will have no chance to edit it.
Report abuse
On the subject of a morality based on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, which Richard apparently adheres to, I am reminded of the Autobiography of Bertrand Russell. In his teenage years (in the 1880’s) he was a convert of this philosophy, also known as Utilitarianism. By 1902, at latest, he was rejecting it. Among his arguments is that we pursue things that are not likely to increase happiness either for ourselves or anyone else, but which we feel drawn to as something that must be done. You may be able to think of personal examples, but Russell quoted the study of philosophy as something that, aside from some small instances of increased happiness, is largely painful and depressing. Yet he felt it needed to be done. Some other examples he quotes are those involving themselves in thoughts of death.
In his writings to Gilbert Murray in 1902, Bertrand states that there are certain valuable moral principles that are not deducible from Utilitarianism and are therefore inconsistent with it. He cites virtue among these (patience maybe an example.)
So, coming to Down’s syndrome, I would not want any judgement made on the abortion/ no abortion question if that judgement was solely based on Richard’s views of morality.
Report abuse
I simply adopted your own language. You decided to equate 'immoral' with 'evil'. There's actually nothing wrong with that in itself: you will find 'immoral' defined as 'evil' in respectable dictionaries. If you don't like the usage, don't use it. 'Immoral' (like 'evil') is a derogatory term, so Dawkins should take care before using it in public. His defence is that he is using his own personal definition, and that people needed to understand this definition in order to properly understand his tweet. This is a bit odd – rather like using your own personal definition of 'dickhead' and then being surprised when people take offence – but if he could at least demonstrate convincingly that under his own definition of the term 'immoral' he was using it correctly, then we could put the whole thing down to a misunderstanding. He can't. Let's try one more time to see why. A woman discovers at 12 weeks that she is pregnant with a foetus that has Down's Syndrome. Let's say she has two possible choices Continue with the pregnancy and have a child with Down's Syndrome Terminate and have another, healthy child (let's leave aside the possibility that she might not be able to). You are very certain that choice 2 will result in more overall happiness than Choice 1, but you have offered nothing to support this position. Or to put it another way, using your own words, 'not terminating a DS fetus causes statistically more unhappiness than happiness'. I'd ask to see those statistics but of course you don't have any: to you it is simply self-evident that the life of a child with Down's generates less happiness than the equivalent life of a healthy child. In adopting this position you are making some very big assumptions about 1) the nature of happiness 2) our ability to measure happiness and compare it between individuals and circumstances 3) the amount of happiness a person with Down's syndrome is capable of experiencing compared to a 'normal' person and 4) the amount of happiness experienced by a family and those others in the life of the person with Down's Syndrome relative to the hypothetical happiness the same group of people would have achieved with a 'normal' child (or vice versa).
**Last sentence removed by moderator to bring within Terms of Use. **
Report abuse
You cannot claim an argument is nonsense without offering critical analysis of the position to draw the conclusion. You commit exactly what you condemn this contributor of doing: being irrational. I have noticed that a lot on this website. I was expecting more thoughtful and informed debate, but I see that anyone who dares to criticise the views of ‘the leader’ is rounded on by his pack of hounds with attacks on their reason or being biased. You all resemble something of a religious cult to me. Do you ever look in the mirror. (By the way, I am not a theist or atheist. I am not religious- I know what you were thinking!)
Report abuse
Richard. Do you have time to spend a week looking after Down’s children? I think it’s time. Your point has been made but you messed up making it in the way you did. Think of it as a conditional discharge, with an element of community service.
Report abuse
Hi, I’m from Austria, would you please excuse my incorrect English.
I’m quite embarrassed about this shit storm that’s going on here.
In the law of my country abortion is legal till the 12th week of pregnancy, but in case of disability – for example DS – even till the 20th week. I can understand a woman’s wish to have a normal child and also agree with Mr. Dawkin’s realistic and rational view of this problem – he is a biologist, so what.
Gloria Steinem: Women’s bodies are not a public property – so please let the decision to whom it concerns.
Thank you.
Report abuse
Well said, Andrew and Katy.
Report abuse
In Austria 97% of DS-fetuses are aborted, and every abortion has it’s own story, I agree with you, its always an individual decision and nobody can make any rules for a woman what she has to do in a problematic situation.
Report abuse
I would edit my comment, but once I dont have that chance anymore, you ll have to excuse my bad English.
When I say I decided to reply, I mean Leila s arguments and points.
Report abuse
But this is poorly said. The adult is not the pre-conscious foetus without the choice, or a need of one. Another slightly younger person possibly fully abled could be standing in the available family slot. Nor are the nature of disabilities to be ignored.
We are a species that have a capacity to make the best of things, sure, but that is actually part of the point of RD’s assertions.
The Godwin really does deserve a cry of outrage also. The discussion is about least harms to all. What will it take to trigger your Nazi sympathies? Foetuses with neural tube defects? Anencephaly? If you are concerned about misery in the here and now there should be a little vestige of the eugenic Nazi (as you would have it) in you…
Report abuse
Dear Dr. Dawkins, if you really wish to use Twitter to convey such easily misinterpretable messages, I strongly suggest that you use services such as “TwitLonger” that allow to exceed the (idiotic) 140 character limit imposed by standard Twitter.
Report abuse
Interesting that anyone would consider destroying a human life in the most violent way possible as a way of preventing suffering. How horribly ironic.
Report abuse
…I agree with you…
+1
Report abuse
First time here and to set out my credentials I am sure I am in a minority of one on this site as a committed follower of the Jewish faith and also the parent of a severely disabled son.
Unfortunately it appears there isn’t much debate here rather just a posting of views, which is interesting but one dimentional
. It would be more helpful if we could engage in debate with Mr Dawkins. Maybe that is possible elsewhere if anybody would like to let me know.
I do not intend to comment about G-d and faith (my views being obvious), nor about the use and misuse of social media and consequent perils if not careful (we are in the early days of this medium, so care is needed) , nor to explain my own incredibly positive and life affirming experiences with a handicapped family member.
I just want to pick up on 3 words, and ask a question, not as a Jew, nor a parent, just as a curious human. What is your definition of the ‘Sum of happiness’. If I would be able to have an answer to that then an interesting debate could result of which I would seriously like to participate.
Report abuse
Perhaps you ought to read my comment again and offer critical analysis of my position instead of this unthinking, emotive, unstructured dribble. Are you saying that Dawkin’s views are not almost identical to those of Francis Galton? Are you saying that the Nazis were not influenced by this pseudo-science? How would you say Dawkins views differs from Galton? If adopted by society do you think it would have a negative impact upon the lives of those people with DS and their family or not? Why? I don’t know, because you make no argument about it. It is as if you have some trigger words which send you off on a rant (which is ironically effectively what you accuse me of doing!).
You assume anyone who does not agree with ‘the leader’ is wrong and you make all sorts of assumptions about them. I am genuinely disappointed by the lack of critical debate on this site. For the record, I am not a theist and follow no religion, so cannot recommend one. If that is at all relevant! You seem to make assumptions about those who disagree with ‘the leader’ and reject their arguments out of hand without thought or reflection- “No one can disagree with the leader”. Reflecting on many of the contributions on this site reminds me of a religious cult I studied while doing my dissertation.
I knew the point about religion would get some of you going. As soon as the word is mentioned emotive words like “irrational”, “emotional haters” are banded about as you are the guardians of all that is rational. Indeed, the way you round on those of us who happen to disagree with your leader is akin to a religious cult: you have all the answers, but offer little in the way of critical analysis to support your prejudices. Maybe, just maybe, there is wisdom in (some) religious teachings/ethics, which we would do well to heed. Perhaps if you could take off your blinkered glasses you might concede this point.
I am pleased that because many of us hold more enlightened views about those with SEND than ‘the leader’, the barriers and low expectations, which have formerly existed for such people are being removed. I had a girl with DS in my last tutor group. Her parents and I placed no limitation on our expectations for her. She achieved 8 GCSEs, the highest was a D (-higher than a lot of other students in the group). She went on to college and now lives an independent life, working in Sainsbury’s and has an active and varied social life. She is also learning to drive. She is a much loved and valued member of her family and community, and was an example to us all in kindness and compassion. She is not the exception. It is about time people such as ‘the leader’.
Finally, can I say I am happy to be challenged on any of the above points. I am not so attached to any of them (perhaps I am Buddhist!) that I am not prepared to accept a better argument when presented. I try to have a intellectual humility which seems to be lacking in Dawkins and his followers.
Report abuse
Well said John. I completely agree. Reference to Russell well spotted.
Report abuse
Final sentence in third paragraph should have said, “It is about time people such as ‘the leader’ becomes more informed about the potential of people with SEND. Placing barriers and labels on individuals becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.” Don’t know where rest of sentence went!
Report abuse
“…a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering”
I’ve never given this much thought. But it seems like these down syndrome people are very happy, and seems like they have brought a lot of joy into the world for themselves, their friends and their parents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFCGMZ6hBz4
Report abuse
Sorry, my last sentence was perhaps a bit strong. Let me rephrase: you appear to be unable to see that you are making these assumptions, or that they are problematic.
Report abuse
Thanks, Joseph, for answering my question. The questions I posted were in the form of what Dan Dennett calls, “intuition pumps,” that are intended to get folks to think through the implications of the issues at hand. I asked them in the rough order of the natural biological development stages where genetic errors are detected and either repaired or result in either defects that go to birth or spontaneous termination. The sensitivity of that last part is also dependent on genes, such that, any given couple will have a greater or lesser chance of producing birth defects as a trade-off against the chance of getting pregnant and carrying full term. As a thought experiment, it is reasonable to imagine a pill that adjusts the trade-off such that fewer birth defects are achieved by increasing the natural biochemical mechanisms that halt development when genetic repair mechanisms can’t do the job.
Setting personal rights at conception makes an easy point in time, but makes no biological sense. The odds that a fertilized egg will develop enough to attach, and then develop all the way through to live birth is something between 25% and 50% across the human population. With a world live birth rate at about 11 million a month, that means there are between 11 and 33 million spontaneous abortions every month. If those are all persons, that would be a major genocide every month, just from nature itself. It is not evenly distributed, such that some couples end up with babies on the first try, while others have to “keep trying” for years because of carrying problems. If a woman produces healthy eggs, but can’t carry at all, is she guilty of homicide every month she has unprotected sex?
Although you would not do so, many reading my questions would choose to take a pill that boosts their chances of avoiding birth defects. The much harder choice is to effect the same result by choosing to end a pregnancy based on genetic testing. That one, often, pits emotion directly against reason.
Report abuse
Firstly, I think you may be using the word ‘unjustified’ in a different sense from me. In my view an assumption is unjustified when it is a) controversial, in the sense of being open to reasonable doubt, and b) unproven. Hence I stand by my claim that both R. Dawkins’ original and revised statement rest on unjustified assumptions.
Secondly, it appears that you confuse objecting to an assumption with endorsing its opposite. However, pointing out that someone else’s moral judgement is based on an unjustified assumption (such as that DS children deplete the overall amount of happiness in the world) does not imply that I am myself committing to the opposite assumption.
What I am advocating is not that we replace one unjustified assumption with another; but rather that as rational and humane thinkers, we should temporarily hold back from pontificating on such important issues until we are in possession of sufficient evidence and experience to make an informed moral judgement.
Indeed, it seems to me that it is this ability to hold back from committing oneself until one has built up a more complete knowledge of the relevant facts/situations – resisting the pull of one’s initial prejudices and partial impressions – that constitutes the kind of objective impartiality to which R. Dawkins purportedly aspires.
Thirdly, as a final point, I would say that assessing a person’s (and hence a population’s) overall level of suffering vs. happiness is a highly subjective business, and there is therefore room to doubt whether the amount of suffering experienced by one person in a given circumstance can be meaningfully generalised to apply to others in the same situation.
For example, many elderly people have physical conditions that make their lives difficult and painful in various ways to various extents; however they may still feel overall that their lives are happy because of things like strong emotional relationships with their family members, remembering things that they have achieved in their lives, and simple pleasures such as gardening. Therefore it is even more imperative in this case not to jump the gun in making an overly-simplistic broad brush judgement about the morality of aborting or bringing to term a DS child.
Report abuse
Thanks.
I was wondering that perhaps RD and site were getting touchy about mild criticism of twittish Twittery.
Report abuse
Dead on as usual, phil.
Report abuse
Amen to that.
Report abuse
One good thing about all this Twitticism … it has pumped some life back into this nearly moribund site.
Report abuse
Some of Richard Dawkins information is out of date and on one essential point he is flatly wrong. The core of his argument is this
In other words, it is immoral knowingly to bring a child with DS into the world because of the intolerable burden of suffering that child will bear. This is factually wrong. A recent study conducted in the US found 99% of people with Down syndrome are happy with their lives. You can read the study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3740159/
A few other points raised either by Dawkins or commenters here:
Ill health in people with DS – there are health problems that occur more commonly in people with DS than in the general population but most of these are easily manageable with modern medicine.
Short lifespans – the life expectancy for people with DS has increased dramatically in the last couple of decades and a person with DS can now expect to live to 60. So yes, there is some reduction in life expectancy but much less, I would guess, than most commenters here realize.
Lifelong care – this is another aspect of DS that has changed dramatically, and is still improving. With the right educational and social support, most adults with DS will hold down jobs, make friends, be able to take care of themselves and live at least semi-independent lives. The picture has changed drastically in the last 3 decades, and there is every prospect of further improvements.
Dawkins’ argument fails not because of faulty reasoning but because he has started from bad information.
I do not think he was being malicious in his statements, and I’m in overall sympathy with his ethical outlook, but given his public profile I do think it is incumbent on him now to inform himself a little better.
Report abuse
People with down syndrome have parents, siblings, nieces/nephews, grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends who love and adore them. They don’t need your pity.
The International Down Syndrome Coalition (IDSC) posts photos daily from such families – including heaps of photos and links to stories of siblings that obviously adore their brother/sister with down syndrome: https://www.facebook.com/InternationalDownSyndromeCoalition
While they don’t deny the challenges they face, they would not be without them in their family.
Maybe your neighbours family appeared to suffer to you, but to make abortion “advisable” if faced with a child with DS is wrong. I get you are “pro-choice”, but to advise abortion in this case would make you “pro-abortion” (at least in cases of DS). Surely, a truely pro-choice position should be to give them parents information including links to organisations like IDSC, to support groups, to more information about the condition, to adoption options, etc. so they can make an truely informed decision.
Report abuse
Please understand, it’s a touchy subject for those of us who have close family members with disabilities. I have a daughter with DS and I find myself repeatedly having to justify in public forums the fact that she exists at all, and I believe that my experience is typical. No other parents have to do this.
As far as this particular row involving Richard Dawkins goes, it’s very ill-informed. I’ve tried to provide some factual clarification in my comment below. (Further down the main comment thread)
Report abuse
The level of unhappiness or suffering depends on the level of disability and the various possible medical complications.
Bandying words around without researching the subject is a fairly pointless procedure, when evidence and facts should be discovered as a basis for making decisions.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000997.htm
Mild cases of Downs can be managed. The more serve cases can seriously adversely affect both the individuals and their families.
Airway blockage during sleep
Compression injury of the spinal cord
Endocarditis
Eye problems
Frequent ear infections and increased risk of other infections
Hearing loss
Heart problems
Gastrointestinal blockage
Weakness of the back bones at the top of the neck
Report abuse
This kind of attitude increases intolerance towards disabled people and teaches people that they are ‘less than human!”
It doesn’t matter where your morality lies, when you teach people that other people are less valuable than themselves, you create a world of intolerance and hatred!
Report abuse
That’s what Hitler planned.
What is next, that doesn’t fit in our Optimization Society?
Deaf, dumb, red-haired?
Report abuse
To present this as a false dichotomy of “pro-choice”, V “pro-abortion” is just plain silly, and would appear to be based on dogma!
A proper assessment of the mother’s, family’s, and potential child’s prospects, needs to be made to see what qualities of life, are likely to ensue from informed decisions, – made about levels of disability and supporting resources.
This should be standard medical procedure in countries where religions are not allowed to intrude into medicine.
Report abuse
On the contrary, I have a daughter with DS and she is a very good thing. Her existence is not a tragedy but a source of joy to others and to herself.
Report abuse
Today on the News:
Down’s Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins ‘an ignorant idiot’
And Andrew that mentions himself that he knows a girl that achieved an academic degree, just let me add that although people with Down Syndrome may have a different degree of malformation of the extra crossome, what makes them more or less fit, I know that because in my professional life I had a time when it was me that used to go to an Institution of very deep disabled people, and afterwards, in the presence of a judge and a psychiatrist too, and I remember that one day the judge himself, that explained the psychiatrist that he had a cousin in this condition and asked the psychiatrist: why are some more/less fit than others, some are not fit at all” and that was the psychiatrist answered: “people with Down Syndrome may have a different degree of malformation in the extra chromosome, what makes them more or less fit.”
So Jessica s sucess -or other people with Down Syndrome- is not exactly the proof that Richard Dawkins is an ignorant I am afraid, it is not either a motive for such a great generalization.
Report abuse
Vacuous rhetoric adds nothing to a reasoned debate!
Report abuse
Excellent observation’s denonde and Diana.
Despite its risks there are two moral opportunities that arise from RDs position and argument here. One is that the great majority of women who when faced with it choose termination; they are the ones that are bolstered in the moral decency of their choice. (How I wish for such bolstering to have been around thirty years ago.)
And two, those with trisomy21 will know that they are possibly some of the most wanted and treasured off-spring ever sprung. And we outside shall know that about their parents too…
Report abuse
It is amazing, but I suppose not surprising, that some posters ASSUME professors of science have not carried out the basic research, to find expert advice on information on subjects they speak on. – referring to available information from those specialists who are up-to-date in the study across a wide selection of cases!
(Scientific research 1.01 :- Check on previous research by other specialists, and check on published expert opinion!)
“older mothers who are more likely to have a child with the condition”.
It took me less than 5 minutes to find basic expert advice for this linked earlier comment on what is meant by “older mothers”, {The risk is significantly higher among women age 35 and older.} and other issues which need to be considered. by families and doctors.
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/#li-comment-153074
Report abuse
Worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcIujxU29dQ
Pablo Pinta, the actor, university graduate with down syndrome, pleads for a redefintion of disability: http://www.disabilityworld.org/06-08_03/il/down.shtml
I want a rich an inclusive society giving all people a chance to participate and give back, no matter how “different” they appear. And to speak in utilitarist categories: I’m convinced we will all benefit from it.
Report abuse
I agree that an informed choice is the best option.
Unfortunately in some countries those infected with the dogma memes of ignorance, have legislated to obstruct individuals from managing their own and their family’s lives.
Why do I use the term “ignorance””?
That is because when some turn up to debate (as many have done in the past), with nonsense like, “zygotes are human beings at conception”, it is obvious they haven’t a clue what they are talking about!
Report abuse
I don’t think Dawkins is being purposefully insensitive or offensive. It is a matter rather of a bad choice of wording, both in his tweet (understandable given the 140 char. limit), but still I think in his post here, which reflects I feel that his reasoning is confused around this issue.
To lay my stall out – I agree that generally speaking abortion is not immoral; I agree with Dawkins’ views on the difficulty of “personhood”; I think it is generally speaking immoral to deny a mother’s right to abortion.
My concerns with Dawkins’ post involve some comments in section 5 and in his “preferred” >140char tweet.
I totally disagree. I think this is badly worded, to say the least.
To say ‘This fetus should now be aborted’ is tantamount to saying to that person in later life (obviously should that abortion not take place) “You should have been aborted before you were born.” There is no profound moral difference here. Worded in this way, it is offensive.
Where a profound moral difference does lie is between saying “it is not immoral to abort this fetus because it has Trisomy 21” and saying “it is immoral not to abort this fetus because it has Trisomy 21″. The first statement is not IMO tantamount to later saying “You should have been aborted […]”; in just the way that saying “it is not immoral to abort this fetus” of a fetus without Trisomy 21 is not IMO tantamount to later saying this to that person. The latter statement is tantamount, and it is offensive, just as it would be if said of a fetus without Trisomy 21.
Firstly, this is just nonsensical to me. If we agree, as I do, that “[a]n early fetus, before it develops a nervous system, should not […] be granted the rights of a person” then we shouldn’t attribute it with the term welfare, as one would to a child with personhood. It doesn’t have a welfare; if it did it would be immoral to abort. (Of course those against abortion would argue that it does have a welfare; which is a reasonable argument, but not one I agree with.) To teleologically talk of the child’s welfare that the fetus would later have is also nonsense if the fetus is aborted. There will be no child, no welfare. Ending the life of anything ends its welfare, if it has a welfare – it is nonsense to say it is or it isn’t in the interests of its welfare.
So following from this, it is meaningless to justify the immorality of not aborting by using the notion of the child’s welfare in this way. It isn’t a utilitarian question, it’s a question of sense and nonsense.
Ceteris paribus it is not immoral to abort a fetus with Trisomy 21, nor is it immoral not too. It is though, at best, ill-thought through to argue it is morally wrong not to abort.
Report abuse
You are introducing into the discussion risk factors associated with Down syndrome. I am well aware of this; my son, who has Down syndrome, had leukemia, a congenital heart defect, and Hirschsprung’s disease. He is an extraordinarily happy kid with an indomitable spirit.
If the morality of the decision to have an abortion or not is conditioned on the comparative likelihood of health complications, then there are many more immoral women out there having babies than just women who have a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. Dawkins’s invocation of a moral litmus test is overly simplistic.
Report abuse
Ah Katy. Your delicate sarcasm never fails to delight.
My extremely short summary of Andrew’s views were partly a result of time constraint (for which I apologise) but mostly due to the fact that he walked straight into the stereotypical role of the ‘hater’ described in Richard’s article above. This isn’t to say that I thought his article contained hatred – I hope you see the difference.
As for Andrew’s post being “well-argued and dispassionate”, do you really think it’s reasonably arguable that there’s a connection to be made between Richard’s position on Down Syndrome and the mass murder of disabled people by Nazis? He also described Richard’s views as “ignorant” and “fallacious” – hardly dispassionate. Similarly, the fact that he knows nice, happy disabled people is still not relevant to the emotionally difficult but straightforward choice facing people who have had a positive amniocentesis test:
A. Do you wish to terminate the pregnancy?
B. Do you wish to continue and have a DS baby?
Richard has made it clear that he (along with most people) would tick box A and thinks it “might actually be immoral” to tick box B and deliberately bring a DS baby into the world.
As I have previously stated, I don’t completely agree with Richard’s position, but it has nothing to do with slavery or Nazis. Andrew’s long-winded rant, very much along the lines of Richard’s ‘5-point hater’ description, sums up all that is wrong with people who respond in such a predictable and irrational manner. This is the reason I felt compelled to respond, even though I concede that the brevity of my response was perhaps unfortunate.
Just finally, my wife used to work with adults who had learning difficulties and I have met many wonderful, happy people who were born with this syndrome. I think there needs to be a clear distinction drawn between people who have already been born and a fetus with the potential to be born, should the parents so choose.
Report abuse
I can’t? I think I just did.
Some “arguments” are so muddled in their analysis, riddled with factual errors, make absurd claims, introduce straw men, and poorly written that they are not worthy of a response.
If you think the arguments made in this post are so worthy of a response and you are willing to stand behind them, then please clean them up and make your own case. I suggest you read through the rest of this forum first, however, because this post introduces nothing new that hasn’t been addressed thoroughly elsewhere.
If you don’t agree with and stand by the poster completely then you should spend the time on your own analysis and contribute something rather than complaining.
Report abuse
That’s what irrational Catholic thinking does for people!
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/Hitlersfaith-1.html
Report abuse
I shall try to offer critical analysis of your position:
The influences of the Nazis has no relevance here. Nobody is advocating mass murder and there is no reason to think that this would happen as a result of the comments made by Richard Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins is not my leader and nor do I completely agree with him. However, I believe that he has a well-deserved reputation for sound logic and clear arguments. This obviously doesn’t mean that he is either always right (if there is such a thing as right wrong!) or that everyone in his ‘cult’ will automatically agree with everything he says. That much should be clear from the comments here.
If there is ethical wisdom in some religious teachings then I believe that would be a coincidence. Humans are perfectly capable of deciding their own ethical standards, which will obviously vary considerably from topic to topic and person to person. This is partly what makes it so difficult to discuss such matters but the ‘teachings’ in an old book are barely relevant, if at all.
I also fail to see the relevance of the girl with GCSEs who works at Sainsbury’s and is learning to drive. Are you saying that this has a bearing on a woman faced with aborting her DS fetus? I have also met happy DS individuals who attend day centres, go on holidays and hold down jobs. Even so, in addition to the potential health issues (already mentioned by others), the parents are normally facing the prospect of a dependant for the rest of their lives. This isn’t something with which everyone would feel comfortable and Richard’s stark option of “abort it and try again” must surely be appealing to many people facing the choice of whether or not to continue with a DS pregnancy.
Report abuse
Many great points have already been made in these comments, so I just want to share a video my brother with Down Syndrome made addressing this issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHtXLnq1V4o
Also search “Congratulations Project” on YouTube for more examples of people with DS sharing an uplifting message with expecting parents.
Of course, one person’s experience does not prove that in general people with Down Syndrome experience more happiness than suffering, but there is ample scientific evidence for this, such as the study by Shotko et al. indicating that 99% of people with Down Syndrome are happy with their lives. Prof. Dawkins has severely miscalculated on this point, and it was irresponsible of him to make bold statements about an issue that he is relatively uneducated about. I have no doubt that if he made an effort to get to know some people with DS and their families, he would understand the joy that these people bring into the world and reconsider his conclusions.
To be sure, raising a child with DS is more difficult than raising a child with no disability, and it could be financially challenging for some (although when the nearly $200,000 my parents spent on my college education is considered, raising my brother was certainly cheaper for them!), and it is true that the child will most likely need parental support far beyond the usual age of 18–however, as with many things in life, pursuing a challenging path often ultimately leads to the greatest emotional rewards. Furthermore, in my personal experience interacting with many people with DS, they truly do make the world beyond their immediate families a better place through their kindness, openness, and humor (it also seems that people with DS generally tend to lack certain negative emotional traits that are all too prevalent among the general population, such as the capacity for jealousy and manipulativeness).
Clearly, I am a member of Group #5 mentioned in the post above, and thus Dawkins discounts my arguments as being based on emotion, and not logic. But how does he define morality? … by weighing the balance of happiness and suffering, which are themselves unquantifiable emotional measures! This is clearly flawed logic–one cannot argue that maximizing happiness is the goal, and then say that whatever happiness a child with DS experiences or creates for others does not count, because this is based on illogical familial love.
I respect the right of parents to decide whether they are up to the challenge of raising a child with a disability, but it is not immoral to allow the child to be born. On the other hand, it surely is immoral to callously tell a group of people that the world would be better off if they did not exist!
Report abuse
Richard,
With respect, people with Down Syndrome usually do not have a ‘mental’ disability, but rather a learning or intellectual disability, and the level of disability overall can be mild (some have passed a driving test and have married), to profound (i.e. physical as well as intellectual). Most now also live well into adulthood, some achieving 65 years of age and beyond.
You say that ‘When Down Syndrome is detected, most couples opt for abortion and most doctors recommend it.’ This is certainly not the case in Ireland ( and not just because of Irish abortion law) , and I wonder if you have evidence that it is as generally the case as you imply? Maybe in the UK, but I wonder…
Report abuse
I have observed from TV news that some pedophiles that were on trial, for instances, a doctor (he was useful because before using children to be abused, AIDS tests were prescribed by him) had his consults room full with saints, as had a serial killer his garden filled with angels statues, or an assassin that on his blog compared his innocence with Christ, not that the catholic church did nor fear Hitler (evil shadows were over his him, as an evil presage), perhaps the arrow that trespassed Christ was even hidden by the RCC at that time, sense it inspired Hitler (I guess), nor was he catholic I think, moreover, considering the wise sentence of Aristotle.
Report abuse
I can imagine a dystopian novel published in 1955 which gives an account of a global society in the not too distant future which invents an electronic means of communication limited to 140 characters called “Twitter.” The story tells how humanity falls into a self-destructive form of mass hysteria obsessed with dangerously limited yet ubiquitous messaging. Spawned by “misunderstandings” erupting from the ambiguity endemic to sound-bite Twitter feeds nearly everyone succumbs to virulent paranoia in a vicious cycle of escalating recriminations. Inevitably the war of all against all breaks out. Human populations are decimated and the Earth becomes a wasteland. Yes, Twitter as we know it, is a bastard but it is our bastard. We love it and love to hate it.
Red herrings aside, Dr. Dawkins brilliantly and bravely addresses a crucial issue in this revised, amended, and clarified post about “the morality of abortion following screening for Down Syndrome.” ( I believe that Dawkins could have dispensed with the dissonant and inflammatory term “moral/immoral” in a context which affirms a woman’s unconditional right to choose. Language referencing science, matters of fact, and pragmatic concerns more than carry the day for his argument.)
Dawkins addresses alarmist scenarios, which I would term “fallacies of imagination,” raised by some comments by refuting them in the list numbered 1 through 5 above. I would especially recommend re-reading number 5 which refutes the predominate fallacies more pursuasively and eloquently than I could hope to do.
Some brief observations.
Though reluctant to admit it, abortion is a morally problematic issue because conception followed by fetal
development occurs on a temporal/physical spectrum. Obviously we do not kill newborn babies because we feel justified in calling them “persons’ for plausible reasons of development usually measured by viability.. But how many would feel justified in aborting a healthy fetus at 8 months carried by a healthy mother who simply declared that she had changed her mind about having the baby and ordered her doctor to abort it?
We have provisionally resolved the dilemma by choosing a defined “early stage” on the spectrum of development where abortion is permissible because a social consensus grounded in scientific findings has convinced us that the fetus is “not a person” or, if we are inclined toward ambivalence, “not yet a full person.” But no such simple consensus exists in nature. The pro-life and the pro-life factions justify their opposing positions by identifying “personhood” at different points on the spectrum.
Setting aside the pro-life position, most of us in America and more so in Europe participate in the majority consensus that a pregnant woman has the unconditional right to abort her fetus within a defined “early stage” period in the pregnancy. Firmly committed to the reproductive rights position, Dr. Dawkins makes it clear that he is not arguing with the woman who asks for his advice about her deliberations to abort or not abort a fetus in the early stages if diagnosed with Trisomy 21. She asks him for advice and he gives it. Period. “OBVIOUSLY THE CHOICE WOULD BE YOURS.”
Report abuse
Some figures were quoted in these earlier posts.
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/#li-comment-152996
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/#li-comment-153041
The issue of abortion in Ireland, generally has the backward politics of dogmatic Catholicism to thank for the dreadful abuses of women needing abortions for any reason.
http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/reports/news/a28961/thousands-protest-in-dublin-over-irelands-harsh-anti-abortion-laws/
Report abuse
Dear Richard
Having read your more nuanced statement regarding the termination of downs syndrome children/ foetuses (please cross out whichever word you find less agreeable) and I could not find an apology anywhere. I think you owe an actual apology to the millions of families who are coping with intellectual disabilities because you are making our lives harder by preaching intolerance from your 140 character pulpit. I am the father of a three year old boy who is at the autistic end of the autistic spectrum. Where do you stand on pre-emptively aborting that sort of child/ foetus?
You decided to make your original statement on twitter knowing full well the character limit so you can’t really blame the forum you chose for constraining sentiment. And quibbling about the @ symbol is beneath you; either you believe that bringing certain humans into this world is “immoral” or you do not, the size of your audience matters not. Your more nuanced version does little but bookend your original sentiment in a veneer of “its your choice” but you also make it very clear that you are not supportive of that choice and all the Drs (authority figures) you know are on your side. For the vast majority of families like mine it was not a choice and your words do nothing but add to the enormous burden of failed social expectations that many of us feel. The last thing we need is for snide views on our morality to become the norm in our society.
How about children/ foetuses with heart defects, should we abort those too? Couldn’t the resources these infants require be better spent elsewhere? What makes a heart condition less scary than a brain condition in your book? My wife and I discussed your comments at length, not as radicalised parents but as university educated adults and we agreed that your general sentiment is a slippery slope towards eugenics. If some families with foetal abnormalities have to abort where should we draw the line? Who should decide?
I don’t know if you have ever spent much time with people who have cognitive disabilities but you might be surprised to learn that they have the capacity to feel sadness and joy, to love the good parts of life and hate the bad, to laugh at a good joke and to marvel at a snowy day. They might not be “worth” as much to society in capitalist utilitarian terms, but If you consider yourself to be but a tiny offshoot of the vast genetic tree please realise that people with cognitive disabilities are also each unique and we will never see their like again. Who are you to prune that tree?
My wife and I also talked about our positive feelings towards you and your impressive contributions to human knowledge. I must warn you that you have the power to wreck all this good work, to taint your legacy in the minds of the public, if you go on making Prince Philip level gaffs. Your twitter statements are gradually becoming more antagonistic, so perhaps it is time for you to run some of your snarlier comments past a literate loved one before you post. Let’s hope they show you more compassion and empathy in your dotage than you are showing to millions of families who are already in pain.
Report abuse
It’s always useful to have such statistics. Diana’s figure of 97% in Austria is consistent with both the 89-97% in the survey and the apparent 92% average across the whole of Europe.
Just because statistics indicate that something is common does not necessarily make it morally right of course, but it does put the position of Professor Dawkins into context. The media reports would have you believe that he is advocating some kind of extremist behaviour when, in reality, it appears that the majority of people would be in broad agreement.
It’s a shame that the whole thing has blown up into such a “feeding frenzy” but it’s not really surprising with such an emotive topic. I do feel for the people with DS children who feel attacked and criticized but I’m sure that this wasn’t the intention.
Report abuse
This topic is of great interest to me because my husband and I chose to adopt two girls with Down Syndrome while none of our four biological children have any special needs. We believe that happiness and suffering need not and can not be seen as mutually exclusive to one another and, at times, it makes sense to choose temporary suffering in order to achieve maximum happiness. I do not advocate a martyr complex, but rather that there are times when suffering can lead to greatest happiness whether for us or others. [Link removed by moderator.]
Report abuse
Absolutely agree. 140 characters is not enough to present your case. Keep away or you may be accused of courting the media whatever the cost.
Report abuse
So, let’s see how this goes. I have a five year old son who has DS. There are plenty of serious problems with Dawkins’ faux apology. His case seems to revolve around the idea that DS decreases happiness, perhaps for the person with DS and his or her family, friends etc. However, Dawkins does not provide any evidence of this. This is very unscientific. There is plenty of research on happiness and – well, never say never – but, as far as I know, none of it says that DS decreases happiness. In this context. Dawkins’ main contention becomes merely a matter of personal opinion or speculation, and – in the context of the available evidence – ignorance. Given that it is a negative view, we might also call it prejudice, perhaps akin to racism or sexism. As you might expect, we know a lot of families with a child with DS. There are plenty of ups and downs, for sure, and it’s not easy (and it’s not made easier by nasties like Dawkins), but I see no more or less happiness in these families than I do in other families we know. Indeed, among the DS families (if I can call them that), there is a very special and meaningful bond that is impossible to experience or even explain to outsiders. Downs World is just fine, thank you. Of course, I realise that some people in Downs World may feel different, but that’s how it is for me.
Further, Dawkins seems to take it as read that logic trumps emotion. However, Dawkins case is all about increasing happiness, which is – the last time I checked – an emotion. I think this might be illogical, though I am no philosopher. Given that one of Dawkins’ favourite criticism of anyone who does not happen to share his worldview is that they are ignoring the evidence and being illogical, I think we can add hypocrisy to the charges. Let’s be clear: Dawkins’ view is eugenicist and his wriggling around that point is extremely disingenuous (of course, this is not to say that Dawkins is like Hitler; Dawkins is less dangerous, but Hitler was more honest).
Dawkins blithely states that because most (it’s about 92%, Richard) parents abort when given a positive diagnosis, most people seem to agree with him. However, this overlooks the fact that the context in which people make this decision is almost entirely framed by the highly negative portrayal of DS that is peddled by Dawkins, and almost the entire medical profession. Take another look at Dawkins’ description of DS: it focuses entirely on a highly medicalized and negative picture. It ignores any possibility of anything positive in living with DS or having someone with DS in your family. I would suggest that it is this that explains the very high levels of termination. Oh, BTW, these diagnostic tests produce some false positives. My wife talked about DS with a class of trainee midwives a few years back and I took our son to meet them; they were astonished at how this amazing little boy in front of them contradicted everything they were being taught about DS. Dawkins and the medical profession have a lot to answer for. We suggested to the hospital that they introduce a system in which people who are facing a positive diagnosis are put in contact with groups and families who know about DS. We didn’t get a response!
I am also concerned by the way in which Dawkins seems to turn himself into the vulnerable victim in his dodgy apology; pity poor me, with all these ‘haters’, these ‘dogs of war’ (I ask you) attacking me. Come on, Richie, take some responsibility. Oh, yes, it’s this truncated medium that is to blame. No, come on Richie, take some responsibility. As Rambo said, you drew first blood. Seriously, it is people with DS who are vulnerable and need our support. It is prospective parents who are faced with a difficult decision who are vulnerable and need good and balanced advice.
Finally, Professor Dawkins, I would like to extend an invitation to you to come and meet my son and maybe some other young people with DS, and their families. You might learn something (then, again you might not!).
I hope that helps.
Report abuse
Marcus,
Commentators in this thread fall in to two categories; those who want to tell people what they ought to do and think, and those who support an individual in making their own choices.
Some have made the choice to carry Down Syndrome babies to term. Others have adopted Down Syndrome children. Some seem happy with the consequences of their choice. All have done it for their own reasons.
I for one have a strong bias for left handed redheads. So while some people would prefer to abort redheads, I wouldn’t mind picking up a few more.
Hitler like so many other people, including some commentators in this thread, suffered from the insatiable urge to tell people what to do. If we stop telling people what they should do, and start supporting people for making difficult choices all on their own, even if we wouldn’t make the same choice, then the world would be a better place. Don’t you agree?
Report abuse
The civilised countries regulate abortions restricting late ones. The brain-dead dogmatic legislatures (such as Ireland), make life more difficult for those already in difficulty.
Some on this thread seem to be incapable of distinguishing a zygote or embryo from a sentient human.
If we had discovered we had a Downs embryo or foetus, we would probably have had an abortion and tried again for a healthy child. However our near neighbour had a (slightly) Downs son of the same age my younger son – who often played with him (and his brother) or they jointly minded him to give his mother a break.
The Downs lad, now in his 20s, is fairly happy, but will never have a fully normal life. He usually needs to be accompanied by family or a social worker if he goes out very far from home – where he lives alone with his mother.
Report abuse
I think you have may have somewhat misunderstood my comment. I have clearly stated that it is up to whoever’s choice it is to make that decision, just that it may not be the same for everybody, clearly. Your reply is rather aggressive and I’m not entirely sure that we actually disagree on anything at all! Unless because I’m male I am allowed not even a thought on the issue…..
Report abuse
I have personal experience when it comes to what happens to the siblings of people with severe disabilities. I have twin cousins. One suffers from severe autism and mental retardation. Her twin brother isn’t all that bright either, but functional enough. He has been forced to devote his life to being his sister’s keeper. They are 2 years younger than me, and, here they are, at age 31. The functional twin has never had a steady job, still lives with his mother, and has been guilt tripped about caring for his sister every time he tries to get a girlfriend/move out/get a job/have any sort of life of his own. His only income comes from the state for taking care of a disabled person. My aunt and her husband are in failing health. It will inevitably fall to the functional twin to care for his sister once they are gone. I’m sorry, but it just isn’t fair.
I have to agree with Professor Dawkins. After growing up so close to a situation with a severely disabled person and watching the effects on the kids around her, abortion is the kindest solution to these things for all involved. Do I love my cousin? Of course I do. However, to this day, I still remember the humiliation I was forced to endure when I had to invite her to every birthday party I ever had as a kid, only to have the noise and excitement upset her, have her throw a tantrum and ruin my parties. I know this seems selfish to bring up, but it is just ONE example of how disabled kids negatively affect their siblings and the other kids who grow up with them.
Am I saying they should not exist, or advocating for eugenics? Not at all. However, I think the responses from parents and other family members of folks with DS and other disabilities are emotional rather than logical. These people will never have a decent quality of life, and, at least in the case of my cousins, neither will those around them.
Report abuse
The poor sod. If you tell me where he lives I’ll turn up with my captive bolt pistol and put him out of his, um, fairly happiness. I’ll do you a twofer and take out his mother as well if you like, as I’m sure she’ll be bummed if she’s left all on her own.
Do you know anyone who is completely happy? And don’t lots of people need to be accompanied by carers when they leave the house? Should we put you to death when you get old and a bit forgetful, Al?
Report abuse
I wish more people had the courage to just say the earth is plagued with too many humans.
Report abuse
I think of these things whenever I read the syrupy comments such as some of those above. Scenes like this emerge from my own childhood. I was never one participating in the taunting of children with disabilities I hasten to add, but it happened. Perhaps the world was more cruel in the fifties?
The whole concept of suffering as a noble endeavour causes mental discord for me. This can’t be true! Perhaps I’m too cynical for my own good.
No one is advocating that children, human beings already out of the womb, should be dispatched! ( how many times does this need to be said)Quite the contrary. The bulk of the population is quite happy with the concept of abortion and this is just one factor that could influence a decision for yea or nay!
Report abuse
@Malessa
No doubt any number of testimonies to counter your positive examples could be called into existence if need be. I suggest you read the comment by Shannon 1981 in order to read a real life scenario. In any case, the discussion was not about children who have already left the womb and are here among us. No-one would countenance any treatment that was not humane.
Regarding your comment on ‘pro-abortion,’ I detect a note of disapproval. I am unapologetically pro-choice. I’m not in the business of telling people what they can or can’t do with their unborn foetus, though I have a sneaking suspicion that you would like that power.
I support the thoughts of Alan4Discussion ( above).
Report abuse
So why go out of your way to pick a fight in a forum where nobody is saying your daughter doesn’t have the right to exist?
As for informing people of the facts, please start by informing all the hysterical DS advocates here. Their facts are horrendously wrong yet they are only getting support from others in the DS bubble.
Report abuse
Elective early abortion causes the death of a fetus and never the death of a person. Some people on this thread who have close ties to persons with DS understandably yet incorrigibly insist that Dr. Dawkins is calling for the killing of persons afflicted with this disability. No, no – a thousand times no. The woman who seeks Dawkins’ advice via Twitter frames the special circumstances of her “hypothetical” pregnancy as carrying a fetus in the early weeks that has tested positive for Trisomy 21. Dawkins makes a case grounded in a growing medical and social consensus for removing the products of conception. Again, ladies and gentlemen, NOT FOR KILLING A PERSON or denying choice.
I believe Dawkins cites a preponderance of empirical evidence that justifies aborting a fetus known to have Down Syndrome. The justification connects with an inter-subjective agreement prevailing among humans about the needs and purposes of parenthood. Most parents hold expectations, ambitions, aspirations, hopes and dreams (if you will) about the traits and achievements of their offspring. Knowing early in advance that a pregnancy if brought to term will produce a child whose potential will fall far short of these expectations provides compelling motivation to abort.
Finally a reminder that raising a child is hard work, a challenging job despite its satisfactions. A child with serious disabilities that impair cognitive functioning, shorten life expectancy, and promote dysfunctional behavior will necessarily demand a redoubling of effort to cope with these extra challenges. Of course there are actual and potential parents out there who will eagerly -even cheerfully-welcome these challenges. I would blame no woman so disposed for choosing to bring a Down Syndrome pregnancy to term. To the contrary I’m inclined to admire her, support her, and wish her the best outcomes. May her child bring delight to her and others. Understandably, however, most women will not follow her course of action because of the considerable risks of hardship, burnout and regret that often ensues from the irrevocable decision. Casting no aspersions on the minority , most women (and their partners) find themselves a poor match for the job. They will choose abortion.
Report abuse
The philosophy of utilitarianism does not imply that at every second you should do that which makes you happiest, nor that you should be selfish and maximize your own happiness. It is quite reasonable under that philosophy for someone, say Russell, to make the selfless choice of pursuing some dreary profession (say philosophical research) in order to make the sum total of happiness greater. Which is what we’re talking about here. Russell was smarter than me, so I can’t help but think you’re misrepresenting his opinion.
So let’s be clear. Are you advocating for the mother to make the selfish choice of having a DS baby to make herself happy, even though it causes greater suffering in the world? Or are you asking her to make a sacrifice in her life to bring that happy DS baby into the world, which still creates greater suffering in the world.
You clearly think there should be greater suffering in the world, but I’m still struggling as to why.
Report abuse
That’s great. Meanwhile here’s what people without DS are doing:
http://web.mit.edu
http://www.cam.ac.uk
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org
http://www.nasa.gov
…
Report abuse
@Melvin
It does not seem to be getting through, does it? No matter how often it’s repeated we are constantly assailed by images, clips, testimonies of the wonderful, wonderful people with DS. That’s not the point folks!!
Perhaps I could take another tack? Once upon a time the birth of a child showing any physical flaw was considered to be cursed, or displeased by god. Yes… The good, the faithful were the ones responsible for weeding them out. This means you good Christian folk! ( not you Melvin ).
It took advanced thinking and empathy by human beings to put a stop to this abhorrent practice.
An attempt is being made to recapture the moral high ground but it won’t work. Superstitious thinking is always bad, though sometimes causing less harm than at others.
Report abuse
Sadly, this story is far from unique. For every parent who cherishes their DS child there are many others who are adversely affected. It is a scientific and medical (and perhaps social science) victory that DS children live much longer than they did in previous centuries, however this does mean that many who did not make the decision to take care of a DS child end up with that responsibility.
(FWIW, I don’t consider it the responsibility of the twin in this case to care for his sister. It is society as a whole that is responsible and if the parents had a choice at the time, they made the selfish, immoral choice.)
Report abuse
I completely reject your proposition that we can’t make assumptions, have opinions, state opinions and discuss subjects for which we don’t have complete evidence or exhaustive research. We do have to be clear that our conclusions are not final, but that is exactly what Dawkins (and almost every reasonable person here has done; I exempt the DS supporters as they are arguing emotionally and anecdotally and not logically or statistically).
It is especially important that we have this discussion now, rather than waiting indefinitely as you suggest, since this is an ongoing issue for which people need to make immediate decisions that will affect their lives (and ours).
Every bit of data we have supports the position that Dawkins has made and nothing that has been posted here has shaken that. Should we really just call it a toss up and say we just don’t know because there is a hint of uncertainty (e.g. the possibility that DS children will develop superpowers as one poster has suggested).
Suffering and happiness are subjective and personal, which is all the more reason we should discuss them openly. Once again you make an appeal to ignorance, that we should ignore even discussing the topic because it is somewhat fuzzy. Can happiness be measured perfectly? Of course not, but if that were the criteria then all social science would be out the window and all of us would be far worse off. We can make reasonable assumptions, test those assumptions and ultimately act on what we’ve learned (even if it’s not completely certain).
I can honestly say that I have no idea what your point is regarding the elderly, unless you think that Dawkins or I would euthanize them because in our opinion we think their lives are not worthy. That would be an insane assumption, but like I said I have no idea why you would bring that up.
Report abuse
@Katy
You’re obviously just being sarcastic again but too many people on here really are making the illogical assumption that agreeing with the choice to terminate a DS pregnancy is somehow akin to advocating the execution of all people with Down Syndrome.
They then move on (as you know) to expand upon this flawed argument and quickly assume that the next step will be state-sponsored negative eugenics and the mass slaughter of everyone deemed to be anything other than ‘completely normal’.
Report abuse
Exactly, Jessica.
Sedan, you can only argue statistically over quantifiable entities. So it is not logical to say that because people with DS are likely to be net sinks rather than net sources economically (something you might be able to demonstrate “statistically”), it is immoral to bring a person with DS into the world, if the grounds for your argument is that they do not contribute to the “sum of human happiness”. In fact, it’s logically fallacious. “Sum” as in “sum of human happiness” is a metaphor. Sum as in “net sum of GDP spent) is not. So the fallacy of equivocation is lying right there at the heart of the argument.
In fact “sum of human happiness” is far too vague a concept to base any morality on – it needs to be very carefully unpacked. Do five happy days cancel 10 unhappy ones or more? Less? Whose days? How many smiles from a DS person does it take to transmit as much happiness as is transmitted back in the form of what they buy with their disability allowance? Does the health and happiness of people not yet born trump the health of those alive now? And, in the point Ursula le Guin makes so beautifully in “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”, does the perfect happiness of many outweigh the utter misery of the few? Statistics won’t tell you the answer to these questions, because you can only do the statistics on what you can measure, and you can only measure things once you’ve decided what it is you want to measure. And sometimes what you want to measure are precisely the emotions and anecdotes you dismiss as irrelevant.
I would describe myself as a “utilitarian” but to assume that what is “useful” can be readily identified by simple application of logic and statistics is to risk logical inconsistency, at best, and moral imperialism at worst. In his tweets, and no less in this “apology” piece, in my view, Dawkins has committed both.
Logic and statistics are good servants but bad masters. In fact, without a good master they don’t even work on their own terms. Which is why Dawkins’ so often these days has so many atheists’ toes curling.
Report abuse
Let’s assume for a second that those who have come here to criticize this article are correct that those who have DS are happier and that their families are also better off for the experience.
Isn’t that basically a call for reducing funding for DS research and for scaling back public funding in general (health care, schools, work programs, caregiving, …)? We certainly don’t need research to prevent something that is a benefit and isn’t the point of supporting the disabled (or disadvantaged or …) to bring their quality of life up to that of the average person, not to make it better than average?
Of course, I don’t believe for a minute that the premise is true (and no one outside the DS bubble should either), so I am not lobbying to reduce support for DS. I’m just pointing out the obvious contradiction.
Report abuse
I couldn’t agree more and it clearly needs to be said several times. There are hundreds of posts on here and I haven’t seen any that suggest or even infer that existing human beings should be murdered. To say otherwise is grossly unfair and unrepresentative of what Professor Dawkins has stated.
A very positive outcome from all the discussion here is an increased awareness that there are clearly many families with DS children who love them very much and are very happy with their situation. However, the example from Shannon1981 is extremely poignant and I would imagine that for every super-happy family posting here, there are several not-so-happy elderly parents struggling to look after a demanding adult well into their final years. I’m not saying that any struggling parent doesn’t still love their children (obviously), but it does put the choice of ‘abort and try again’ into context.
Report abuse
Elizabeth, your philosophical position is disingenuous. If you followed it as you say you could never make any practical choices and any public policy would be paralyzed.
It is not a perfect science and there are philosophical extremes that can never be resolved (as you pointed out). But with open debate, a little science and a little math we can reach some reasonable conclusions. Does 5 happy days cancel out 5 or 10 sad days? That is a decision each person can make for themselves, but it is also something that needs to be considered for public policy (when making choices that affect others).
Should we build a new park or should we fund an after school music program? Does the unhappiness of a year of construction outweigh the benefits of a new public service? Under your philosophy nothing would ever get done because you believe it is impossible to make any such evaluations.
I personally think that the happiness gained by 600 children having healthy meals in Africa outweighs the extra happiness that supposedly comes from one extra child with DS. Can I scientifically prove that? No. Are you welcome to the opposite opinion? Sure. Just please don’t pretend that we can’t and don’t make those decisions every day.
If a public official were to make such a decision without evaluating the happiness of the public (as you would do) then I would consider him immoral (in the sense Dawkins used it).
Btw, the health and happiness of people not yet born is a serious concern. The health and happiness of the imaginary person that doesn’t exist because their mother had an abortion is of absolutely no concern.
Report abuse
Nobody here is arguing that “there should be greater suffering in the world”. What some of us are arguing is that it isn’t at all obvious that bringing a DS child into the world will increase it. Therefore there are no ground for the absolute statement that “it would be immoral” to do so. Dawkins has retracted that, but nonetheless still seems to think the problem lay with his readers, not his words. And frankly, his follow up tweets about the difference between autism and DS (“DS not enhanced”) were even more unfounded and offensive, and revealed just how narrow his calculus of “happiness” actually is, and thus how ill-founded his brand of utilitarianism.
Report abuse
I’ve thought this issue through at some length now.
I will say that I have concluded that RD is right in claiming that not to abort a foetus with DS is immoral, but only if the mother were to hold the same view that I understand he holds of an early foetus, for it would be effectively the same as deliberately wanting a child to have DS.
That is very different from wanting a child that happens to have DS.
I think the problem with using the term “immoral’ here is that many people do not view an early foetus in the same way. Many people view an early foetus as already being a person in some sense. Although many of us would consider them technically wrong on that issue, because we don’t view an early foetus as a person, we must respect the fact that they choose not to abort because they already feel bound to this “person” and morally obliged to care for them. They are doing the right and humane thing in their opinion, so it should not be classified as “immoral” in that context. If we say someone is doing something immoral, it implies that they are deliberately trying to reduce happiness/wellbeing.
Report abuse
That is a very dangerous redefinition of the word immoral, IMO.
Is an Egyptian mother not immoral for forcing her daughter to have FGM?
Is a Muslim extremist not immoral for decapitating an apostate?
These people (often) genuinely believe that what they are doing is right and for the overall good.
Certainly we can evaluate the circumstances when passing judgement on an individual case, but I think the morality is still the same. A slaveholder in 18th century America was not acting morally even if he truly believed that his slaves were better off.
That is part of the disconnect people have with this topic. The fact that most women who knowingly kept a DS child acted immorally is not an absolute judgement on their character or permanent condemnation. Yes, they caused harm, but in many cases it was from misinformation, peer pressure, or other mitigating factors.
Report abuse
That is patently untrue. Anyone who is not following the principles of Utilitarianism is advocating for more suffering.
Utilitarianism == less suffering
!Utilitarianism == more suffering
John did that here, which is why I called him on it.
I think it’s a valid question to ask people who are not Utilitarians why they want more suffering in the world. I have yet to hear a coherent answer (and anything religious is de facto not coherent).
Report abuse
This is an interesting clarification on the word immoral, the use of which is clearly part of the problem because, as you say, it depends so much on someone deliberately doing something they know not to be moral. Because morals are such a subjective topic, I would have avoided the word altogether. The use of ‘illogical’ would have made much more sense in my opinion.
I mostly agree with you but would point out that if someone regards a fetus (or foetus) as a person, then they would probably be unlikely to have the test for Down Syndrome. Simply having the test infers that you would consider a termination, which probably accounts for the very high percentage of terminations (in Europe) following positive test results.
There are undoubtedly a few exceptions and I’m sure there may be a small percentage of people who ‘just want to know’ and wouldn’t consider having a termination following a positive test result. Similarly, there are probably many who have had the test and then feel under pressure not to have a termination. However, the evidence would surely indicate that people are, on the whole, having the test carried out so that they can abort the DS fetus and ‘try again’.
Perhaps if Richard had used the word illogical rather than immoral and also avoided the word it, then the sentence may well have been better received, For example:
Report abuse
You won’t get a “coherent answer” because the question itself is incoherent – it’s the equivalent of “have you stopped beating your wife?” – i.e. it’s a “loaded question”.
And that’s because it’s based on a fallacious bit of reasoning, that if Utilitarianism is the moral principle that we should seek “less suffering” in the world, that any moral principle other than utilitarianism is the moral principle that that we should seek “more suffering”. You just excluded a middle!
There can be many moral philosophies that do not have “less suffering” as their goal, but nonetheless do not have “more suffering” as their goal either. The goal of “more happiness”, for example rather than “less suffering”, might or might not entail the reduction of suffering (many would argue that the greatest happiness follows the overcoming of adversity).
And that’s before you even start to address the question of how you quantify happiness or suffering, or even what they mean. Can you, for example, experience both at the same time? Most poets (and most parents!) would say yes!
Report abuse
Define “statistically valid”.
Rationally.
Report abuse
Sedan, nowhere in my post did I say we shouldn’t, or couldn’t, make ethical choices, nor even that they shouldn’t be based on some kind of calculus of human suffering and happiness.
I do not even say that we cannot quantify these things – what I said is that
That means that you simply cannot dismiss, as you do, the “emotions” and “anecdotes” of those who have tried to convey the happiness that a DS person has brought into the world from their PoV. Far from being not “rational” or “statistically invalid” – it’s the very data you need in order to do your statistics!
Where Dawkins was illogical IMO, was in basing his moral stance on an apparently simplistic idea that utilitarianism should maximise “contribution to society” (in which an autistic’s person’s contribution can be “enhanced” but a DS person’s “not enhanced), then, in his “apology”, changing horses to the quite different calculus of the “sum of human happiness” and the minimisation of suffering.
As you will know, as you appear to be knowledgable about statistics, you can’t compare apples with oranges. If you want to maximise something, you need to decide what it is, and how you will measure it. I’m not saying you can’t, or shouldn’t (I think you can and should). But you do need to know what you are trying to measure, and what your measuring instrument is. Otherwise, all you have is [emotional] rhetoric.
Report abuse
While we should look after any child which is actually born, I would also consider the choice to have a severely disabled child which will struggle through life and place a burden on his/her family, to be a poor or immoral choice, when it is possible to abort and produce a healthy child in its place.
In many instances nature spontaneously aborts defective foetuses, so the concept is nothing new to those who understand the biology.
There is abundant evidence available from previous studies and medical records.
Your uncertainty from a lack of research, in no way reflects the information others use as a basis for their decisions.
I would suggest that the responsibility to seek and look at the available proof is yours, rather than expecting others to spoon-feed you information.
The proof of the range physical outcomes and disabilities, is available in available scientific and medical data. – I linked some of it earlier.
While specific predictions about living individuals can be uncertain, the general range of possibilities is well mapped.
If you were buying a new car, would you deliberately pick one with a bent chassis, a cracked gearbox, and running on three cylinders, so you could spend your life tinkering with it?
Some people might claim to be happy doing this, but it is a burden, which makes no contribution to the well-being of the family or community.
Report abuse
MODERATORS’ MESSAGE
ALL USERS PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD.
We understand that this is a highly emotive topic and that many of you, on both sides of the argument, will feel passionately about your positions.
And you are welcome to make the case for your position, whatever that may be. That is what this site is for. However, PLEASE concentrate on the actual arguments, making a concerted effort to demonstrate the strengths of your own arguments and any weaknesses in those of your opponents.
Please do NOT confuse this with being rude, bad-tempered, aggressive or insulting towards those who disagree with you. If your comment includes your thoughts about your opponents’ perceived personal or intellectual shortcomings, it is in breach of our Terms of Use, which require users to argue their case civilly, courteously and thoughtfully. You’ll find a link to our Terms of Use at the foot of each page. Please take a few minutes to read them carefully, as we do have a number of rules that you won’t necessarily find on other sites.
We will remove any further comments that we consider to be bad-tempered or rude towards other users.
The mods
Report abuse
It is pretty consistent across a range of denials, (YEC, AGW denial, etc) that individuals in denial, having made no study of measuring techniques, claim science cannot measure, or that some small percentage doubt in an error bar, invalidates a whole prediction!
The effects of producing a child who may need a series of operations just to stay alive, and then exist with a mental and/or emotional disability, are known, regardless of doubt-mongering.
Report abuse
Alan, a child with DS is not a “severely disabled child”.
And that’s the problem. I don’t suppose anyone would have minded (well few) if Dawkins had said: I would argue that it is immoral to bring a severely disabled child into the world. And it would have been under the tweet character limit.
But not only did he specify DS, he went on to make it clear that he really did single out DS as “not enhanced” (i.e. not “severely disabled”) and contrasted DS with autism (“enhanced”) even though there is at least a viable argument that a disorder that affects social communication may be less conducive to “happiness” than one that doesn’t (and indeed may “enhance” it!)
It’s important not to move the goal posts here. Most critics of Dawkins’ tweets and the blogpost above on this topic have a lot of sympathy with the broad view that the knowledge that your pregnancy is likely to result in a “severely disabled child” raises serious ethical issues. It’s the categorical statement that it is “immoral” specifically, to knowingly bring a DS child into the world that seems at best high-handed and at worst, both illogical and ignorant about DS.
And, indeed, betrays a very shallow understanding of what constitutes “contribution to society” or “happiness”.
Report abuse
Well argued! A measured and clear response, from someone with a real insight into the issue.
I am however interested in know how you respond to the argument, which is presumed by many of the contributors on this site and (indeed) by Dawkins himself, which is sometimes called “the replacement person” argument. Very basically it argues that by aborting a feotus with DS (or whatever), this allows for another child to be born without the condition. That “new” person would not have been born had the termination not been carried out. There are various versions of this argument, but basically that is it. (see a reply to one of my posts below for one example). From your informed perspective how would you respond to this?
Report abuse
I really enjoyed reading this. Thank you for taking the time to share it with us. It was extremely enlightening from someone with real first hand experience.
Report abuse
A bit like limiting the development of surgery and medication for treating gun-shot wounds, by restricting the availability of guns!
All those people “deprived” of their gun-shot wounds and treatment!
I think that “deprivation”, is what is known as “an elegant solution” to the problem!
Report abuse
“The plural of anecdote is not data.”
Listening to 5, 10 or 100 people tell us how much they love their DS child or how happy that child is tells us nothing that we don’t already know and gets us not one inch closer to making informed decisions on DS. This “methodology” is why boneheaded parents are not giving their children vaccines and we have a resurgence in childhood diseases.
I don’t know how better to explain that to you so I suggest you do some independent research.
Dawkins did not say that “contribution to society” was the sole measure of Utilitarianism, although it is true that ‘contribution to society’ could be defined as ultimately increasing happiness. You misunderstood him and his position is perfectly logical and consistentl.
You also misunderstood his comment regarding autism. First, he hasn’t ever said (to my knowledge) that a DS person can’t make a contribution to society. He was saying that DS is not an enhancement; that taking a person without DS and giving them DS will not produce an individual who will make a greater contribution to society.
However, adding autism to some individuals may cause them to make a greater contribution to society. Another way to say that would be that some people who made great contributions might not have if their autism were “cured” at birth.
Summary: no major downside to permanently eradicating DS from the planet; possible, but unclear, downside to eradicating autism.
(How many people are going to read that as calling for a “genocide” of all living DS persons, I wonder.)
Does Dawkins still have that opinion (re: DS and autism) or make that claim publicly? I don’t know, but it is a perfectly reasonable opinion that I happen to agree with given current knowledge.
You absolutely can compare apples to oranges and it turns out that they are both fruit. If the goal is to feed my family I can make an informed decision based on the cost and nutritional value of apples vs. oranges. People who use that phrase usually don’t understand it or misapply it.
The arguments you make can be just as easily used to argue against eradicating polio.
Report abuse
Thanks for your response. I expected this question to come up, including the example of FGM.
I want to be clear that what I’m claiming is not the same as moral relativism. I believe we can make objective conclusions as to which actions increase the wellbeing of conscious creatures and we should pursue that. But we’re still working out the answers; none of us can claim always to make the right decision, but that doesn’t mean we don’t try. We are not all immoral people. I don’t believe most Egyptian mothers knowingly force their daughters to undergo FGM in the knowledge that it is all for the worst. If they did think it was all for the worst, that would make them immoral. They need to be better educated and I’m pleased to see progress is being made in some parts of the world on this.
Someone not indoctrinated in the FGM culture who held down a child and mutilated them for their own satisfaction would unquestionably be immoral.
I don’t think an Islamic extremist who decapitates an apostate can seriously be thought to be doing so for that person’s wellbeing. Such a person is also definitely immoral in my view.
So to get back to the point of abortion, I think we need to be very careful about calling people immoral because there is a chasm between the way different people regard a foetus. Calling someone immoral is a charged term. It’s a term that implies that they are deliberately trying to decrease the wellbeing of others, which I don’t think any of us would agree is the case. We are all seeking the most humane outcome on a very difficult subject. Some of us may technically be in the right, and maybe it is right to try and educate the others to think the same, but there is no doubt that the vast majority of us, including RD and those who fundamentally disagree with him, are all pursuing what they consider the most humane outcome and we should all respect that.
Report abuse
Actually, the plural of anecdote can easily be “data”. One anecdote can be a datum. In this case, a highly relevant datum, because it includes information on the very phenomenon you want to measure – human happiness.
Absolutely not. You are mistaking “data” for “methodology”. The happiness DS people bring to the lives of those they encounter, and experience themselves, is the relevant data you need if you want to estimate whether the “sum of human happiness” is increased, or diminished, by their presence in the world. And the “methodology” you need to apply to that will be vastly different from that required to answer the question as to whether or by how much vaccines raise the risk of autism. The latter can be addressed fairly simply, because we have an easy measure of vaccine (derived from vaccination records) and an easy measure of autism (derived from diagnostic records). By “fairly simply” of course, I mean using established epidemiological methods, which can be quite complex, but the data themselves are simple. In contrast, trying to quantify how much human happiness DS people bring into the world isn’t even a relevant question, because taking some global mean as your yardstick may ignore key factors that change the calculus in a specific instance. So the relevant methodology is likely to be more like a study that estimates what factors predict a good and happy life for a DS person and those around them, and are these likely to be present in this instance? For which the relevant data are, you guessed it, anecdotes.
What hypothesis would do you suggest I test?
As for the rest, I simply disagree that Dawkins “apology” is consistent with his tweets. His tweets carried the clear implication that terminating a DS pregnancy is a moral imperative on the grounds (given in subsequent tweets) that a DS person does not contribute to society while an autistic person does. That implies that he quantifies “contribution” as the difference between a DS person’s capabilities and an autistic person’s – I have little idea what he was thinking, but the implication is that something to do with cognitive capacity. Which is a value judgement, not “logic”. Last time I checked, cognitive capacity was pretty orthogonal to happiness.
Report abuse
Alan if you can point me in the direction of a scientific study that shows that:
People with Down’s are always (or at least a significant majority of the time) less happy than ‘normal’ people, and/or
The families of people with Down’s are always (or at least a significant majority of the time) less happy than they would have been had they chosen to abort the foetus and have a normal child instead
Then I will accept that Professor Dawkins was justified in using the word ‘immoral’ in accordance with his own definition.
Of course you can’t do that, because there are no such studies. Happiness is a difficult concept to define, let alone measure. People are notoriously unreliable even when reporting their own happiness.
As Elizabeth says above, I am aware that there are serious ethical issues surrounding a decision to abort or not to abort a foetus in this situation. It’s the absolute certainty of Professor Dawkins’s position that I object to. He acknowledges that women in this position face a ‘dilemma’ but then adopts a moral stance that does not allow that it is a dilemma at all.
My last few comments have been deleted by the moderators for some reason so I expect the same may happen to this.
Report abuse
So you have no idea about planning for life but have opinions on others who do?
I would have to ask if you live as a hermit in splendid isolation in a remote location? – Or if you actually use transport systems, the electric grid, internet, hospitals, modern medicine, or public water-supply? – which are centrally planned systems.
Nobody suggested killing Downs children. Quine asked about a pill to prevent them developing Downs or another actually causing Downs. After rambling around off the point in a long side-tracking post about homosexuality, you now show you have misread the question.
So! No idea at all about planning anything, and no understanding of embryology! – Just ducking the issues, and hiding behind the fallacious appeal to nature!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Report abuse
See moderators’ message posted earlier today. We removed a number of comments on both sides of the argument that were aggressive, bad-tempered or rude towards other users, and were therefore in breach of our Terms of Use. The comment you have posted here is thoughtful, courteous and rationally argued so we have no quibble with it whatsoever.
Report abuse
Well, let me give you my own direct experience.
When I was pregnant, I had a screening test for DS. It came back as “screen positive” which means that the risk was higher than some arbitrary cut-off for “screen negative (IIRC, it was 1:300, and “screen negative was “1:500”. Because of the positive screen I was offered an amniocentesis, which has a much lower false positive rate. However, it carries the risk of spontaneous abortion. As circumstances were such that I was unlikely ever to be pregnant again (it was a freak pregnancy after many unsuccessful IVF attempts, and even more early spontaneous abortions), I opted not to have the amnio. In other words, I was more willing to risk having a DS baby than I was to risk not having a baby at all. Had I been offered a test with a low false positive rate that did NOT carry a risk to the pregnancy, I would have accepted it. However, I do not know, and did not know, whether I would terminate if the test was positive. What I did want, was as much information as possible, including information concerning my own emotional reaction to the a positive test.
Some here regard that as “illogical” – merely “emotional” and “subjective”. But that, I would argue is because they are mistaking data (the emotion we want to maximise/minimise) for process (the means of maximising/minimising the emotion). Had I received a positive test, and found myself appalled by the prospect, I would probably have terminated, judging that given that reaction, I probably wasn’t going to be a good mother for a DS child, nor be happy myself. Had I, on the other hand, found myself thinking “oh, well, DS isn’t the end of the world, could be a challenge, but one we could easily rise to, and DS people are often joyful and loving people”, then perhaps not.
The dichotomy, in other words, isn’t between Spock-like “logical” thinking and mere “emotional” anecdote-telling as opposing approaches to abortion and pre-natal testing for DS. It’s between the reality we want to affect (the happiness of people), and the decision that will affect it (abort or not), and both are independent parts of the moral calculus.
In my case, my baby did not have DS. But I see nothing immoral in my decision not to ensure that he did not.
Report abuse
Ok, thanks. I acknowledge that the previous exchange was getting a bit bad-tempered!
Report abuse
“I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare.”
I think it is widely accepted that spending time in operating theatres involves suffering, as does struggling with disabilities!
Having done the former, and while recovering from injuries, done the latter, denial of this makes no sense!
Report abuse
No, do not abandon the Tweety. I would prefer a comment stating your feelings require more than 140 chars and to check out your take on your website. Something like “Although my personal choice would be to abort, I understand the dilemma and controversies surrounding such a decision. I will be providing a more thoughtful response on my website”. But then again, hind site is 20×20.
Report abuse
Can I make it clear (not the first attempt!) that I do NOT say that we cannot measure such phenomena as human happiness and suffering!
That is not my argument. My argument (well, one of them) is that you can’t do “statistically valid” (to use Sedan’s term) arguments without measurements, and you can’t measure something until you’ve decided what it is you want to measure. That’s why, in quantitative methodology it is so vital to operationalise your variables. I have no problem with the concept of the “QUALY” – its crude, but it’s a reasonably informed way of weighing up duration of life against quality. If someone wants to make the argument that it’s immoral to bring a child into the world if their probable QUALY number is below some threshold, feel free. But be honest about it – don’t pretend that it is self-evident that it is immoral not to abort a DS person because “sum of human happiness”. Or “contribution to society”. Or “not enhanced”.
The reason It’s Complicated is because all those things require careful thought and measurement and the parameters used ultimately reflect value judgements.
Qualitative methods underlie quantitative methods, in other words, when it comes to measures of well-being. Pretending it’s all a matter of math is, well, not logical.
ETA: and FWIW, I have made a study of “measuring techniques” – ironically perhaps, it’s what I do.
Report abuse
The relevant question, is:- “Would he lead a fuller life and be happier without these problems?”
As I said in an earlier comment, I have a close neighbour who has a Downs syndrome son who played with my children.
However, if I was to evaluate if this son or his brother have the better and less frustrating life, the answer is unequivocal in favour of his brother!
Report abuse
There are always exceptions. You were under the pressure of thinking this could be your last chance to have a baby. In these circumstances, having a DS child could seem better than not having a child at all. You were thinking of yourself. But that’s hypothetical. In reality, you took a gamble and it paid off.
Report abuse
No, I was thinking of the whole family. And society, for that matter.
And yes, it was a gamble. All decisions are gambles – we have to base our decisions on what is most likely to turn out for the best, and least likely to turn out for the worst. And deciding which carries the most weight – maximising success, or minimising risk – is a value judgement, not something you can reduce to a simple equation.
Having any child is a gamble, and not necessarily for the good of society. There’s a strong argument to be made that until the world population starts to fall, it’s immoral to have any child at all. And a valid counter-argument.
Take home message: it isn’t simple. Pretending it is – that it can be reduced to a tweetable moral imperative, or even a bloggable paragraph – is not the kind of objective moral honesty that Dawkins in principle supports.
Report abuse
Thank you, Theo. very well said, and I hope Richard Dawkins and others read what you have written. I had been struggling to know where to begin with this debate – feeling offended, and wanting to write something sensible, logically argued. I also think Richard Dawkins and some of the followers of the site might be well-advised to consider a social model of disability rather than purely a medical model. It seems to me that most people operate mainly from the latter perspective. Richard Dawkins should reconsider and withdraw his opinion that a person with Down’s Syndrome is likely to suffer more than they will experience happiness, especially if society is more tolerant, more accepting and more valuing of difference. Unfortunately there often need to be some brave pioneers before society begins to appreciate the value of people who have unusually different abilities, skills and qualities. As well as a child with Down’s having the potential for a very happy life, I also think that, while raising a child with an intellectual disability must certainly be very challenging, it can bring far more happiness than suffering. I would not criticise anyone for aborting a foetus where tests show that the child would be likely to have a significant disability. I am also certain that, given the right commitment and supportive circumstances, a decision knowingly to continue with such a pregnancy should not be considered immoral.
Report abuse
@Elizabeth
No, I think you’ve laid out a very clear and logical argument actually. Your decision not to have the amnio (in your particular circumstance) makes complete sense and I’m very pleased that it worked out for you.
I had a friend in a very similar situation to yours and, when she finally became pregnant at the age of 37, she wasn’t sure if she wanted to have the amnio test (because of the risk) but eventually decided to go ahead because she couldn’t bare not knowing how she might react if she gave birth to a DS baby. As it was, the result was negative and she now has a lovely little boy (with a very odd name!).
However, I still believe the message is to think it through logically, regardless of how ‘Spock-like’ that may seem. All of the anecdotes here about how happy people are with their DS children are very interesting/informative but they could easily offer an unbalanced overview, especially if there is a tendency (perfectly understandably) for unhappy parents to remain silent.
Report abuse
Yes indeed. And that is where it might be worth turning anecdotes into statistics – by soliciting anecdotes from a representative sample of parents.
But that just underlies the original problem with the original tweet – it is not self-evident that the “sum of human happiness or not” is increased by bringing a DS person into the world, and thus “immoral” – whether it is or not will depend on circumstance. What people need in that situation is information – how have other people coped, what factors predict success etc. Then people can make an informed, evidence-based decision as to whether, in this instance, going ahead with the pregnancy, knowing the risk of grief as well as the probability of love and joy, is the right choice. Not something to which there is a blanket “statistically valid” answer.
I’m all for thinking it through logically. I’m just insisting that that logic is applied to relevant data, and trying to make the point that far from rejecting “emotional” responses as a denial of logic, they are the very data that need to serve as input to logic.
Report abuse
Does critical thinking allow but one answer to the question of whether to abort a Down Syndrome fetus?
I’m not knowledgable enough about either Down Sundrome or critical thinking to offer further thoughts, although of course I have a bigoted opinion.
Report abuse
I agree he was not forcing anyone into having an abortion. I disagree that his remarks do not put undue pressure on the woman, nor anyone else for that matter. I don’t think it is Dawkins’ intention to coerce anyone into an abortion. I do think what he has said is at best very badly worded and reflects a moral stance that has been poorly thought through. I’ve given my reasoning behind my assertion in a post elsewhere on this page. It surrounds his claims that “the moral and sensible choice would be to abort”; “the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral”; and others of this stamp.
My own stance is that, other things taken into consideration, it is not immoral to abort a Trisomy 21 foetus. I’m of the opinion that this stance is morally defensible. I’m sure many of those not on the pro-choice side of the abortion issue would disagree with me; and I think many who are pro-choice would agree – but that’s another debate.
Conversely, essentially Dawkins’ moral stance is that it is immoral not to abort a Trisomy 21 foetus. In my opinion this stance is morally indefensible, as is shown in his attempts to defend it. It is morally repugnant, offensive, and unduly coercive. It amounts to judging anyone who does not abort a Trisomy 21 foetus as, in some sense, bad, wicked, or evil. It is, in spite of Dawkins’ protestations, tantamount to saying of someone that it would have been better had they been aborted. The more I think about it, given the pre-eminent status Dawkins holds as a scientist and a writer, the more irresponsible I find his espousal of this stance, and that he attempts, wholly unsuccessfully, to defend it.
Report abuse
@Elizabeth
Informed decisions obviously need as much information as possible and your idea of soliciting anecdotes from a representative sample of parents would certainly help provide a better overall understanding of how people cope after having a DS baby and (potentially) the following 50-60 years or so.
However, in a situation where the person in question can simply ‘try again’, logic would dictate that a termination (following a positive amnio test) completely removes the need to worry about coping at all – there’d be nothing to cope with. They’d simply hit the reset button and have another go. I know it sounds a bit dispassionate, but wouldn’t that be easier..?
Report abuse
Hmm, I don’t think much of your maths. For one thing you’ve apparently done one side of the equation. You’ve pointed to the cost of caring for people with DS (although you haven’t actually bothered to research the figure involved), but totally ignored the flipside matter, that of value.
Billions of $s of both public and private funds are spent globally on art ($66b in 2014 according to Bloomberg). According to your stunted logic, art is therefore a monumental burden upon society, a terrible drain on resources that could be spent on other things (albeit you would quickly be forced to accept that those other things constituted “burdens” as well).
Of course we all understand that art, expensive as it is, is not a “burden”, because people regard objects of art as having a value. Art is seen as an end in itself – a fact borne out by the fact that people pay to experience it (not just to own it) and even donate money to the arts. For most people, the same is true of disabled people – ie they have a value which more than makes up for the expense of having them around.
Report abuse
English is ofc not my first language and I also didn’t intend/want to write a long analysis. As Mr. Dawkins should be a master in rational reasoning, I thought insinuations will be enough to show him his mistakes.
Still if anyone shows me where I am doing any logical mistakes, I will happily correct myself.
Report abuse
I didn’t see any 🙂
Report abuse
Possibly, but that’s different from saying it would be “immoral” to do otherwise. And, sadly, having a different baby from the one you are currently carrying isn’t just as simple as hitting the “reset” button.
Report abuse
A very touching an sincere reply. Thank you.
Report abuse
For me, the key question is “Would you knowingly ignore medical advice that your child would have a high probability of having physical and mental disabilities.?” I would not knowingly inflict that to a child of mine.
He is not, but in some extended families or theocratic countries (such as Ireland), much dogmatic and legal pressure is put on those seeking abortions, and on the medical professions to discourage them from providing informed choices.
Sadly, many trumpeting the “klaxons of righteousness”, are too ignorant even to know the difference between a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, a foetus or a baby!
All they “know” is blind faith in the anti-abortion preached stupidity, about single cells becoming human beings at conception!
Conception is merely a step which is simplistic enough, to even be recognised by the biologically illiterate bible-bashers.
Foetal development –
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
Report abuse
I guarantee you, no matter how “super-happy” these people present, they are likely anything but. They are likely drained emotionally, mentally, professionally, and financially every single waking moment. That particular situation is one reason out of many that I have a very distant relationship with that part of my family. It isn’t just the parents who are affected, either. It is everyone, people who had no choice whatsoever in the matter. The morality here goes beyond this highly emotional “I love my child no matter what and we’re happy” stuff that is being posted here. This is the ultimate exercise in parental selfishness.
Report abuse
One possible solution to the standard character limit on Twitter, would be to use Twit Longer:
http://www.twitlonger.com/
Report abuse
For years, people have tried to tell my aunt that she has no right to ruin her functional twin’s life. The most vivid memories I have of this stuff are from my childhood, when we’d take beach vacations (we’re from South Carolina- beaches everywhere) with our extended family. We’d try to reason with my aunt about how it was just inappropriate to bring her screaming autistic child around all the noise at the water parks and all, that it just ruined it for all the other kids. She’d become outraged and accuse us of discrimination. Due to this reaction, we all just endured it. So, in other words, every year, everyone’s one vacation of the summer was ruined because we had to be politically correct and sensitive. I’m not saying lock these kids up or anything of the sort. I’m saying, it is simply not fair to everyone else to have to endure these things. So many ways, big and small, in which one parent’s decision affects everyone.
Report abuse
So, what did you suggest your aunt did instead?
Report abuse
Here is a fairly comprehensive survey of the experiences of real families with DS kids.
DS on average is best avoided.
As I posted earlier the decision to abort can be emotionally corrosive too. Things have improved somewhat in the UK with the added stigma dissipating but in the US great efforts are still exerted to shame those making decent decisions. In the light of which I will respect any decision made.
On the disabled- most of my friends, most of the people near me have or have had mental problems at one time or another. There’s physical stuff too. I not only like to think that disablement in some form is something we all have to live with never more than one remove away, but the varieties it makes of us, the ousiders it makes of many of us, the stronger it makes us in perceiving and managing new harms and new solutions. This in no way wants me not to mitigate the harms that come from the extremes of illness. Nor do I approve those attempts to create isolated societies that fetishise illness or disablement, deaf communities committing their kids to live without immplants.
The balance between acceptance and mitigation is not a tough one to make. The harm is only done when mitigators are painted as none accepters, disapproving of disabled people and their parents. Both sides are needed to fix this, but I think it quite do-able. Just don’t impute malice…
Report abuse
Or learn to be succinct.
“I’d abort, on the moral principle of minimising net suffering in the world. DS children can need lifelong care. But your choice.”
is under 140 characters.
Report abuse
I agree. Unwise or illogical would have been a far better description than immoral.
And I take your point about it not being that simple. I have changed my views on abortion over the years but I can still remember thinking of the embryo/fetus as a little person – even though I now think of it as a bunch of cells with the potential to become a little person. This is what makes it all so difficult to discuss but information, logic and reasoning can only help to put the emotional aspects into perspective.
Report abuse
well well, perhaps yes we are in fact.
I remember when I had a certain job routine to hear the complains of someone, because, sorry to mention, but youngsters with psychic disabilities, after their schedule, everyday, at that time, used to go to those instant auto-photo barely covered with curtains to have sexual intercourse.
In my professional life, at least one girl with mental disability had give birth twice to children -given for adoption-, well, are we in fact advocating for eugenics, I am certainly, aren’t you? Is that a scar that Nazism left in us that the word “eugenics” has such a fearful connotation ?
Report abuse
A child with DS may or may not, be a “severely disabled child”, depending of the severity and any associated conditions.
Report abuse
I was a kid, but her sisters and brothers suggested homes and camps for the disabled. My aunt refused,
Report abuse
And, yes, Elizabeth, I have already figured out that you think we should have had to endure what we did, like it or not. I obviously disagree. I love my cousin, but, I also think she and everyone else, especially her poor brother, would be better off if she had never existed. I know that sounds like a terrible thing to say, but, if you had lived it, you’d probably feel the same way.
Report abuse
I did not say Dawkin’s comments would lead to mass murder, so please do not misrepresent what I said. I said his views are similar to Francis Galton, the negative eugenicist (whose views influenced Nazi dogma and policy). I have invited you to say whether or not you agree. If you do not agree, I am interested to know how, why and where you think they are different. If you do not I will assume you do not know…which is fine, by the way. It is a genuine question, not rhetorical.
Without wishing to repeat myself, my actual comment regarding the effects of comments like ‘it would be immoral not to have an abortion’, is that since Dawkins is an influential voice; his views can only add to the discrimination that already exists in our society towards the disabled.
We have known for a long time that disability is in part a social construct. What I mean by this is that the meaning of the term “disabled” is relative to the society in which one lives. For example, if someone lived in a “waterland” society in which the only means of getting from A to B was to swim, and that someone could not swim, they would be classed as disabled. If they lived in a society like ours- they would hardly be classed as disabled. A child in a wheelchair who goes to a school without wheelchair access, is disabled. A child who attends a school which was built by an architect who considered the needs of such children would be less so. Obviously, we could go on. These are easy to grasp because they are concrete; but attitudes of society also constructs disability . A child with a learning disability who attends a school with low expectations and categorises them as such is being disabled by that institution.
An extreme example of this was the case some years back in which a woman with learning difficulties was persecuted by her neighbours, so much that she was afraid to leave her house and in the end committed suicide. You may think such cases are rare and do not merit mention. However, according to research by Scope in 2013 (after the paralympics), 1 in 4 people in London with a disability have suffered abuse because of their disability. They were physically attacked and called “scoungers”. It is hard for those who do not live in families with people who are disabled to have the slightest notion of the fear and discrimination they face on a daily basis. (No, I am not saying or even inferring that Dawkins would approve of such discrimination, before you reply.)
It has been found that the current government’s (and their friends in the media) assault upon those on benefits are being blamed for the increase in attacks. I am sure the government did not intend this to happen, but was an unintended consequence of their attack on the welfare state. Nevertheless, they are culpable.
You may wish to argue that Dawkin’s views will not add to the negative attitudes towards the disabled and you may be right (though I strongly doubt it). However, to you and many outside of the “DS bubble”, (as one of your friends on this site condescendingly and callously refers to families who have children with DS), this is an academic exercise. It is an abstract argument which effects you not in the least. However to those living with children and people with DS this discrimination is real and I think their concerns should be given higher weight than those who have no real appreciation of the issues they face. To put this another way, in terms of the negative utilitarianism of Karl Popper (and some say John S Mill himself) – i know you like utilitarianism- if we have to choose between increasing the sum total of happiness and decreasing pain and suffering, priority should be given to the latter: even if that is potential harm. Hence it is better to avoid causing harm- even potential harm. Hence, according to moral philosophy he himself triumphs, Dawkins is wrong, probably immoral (to use his terms), even more than the women who he judges to be immoral who decide to have a child with DS.
Others on this site have articulated how out of date Dawkins in with his knowledge of the capacity of children with DS. These out dated views can only add to the disability of people with DS because they add to peoples’ ignorance of the condition. I added to this discussion slightly (and not as well as others) with my reference to my former student. I am at a loss to know why you do not understand the relevance of this case; but just to spell it out for you: DS is a wide ranging learning disability. The disability is compounded by social attitudes that limit the expectations of what people with DS can achieve (like those mentioned by Dawkins and others on this website). It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Take those low expectations away and with the right support, these children will thrive and become full and independent members of our society (hence the reference to driving, working, living independently); like my former student. I notice you have applauded those who have given opposite examples, you did not ask them to explain the relevance. Indeed you go on to add that your wife has experience of working with people with learning disabilities!
Report abuse
Sure, but that’s true of lots of conditions. Today, DS is associated with “moderate” mental disability and some physical problems that are largely correctable, which is why life expectancy has shot up from about 10 years to 60. Interestingly, average IQ has also gone up by a couple of standard deviations since the bad old days of institutionalisation. So things have changed, radically. Dawkins’ information, in this piece, is really quite out of date. If you are going to do the calculus on “sum of human happiness”, DS people have very good prospects for both being happy and spreading happiness. The same is not true of other mentally disabling conditions, but often those are not conditions that can be diagnosed prenatally.
But to make myself clear: I would absolutely agree that it is not immoral to abort a DS pregnancy. That is quite different from saying that it would be immoral not to. Even on the shifting Utilitarian grounds criteria, it is not clear that DS meets them. On the other hand, Jonny Kennedy‘s condition, EB, probably does, as he himself said, and his mother agreed, even though they clearly adored each other, and even though Jonny’s documentary, I would say, brought net happiness to the world. What a guy.
Report abuse
No, I do not think you should have had to “endure” anything, and did not say so. It’s just that you seemed to have moved the argument from “is it immoral not to abort a DS pregnancy?” to which Dawkins’ view was, yes, probably, but not autism (not that we have prenatal tests for autism anyway) to “should people expect others to endure the distressing behaviour of their autistic children?”
Again, the answer is probably no – but sometimes, as you will know, there is no alternative. And there are also no easy answers. There are, I repeat, no prenatal tests for severe autism. Similarly most DS babies are born to low-risk mothers and who, therefore, do not have an amniocentesis. Children with severe disabilities will be born, although today DS is not, usually, a severe disability. Nobody, including you, is arguing that they be euthanised, so what is the relevance of your example to the issue Dawkins raised?
Yes there are moral issues surrounding a prenatal diagnosis of disability, and yes, there may be strong moral arguments in favour of termination. Dawkins has not made those arguments in the case of DS, because he has failed to show that DS meets his [shifting] criteria for reducing the sum of human happiness or increasing suffering.
You might want to make the argument for severe autism but a) there is no prenatal test, and b) it was the diagnosis that Dawkins himself compared favorably to DS and c) the issue of whether to abort is a totally different issue to the issue of how to manage a severely disabled person if such a person is born. Which they will be, because some of the most devastating disabilities are incurred during the birth process itself, while others are born to people who have no reason to be screened for that condition.
Report abuse
> The philosophy of Utilitarianism
What philosophy is that? Is it classical utilitarianism? If so do you side with Mill or Bentham? Is it happiness or pleasure? Are higher pleasures more estimable? Is "push pin really better than poetry", or does it not matter? Perhaps it is Rule utilitarianism? If so 'hard' or 'soft'? How about Extended Rule Utilitarianism? Maybe you agree with GE Moore that we should maximise more than happiness? He was a colleague of Russell and a Utilitarian by the way. I doubt you agree with Christian Utilitarianism (or agapeism), mind you Fletcher, a Christian (boo! boo! boo!), would not have a problem with some of your arguments (still boo, he is a Christian, so can't be right!). Perhaps you would be talking about about the more modern Preference Utilitarianism, if so do we include animals (hold on that will rule out testing on animals)? How about Ideal Utilitarianism…etc etc…etc. All these forms of utilitarianism are radically different, as I am sure you know, but for the sake of clarity, please let us know to which you subscribe.
[Slightly edited by moderator to bring within Terms of Use.]
Report abuse
That they think they are doing the right thing was built in to my hypothetical, no need to expand on that. The extremist also believes he is doing the right thing, not necessarily for the person being beheaded (although that’s possible), but for the greater good. When you steal to provide food for your children you do not think that the person being stolen from is better off, for example.
As long as you are consistent there is nothing inherently wrong with your definition of morality. I just find that the word becomes virtually useless with your definition as there is no possible act that cannot be forgiven if the person genuinely (for whatever reason) thinks it does no overall harm.
Report abuse
Ironically nor does your comment!
Report abuse
Thanks for finding that study, Phil. That is far more balanced and comprehensive than the Skotko study that has been posted many times by those wishing to portray DS as a sunny, positive experience for all.
Report abuse
@Elizabeth
Shannon is not making the point that autism is the same as Down’s Syndrome nor is she saying that a foetus with severe autism can be detected and aborted. Shannon is saying that living with a disabled person can be extremely difficult. Other family members are affected. Is this fair when you have the opportunity to avoid the situation?
Report abuse
i regret to say, but lately in my professional life, I work with the most vociferous “fanatic” catholic judge/person I ever met in my life, so one of the first questions she made me was: “why do you have only a child?” (notice, she is even against contraception), I regret to say, but I felt this a HUGE abuse, that s my intimate life, she knows barely who I am, I myself would NEVER be capable of making such an intimate question on tweeter, nor does anyone know if the woman who asked was/is real.
Report abuse
Most DS babies are born to mothers who screen negative on risk factors.
That doesn’t mean that the risk not higher for those who screen positive – obviously it is (by definition). But because there are far more screen-negatives than screen-positives, there are still far more DS babies born to low-risk mothers than high-risk mothers. And low-risk mothers do not generally have an amniocentesis or CVS because the risk for them of DS is far lower than the risk of amniocentesis/CVS-induced miscarriage.
Even if none of the people who test positive on amnio or CVS prenatal testing were to have terminations, there would still be substantially more DS babies born to low-risk mothers than high-risk mothers. So we cannot eliminate DS (at least on present medical knowledge).
That is just one reason not to tweet the view that sum total of human happiness would be greater in a world without DS people in it (the logical corollary to the argument Dawkins’ moral imperative) are potentially counterproductive – cause more unhappiness than they cure. After all most people with DS can read twitter!
Report abuse
“I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare”.
Really? There are serious medical complications associated with DS – https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/#li-comment-153074
So actually, you did not fit the category RD described of PROBABLY expecting to have a Downs child, and knowingly going ahead with the pregnancy.
You were surprised by a remote unlucky 1 in 4000 chance, and may have been given poor medical advice re. further tests. (It wasn’t a Catholic doctor /Hospital by any chance? ) – Just asking.
Life and pregnancies can have family impacting surprises in store.
Alan – Proud father of twins, – who regularly played with a neighbour’s Downs son!
Report abuse
There definitely are people who do things purely for their own selfish ends, and I would definitely dispute that most ISIS members don’t know they are are causing great misery. I don’t think they care about that, and I don’t think they are concerned about a greater good or the wellbeing of conscious creatures. They care about their own selfish agenda.
I don’t think officials in the Catholic Church who protected pedophiles did so because they thought it was for the greatest good, they did so to protect their positions.
It’s not a black and white issue. There are situations where people know they are acting purely selfishly at others expense; there are situations where people have doubts as to whether they’re doing the right thing, but they take the easy option to ignore those doubts; and there are cases where people definitely think they are doing the best thing for everyone, but objectively they’re not, yet it’s actually quite hard to make that case, as on this issue of abortion.
As Sam Harris has argued, if someone genuinely couldn’t see anything wrong with decapitating a journalist, that person still needs to be locked up.
Report abuse
Yes, I know that’s what she’s saying. And if Dawkins had been making that point, I wouldn’t have disagreed.
But he wasn’t. His point was specific to DS, and his given grounds were that unlike autism, they didn’t make a contribution to society. Then, in his “apology” post, he changes the criteria to “the sum of human happiness”. Which is a function of far more than some simple calculus of disability, which is why we should not imply (I suggest) that people who decide to go ahead with a DS pregnancy have done something “immoral”.
That creates a double stigma – it says to parents of DS children: you were selfish to have this child, and it’s not society’s responsibility to support you; and it also says to DS people: the world considers it would have been better off without you in it.
Report abuse
I fully agree with your comments. Every case is different and there are many different factors to take into account.
Report abuse
Thank you for the apology. I have two friends with Down’s. I know that while Down’s may limit intellectual growth, I find my friends contribute to my life with humour, fun, innocence, &optimism. I often feel like I’ve seen the world differently after hanging with them. If you have family&community support, having a child with Down’s can be fulfilling. I am hoping some physicians will point out this help is available, as well as advising on abortion. Many difficult things are worthwhile and raising a kid with Down’s can be one of things- they can contribute to our communities (work, school, arts, even sports). Lastly Richard, I think it might be fun for you to spend a day with an adult who has Down’s or Trisomy and see what we might learn from a life lived with Down’s.
Report abuse
Elizabeth, I think it’s clear from your comments that you do not understand the fundamentals of science or statistics, despite the qualifications you proffer and jargon you use in another post. Further, you repeatedly misrepresent Dawkins stated views despite my numerous attempts at clarification.
Perhaps someone else will try to help you, but I have done all I can. (Apparently slightly more than I can, as the moderators have deleted one of my responses for some apparent transgression.)
Report abuse
Godwin’s Law does not apply here, since Godwin himself accepted that under certain circumstances, eg eugenics, his law, (which is not a law), does not apply. I think you have committed the fallacist’s fallacy.
Secondly, how about your Nazi sympathies going the other way? How about aborting someone because they have a cleft pallet, how about colour blindness? How about haemophilia? Where do your vestiges draw the line?
Your replacement infant argument is predicated on a utilitarianism world view, which has serious flaws. Not least of all is the weakness that it is impossible to know all the possible consequences of a given decision, nor (and in my view more a more sophisticated criticism) know to when the calculation is to be made- consequences themselves have consequences. When does the calculation end (OKA bounded rationality).
Report abuse
Barry, consider the case where the fetus has a serious defect that will in all likelihood only survive a few months and be in tremendous pain. The hospital bills to keep that baby alive those few months, paid by insurance, will be in the millions.
Is it immoral to not terminate that fetus?
Report abuse
“What Professor Richard Dawkins said was very rational. No sane person would want to bring a child in to the world that would end up suffering.”
Reasoning is a process of logic – best starting with evidence!
It is not a badge of, “agreeing with your personal opinion” !
Yes the foetus should be aborted – in the case of significant disabilities! – and replaced with a healthy child in that space in the family.
A foetus is NOT a child.
Report abuse
Sedan:
Well, I beg to differ. I think I do. And I’m not seeing an argument as to what is wrong with what I have posted.
I agree that you have attempted to clarify Dawkins’ views. It has not altered my opinion that Dawkins has inadequately considered his Utilitarian moral philosophy, and has failed to apply it coherently in the case of DS. Nor that his communication problem was merely lack of enough characters to make himself clear. Nor that the problem lay with his readers rather than with his own use of language. Nor even that his position is logical or consistent. But we will have to agree to differ.
Well, not really. All you have done is told me I don’t understand science or statistics. You’ve given me no argument to support that view, nor explanation as to why my view (that you can only do statistics on quantitative measurements, and to measure a quality you have to figure out just what that quality is, and how you are going to measure it) is wrong. My point is simply that if you are going to base your moral philosophy on the net sum of human happiness-suffering, you need to be able to define that quantity before applying it to a specific case (in this case, DS). And that that will involve value judgements, not simply “math”.
Report abuse
Dan, you simply don’t like the math when it doesn’t work in your favor.
Of course the calculation has been done for both sides and art is a perfect analogy, unfortunately you have completely misrepresented it. You are asking us to blindly support art despite the cost and despite the measured (even if roughly) benefit. That is not how it works for art and not how it should work for DS.
Once again, it is possible, but far from proven that a child with DS brings more joy into the lives of those around him/her than a child who doesn’t have DS. That speculation is highly doubtful and I have little doubt that research would back me up. I’m willing to spend government money to fund such a study and stand by the results – if your hypothesis is true then by all means we should encourage more people to have DS children (e.g. tell women to have children in their 40s and later). Would you be willing to live with the results if it comes up the other way?
Are there really people standing in line, paying large amounts of money to spend time with a child who has DS as there is for art? That does not seem to be the case so the value you are suggesting just isn’t there.
Even assuming that there was some overall benefit is it worth the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars that a DS child costs society? That would be an incredibly hard sell if people actually knew the facts and had to make a practical decision. Not unlike creating a $1 million art project that only a handful of people see and enjoy.
Report abuse
I think its called, “Medical assessment / prediction of levels of disability and support required”!
Report abuse
How about the following comparison:
It is their first date. The one says at the end, Hey, I love everything about you, but your hair cut is worth a discussion. The answer should be: Get out of my face Adolf.
Or alternatively:
They have already 3 children and one says, I always did love everything about you but your hair cut was always discussable. We may alter the answer to: Get out of my face douchebag.
Now we have someone who says, I would never go that far saying, you should have been aborted cause now it is to late. But I think not aborting you, did make the world more unhappy. I mean, take a look at yourself, someone must always care for you. And you? Wha…, wha…, what are you going to do, once your parents are death? Just think about it, what your parents have done to you, although the alternative would have been so simple: abortion. I mean you guys shouldn’t misunderstand me, I wouldn’t ever go this far telling someone this personally, although I think, this is true. I did only try to advise people, what I think, logically and morally is correct. My true intention was, as stated at length above, simply to say what I personally would do, based upon my own assessment of the pragmatics of the case, and my own moral philosophy which in turn is based on a desire to increase happiness and reduce suffering.
The answer should be: Get out of my face ….!
Report abuse
Sedan: you are still missing the fundamental point about “value”. Yes, you can calculate how many dollars art costs, just as you can calculate how many dollars healthcare, science, education, roads, gardens, good food, costs.
But on the other side of the balance sheet there is value. The relevant math is not whether a DS person costs more dollars to keep healthy, happy and educated than, say a person born without disabilities who lives to be 100, even the answer might be salutary. The relevant math is value-for-money, and while you keep telling us how to calculate the money, you aren’t telling us how to calculate the value.
Because that would involve a value-judgement. That messy, emotional, anecdotal stuff, varying from person to person, and from circumstance to circumstance! That’s why the Dawkins position (even in the new nuanced expanded version) is logically flawed. You can’t reduce ethics to math. You will still be left with subjective emotional judgement on the other side of the balance sheet.
Report abuse
Thanks, Andrew, you are a shrewd judge (ha, ha!). In terms of my own situation, I think I should add that we feel very lucky that our son is very healthy boy. We certainly are aware of other families whose children with DS are not so healthy and, indeed, have died young; for instance, check out ‘Blake’s Million Smiles’ on Facebook. Also notice how proud Blake’s parents are and their constant statements that they would not have wanted him any other way. I realise that this is very difficult for people to understand – particularly in the strange logical world of RD and friends – but these views are sincerely felt and not sentimental.
Anyway, I have never come across this argument. I am assuming that it is based on the same kind of ‘sum of happiness’ premise as Dawkins’ central argument. If this is the case, I think the ‘replacement person’ argument is fallacious because it wrongly assumes that the replacement will be happier. Have I understood?
Report abuse
I think you are wishfully projecting your own process of ASSUMPTION on to the contrary evidence based arguments.
Are you seriously suggesting that a healthy child with full faculties, will not usually be less of a stressful burden to him/herself and the family, than one with physical and mental disabilities? – Particularly in the more severe cases!
Nope! You seem to be wearing rose-coloured spectacles which filter out the real problems!
Report abuse
Did you read the paper, Phil? It suggests that there are positive experiences and negative experiences, and that the positive experiences tend to be underemphasised. It is interesting that so many contributors here appear unwilling to accept that there are positive experiences.
Report abuse
Based on your thoughtful contributions here, Elizabeth, I am sure you would have made a very good mother of a child with Down’s.
Report abuse
I did change the wiki page of Great Beethoven fallacy to:
Pro-choicer: “I want your opinion about terminating a pregnancy. The mother’s had three children already. The first two died of diphtheria, and her third child also died within a year. She is pregnant, and the father is her half-uncle. Would you recommend she have an abortion?”
Pro-lifer: “No.”
Pro-choicer: “So, would you like to know what the life you saved did?”
Pro-lifer: “Of course!” (The pro-lifer then goes into a fantasy about somebody growing up and curing cancer or AIDS.)
Pro-choicer: Let’s see, he killed six million Jews, some five million other people he didn’t like, all for reasons out of their control, dragged the Earth into a long bloody war unlike any that preceded it—
Pro-lifer: Everyone is innocence until proven guilty!
I am a theist but I wouldn’t say I am a pro lifer or a pro choicer.
But this way you cannot prove they are wrong. This is a fallacy when one can prove that abortion is not the same as murder.
Report abuse
Good question. In a case where a fetus had a serious defect that would result in a short painful life, I would consider it immoral not to terminate.
I see your point and I also thought you made some good points earlier regarding FGM and beheading where the perpetrators could argue that they were acting morally.
However, in my opinion, there is no such thing as absolute morality and this is the problem with Richard using the word immoral – he means immoral by his standards. We all have different standards of morality, which could lead to years of discussion on who may be right or wrong – unless you use one of the holy books as a guide of course. Don’t worry, I’m not suggesting that for a second!
A useful alternative would be logic. In the case of a fanatic cutting off somebody’s head, he is acting on flawed logic because he has (probably) been told it’s acceptable by his religion, which is equally flawed because it’s based on a book written by people with their own subjective morals.
As with everything, information and discussion are incredibly useful and I think we have all learned something by listening to the variety of opinions on this topic.
Report abuse
Sorry, Sedan, your post is highly problematic
On your first comment, contrary to your assertion, people – myself included – have been arguing that people with DS are not necessarily less happy and that their families are not necessarily worse off (as is argued by Dawkins).
On your second comment, there is no contradiction. Life is getting better for people with DS and their families (for some reason, this seems to be an uncomfortable fact for many in here, but there you go). One of the reasons for this is that understanding of the condition is so much better than it used to be and this understanding is acted upon (of course, this is thanks to the research and social programmes to which you refer). In addition, the social context has changed dramatically (though clearly not in the case of Dawkins and his fellow throwbacks). So, though I am very critical of Dawkins’ ignorant argument (see my post yesterday), I also support research and support that aims to improve the lives of people with DS and their families.
My view of research to ‘prevent’ DS is rather different. One of the problems is that these researchers need to – falsely, in my view – build up DS as a big social problem, so that their research becomes more attractive to funders (I am an academic researcher myself, I know how it works). Given that the lives of people with DS and their families are – in truth – improving (though this is threatened by ‘austerity’, sorry to get a little political there), I really do not see the need to ‘prevent’ DS. Instead of spending £millions on genetic research, screening, diagnosis and the rest, I would much rather see the money spent in the social programmes that you mention. Of course, the recent research that claims the future possibility (bigging it up, again!) of pre-natally eliminating the extra chromosome is another matter; this requires serious moral and ethical scrutiny of quite a different order (though I fear it wouldn’t really get that in this forum).
Report abuse
aw thanks 🙂
Report abuse
Okay, I can see we are not going to agree here. My point is, severe disabilities, period. If there is a screening process at all, yes, abort. That’s obviously just IMHO, and obviously my childhood experiences have left me deeply resentful on this and many other issues. But, yes, be it DS or anything else, abort. I’m sorry. Yes, I agree with Dawkins here.
Report abuse
Barry, I think the vast majority of people who don’t have a religious issue with abortion would agree that it was immoral (although they wouldn’t necessarily use that word). Yet, they stumble on the issue of DS children. Some, like Elizabeth, believe that it is impossible to measure the benefit (or value) that a DS child brings so the question is moot. There is a logical inconsistency that they simply can’t overcome, because they certainly can make a decision in the extreme case (or when it’s their own resources at stake and a decision has to be made).
Even if the data weren’t clear for DS (although it is), it certainly could be subjected to more research and analysis. The reason it hasn’t is because people are afraid of the answer. (Not unlike why some people don’t get the prenatal tests in question.)
There certainly would have been less uproar if Dawkins hadn’t used the term morality, but since he explained (roughly) his definition I think it was a fair use to explain his thinking. Others don’t have to accept his morality, but they have to accept his explanation.
You are correct that any definition of morality has to be logically sound, but that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be several approaches that are all valid (including one where decapitation was morally justified). It would be possible, for instance, to iron out the logical inconsistencies and factual errors in various religious texts. They would still be wrong, of course, but at least they wouldn’t be so transparently and laughably wrong.
Report abuse
It would be great if people could stop referring to people with DS as ‘Down’s children’, ‘Down’s babies’ and so on. While these people may have Down’s they are not defined by it. Language is important, it constructs the world! Cheers.
Report abuse
Sedan wrote:
I’m not quite sure how many times I have to say that I do NOT think that it is “impossible to measure the benefit (or value) that a DS child brings” before you will understand that it is NOT my view. As I have already said, and I know you read it, because you referred to it, part of my job is precisely attempting to find good proxy measures for human subjective emotional experience and values. I even cited “QUALYs” – “Quality Adjusted Life Years” – a way of attempting to quantify quality of life versus duration of life – as a valid measure.
The point that you seem to miss (when you suggest that I do not understand scientific methodology or statistics, which is possibly true, but relatively unlikely as I am a practicising cognitive neuroscientist and teach quantitative methodology and measurement, and nobody has sacked me yet) is that in order to compute whether a life is “worth” the trouble or financial cost it will incur, you have to make value judgements. I’m not saying those are unmakeable, or that you can’t put a number on them. or that you can’t enter them into a spreadsheet and do stats on them, but I AM saying that at bottom that’s what they are – subjective value judgements made by people using their hearts and guts (speaking figuratively) not their math skills.
And at the bottom of ethics lie our values. We cannot derive our values from our ethics – we can only derive our ethics from our values. Having done so, we can then apply some math and arrive at some objective, or at least generalisable conclusion about what makes most people strive for and what most people try to avoid. But the math cannot be a substitute for the subjective values, because the subjective values themselves are the input to the math.
Report abuse
Hello again Andrew, I shall address your four paragraphs in turn:
First off, I do not agree with your point about negative eugenics because of the reasons explained in point 4 of the explanation provided by Professor Dawkins. I won’t try and paraphrase but a quick scroll to the top should set you straight.
Secondly, I believe that discrimination and negative attitudes towards disabled people should be condemned along with racism, homophobia and xenophobia etc. Everyone ought to be judged on their own merits but I don’t accept that the recommendation by Richard Dawkins to terminate a DS pregnancy has any effect on attitudes towards disabled people. One relates to living people and the other relates to an unborn embryo/fetus. The chief suspect in increasing hatred and intolerance would be the media; not every single media source of course but the Fox News / Daily Mail kind of nonsense that stirs up ill-informed people to have such hateful views.
You mention next that I am a fan of utilitarianism, which is interesting because although I agree with elements of it, I also strongly believe that the weakest members of society deserve strong protection. I wouldn’t extend this to unborn beings without consciousness but I would certainly expect children born with Down Syndrome to be given as much help as possible. The use of the word immoral is regrettable but I would offer in defence of Professor Dawkins that he was talking about his morality, which others may or may not share.
The last paragraph is interesting and I would like to state clearly once again that the advocation of a DS termination is very different to having negative views towards people with Down Syndrome. The reason I felt the example of your former student was not relevant was because it’s not representative of the whole. The odd individual who opens a restaurant or learns to drive are the exceptions. A guy called phil rimmer (lower down) has posted a link with more detail on this. I applaud the achievements by the girl you described and I hope that she and others continue to have great lives, which I would hope for most people to be honest. But I don’t feel this has direct relevance to the matter at hand. Virtually nobody would choose to have a child with Down Syndrome – if they had a choice. The opinion expressed by Professor Dawkins was that if someone knew they were to have a DS baby and they had the option of a termination then he believes that it would be the morally correct thing to do.
Just finally, I must say that I feel much more informed about this subject now and the stories shared by people on here have been very illuminating. My wife used to be manager of a day centre for adults with learning difficulties (now shut down due to government cutbacks!) and I met many ‘service users’ there, some of whom have left me with a very positive impression of people with Down Syndrome. Equally though, I understand that the lives of the parents can often be extremely difficult with financial hardships and very long-term responsibilities that are not easy to cope with. It’s for this reason – as well as the welfare of their child – that I believe most people are opting for terminations.
Report abuse
BTW: When they say, that one murdered Beethoven, than they first have to show logically that abortion is the same as murder.
The rest of the arguments under the section ‘Problems’ is yada yada, because the main message from the hypothetical discussion is not that one did murder Beethoven who was born under whatever circumstances (this is only an example), the main message is that abortion is murder. The use of the Beethoven story serves to make the main message kind of more dramatic.
Report abuse
Steady on, Shannon. You are generalising your own experience (which I agree does not sound very rosy) and not resorting to evidence. This is not very scientific, is it? To me, as someone who is broadly speaking content to have child with DS, your comment is also quite offensive. Having said this, I do recognise that my situation is not as tricky as your aunt’s (and yours when you were a child) and I have tremendous sympathy for you all. I would be grateful if you could accept the fact that I am content with the situation, and so are many parents of children with DS. As to the rest of my life, don’t get me started…
Report abuse
You miss the point.
“he uses logic to bring more happiness”
but to do so, logic must apply to happiness. But happiness is entirely subjective and sometimes completely illogical. For example, I have seen kids on the shores of the Nile river, ridden with the parasites they get when they swim there, appear to be much happier than the kids in America with their Ipods and X-boxes.
Hence, your exaltation of Dawkins use of logic to bring happiness to the world, is, well, illogical.
Joseph.
Report abuse
I am not a theist. I am not speaking of the will of the creator or any such thing.
You’re missing the point on Warren Buffett. They may have tried to kill him, but they didn’t try to annihilate his gene by aborting all those like him before any chance of him reproducing that gene.
See?
Joseph.
Report abuse
Actually, I also have an engineering degree. But my credentials are really besides the point.
However, getting into a discussion of libertarian ideals with regard to electric grid, hospitals, roads, etc. would be off topic at this point.
I’m not ducking any issue. Again, my point is, if we there were a pill to annihilate all Warren Buffett genes because you or society deemed that gene to cause “unhappiness” would you have everyone take it? And if you did, why is your subjective planning or that of society’s any better than anyone else’s? Are you saying that society is always right?
Joseph.
Report abuse
I certainly did. It indicated some worse outcomes and some neutral (though better than some disabilities like autism). There is certainly a big hint (not spelled out this bluntly) that mothers happily get to mother more and for longer (fathers less so but ditto) and the family unit is extended in its duration. But there is seriously missing data for much older DS offspring. Remembering that it is older parents with the likelihood of DS kids the pleasing aspects of extended dependency may pall at some point.
Report abuse
In England 90% of women who have a confirmed diagnosis of a Downs fetus decide to abort. Very few women would deliberately choose to give a disability to a child if they had the choice of avoiding it. Women who are bringing up a child with this disability didn’t choose to do have a child with Downs, except in a very few cases. They didn’t make the choice because they didn’t have the pre-natal diagnosis which would have enabled them to make the decision.
An abortion is not an automatic right under English law. There has to be a legal justification. Nearly all women who have an abortion have it on the grounds that it’s necessary for their mental well-being. Only 1% have it on the grounds that the fetus will develop into a child with a handicap.
Report abuse
The reason I said you need to read the post again is that you are suggesting that any person who brings a ratio of greater unhappiness than happiness to the world at large should be terminated. Maybe you ought to consider the implications of what you are saying.
I am not saying that we should have more rare diseases. I am saying that rare diseases give us an opportunity to pick the challenge of increasing happiness through more innovative means, such as treatments, over the simplistic and immoral use of a kill switch.
Joseph.
Report abuse
Thanks, Peter. I’m with you on the social model of disability and I think the positive changes in teh lives of people with DS over the last thirty years offer quite strong support for it.
Report abuse
Wow. So you have a happiness to cost to benefit meter?
Tell us how it works.
As for being obvious about some insult…I guess it’s not obvious to me…a “no kill” doesn’t mean human life. You can kill cells you know. Cells live. I didn’t say murder. That would be human life. I said kill.
Joseph
Report abuse
And what evidence did you just provide?
There are many handicapped people that are perfectly happy. There are many perfectly formed people that suffer greatly. Numerically there are more ‘perfectly formed’ people that suffer than handicapped ones. Although that is largely down to the inhumanity we impose on each other, starting when we dehumanize people into numbers, or amount of weeks alive, for example.
Report abuse
I don’t follow. I am not against guns, in fact, I think they are a necessary deterrent to many things from criminality to government oppression. I wouldn’t limit them just to avoid developing treatment for gun shot wounds. That doesn’t make any sense. Please clarify.
Joseph.
Report abuse
It’s downright crazy?
I think it is conceited for humans to think that they should determine what the chances of producing a Downs kid or a gay kid or a midget or a deaf kid should be…that’s why I think nature or evolutionary forces should determine that or are you advocating that we are to enter into a Gattaca state solution? Is that what is advocated here? The govt/society tinkers with genes until maximum perceived “happiness” is attained? Where does it end?
Joseph
Report abuse
I agree with you that picking the point of conception as personhood is fairly arbitrary.
I agree with you that our selfish desire to take such a pill would rule the day, as would a pill that might increase the intelligence or strength or charisma of your progeny.
However, if everyone did this…we’d have a Gattaca world. Is that ethical?
I think a better approach is to take up the challenge of bringing diverse individuals, whatever their malady, and we all have maladies of some sort, into society and tap into that which makes them unique and find constructive means to bring happiness to the world.
Joseph.
Joseph
Report abuse
My daughter has DS and she has not caused greater suffering in the world. On the contrary, she has made the lives of everyone around her richer, funnier and happier. In bringing her into the world, we were no more selfish than any other parents. Frankly, I’m sick of the smug moralism of this kind of statement, almost invariably made by people with no experience of people with DS.
Report abuse
Looking at the tone and the content of my comment, I do not think anyone can fairly say I was picking a fight. I was responding to Denonde’s surprise at the heated emotions here by explaining why this is a hot-button topic for people who have loved ones with DS. As for the facts around DS, I suspect you know less than you think. Anyway, I have pointed out some facts relevant to Dawkins’ piece further down the thread.
Report abuse
Let’s try and stick to one point at a time by tackling your opinion that nature produces the ‘right’ number of babies with Down Syndrome. This is from the NHS website:
The age of a woman when she becomes pregnant is the only clear factor to be identified as increasing the chance of a Down Syndrome baby.
The risk jumps from 1:1000 at age 30 to 1:100 at age 40. There are a number of factors affecting the age at which women become pregnant but none of them involves some kind of balance that ‘nature’ is trying achieve. Why on earth would that be the case anyway? I can’t spot any logic in your argument at all.
Do you really want to get started on ‘gay kids’ next?
Report abuse
What of old, young, obese, rich, tall or any other kind of people? There are characteristics which it might be impolite or offensive to refer to in certain social circumstances. However, it’s surely allowable, for example, to refer to the the elderly as such, if they are the subject of discussion. What mandatory circumlocutions or euphemisms are you suggesting?
Report abuse
What he said: “people with DS”.
Report abuse
If you’re content, great. I’ve read your comments and chosen not to respond because I obviously disagree. I don’t wish to take any measure of contentment/happiness away from you, and it certainly was NOT my intent to offend. It is also likely pertinent to admit that I am adamantly and proudly Childfree. I don’t deal well with ANY kids, much less kids with problems. So, there’s that. Yes, there is a lot of personal experience here. Again, sorry to offend.
I do have to, however, ask you to look at how your child’s situation may have impacted his siblings, cousins, and other kids around him. I bet there are effects you aren’t even aware of.
Report abuse
From the study that Phil linked to:
Report abuse
1) there is no way to measure happiness. no objective meter or Geiger counter. nothing. Without such a measure there is no way for anyone to sit and say, "well we should abort any embryo or fetus having an ABC gene" because they on net produce too much unhappiness. Just the fact that there is any happiness at all, justifies their existence, in my opinion. Because otherwise, we would only keep those who bring more happiness than unhappiness…and that assumes that such people, if they were all alone in the world after having weeded out their unhappy brethren, would still maintain their happiness.
2) there is nothing that says society is any wiser than nature is. Society could have deemed homosexuals to produce "too much" unhappiness to the world and therefore should be annihilated by aborting all those embryos that possess a homosexual gene (if such a gene exists). And society would be wrong.
3) once you remove unhappiness producing Downs patients, where do you stop? Is this a path to Gattica? (I will only grant an exception to the loss of your debate if you quote Dawkins to his point about trisonomy not a eugenics issue as a technicality to the argument, but that would be too nice…and would bypass the deeper philosophical debate here).
4) The future is unpredictable. You can only assign a probability that any given fetus or embryo with any given gene would bring "too much" unhappiness to the world. How do you know? Do you corner the market on predicting the future?
Now we enter into a "Minority Report" style of governance.
Nonsense. And really we're done. The above cannot really be addressed satisfactorily by anyone….but go ahead and try as it would entertain me.
As for my solution: why doesn't society take on the greater challenge of bringing into the fold everyone who is born with whatever malady they happen to have? We all have maladies of some sort. Why not use the existence of these maladies to encourage us to find treatments that allow that Downs Syndrome individual to bring more happiness than unhappiness?
By stating that, I am in no way advocating that we have more rare diseases or that it's important for folks to be born with diseases for us to develop treatments. I am simply making the point that it is far too easy to go about putting embryos or fetuses on some kill list (and by kill list, I don't mean human life necessarily) and far too immoral because of the end result…a world where we judge without an objective meter who brings happiness and who does not. A world where we try to predict the future of anyone before it happens and take action against him or her or it.
All I am saying is that the moral thing to do is to find ways to manage the cards we're dealt, whether it is disease or bad luck or whatever obstacle or impediment and not cheat the game. That is what LIFE is about.
Joseph
[Slightly edited by moderator to bring within Terms of Use.]
Report abuse
Phil, let me sum up the most positive results that can be gleaned from that study/survey.
1) some people have positive experiences with DS
2) DS not as bad as many other disabilities!
Did I miss anything?
Everything else points to a serious statistical downside for everyone in the family. And they don’t even touch on the extra burden on society for the support and health care for a person with DS.
Someone would have to be deep in the DS bubble to not see that.
Report abuse
Sedan, yes I think that position is morally defensible – that it is immoral not to terminate.
I do not think though, it is morally defensible to assert “it is immoral to not terminate a foetus with Downs”.
The difference?
The latter is tantamount to saying of a person with Downs “he/she should have been aborted” which I think is morally indefensible.
The former is tantamount to saying of that baby “he/she should have been aborted” which I think is morally defensible.
I think Barry M is right in that “We all have different standards of morality”, – well perhaps not that far, it is possible to share the same standards of morality. What is more important though is the need to justify, to account for the standards of morality we hold. And if I cannot justify my standards to someone who disagrees with me, then they are right to hold the opinion that morally, I am wrong.
But this does not mean of course, that I have to share that opinion.
This is why, in the argument I have presented above, I hold so much store on somethings being “morally (in)defensible” – and further that I think something is morally (in)defensible.
In the present case, I am not convinced that there is a “profound moral difference between ‘This fetus should now be aborted’ and ‘This person should have been aborted long ago’.”
And I guess all of the above means I am not a Utilitarian. Thank goodness for that:) Bring on the language games!
Report abuse
What’s a statistical downside, as opposed to a regular downside?
And you missed that the evidence suggests that siblings do as well or better than siblings in non-affected families after an “initial adjustment”.
In other words, there is no reason to think that anyone other than the parents (who tended to show lower, but non-clinical levels of wellbeing) are adversely affected. So that holes below the waterline any suggestion that parents are being “selfish” or “immoral” to make the decision not to terminate.
Note that the majority of children with DS are born to people who aren’t screened, and did not knowingly bring into the world a DS child. It would be interesting to see what the “stats” were on the subset who did – i.e. those who made a positive decision to go ahead with a DS pregnancy – terms of well-being.
Report abuse
I would, however, like to see more objective studies. Many (most) of the studies are self-reported and there appears to be very strong pressure in DS families and the DS community to put on a positive face. This is perfectly natural and healthy, but does not present a clear picture when trying to make a comparison to families that are not affected by DS.
For example, while siblings may feel they are better off and have a positive opinion of their life and DS sibling it is far from clear whether this is the reality or just that the positive feeling has been drummed into them or whether it was a coping mechanism.
Report abuse
Thanks again, Joseph, for your reply. These are difficult questions, and some are more difficult than others when they get close to the ‘GATTACA’ issues. But, some are misunderstood when characterized as an “either or” situation. We can both take measures to reduce birth defects and increase the care society extends to those born with those problems, anyway.
For the most part, I feel that parents have a right to control their own reproduction. This starts with a pro-choice position, but is not absolute. If a woman decides to continue a DS pregnancy, I would not agree, but I do support her right to do so. If parents want to sex-select their children, I would not try to stop them, but I think some restrictions are appropriate, such as requiring an attempt to balance in multi-child families, or balance by banding together with other parents who want to choose the other sex.
As time goes on and genetic testing and gene therapies advance, we are going to have to face these issues of who gets whatever chance gives them for children, and who can avoid illness and deficiencies by selection or intervention. Medical ethics must expand its reach to grapple with these questions and help the population reach a higher level of understanding about the burden of making the decisions we all must face.
Report abuse
ajw, I don’t think I see the difference between your two examples. What am I missing?
In both cases you are looking at a living thing and saying “it should have been aborted.” What is the moral difference between those two cases (severely disabled baby and DS baby)?
I agree fully with your extension of the proposition and would personally have no issues saying that in both cases “he/she should have been aborted.” While some may hear that as “he/she should be terminated now” they should be patiently corrected. (And then more forcefully corrected because they probably aren’t listening to any kind of logic anyway.)
You may choose not to say such a thing out loud, but that doesn’t change the reality.
Consider the case of a soldier trapped behind enemy lines who is saved by a reckless mission that put the lives of many more men at extreme risk. I would have no problem telling that soldier that they shouldn’t have taken such a risk to get him. This is far from saying that he should be put to death immediately; what’s done is done.
Report abuse
Joseph, I don’t know what you mean by “Warren Buffett genes” so you would have to spell that out explicitly. However, if parents decide that they do not want a clone of Warren Buffett, I don’t see why they should have to raise one. Remember, preventing some kind of person from forming from an embryo is not the same as killing a specific person. Every day I don’t go out and impregnate some woman that I could, presents the potential of preventing the life of some person, and all the potential offspring of that person, out into the unknown future. Am I at fault for refraining from doing so? No. Any other conclusion leads directly to the “every sperm is sacred” ridicule.
Report abuse
Hello,
I had a sister with the down syndrome, that was back in 1956, at that time they took almost 4 years to diagnose the syndrom. and was a heavy duty for the family.
Today, many countries have severe laws against abortion (Brazil), My position is that, the pregnancy should be stopped, and tried again. Here, the solution is to give the baby to adoption.
today I am 62 and if I want to have a son/daughter I would do it using PGD. choose some embryos and implant only those that are “normal”. If someone wants to carry those not “normal”, be my guest…
The problem with the science now is that there is no more “natural” selection, that is: science have evolved in a way that a lot of individuals in the human species should not be alive if there where not by the science.
There must be a way to restore the natural selection, either by PGD that in my oppinion should be done free to those couples want to have babyes. The way thing are doing there is no way any state can face the cost of medicine in the near future. Just look at the high rates of genetic problems that have in the normal “population”. A more precise test soon will be developed that allows better humans… Those who not agree, no problem, will face the costs of medicine themselves. their children will compete with mine, that was choosen to be better, guess who will be better chances?? Darwin’s Law applys…
Report abuse
That really makes no difference. It’s simply a grammatical re-arrangement of the same thing. ‘Autistic children’ and ‘children with autism’ are no different. It’s not the arrangement of words that is important in this case, but the attitude to people with such conditions. There’s no prejudice implied by using an adjective or noun-adjective instead of using ‘with’. Taking offence when none is intended is unhelpful.
Report abuse
OK, so here’s a reframing of the issue from a parenting perspective. Kids leaving the nest is often a source of sustained dismay to parents, mums in particular. Some adore the parenting role and find maximal purpose in it. Much of the delight that may be coming from having a perpetually good natured non-argumentative ever-dependant, may be the deep satisfaction of sustained and unperturbed parenting.
As a consolation for unexpectedly having a DS child this may be pretty good. But should it be sought? Lets not get muddled with high versus low functioning. The big issue here is high dependency.
As a starter, one issue for me is “kids are not property, they asked for none of this.”
Report abuse
The biggest problem I see is Denial from parents and doctors about the realities that come with raising children with downs. They don’t think about what will happen to them if they die and leave them behind defenseless . It is a cruel fate. If they want an eternal child they should get a dog not a child with downs.
I have a cousin with 2 girls with downs. The ironic thing is they are xtian missionaries and one would expect that if they do the lords work, that at least the lord would spare them from downs. But they had two even after they were told that after the first with downs, the chances of another are very high. It seem irresponsible to me to do this.
Report abuse
Well, the people whose opinion on this matters are people with the relevant condition. And repeatedly people have said that they would rather be referred to as people with [a condition] rather than be named for the condition. So “people with DS”, not “DS people”; “people with schizophrenia”, not “schizophrenics”; “people with dyslexia” not “dyslexics”. It may cost you an extra syllable but to the people you are referring to it makes a big difference – it signals that you are seeing the person foremost, not the diagnosis. And, as Kevin says, language can subtly alter perception.
In any case, it’s what people with DS have asked for.
Report abuse
@Sedan
I mostly agree with the extension of the proposition and your point regarding the common misunderstanding is worth making again; to say that certain parents would have been wiser to abort when they had the chance is patently not the same as recommending euthanasia for existing people with DS. It’s surprising how many people equate the two.
I would also like to reiterate a point that Elizabeth made earlier; most DS babies are born to people who didn’t know they were going to have one. In those cases, I obviously support those parents making the best of their situation and I regret that they feel criticized by some of the discussion on here.
The point made by Richard is the ‘immorality’ (not my favourite word) of someone who knows they’re carrying a DS fetus and then deliberately chooses to go ahead and bring a DS child into the world. That’s a very different scenario to the one where someone finds out after the baby is born. As we know (from the European statistics), it’s actually quite rare for someone to have the test and not terminate the pregnancy. I can therefore only conclude that the main reason for all the anger results from the language used with words like ‘it’ and ‘immoral’.
Report abuse
Aldous, what is it about my post that signalled offence to you? I do not take offence, but this is very important and it does make a difference (both Elizabeth and I have explained why this is, but I guess not everyone will get it). I have also not tried to mandate anything. I do not want to start an entirely different discussion, but it might help to consider the linguist functions of the terms ‘terrorists’ and ‘freedom fighters’; both are often used to describe exactly the same people but with very different intents and – and this is the important point – with very different outcomes. This is what we mean when we say that language constructs the world. Apart from all that, as Elizabeth points out, this tends to be what people with DS and their families prefer. If that wish can be so easily respected, why not try it?
Report abuse
OK, but what if any parent dies and leaves a child ‘defenseless’ [sic]? This seems to be an argument for no one to have children?
There is no denial here, GFZ, it’s often tough but it’s OK. I really wish people could understand and respect this.
Report abuse
This thread has been an eye-opener, but not in a good way. I’ve posted a lot, as an atheist and scientist, on ID (Intelligent Design) sites, and the experience here has been uncannily similar.
Report abuse
Let’s clarify what you are saying:-
Which is of course nonsense!
Just as I don’t “murder” (Illegally killing a human being) all those skin cells with a full set of human DNA, when I clean my teeth and flush the brushed out cells down the drain.
The argument that some individuals might be lost, while true, is no more relevant than all the thousands/millions of potential individuals lost, when zygotes and foetuses naturally abort or miscarry, – (because of defects in their DNA or just from the lack of nutrition from an undernourished mother to support them), – or when eggs are not fertilised, or sperm fail to reach them.
Millions of potential individuals never get to exist! Cherry-picking selected examples is just propping up wishful thinking.
Report abuse
Alan, I don’t think Shahrad is saying that abortion is murder. Ask him, but I’m pretty sure he’s saying that it isn’t.
Report abuse
I think you have picked out a key point! People with Downs can lead a happy life, IF they are provided with substantial physical, emotional, and financial support, by family and the community, to compensate for their limitations and disabilities.
This ASSUMES they live in a fairly wealthy community, where compensatory welfare services, medical treatments, time, effort, and money, is provided for them.
Much of the world does not! – and where people do, – it should clearly be the choice of those potential parents, and the communities, who will have to provide that support, as to whether they are prepared to take on those demanding, long-term responsibilities, or whether it would be better for all concerned, to have an abortion and avoid generating the problems in the first place.
There will of course still be instances where disabled children are born, without medical advice forewarning of this, or disabilities resulting from accidents – and in those circumstances they will need to be cared for as usual in civilised communities.
Report abuse
I thought he was trying to present two opposing viewpoints, but was struggling a bit with the language – so I clarified some points.
Report abuse
Richard wrote (my bold):
Is this true? Do most doctors recommend abortion in this situation? I’d appreciate the best source for this statement. Thank you.
Report abuse
Actually there is – by examining biochemistry!
http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/59029/happy-chemicals.pdf
Dopamine
Serotonin
Oxytocin
Endorphin
Report abuse
Of course there will be “instances”. Most congenital conditions are not foreseeable, and especially in precisely those communities where healthcare services are poor.
But even in the UK, the vast majority of people with DS will be born to parents who did not screen positive and so did not even have a definitive pre-natal diagnostic test. And the vast majority of congenital conditions are not easily diagnosed pre-natally anyway – indeed CP is usually a result of birth complications.
So to some extent this entire conversation is moot – we are talking about whether a person who has got as far as taking the risk (to the pregnancy) of an amnio or CSV because they are concerned about DS should then subsequently terminate. Most will, because that’s why they took the risk of the test. But a very few won’t.
We cannot eliminate congenital disabilities. If we want to live in a mutually supportive society, and I do (after all, we all potentially benefit) then we will often have to pick up the tab. Its what we evolved to do, as a social species (an insight we can credit Dawkins with promoting). To my way of thinking, reciprocal altruism is what underlies our natural morality, as an evolved trait, it means we tend to get joy from helping others, even at cost to ourselves, and reward when we see our help bear fruit. That contribution to “the sum of human happiness” is something that Dawkins, ironically, seems to have forgotten in his calculus of net benefit.
Report abuse
One datum: when I was pregnant, and got my quad test back positive (1:300, although to me that was good-ish news because the stats on my age alone were 1:84) I was offered an amnio. I said I didn’t want one, because of the risk of spontaneous abortion. The doctor said: well, that means that you might have a baby with DS, are you sure? In other words, the amnio was offered on the assumption that I would terminate if it was positive. It would be irresponsible IMO to offer an amnio unless the expectation was that a positive result would be followed by termination – you don’t do an invasive and risky test unless you want to obviate some adverse outcome. Clearly a very few people do accept the amnio, then decide not to terminate – and sometimes that will be because the couple is in disagreement – for instance the father might want the test, but the mother refuse to act on the result, or vice versa. Or simply that when faced with the actuality of the termination, the parents find they are not as dismayed as they anticipated they would be.
So I don’t think (and this is anecdote only, but informed anecdote) that it’s that doctors recommend termination if the amnio is positive, but that they only proceed with the amnio if the expectation is that a positive test will be followed by termination. Nonetheless, they are two separate procedures, obviously, and thus require two different consents. Women are free to accept the first and reject the second. As they should be.
Things will change if and when a non-invasive highly discriminative pre-natal test is developed, but right now we don’t have one.
Report abuse
Richard wrote (my bold):
When Down Syndrome is detected, most couples opt for abortion and most doctors recommend it.
In the UK (as in many developed countries) doctors would offer a patient the choice of an abortion after tests and explaining the likely consequences.
http://www.patient.co.uk/health/amniocentesis-leaflet
The percentages accepting the offer of abortion, suggests the explanations persuade most to go for that option.
Report abuse
Mr Dawkins, it surprises me that your tweet has caused such a storm. The statistics can be argued but the stunning fact is that the vast majority of people (up to or more than 90% in some countries) opt for termination once Downs has been picked up in screening and counselling given. People are not ignorant about Down’s Syndrome, not in the present age. People with the condition are on television, in jobs in the public domain and much has been published and aired in the media regarding levels of achievement that can be aspired to for these children. And many of us know a person with Downs. But the honest truth is that most people look at people with Downs and do not aspire to have that condition, or for their children to have that condition, so they choose termination. This is not to say that those who are born are not cherished. Two totally different issues.
Let’s be honest, people.
Report abuse
I think this comes down to the raising of awareness. Richard Dawkins has often spoken about this and I think most people now accept that reference to a fireman or a policeman can be rather annoying for female fire fighters or female police officers.
In a similar vein, I would agree that ‘people with DS’ is preferable to using ‘DS people’ when referring to real individuals. However, I do think it’s acceptable to refer to a theoretical DS baby that may or may not be born because you’re not referring to a real individual. This would be different to a real-life scenario, where you would probably be wiser to say ‘a baby with DS’ in a sentence referring to a specific person.
For example; “the mother gave birth to a baby with DS” rather than “she gave birth to a DS baby”.
Report abuse
Well, the expectation is that most children become adults capable of caring for themselves. It’s OK for the parents to die then. 😉
My kids are almost at that point, though I hope to live another 20 to 30 years. But I have friends with special-needs children, and it’s a great concern that they have resources in place for the care of the children after they retire or die.
Steve
Report abuse
@ Kevin At least the old term has been banished.
Report abuse
You seem to be in denial of denial.
Two of my three children have their own houses and one has his own daughter. This is in sharp contract to his (now adult) downs playmate, who lives alone dependent on his old-age pensioner mother.
Report abuse
Not really. Those chemicals are implicated in the state we denote as “happy”. We would only know that if we had an independent way of measuring the state, and could observe the correlation.
If the correlation is good, we can use levels of those chemicals as a proxy measure, but with caution. If a depressed person takes a serotonin-reuptake inhibitor, and we measure an increase in synaptic serotonin, that will not tell us that the person is less depressed. We’d have to ask them.
Report abuse
The main distinction, though not the only relevant distinction, is the quality of life they will each endure – not just the facts of their physical well-being. I agree with Elizabeth, that this is a subjective value judgement; that the first baby will have an unendurably awful life, it will be insufferable, the DS baby will not. As Elizabeth says, arriving at that judgement involves heart and guts – and it may well also involve consideration of scientific evidence and scientific rationale and perhaps some maths skills. But you do not arrive at that judgement through scientific evidence and rationale, though you may take it into consideration.
Having made that value judgement (made – not discovered), I can use it to defend my moral value judgement that it is immoral not to terminate in the case of the first baby – (having taken other considerations into account). I wouldn’t arrive at the “insufferably unendurable” judgement for the DS baby, so cannot use it to defend a moral value judgement that it is immoral not to terminate the DS baby.
The point is that it is not the case that I have discovered the objective, absolute morality of these examples – because there is no such thing to discover.
I may be persuaded to change my mind, both by the opinions of others, and by scientific facts and rationale that I perhaps was not aware of. Persuasion of course is very important in this respect.
To make it clear, I disagree with your conclusions and, perhaps, your reasoning here. As an example:- that I was in the situation where I judged a baby will have an insufferable, unendurably awful life, and the termination of their life rested on my judgement. Just to say, I don’t even remotely think I am in a good position to make such a decision – I don’t have the scientific knowledge nor the emotional experience, and I think such a decision should be made by the relatives where possible. But let’s suppose I did. I think it would be morally defensible to say “he/she should be terminated now”.
(I think the situation would resemble one I have experience of, when my Mother was dying, and the medical staff needed my opinion. I was of the opinion that it would be correct to administer pain-relief to alleviate her suffering, even if doing so would kill her. And horrible though it is for anyone to have to make that judgement, I think it is morally defensible.)
My argument is that, in most cases I can think of, it is only morally defensible to say “it was immoral not to abort the foetus” if it is morally defensible to say “he/she should be terminated now”, given the abortion did not occur. That is true for the baby in insufferable pain, but not the DS baby, as far as I would judge.
I agree you’re right to distinguish that “he/she should have been aborted” does not necessarily imply “he/she should be terminated now”. Providing you admit that others may be right, i.e. there is a valid moral defence, in reaching the conclusion “he/she should not have been aborted”, though you yourself are not of that opinion, then it does not imply the latter. However, it follows from the assertion “it was immoral not to abort the foetus” firstly that “he/she should have been aborted”; secondly that there is no valid moral defence to “he/she should not have been aborted”, i.e. others are morally wrong to hold that opinion; and finally, I would argue, that “he/she should be terminated now”. So “he/she should have been aborted” is morally ambiguous.
What I take issue with is “it was immoral not to abort the DS foetus” because ISTM it follows from this that others are morally wrong to hold the opinion “he/she should not have been aborted”, it’s not just that one disagrees with that opinion.
One difficulty surrounding this is the notion that morality is just a matter of opinion – but I’ll leave that for another post.
Report abuse
Even from this perspective in later life, healthy children producing healthy grandchildren, is probably a better option!
Report abuse
Yes, good point Bonnie, though I fear Dawkins et al are intent on taking us back to the attitudes of those days (in the name of humanism and progress, I ask you), and – as this incident illustrates – there is still much educational and campaigning work to be done.
Report abuse
Phil, please can you stop endlessly demonising the parents of kids with Down’s who have the nerve to say ‘You know what, it’s not too bad after all’. Maybe some parents of kids with Down’s respond in the way you describe, but any parent might. Someone else asked ‘what if you die?’. Well, yes, what if any parent dies? Why do you just pick on kids with DS and their families? My son is five and I am already scared and excited about the prospect of him living alone in the future (if you are a dad, maybe you share these feelings?).
Report abuse
Of course he’s not in “denial of denial”. Any parent of a child with a disability is only too aware of the challenges that the child will face. That doesn’t mean that the challenges can’t be overcome. Happiness is not the same as “without challenge”. Indeed it is often the meeting of challenge that brings the most profound happiness.
Report abuse
Steve: Certainly these are difficult questions, but your comment reveals your ignorance of the increasing numbers of adults with DS who live independent lives. At the same time, of course my wife and I are thinking about the future (our son is just five), but I am sure we’ll figure it out, just like other families plan for the future and figure it out. I hope you live for another 20-30 years too, Steve!
Alan: Not at all. Pay attention, please: it’s tough (and made tougher by society’s outdated prejudices), but it’s OK. The situation of your son’s playmate and his mother sounds difficult. I hope they are happy, despite your inability to even imagine the potential that they are. Maybe your son and you could help, I expect you’d enjoy it.
My concern is that you both, and many others in this debate, are in denial of your prejudices (masquerading as logic and reason), your ignorance (especially of the improving lived lives of people with DS), maybe even your own troubles. I am not sure if there is a facility for direct contact, but I really would love you to come and meet a bunch of families in Down’s World, they are pretty much just like you!
Report abuse
Good luck to those, but I am talking about the ones who are not.
I am pointing out some possible future situations to help you do that.
Where I live the various disabled people are accepted as members of the community, but that does not mean they do not have problems or need considerable resources and support.
I have no difficulty in understanding their situation. I have known the family since before the Downs son was born.
There is negligible chance of my son helping.
He has his own home and family 20 miles away, with considerable responsibilities, as head of software development, and a directorship of an IT company that has world-wide multi-million pound contracts.
Report abuse
There are uncertainties about the future, but that does not mean that scientific or medical research, cannot make reasonably accurate predictions based on statistics and testing, from earlier cases.
Certain conditions are disabling, some require surgery, some require medication, some require mechanical aids, and some are fatal.
To pretend that because science does not know everything, it knows nothing, is simply foolish wish-thinking denial!
It is in the nature of science, to make testable predictions, and then monitor the results to match up views with the reality of the material world.
Engineers who do not understand this, build structures which collapse and machines which blow up!
Report abuse
OK. You’ve seen the poll results and I haven’t. The issue is about fetuses anyway and not about people.
Report abuse
Nobody is “demonising the parents of kids with Down’s”. –
Certainly I would not wish to discourage you from your efforts to do your best for your son. – But that is a different issue from suggesting others voluntarily burden their families with disabled children.
Isn’t it obvious? Normal children grow up to be independent without support. SOME Downs children don’t!
The problem is also compounded by the greater likelihood of OLDER parents having Downs children, increasing the likelihood of parents dying or becoming senile and frail first.
Perhaps you should start listening to my experience of a neighbour’s Downs son who is now over 25?
I also have two other friends who have disabled sons in their 20s.
I have already provided links in earlier comments, which show the range of medical problems associated with Downs, and the 92% of people who decide abortion is the best option, on the basis of the medical advice they are given, (where this option is available to them, and not withheld by laws from some bigoted theocracy).
Report abuse
Alan, the selfish choice is easier to make in a relatively wealthy community, but it’s still a selfish choice. You won’t have to make hard trade-offs and you won’t see the impact on others, but it is still there. It’s not quite a zero sum game, but the resources that support a DS child do have to come from somewhere. My working estimate is that the cost is at least $1m for the lifetime of that child, but I’m more than happy to hear other reasonable estimates.
If the parents were to fully support the child (and adult the child becomes, if necessary) with their own funds then it is perhaps less selfish, no more selfish than anything else they would choose to spend their money on, at least.
In either case, it would be hard to argue that more good wouldn’t be done if that money were spent elsewhere. Say on children with DS whose parents didn’t have a choice, or parents of DS children in less fortunate communities, or any number of other worthwhile causes.
Report abuse
I am well aware of costs.
Just down the road from my house is a converted house where the council and support services look after 4 middle-aged, mentally disabled, men. I usually have a cheery friendly word with them in passing, if they are outside, – or if I come across them when they are travelling with their support workers on buses.
Some also have physical disabilities. – They have a whole team of paid support workers working shifts to look after them.
It must cost a fortune to man that sort of arrangement.
While we should care for existing disabled people and treat them with respect, we should not be going out of our way to produce more of them, or trying to persuade other potential parents to do so!
Report abuse
ajw, I think I understand now the first part of your post, the distinction between the two cases you mentioned, and I agree with it.
However, once we’ve accepted that euthanasia is moral/ethical then it opens the door to terminating any child with a disability (even DS) if we judge their lives to be painful enough (and reasonable people might differ on that line).
I think the situation is slightly different in the case of euthanizing an adult (e.g. your mother) who is unable to give their own opinion on what should be done. In that case, you can make an estimation of what they would have wanted if they could make the choice, based on what you know of them.
I understand that you don’t want to use the term “moral” as an equivalent for “should” in these cases. I think that accounts for the majority of our difference here (correct me if I’m wrong). Perhaps this is just a semantic difference (is this covered by ethics or morality).
The choice one makes on the ‘trolley problem’ in ethics might be insightful when it gets down to this level. However, I think most people have much higher level emotional and religious issues that they couldn’t distill it into such an easy (relatively) choice. (Although for me the choice is much easier than the trolley problem; as a fetus is not a person, so the sacrifice is far, far less.)
Report abuse
I didn’t mean to imply that you weren’t aware, I know that you are. I was just trying to make the point explicit as others reading your post, like Elizabeth, would take your post to mean that we should willingly expend these resources if our community were not impoverished.
Report abuse
This seems like a straw man argument.
I don’t think anyone has suggested that we should “go out of our way to produce more [disabled people]”.
Declining a termination of a pregnancy following a positive amnio for Downs is scarcely “going out of our way” to produce a disabled person, and is probably extremely rare.
I’m finding it very odd (and somewhat disturbing) that this conversation has somehow led to a discussion of how expensive and undesirable it is for the rest of us it is that some of us are disabled.
My view is quite different. We will always have disabled people, but, fortunately, a few kinds of disability can be prevented from happening (genetic counselling, prenatal diagnosis, pre-implantation diagnosis) and many more can be treated or alleviated by various interventions and gadgets. And as most of us run some risk of becoming disabled (mentally, or physically, or both) it’s to our our benefits that we have a society that regards us as all as responsible for the welfare of each other.
And while there may be (indeed I would make it) an argument that there are some pre-natally diagnosable conditions that would be actually wrong to let go to term (and a comparable issue surrounding the care of extremely pre-term infants), this affects a tiny proportion of the disabled population, many of whom were born just fine. And so I think we need to weight seriously the harm done by making a big fuss over whether a person should have been born, or whether it would be better if people like them could somehow have been prevented from being born, against the benefit gained from putting moral pressure on the rare mother who has to make the agonising decision as to whether to abort or resuscitate a wanted baby who has a high risk of being disabled. Such pressure affects not only that small group of mothers (to little benefit) but also impacts negatively on the culture with which disabled people and their families have to cope (as has been well evidenced in this thread.
I work in the field of psychiatry, rather than learning disabilities, but mental illness can also be extremely disabling, and “expensive”. Hence all the research into effective therapies and preventative measures.
I don’t think such efforts are helped by a culture in which people with such disabilities are regarded as regrettable drain on society. Yes, it would be great if they got better, but is not our greatest motivation to do that simply that it is better for them? Utilitarianism may be a useful framework on which to build a moral philosophy (I think it is) but I am really quite dismayed at the coldness of the calculus that seems to be dominating the conversation here.
Report abuse
The truth has no temperature.
Report abuse
Their ears and hearts are closed, Elizabeth! Such a cycle of self-produced misery and despair that can only be solved – apparently – by: basing your prejudices on the past not the present, basing your prejudices on the worst case scenario, ignoring potential, giving up, assuming the worst is going to happen, and taking on a passive and defeated role. Thanks for your support in these debates, Elizabeth. We had such a fantastic time today, walking around Box Hill in the pouring rain! Oh no, sorry, it was a dreadful time spoiled by concerns about the future of my blighted and burdensome Downs boy. Ha ha, if this is humanism, you can keep it!
Report abuse
Wow, Alan, your son sounds really amazing, I am very impressed. World-wide, you say? Multi-million pound contracts, you say? You must be so proud of him.
Report abuse
Hi Joseph, I appreciate your thoughtful and humorous comments, cheers.
Report abuse
In that case, thank goodness that we have so many willing and able people with DS to lend a hand instead.
Report abuse
Wow?? – Amazing!!
ID sites gave you linked top-grade research-based medical advice, and statistics from reputable sources? – Another miracle!!!
Report abuse
I’ve enjoyed reading your posts, Kevin, and hearing about your son.
Here’s to many more rainy and sunny walks!
Report abuse
Sometimes, yes.
But that was not what I meant.
Report abuse
I take your point and entirely agree.
Report abuse
Alan, it’s virtually impossible to understand what Sharad is really saying one way or the other, but I’m glad you’re trying instead of me.
The one thing that is certain is that he should not be editing English wikipedia pages. I guess the other thing that is certain is that his English is better than my attempt at whatever his native tongue may be.
Report abuse
There is plenty of misery and friction in most families. The share in each one varies, and it is weaved, along with joy and harmony, into the fabric of life. All around us, families are embroiled in secrets and lies; parents carry the ghosts of their own childhood into their relationships with their children. Often these are ‘friendly’ ghosts; often they are not, and they leave scars for life. It is the human condition.
Our children’s potential, their development and ability to grow and become more independent, depends largely on the resources we give them at home, but also on the wider environment. Their level of joy and misery also depends largely on their childhood experience.
The mother who ends up with a highly dependent adult son with DS may have faced challenges that prevented her and her child from becoming more independent – it is not necessarily the case that just because someone has DS, they will be dependent on their parents all their life. But there are many typically developing children and typically developed adults out there in the world whose life circumstances limit them enormously. The definition of Special educational needs, for example, is being extended to also encompass the emotional, social and mental wellbeing of children.
I am a child counsellor, and I also am the mother of a young child with DS. There is a lot of pain and misery in many of the children that receive counselling/psychotherapy, and in our profession, we seriously consider the future prospects of many of these children. In our society, the levels of depression and anxiety are high and increasing. The rat-race in which so many typically developed individuals engage is seriously damaging their wellbeing and that of their children. The levels of stress among children in private schools, under pressure to perform, deprive many of them of a happy childhood. Parental expectations can damage children’s wellbeing.
Parents around the world, on the other hand, are putting their heads together in forums, in support groups, through friendships, at schools, to understand and help their children with DS to thrive. In the UK, we have gone a long way, largely thanks to parents’ pressure to create greater access, inclusion, understanding, etc. There are, of course, parents of children with DS who abuse and neglect their children; who are ashamed of them, hide them, deprive them of access to the wider world and the things that many of us take for granted. That does not occur because the child has Downs. It occurs because those parents are unable to cope, or are damaged individuals, just like many of the parents of the typically developing children that receive counselling/therapy.
If somebody is happy making a lot of money and leading a certain life far away from home, that is terrific. Good for them. If somebody is happy living in a small community, where perhaps the focus is on creativity, on sharing, that is terrific too. The meaning of life is, in my view, made of many small, subtle things: moments of sharing, of doing and discovering, of realising potential. And potential comes in many forms. Take a look at the quality of art produced by some Mexican painters at the Mexican School of Downs Art, as one of many examples.
I chose not to have a diagnostic test following a nuchal test result during my 12-week scan, which showed a 4% probabilty of having a baby with Downs. And my baby was born with Downs. Of course there have been and will continue to be many challenges ahead. But here’s something that I can tell you all that makes all the difference: LOVE.
Now, anyone reading this post may refute or disagree with the points I raise here. But I honestly do no think that anyone has the right to accuse me of having made an immoral decision for wanting to keep my baby, knowing he might have Downs. I can only hope that if something comes from RD’s latest controversy, is that we as individuals become a little bit more able: able to see into ourselves and recognise our own limitations, rather than dump them on people with Downs or other vulnerable groups.
Report abuse
He may just need a social media transplant
Report abuse
Yup, and what if it turned out that Downs Syndrome folks have a better mix of happiness chemistry than everyone else? Then what? Abort all those fetuses who do not have Downs Syndrome?
Report abuse
I am not aware of any engineer who could predict the “happiness outcome” of anything.
Report abuse
Thanks.
Report abuse
Yes it is obvious that parents raising disabled children are aware of what it takes and the challenges.
I am talking about being told you are pregnant with a fetus with downs and have the option of having an abortion or having the baby and have a “challenging” life.
This decision should be made based on more than personal moral grounds . It simply is unethical an irresponsible when you know ahead of time what is going on.
Downs is not linear and not all people with downs are terminally disabled . However they will always be dependent on others. Parents need to understand that their kids will never grow up to take care of them when they are old. The normal family dynamics is distorted. The children who are born normal suffer because they are ignored by virtue of being more independent and more pressure is put on them to help the parents with the disabled siblings.
This is more than a “Challenge” this is life every single day for as long as they live.
Secondly, having one child with downs increases the odds of having more. If you think having one child with downs try having two or three. Do you think that after having one, a person should get pregnant again and risk having more ?
If they have another child and this child also has downs, should they have another child and another until they have one without downs?
Report abuse
It is an argument to plan and make difficult decisions before the birth if you are given this information while it is still viable to have an abortion.
It is an argument for anyone who raises a defenseless being. Plan on how long their lifespan is and plan on always being there. This is the part that is overlooked and denied. The fact that their life is screwed and you have to put on a happy face. Take up the challenge.
In my cousin’s case, their two daughters with downs are a test from god and their faith. I wonder what the older one who was born normal thinks about this. I suspect resentment. But one thing I did notice, that they the parents, enjoyed having total control over their daughters. The girls were out of control , but their neediness and constant dependency for everything can make a person feel omnipotent. They felt like rulers over slaves. I am sure every case is different. But it was something I noticed while visiting.
Report abuse
I’m happy that none of my posts demonise parents of DS kids. If you want to point to one or some that do I will happily explain in more detail. My views on the subject are complex with the only overaching response to be one of compassion and respect for any decision made.
The key for me is the visceral response a mother/parents can have to the idea of abortion. If you feel this will give you long term upset and regrets, then carry on. The outcomes are not as bad as some fear and some real boons can be got.
Should you carry on having kids with an unwillingness to abort? I think that selfish.
If you feel you can handle a later abortion, (you have not dreamed about this child, bought clothes, decorated… “you are not pro-life”) then I think there is no good reason not to abort.
If you seem to have a propensity to produce DS children should you carry on trying to have kids? Maybe, but it seems a lot of risk and heart-ache to all. Why not adopt?
I have accused most parents of being highly self interested in committing to parenthood (I include myself here.) I really admire adopters and fosterers. I think they deserve a cultural boost.
On disability I have argued that accepting disability to some degree is normal and a great strength of our society, but that its outer reaches and harms should always be a target for amelioration.
Report abuse
I think that’s a pretty strong opinion, but it serves to balance out the overly rosy opinions that have disproportionately been put on display here.
I am very curious about the objective effects, especially long term effects on someone with a sibling who has DS. Many studies show that they claim to be happier, which may be true, although I am far from certain.
Studies have shown that their quality of life suffers, but I think that has only been studied in the short term, while the family is intact and I don’t know how big the differential is. I have to believe that the long term impact is even greater, on their chances for further education, employment success and fulfillment, relationships with others, overall financial well being and even their health (due to the extra stress).
This effect is probably most strong on women as they are often looked to as the primary caregiver and support, not just for their siblings, but for the parents later in life. There are probably parallels to women who have children at a young age; lots of emotional benefits; but otherwise a terrible setback for the rest of their lives.
GFZ’s cousin, for example, at age 50 will not only have elderly parents to care for, but two siblings who will probably not be completely independent. That is a lot of strain.
I imagine that 50 year old will be much more content with the struggles they have endured if their DS sibling were one of the many unforeseen accidents, rather than a burden knowingly put on her by her parents.
Report abuse
I think this danger is ever present for any moral decision. So how do we combat it?
One is in the hope that there is some absolute morality that we can discover, perhaps through science, through utilitarianism, through “revelations” in “sacred texts” etc. I think that itself is fraught with danger, though taking all those into consideration when arriving at values judgements can be beneficial. That of course, in itself is a value judgement, I personally would count Shakespeare’s works as “sacred text” AIW, even non-literary works like Beethoven’s, but haven’t found much use for the Bible.
One counter to this danger that I have stressed is persuasion; allowing open debate. I have said I would justify my claim “it is immoral not to abort […xyzFoetus]” with a moral defense of it. But I’m quite open to being persuaded I’m wrong, even though I don’t think I am. I have pro-choice views on abortion. Yet I’m glad that there are those who are not pro-choice even though I think they’re wrong generally speaking, because it makes me question my views.
None of that is a guarantee. People do horrible things, and make horrible value-judgements (which again in itself is a value-judgement!!). I don’t think we’ll eradicate that; but we can do what we can to challenge it.
As regards the particular case of the baby in insufferable pain; there are similarities with an adult. The baby can neither give their own opinion, for different reasons admittedly. And we can make an estimate of what they might have wanted – were they not a baby but an adult. Particularly given the growing acceptance for assisted suicide for people in insufferable pain. I think it’s a strong analogy (which is my moral defense of my value judgement!).
I think one aspect of our discussion revolves around just a semantic difference. However, I think ethics, morality, philosophy generally (as opposed to science e.g.), is fundamentally a semantic issue. My rationale behind this is that we cannot, as it were, look directly at others’ thoughts/emotions – their inner process, one might say. We can though look at what they say, as a reflection, an expression, of their thoughts. We can also of course look at neurological activity etc., which is the concern of science.
When you claim that “he/she should have been aborted” does not imply “he/she should be terminated now”, then I’m unsure what it is you mean by that, i.e. what the thought process behind it is. One possible meaning I would agree with, the other I would not. The problem is just semantic in that for me it’s ambiguous. But of course it’s easily resolved through clarification, and ultimately I think I do agree with you.
When Dawkins, above, makes this claim though, then, looking at the whole context, particularly his linking it with “it is immoral not to abort” – I begin to question his thinking behind it. It may be just semantics, just a bad choice of words, but then, given his status, he has a responsibility to correct it, and I don’t feel he has satisfactorily done this. That’s not just semantics.
And I will express what I feel about this in language, as best I can – and that’s not always easy.
Report abuse
Sedan: I think you have misunderstood what I wrote again.
I did not write that we cannot make any decisions until we have a fuller picture.
What I actually wrote was that we should hold back from pontificating. To pontificate is to tell everyone else what the ‘moral’ thing to do is, with an air of authority. That – I take it – is what Richard Dawkins has done, and it is different from making a personal decision or airing an opinion.
You ask why it is relevant to bring up elderly people. I would have thought it was obvious. It is another example of a type of person who typically suffers, but where – like DS children – it might not be justified to assume in general that their lives are not worth having.
As Elizabeth has said, what I am objecting to is not the idea that we can make moral decisions about people’s welfare – but rather the way in which R.D. assumes that we can make such decisions. Namely, by using a universal ‘metric’ to calculate the balance of suffering/happiness of individuals who may experience the same circumstance in quite different ways, and therefore assess their lives as having different levels of value.
Report abuse
Meanwhile where is Richard Dawkins? Why isn’t he defending his position?
Report abuse
Jessica, you don’t like Dawkins style of communicating, that is clear.
But to pontificate is to state the one and only final opinion that is backed up by absolute certainty (usually, but not necessarily the word of God). Dawkins is initiating a discussion with a firm and thoughtful position, asking others to challenge it, and then perhaps we all can learn something (even Dawkins) and change or at least refine our original positions. I’m sure Dawkins knows more about Downs than he did 10 days ago and it is hard to imagine that his position has not been either slightly altered or confirmed.
People who are intimidated by smart people and cannot defend their opinions do find this off putting. People from some cultures (especially some Asian cultures) also have difficulties even when they are incredibly smart and capable (which is one reason they have a disproportionate number of airplane crashes).
If you are one of these people you should simply pretend these conversations do not exist as you will not understand them and they will infuriate you.
Your continued proffering of the elderly as a valid point of discussion indicates that you are unsuited for this type of debate. Your opinion and data are still of interest, but you are not comprehending what Dawkins has said or what anyone else here is arguing.
The elderly scenario would be of interest if anyone were suggesting that we terminate actual living children with DS. Nobody is suggesting that the greater good is served by euthanizing people who can make a conscious choice for themselves. I don’t know what your mental hangup is on this, whether it is religious or personal, but it does nothing to further the actual debate going on.
Report abuse
Mrs. Elizabeth, there exists a pre-natal blood-test between 11th ans 14th week of pregnancy developed from LifeCodexx in August 2012 and in connection with ultrasound this is highly discriminative.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/down-syndrome/basics/tests-diagnosis/con-20020948
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130607085203.htm
Report abuse
I think a blood-test is not so invasive:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130607085203.htm
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/down-syndrome/basics/tests-diagnosis/con-20020948
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/02/26/282095202/blood-test-provides-more-accurate-prenatal-testing-for-down-syndrome
Report abuse
Well, maybe that’s what he thought he was doing, but it’s not what he said. And he could have said it, in 140 characters or less. If you don’t want people to think you are a pontiff don’t use pontificating language like “it is immoral to do X”.
But I still disagree with his “nuanced” version, for the reasons that Jessica gives. He implies there is (or he thinks there is) some universal happiness metric. There isn’t – which is precisely why there are not universal answers and why “pro-choice” is the name we give to the view that holds that the decision – the moral decision – on whether to proceed with a pregnancy is the mother’s. Not because mothers are all-wise and all-knowing, nor even because everyone is free to do what they want and damn the consequences, but because the factors concerning whether or not to bring an other human being into the world are highly complex, and the mother – not a pontiff, nor even a well-regarded atheist – is best place to weigh those factors.
And that is the fallacy known as “well-poisoning”. The people “off-put” by Dawkins in this thread have shown no signs of being “intimidated by smart people” nor of being unable to “defend their positions”. IMO.
WHAT????
Do you have any actually evidential support for either of those premises, let alone your conclusion?
Sheesh.
Report abuse
No, a blood test is not very invasive, but even that test is, for most people, more likely to give a false positive than a true positive.
In other words, if you were to proceed to a termination on the basis of that test, unless your initial screen gave you a very high probability of DS, you’d still be more likely to terminate a healthy pregnancy than a DS pregnancy.
According to the paper, the DR (Detection rate) is .99, in other words only one in 100 DS pregnancy won’t be picked up by the test. And the false positive rate is very low (.01). But because the prior probability of DS is also very low (even in a screen positive – mine was 1:300) there will still be more false positives than true positives. For instance, if I’d had that test, following my 1:300 quad screen, and it had returned positive, that would mean that there was a 25% chance my foetus had DS. But still 75% that he did not.
And so, in fact, their recommendation is not that you terminate on the basis of that test being positive, but that you proceed to invasive testing.
It all helps to hone the prediction, but it remains the case that we do not have a definitive test for DS (i.e. one with high true positives AND sufficiently low false positives to counter the low prior probability of DS) that does not carry a (low but not negligible) risk of spontaneous abortion, and thus put at risk a healthy pregnancy.
Report abuse
“I am sorry Dr. Dawkins has had to field so much criticism.”
His initial tweet said:
“It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have a choice.”
Immoral. Think of that. His choice to use that word had nothing to do with the limitations of the format. In fact, in what he says would have been his expanded version, he says:
“I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn.”
Which sounds an awful lot like someone responding to criticism, not saying what he would have said right out of the gate. So it’s baffling that he seems surprised by the criticism and seems to imply that the criticism has little merit beyond pointing out the limitations of the 140-character format.
Report abuse
First let me state that I am not drawing a clear distinction between morals and ethics here as I think the line is mostly arbitrary.
“how do we combat it?” I agree with all you said on this, but will add:
In clear cases (given prevailing wisdom at the time) we need to legislate and enforce morality, e.g. murder and assault, obviously, but also FGM and perhaps eventually childhood indoctrination of religion, etc.
In other cases, e.g. DS testing, the first step is studying the problem and then educating the public so they are informed and encouraged to do the right thing. Eventually this may lead to legislation under the same reasoning that we require seat belts and ban narcotics.
“regards the particular case of the baby in insufferable pain”
Yes, there are similarities, but the adult is a special case because we can surmise what that particular adult would have wanted based on their history. Unfortunately, IMO, with children it is the beliefs of the parent that take precedence, rather than the benefit of the child (who should not be punished just because of the unfortunate religious and moral choices of his/her parents).
‘When you claim that “he/she should have been aborted” does not imply “he/she should be terminated now”, then I’m unsure what it is you mean by that,’
I simply mean that time happens and we should factor in changes in the situation.
That we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq does not mean that we should pull out of Iraq, for example.
If a fetus is 99.99% likely to have DS it should be terminated. Once it is born it should not be terminated even if the baby/child has DS. The part most people can’t get their head around is that the decision to terminate was still the right one even if the baby turns out not to have DS.
Please ignore the politics and opinion on DS, it is the logic that I am pointing out.
Report abuse
Sedan, this is what I am hearing from you:
“We rational enlightened logical people need to work out when it is morally wrong to terminate a pregnancy, and when we have done so, we need to try to educate women to do the right thing, and if that doesn’t work, we will need to legislate, making it a civil offense to give birth to a child where the risk was known beforehand, with a penalty of a fine or term of imprisonment.”
And this sounds chillingly like:
“We religious enlightened church people need to work out when it is morally right to terminate a pregnancy, and when we have done so, we need to try to educate women to do the right thing and if that doesn’t work, we will need to pontificate, making it a canonical offense to terminate such a pregnancy, with the penalty of excommunication.”
I take it you are not a pro-choice advocate?
Report abuse
What a ridiculous assumption. Does it seems beyond the realms of your imaginings that someone would have the test so as to, in the event of the test proving positive for trisomy 21, avail of modern medicine’s best practises in preparation for and immediately upon the birth of a child with potential health complications?
Report abuse
Here are links to two really good articles.
http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/library/by-date/dawkins-intolerance-on-down-syndrome.html#.U_xmN7KzlUA.twitter
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/once-i-would-have-agreed-with-dawkins-then-my-daughter-was-born-with-downs-syndrome-9684199.html
Report abuse
@Barry
I’m not entirely sure whether you’re serious or not. But, just in case, and to clarify my position, this is what I said lower down:
“Simply having the test infers that you would consider a termination, which probably accounts for the very high percentage of terminations (in Europe) following positive test results. There are undoubtedly a few exceptions and I’m sure there may be a small percentage of people who ‘just want to know’ and wouldn’t consider having a termination following a positive test result. Similarly, there are probably many who have had the test and then feel under pressure not to have a termination. However, the evidence would surely indicate that people are, on the whole, having the test carried out so that they can abort the DS fetus and ‘try again’.”
I don’t see where I have made any assumptions, ridiculous or otherwise. The vast majority of people receiving a positive amnio test go on to terminate the pregnancy. It therefore seems a logical conclusion that the vast majority of people are at least considering an abortion when they have the test. Yes, there are a small number of exceptions (fewer than 1 in 10) who don’t terminate their pregnancy, but I believe that the evidence is fairly self-explanatory.
Report abuse
Two more super-happy families who very much love their young children with Down Syndrome. One was five years old and one was under two. I don’t think for a second that anyone would doubt the love these people feel for their children. It’s very touching. Seriously.
However, as phil rimmer pointed out to you a couple of days ago, there is a serious lack of data for what happens to families when these little toddlers grow into dependent adults with ongoing physical and mental health issues. Where are the stories about couples in their 70s and 80s who have been impoverished and exhausted by decades of caring for a son or daughter who will never grow up and never leave home? I appreciate that I’m generalizing here but there seems to be little balance in the examples that are being presented.
I’m sorry if it sounds harsh, but these are the real fears that lead real people to conclude it would be better to have a termination and try again. On balance, that does seem like a pretty reasonable and logical course of action.
Report abuse
Yes, thanks to modern medicine and other social improvements, this is true. However, as has been noted elsewhere, there are still significant numbers of individuals with DS and other conditions who will not be independent. Another problem is that (AFAIK) it is not possible to predict the degree of expression of DS. I would be less inclined to consider termination of a pregnancy in which DS was predicted if it weren’t such a crap shoot.
Before you call me “ignorant” please re-read my earlier post where I said I work with a high-functioning DS individual, and have treated DS individuals who required physical restraint (not my preferred method, BTW) or sedation. There is a very wide spectrum.
Steve
Report abuse
I am sorry that RD apologised at all. He was quite correct in his first comment.
It is about time that people accept free speech and respect the opinions of others, even if they disagree with what is said.
P.S.
……….And I wish that RD website had a British spelling check rather than a bloody American spelling check. If you don’t like that comment just suck it up!
Report abuse
So do I. I hate having to correct the corrections. I minor quibble, I know but RD is from the UK after all.
Report abuse
It is your egregious use of language and appeal to Nazism that is offensive. You acknowledge that there is a slope of conditions of increasing or decreasing significance, which implies you might think no condition is worthy of termination. Is that the case? If not, where in your view does Nazi-like eugenic behaviour start?
There is indeed a line for me somewhere not far from here and it is balanced against other harms (mostly to the mother) of attachment and such like and for some a concern about “what the neighbours will think”. It also depends on whether you are fully committed to and comfortable with the ideas of Pete Singer- Do you truly believe in the act of timely abortion itself there are no harms to the foetus?
Or are you making a slippery slope argument?
Report abuse
It’s the combination of testing that can make sure: The blood-test is quite expensive here and is only made if the nuchal translucency screening test has some abnormalities so that the false positive rate is very low here (Austria). Usual women demand after these results other tests to go sure.
About 97% of women decide to abort DS-fetuses – we don’t have any common statistics here – I only can tell it from the hospital I’m working.
Report abuse
@ Diana (sorry posted this in the wrong branch)
Yes, I know it’s the combination. The results I gave you are the results taking into account the combination.
In other words, your first (e.g. “quad”) screen gives you a “prior” probability of DS (mine was 1:300, which counts as a “positive” screen), then, on the basis of that, you do the new screen, with the .00 DR and .01 FPR. That still would have given me, in my case, a 75% chance of not have a DS pregnancy.
The point is that to combine tests you need to consider not just the DR (Detection rate) and the FPR (false positive rate) but the prior probability of DS (e.g. given maternal age, or the quad screen). And you do this using Bayes’ Rule. A .99 DR doesn’t mean a .99 accurate test. It just means that 99% of DS pregnancies will be detected. But a considerable number of non DS pregnancies will be detected too, and while the proportion of these will be small (.01), the fact that the vast majority of pregnancies, even after a positive quad screen, are non-DS, that means that the number of false positives will still tend to outnumber the number of true positives. And you will still miss 1 in 100 DS pregnancies.
Report abuse
I think another important factor that any Utilitarian approach to ethics has to consider is the potential harm of the moral imperative itself.
While it may be true, on a relatively narrow calculus, that a law, say, or even a cultural expectation, that requires that no woman proceeds with a pregnancy that she knows will result in a child with some kind of disability (however defined), and indeed that she has a duty of care to ensure that she is well-informed about the probable condition of her child, might ensure that fewer children with some kind of adverse genotype are brought into the world, the effect of such a law or cultural expectation will be, and I suggest to some extent already is, to make life worse for those who are, nonetheless, born with an adverse genetic condition, and for their families. Before prenatal diagnosis was possible, no mother would be blamed for having a child with DS. Now, it raises the question: “why didn’t she terminate?” And the child grows up in a society that says, implicitly, to him/her: “it’s a shame you were born, but, too late now, bang goes our tax dollars.”
The very act of setting some standard that babies are supposed to meet a moral issue is itself, I suggest, potentially harmful, and thus immoral.
Which is not to say that there are not good moral reasons to seek prenatal diagnoses, with a view to termination, or to seek genetic counselling, or pre-implantation diagnoses. But that is really crucially different from putting the moral burden on a woman to ensure that the child she will bear comes up to snuff.
Which is impossible anyway, and only makes it more important that those members of society who struggle more than others are not burdened by the additional problems engendered by a culture that implicitly signals that it would be better if they did not exist. After all, it can happen to any of us, regardless of genotype.
Report abuse
@Elizabeth
So now we get to it. We are social engineers, non idealist but betterist in our strivings. Icky moral outcomes appear at every turn. If we cannot strive to reduce the consequences of genetic glitches because we must not put stress on existing sufferers and their families or future sufferers we cannot help, then we must simply do two things at the same time. We must create a program that identifies DS kids and families as very happy thank you, of the lovingness of the keepers and the need for our collective support. But also a program promoting the utter reasonableness of choosing not to proceed with a pregnancy. 67% of American mothers so choose and 97% of Austrian mothers so choose. In the US Pro-lifers commit violence. The media never present a positive abortion story. The social pressure is in one direction just as you claim pressure on women in the UK and Europe is in the other.
Thirty years ago the termination I was involved in (not for DS but for other medical reasons of foetus health) was as grim as I imagine it may still be in the USA. The need was utterly clear and understood but what was terribly lacking was the necessary “societal forgiveness”. The bitch of oxytocin and pre-birth bonding would have been more manageable in a modern Austrian context where value judgements about abortion are less…..judgemental.
This is just a small rehersal for a flood of such decision making as gene therapy and other medical advances. Some of these will be way worse than the DS deliberations. Autism may be on the ropes sometime soon. Should we eliminate it? But no more Sheldon Coopers, no more Temple Grandins, could be an unmitigated disaster for the species. Yet severe autism is an utterly shredding grief to a family, the very opposite of cuddly Downs. Should we eliminate schizophrenia if we could. Again this is a terrifying and dangerous condition in serious cases, yet in my experience not too far removed from great creative energy.
Unless we can openly discuss all aspects of these issues and form proper rounded plans to deal with all aspects of them we will fail to minmise harms as we are acquiring the powers to do.
It serves us best to presume good intent in all these dealings. As informed and engaged ordinary folk we are an important part of the moral mix in spotting the intricacies that harms can take in an ordinary lived life and in charting a better way forward. Inaction is to fail in the simple duty of leaving the place a little better for our kids. But we have to recognise that though we don’t all sit on the same part of the empathy scale that doesn’t mean we are more or less moral, more or less moved by unfairness or harms when pointed out, it just means we are different in the processes we use to get there.
Report abuse
Prevention is important, but prenatal testing substantially into a pregnancy with a view to termination is pretty crude, and has big downsides. Huge downsides.
And the disorders arising from single gene or chromosomal abnormalities are comparatively rare. Most heritable disorders are the result of many alleles each of small effect, many of which may even be advantageous in other contexts.
So the more productive way forward for the foreseeable future IMO is to find ways of preventing the disorders that a genetic cocktail may predispose people to, and of better ways of treating them when they arise. And that, I suggest, is more likely in a society in which we accept people for who they are, regardless of how they got here, than in one in which we lamely try to stop a few people being born to mothers who actually want them.
As I keep saying, most babies with DS are born to mothers who screen negative for DS.
Report abuse
Maybe those stories are only there in your prejudices, Barry? I must say, these unexpected realisations about one’s own life do take some getting used to, but it really is OK. Trust me. I just wonder at what stage some much ‘denial of denial’, to use the ever-lovely Alan’s expression, becomes evidence?
Report abuse
This is a good example where the semantics is fundamental, not just being a difference in semantics. The ethics/morality is more complex than this. What might be morally defensible is to say (i) “it was right to reach the decision to terminate even if it transpires the decision to terminate was not right, because the baby turned out not to have DS.” In other words, contrary to what you state, if the baby turns out not to have DS, then the decision was wrong.
However, this statement itself presupposes that it is morally defensible to state “it is right to reach the decision to terminate if it transpires the decision to terminate was right, because the baby turned out to have DS.” If that isn’t morally defensible and I don’t think it is, then your statement isn’t either.
If you substitute “insufferable unendurable pain” for “DS” in (i) then I would argue it is defensible. But not if you substitute in your statement.
To use another personal example:- A while back, I had a suspected illness, but all the scans and probes I underwent couldn’t find definitive evidence. The surgeon was convinced I had it, others weren’t; in the end I had the operation, and once the section was removed and sent to the lab, they found the evidence. So, right decision. Had they not found evidence, the surgeon maybe could still have been right to reach that decision, but the decision was wrong.
As you say this is a logical argument, which is manifest in the grammar we use to express that logic; and I think it shows the logic behind your claim is muddled, it has not been thought through sufficiently. So when you say “The part most people can’t get their head around is that […]”, it’s a reasonable retort for others to say “actually, it is you having trouble getting your head around this”.
Report abuse
I don’t know if the issue here is semantics, but it’s certainly not logic. Let’s simplify the scenario.
If someone offers you 3 to 1 odds that a fair coin flip will turn up heads you should take that bet*. If you lose (which will happen 50% of the time) you still made the right decision by any reasonable way of looking at it.
The vast majority of people can’t “get their heads around this” (™) when it comes to real life decisions even when the math is completely sound. The real world example you give of your doctor is evidence of this: the fact that the one doctor was right means almost nothing (not nothing; almost nothing). That same doctor may have been over cautious on a 1000 other patients and 2 of them may have died because of unnecessary surgery (not even counting the expenses).
People who make poor decisions shouldn’t have their poor decisions reinforced with false support (“I’ve never worn a seatbelt and I’ve been perfectly fine!”). It will only encourage them and others to continue to make poor decisions (which is their right, as long as their poor decisions don’t impact me).
(*) A mathematically favorable bet may not be beneficial given limited resources (e.g. if you’re offered that bet for $10 your decision might be different than if you’re offered the same bet for $1 million)
Report abuse
We have no common statistics here, it’s just what happens here in the hospital I’m working.
I respect the women’s wish to have a healthy child and I’ve seen here, that it is not the greatest luck to have a disabled child, anyway the people who have one have to come along with it, but there are much more difficulties than with a normal child, you can believe me.
I think, it’s only the women’s decision in a traumatic situation and nobody should condemn her without knowing the individual situation.
Thank you and excuse my English – I’m not a native speaker.
Report abuse
I understand you, but tests are always an approach and have no 100% guaranty, there is always a risk – every test is an approach to the truth and you have to make further tests to make you sure in your decision.
Report abuse
Right, but what I’m pointing out is that even with this .99 DR test, I would have still got a result that gave me a 75% of a non DS child. And my original point was that until we have a non-invasive definitive test that does not carry an enhanced risk of spontaneous abortion, for most women, they will have to weigh up the more likely prospect of having a non DS child against the risk that the definitive test will result in the loss of that child.
The new test is not that test.
Report abuse
I’m in the category number 5. Sorry that I’m always a bit drunk when I write these (which are not tweets). When I’m sober I do not write anything (cos’ I ain’t an extrovert). And English is not my mother tongue, so I apologize for my writing poor English.
Was it not Julian Huxlie who said that it would be better for the mentally retarded to never have been born altogether. I think that’s a curious position. Or does it not mark the very peculiarity of the issue?
There once evolved the fifth ape, who was going to organize the evolving society, by means of genes, to the greatest happiness of all, which is not far away from the best moral principles (Rawls etc.).
There are moral dilemmas. When will the philosopher who can solve these issues be born. No existing philosopher has come close to at least theorithetically adequate solution on matters like these ones.
When will the best philosopher be born? Today, tomorrow, never?
To avoid the total amount of suffering (which is Richards view), is Really the best moral principles of all moral principles. But who can calculate it? Me, You, the Politicians, the Pope, or some one else?
Report abuse
Deleted and replaced below
Report abuse
I am being bombarded with pictures of Down’s children, with descriptions of how adorable and affectionate they are, and how rewarding to look after in spite of the difficulties. I believe it with all my heart, but I need to explain why it is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
I have not the slightest doubt that, if I had a Down’s child, I would love her dearly. If I believed in God I’d probably thank God she wasn’t aborted, and I would sincerely mean it and deeply feel it. But that is a judgment in hindsight, and it is totally compatible with a statement that, if offered a similar choice now, I would be in favour of abortion. Totally compatible with a belief that abortion would be the right decision, in circumstances where such a decision was available.
The child that you now love is a person. You have grown to adore her every smile, her every facial expression, everything that makes her the individual personality that she is. The bundle of cells she once was had no personality at the time when she might have been aborted. There was nothing to love there at that time. An abortion is not killing a loved child, not killing a sentient being capable of suffering, any more than you are killing or hurting anyone when you refrain from intercourse and thereby prevent a potential child from being born. I agree it seems paradoxical, but paradoxes sometimes have to be faced.
“But where do you draw the line?” Accepting that a zygote doesn’t qualify as a person but a baby does, on what day does the transition occur? Exactly where is the line to be drawn? It isn’t to be drawn. It’s a gradual transition, like the transition from middle aged to old, or the transition from medium height to tall. See my attack on Essentialism. Or Google “The Tyranny of the Discontinuous Mind.”
Richard
Report abuse
I think this discussion has been futile from the very beginning. And Richard was right from the very beginning. But maybe it is not that simple. You can eliminate genotypes but the down syndrome would not be eliminated from the population, even if you aborted all the fetuses who (or which) carry it. I’m not technically familiar with the issue, but the fifth ape will perhaps never be free of any moral dilemmas. That’s because evolution works from bottom up, not from any Holy Creator to bottom. There will be moral considerations for ever.
It is the phenotypes which are important to us. But what about a chromosomal deficiency, is it a matter of genotype or something else? Just evolution?
Report abuse
We all can and should be involved in making those calculations.
People have always made such calculations, however what is new is that we can do so in an open, inclusive and rigorous way. Rather than letting a handful of old men decide what’s best for us and keeping those rules forever more even when they no longer make sense (if they ever did).
Report abuse
Why? Why should you, or I, be involved in calculating whether or not another woman should continue with a pregnancy that will mean that her child will have DS?
Why is that not up to the woman who will be that child’s mother? What can you, or I, know about her child’s future happiness and the happiness the child will bring to her family that she does not?
Report abuse
Prejudice: Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
I stand by the reasoning behind my stated opinion and I’ve met several older people who have grown-up children with Down Syndrome, giving me ‘actual experience’ (of sorts). I therefore see no prejudice.
There used to know an old chap living in the city near me who was caretaker / maintenance man in a block of flats. He lived there with his 40-something daughter (who had Down Syndrome) and his elderly wife, who was very sick and spent most of her time in bed. Now, this old caretaker was superficially jolly when you spoke to him but it wouldn’t have needed a mental health expert to see that caring for his wife and daughter was taking a serious strain on him. His biggest fear was how his daughter would cope when her dear mother died, followed by the stark realisation that his child-like daughter would be all alone when he died too. The caretaker would become ’embarrassed’ by his daughter and, as a result, keep her shut indoors most of the time and shun any offers of help. I can’t imagine anyone seriously suggesting that life probably wouldn’t have been better for all concerned if they’d had a ‘normal’ daughter.
When I talk about the lack of balance in the examples being given, I would specifically refer to the fact that most examples presented are either of very cute little children or exceptionally-able adults (who can drive / live alone etc.). In fact, Professor Dawkins has stated below that he is being “bombarded with pictures of Down’s children”, who are all undoubtedly as adorable as he states. Nobody seems to be bombarding him with examples of less-able adults or providing examples of the multitude of health problems that come with this syndrome. It’s easy to see why not, but it can give an unbalanced impression of the many serious problems that come with Down Syndrome.
On balance, and using reasonable logic, I can’t help concluding that for most people who have been offered the choice a termination would be the ‘right’ decision and to not terminate would therefore be ‘wrong’ by default.
Report abuse
Clearly criticism of your position came from many quarters, including people who are anti-abortion full stop. But at least some of the criticism (mine, for instance) came from people who entirely agree with you that there are moral arguments for termination in the case of DS, and indeed, who can see that terminating a pregnancy is quite different from wishing someone who now is a person, dead.
And my three points were these:
Firstly: The person best placed to figure out whether letting a pregnancy go to term will increase the net sum of human happiness in a specific case is the mother of that child, which is precisely the basis of the “Pro-choice” principle. To put moral pressure on a woman to terminate, because of some perceived negative effect on the rest of us is to encroach that choice just as much as the people who jeer outside abortion clinics are encroaching on that choice. So it was
good to see that you would at least consider retracting your original formulation.
Secondly: The Utilitarian calculus of happiness and suffering is not simple, and cannot be reduced to economics. Someone who is a net receiver of public money may nonetheless be a net giver of joy. And in the case of DS, as most people with DS are born to mothers who tested negative, there will always be people with DS, for the foreseeable future – and people with DS are themselves major providers of support to other people with DS. So the issue is not a matter of simple “logic” – alone; subjective judgements about value are the input to the logic.
Thirdly: Saying that a DS pregnancy should be terminated on Utilitarian ethical grounds certainly is not the same as saying that a person with DS should be killed, but it is precisely the same as saying implicitly to each DS person: “it’s a shame you were born, because you are going to cost us all a lot of time and money, but never mind, we’ll just have to make the best of it, as your mother didn’t know, or made an immoral choice”. And that in itself will tend to lead to suffering and a diminution of the sum of human happiness. This is because we do not have society on one hand, and people with DS on the other. We are all one society, and a society in which we enshrine a contract to look after those in need is one that potentially benefits all of us at some time. Putting some people effectively outside the contract a priori is to reject them, in a small way, from society, and diminishes, I would argue, all of us.
Report abuse
Hi Barry M. Could I add the fact that there are already too many people on earth and the projected population figures are alarming. All peoples need to take responsibility for additional children brought into the world. Should decisions be made in a random fashion or should potential parents take into account the results of scans and tests?
I’m in the group who think we should be guided by medical predictions. We humans are too successful as a species, though we have the ability to alter the future by virtue of our good brains. In the wild individuals unable to cope independently in adulthood are left to die. We humans are able to alter this eventuality in different humane methods. One of those methods is by choosing to terminate the foetus with an abnormality.
I think most contributors posting a comment would know of an instance in which a severely disabled person made the life of the family very hard to live, whether they want to admit it or not.
All of us could have been aborted for one reason or another. I’m female, that’s a good reason in male oriented cultures. Fortunately I was not, but I’m not losing sleep because I may have been terminated in China or India.
Report abuse
I strongly suspect that you would! 🙂
Even in the cases where you do plan to have kids, there are many factors to consider, especially in this day and age when we know more and more about anomalies (ex autism), disabilities (ex Down Syndrome), and diseases (ex leukemia). In the past, people with autism and Down Syndrome were warehoused in mental institutions. Out of sight, out of mind. Sometimes I feel cheated that I was born in 1980 instead of, say, 1995; had I been born later I would have been growing up in a world that was beginning to understand Asperger’s. When I was a kid, nobody knew what it was, and I only learned about it from books in my early twenties. But on the other hand, had I been born in 1950, chances are I would have been institutionalized when I was a kid. Fortunately people like me, as well as other “different” people, have plenty of resources to help them.
But that still doesn’t make raising such a kid any less of an awesome responsibility. I personally don’t want to have kids, period. In fact, I’ve actually had nightmares about being pregnant and not knowing about it until the kid is born. In my dreams, when the kid is born, I am thinking, “What am I supposed to do with THIS?”, a far cry from the images we often see of women holding their babies. Does that sound cold? Well, my mind is just reminding me that I have no desire to parent anything that doesn’t have four legs! A couple of my friends with Asperger’s have said that they want to have kids eventually but at the same time are hesitant to do so. Why? Because Asperger’s has a genetic component. People with Asperger’s tend to have kids with Asperger’s. My friends recognize the tough time their parents had raising them and they don’t want to raise a little version of themselves. These aren’t “normal” people saying that they would not want to raise a kid with Asperger’s. These are PEOPLE WITH ASPERGER’S saying that they don’t want to raise a kid with Asperger’s.
No doubt there is going to be a prenatal test somewhere along the line for fetuses with Asperger’s, and the ethical dilemma will rear its ugly head even more than it does now. And then there will likely be tests for every single little trait. Then the dilemma will get even more serious. What then? I don’t know. I don’t have the answers. I don’t think anybody does. That’s why it’s a dilemma.
Also, Richard, I am curious to know what you meant by “contributing” to society when you Tweeted last week. It seems a bit of an oversimplification. True, people with Down Syndrome don’t make intellectual contributions and they have to be cared for in adulthood. Many people on the autism spectrum make intellectual contributions… or they have the potential to. Most people in general don’t leave their intellectual footprint in the world. And many people with autism– many INTELLIGENT people with autism– are on SSI, live with their parents, or have to live in group homes because of their social skills and difficulty obtaining and maintaining employment. Many of them, too, have to be cared for in adulthood.
Report abuse
This is why later terminations are more grievous than early and more grievous to some women rather than others. Oxytocin and preparatory bonding is the reason women need to be councilled carefully. Clearly those with high levels of oxytocin at this time are at greater risks of post termination depression. (From personal observation cultural views on termination may greatly increase the chances of depression.)
As Elizabeth has complained DS assessment is troublesome arriving too late with too little certainty or too much inherent risk. The forgoing risk to the woman could be hugely mitigated if some more accurate genetic or other testing could be accomplished very early on in the pregnancy. More accurate pre-pregnancy risk testing could help.
The issue of the perceptions of DS individuals concerning their “welcomeness” within their community needs to be divorced from from good advice to DS+ pregnant women. It needs to be tackled separately and schemes developed for all other disabilities that come under the growing “threat” of reduction/mitigation.
Report abuse
There certainly seems to be a bubble of denial around DS families and the DS community as a whole. The information Barry (and I) would want regarding the overall health and happiness of those around someone with DS is hard to come by and there doesn’t seem to be much objective research because the DS community doesn’t want to know the answers. Those of us who are concerned about it are told to be ashamed for even asking these tough questions.
What is abundantly clear is that even if the doubtful proposition that these families are better off is true, it comes at a huge financial cost to society. Which is another forbidden topic, of course.
With roughly 5,000 babies born with DS per year in the US alone and at a cost of possibly $1 million it seems like a very expensive luxury to me. What else could we do with that $5 billion/yr?
Report abuse
I used to have a part time job reading to adults in a group home who were probably functioning on the level of two-year-olds. They can’t read. They can barely speak. They wear diapers.
Most of those people there had been abandoned by their parents. A few parents sent them there because they felt being in a group home with professional caregivers would offer their kids a better life. Some of these parents visit the people there, some of them don’t. It’s not my place to judge their quality of life; only they can discern whether their lives are worth living. However, more than one time I found myself wondering, “Is this really worth it?” And I don’t mean reading to them. Yes, it sounds horrible, doesn’t it? But what kind of life is this? Again, only they can discern whether their lives are worth living. But I’m not going to ignore the elephant in the room.
That said, now that they’re here, it’s our job as a society to give them the best lives possible. And I’m glad that there are programs out there to offer these people some enrichment.
Report abuse
If we polled all the parents of children with DS and asked if they could cure their child’s disability with a wave of the hand, would they? Same child, just DS magically gone.
I honestly don’t know what they would say. I suspect the numbers would be very different depending on whether the poll was public or private, but I’m not sure which way it would go. I think they would probably look for cues from other DS parents before answering.
Report abuse
IYFNY
It doesn’t sound horrible, it sounds truthful!
Report abuse
Of course they would and do. Like all parents they want for their children good health, as good an education as possible, as many accomplishments as possible, and if there are therapies that can achieve this (and there are) of course they pursue them and do – most of them spend their parenting years doing precisely this. If it took the proverbial “wave of the hand” even better.
Or are you asking if whether by some notional magic they could replace their child with a non-DS child, they would do so? I imagine most wouldn’t – they love the child they have, not some different child that child would be if you rearranged her chromosomes to the regulation pattern.
Not all intuition pump questions work – for exactly the same reasons as asking someone whether they would have had an abortion is different from asking them whether they wish their child dead. It’s asking them whether they would replace their child with a different child. Identity is the result of what we make of life, with the genetic and other equipment we come into the world with. The reason we can’t change it with “a wave of the hand” is the reason it’s a silly question.
Report abuse
ISTM that what you are having difficulty getting your head around, is that a distinction can be made between (i) “the right decision” in regards to what should happen (i.e. I should lose 50% of the time), and (ii) “the right decision” in regards to what will happen (i.e. we don’t know what will happen before we’ve flipped the coin). That you say it will happen that I lose 50% of the time, is indicative that your thinking is muddled surrounding “will”, “should”, “should have”, “must”, and so on.
To clarify:-
You say
Ok, I meet someone, they offer me your bet; and I win. They return, offer me the same bet, I win again. This happens 50 times; every time I win. Aren’t I a lucky guy? Unlikely – but it may happen – I’d bet it has happened sometime in the past, somewhere.
So 0% of the time – I lose. Agreed?
You say, 50% of the time I will lose. Wrong – agreed?
So, as regards:-
(i) correct decision
(ii) correct decision
Ok, I meet someone, they offer me your bet; and I lose. They return, offer me the same bet, I lose again. This happens 50 times; every time I lose. Bummer.
So 100% of the time – I lose. Agreed?
You say, 50% of the time I will lose. Wrong – agreed?
So, as regards:-
(i) correct decision
(ii) wrong decision
The more I listen to your arguments, the more I become convinced that this muddle pervades your thought surrounding my surgeon; and the decision to terminate a foetus with DS, and a foetus of a baby that will have unendurable, insufferable pain.
Report abuse
Well, it seems to me that the muddle is between conditional and frequentist definitions to probability!
Sedan is saying that, given, say, a 90% probability of DS, the morally right decision is to terminate.
You are saying that given a termination with the outcome “not DS”, the decision was, retrospectively, the wrong one.
But we don’t get to make retrospective decisions! The morally right decision is one that, after carefully weighing up the probable alternatives between two courses of action, is the selection likely to result in least harm.
Over many such decisions, less harm will be done by someone, a surgeon say, who makes such decisions, than a surgeon who doesn’t – so it’s the morally right thing to do.
However, because the outcomes are not certain, inevitably (this is the frequentist part), in a given case, more harm will result than from the other decision.
None of which is to support Sedan’s apparent view that not terminating a pregnancy that has a high probability of resulting in a child with DS is immoral! His/her mistake, I would say, is to ignore the role of value judgements.
But I think his/her probabilistic approach is defensible, and indeed, defensible in law. A surgeon who does an operation because the risk of not doing it is greater than the risk of doing it will survive a malpractice suit if the patient dies as a result of the operation. However, a surgeon who does an operation when the risk of doing it is greater than the risk of not doing it, may not – and indeed, could be in trouble for doing unjustified operations even when they are successful.
Report abuse
Elizabeth
Firstly, the pregnant woman is not ‘the mother of that child’. It’s a foetus, not a child. The inability to keep that distinction in mind, is the major source of confusion on the issue.
Secondly, a sadist or a Roman Catholic might deliberately set out to produce a child with a disability but a reasonable and humane person wouldn’t. The judgement of ordinarily reasonable and humane people, obviously, may be clouded by the emotions of the moment. The clamour from proponents of disability is only likely to increase the pressure on women who are finding the decision to terminate a difficult one. It’s all the worse when this self-justification comes from parents who were never faced with this decision themselves.
Thirdly: The person is not the disability. Love the person, deplore the disability. And it shows love for children when a woman prevents a child from being born with Downs.
Report abuse
To the critical postings here:
Yes, It’s normal to love a child even if it’s disabled, and in the most cases the parents come along with this situation but it’s not the greatest luck to get one, nearly all women who got one became desperate and not happy. there were many sad stories I’ve seen in the hospital I’m working.
I see a great chance to prevent some suffering with the possibility to abort disabled fetuses and 97% decide to do it.
Report abuse
ajw, you are are correct that I can’t get my head around the concept that you’re suggesting, although it makes for good scifi stories. I think that anyone who says they can understand what you’re saying and reconcile it with the real world is fooling themselves.
Although I couldn’t say whether such a delusion is because of an honest mistake that lets them feel they have more control of their lives or the deliberate falsehoods of a Deepak Chopra (that gives him control of the lives of others).
Report abuse
The lack of allowable characters is not a valid excuse when you used only 15% of them.
Report abuse
In other words, DS parents, if given the choice, would make their child with DS less happy and their family overall less happy.
Report abuse
Fourthly, the person who is most biased and emotionally involved (and whose clear thinking may even be chemically compromised) is not the best person to make decisions that effect all of us. This is why in the trolley ethics problem we don’t say that the 1 person being sacrificed for the 5 is your child (or even your foetus).
Btw, for your “secondly” I think we should count ourselves fortunate that DS is largely not inherited. If it were there would be extremely strong pressure within the DS bubble to discourage any reasonable attempts to limit risk factors and test for DS. We already have enough of a distortion field in America due to religious based anti-abortion sentiment and pressure.
Report abuse
Sedan:
You seem to have missed my point.
The point is that there is no such choice – no-one is given the choice of changing their child for a different one, so the question is meaningless, for the same reason as “would you kill this person?” is different from “would you bring this person into the world”.
Our identities are constructed throughout our lives from the aptitudes and disabilities we bring into the world, as well as those we acquire, and once a person is a person, it is meaningless to talk about them as though they could be exchanged for a different person. On the other hand, when the person is still a potential person (in the womb), it is meaningful – you can say: shall I bring this person in to the world, knowing s/he will have DS, or shall I terminate this pregnancy and try to bring a different person into the world instead.
There is no handwave that will make a person with DS into a person not with DS once that person is a person, and for a person with DS, having DS has contributed to made that person the person he/she is, with all his/her qualities, positive (there are many positive qualities associated, specifically, with DS) and negative (lower average cognitive function; health issues). But there are plenty of interventions (not hand waves) that will ameliorate the disabilities, which is why life expectancy and health have improved so dramatically for people with DS, and why their mean IQ has jumped by about 20 IQ points.
And if you could get a drug that improved cognitive function so that it jumped by another 20 points, I’m sure most people would jump at it (whether people with DS or not!) But that’s different from talking about something that could make a person with DS not a person with DS.
DS is a developmental condition, not a bolt on/bolt off.
Report abuse
I think I’ll wait for someone who is less biased and more open-minded to weigh in.
Report abuse
Is that a dig at me?
In which case, would you like to support your accusation?
Report abuse
Not sure whether you are someone who has ever been pregnant, Aldous (your handle sounds male) but I can assure you that when someone is pregnant, and wants to be (if not, then termination won’t depend on a test for DS anyway, probably) she thinks of herself as a mother of a child, albeit one who, right now, is not viable outside her womb, probably.
So yes, the mother of the [future] child is the best person to make the decision because it is as a mother of a child that she will experience the joys and sorrows that her child will bring. There is no “confusion” about this. The distinction between a foetus and a child is essentially an arbitrary one, albeit an important one in law.
And for someone who expects to have a child, a child is what they are expecting.
And absolutely no-one is suggesting that anyone, RCs included, is sets out to “produce” a child with DS. The issue is, GIVEN a diagnosis of DS, whether the right thing or not is to continue with the pregnancy. And that, I suggest, is a decision to for the mother (yes, mother, because a mother she will, by default, become) of the child (yes child, because a child it will by default become), because she is the one best placed to know whether the net happiness of her child, and of her family is likely to be increased or otherwise by that child’s birth. It is not the job of secularists in general, or of religious people in general, to put moral pressure on her one way or the other. Is my point.
It is also a pretty silly issue, seeing as the vast majority of those who go as far as CVS or amnio and get a positive test, do, in fact, opt for termination and the vast majority of those with DS are born to mothers who either were not screened at all or screened negative.
So the amount of net-happiness-decrease putatively produced world by women who fail to terminate following a definitive positive test for DS, if it happens at all, pales into insignificance, I suggest, compared to the amount of net-happiness introduced into the world by people going around saying that it is immoral to knowingly bring a person with DS into the world.
Report abuse
So you really are against women’s right to choose then.
Does it not occur to you that while a woman’s decision to continue with a pregnancy after a definitive test for DS impacts on you (or “the rest of us”) absolutely minimally (the number of people with DS born following a definitive pre-natal diagnosis is tiny), the impact on her and her family is vast? That being the case, why on earth should it not be the mother’s choice?
And in any case, how is your position (that you’d rather not have to pay a portion of your tax for the upkeep of someone else’s child) less “biased” than that of the child’s mother?
Report abuse
@Barry:
What you’re referring to is the “person first” convention. There are a lot of people– including those with disabilities (or disabled, if they prefer) that hate it. I don’t mind being called an autistic person/Aspie because that is what I am. Many autistic people/Aspies feel the same way. The deaf community largely hates “hard of hearing”. They find that euphemism patronizing. They prefer “deaf”. Some people have criticized it, feeling like it draws MORE attention to their disability or that it demonizes it more simply because it can’t be used as an adjective. Obviously, every individual will have their own preferences, but don’t automatically assume that “person first” is always the right way.
Report abuse
Indeed. But she isn’t. We all anticipate the future.
Sets out, no, but makes the decision to produce a child with DS if it is clear that that will be the result of the pregnancy and a termination is available.
Report abuse
I disagree that a pregnant mother is not “the mother of a child” in the sense that matters here.
Consider, for example, the mother of a very preterm infant – born well before normal viability. That infant is her child. A foetus at the exact same stage of development that is still unborn in the womb of the woman in the next bed, is, legally, not. But that is a legal and arbitrary distinction, not anything (much) to do with biology, but everything to do with the relationship between the mother and the infant/foetus. In other words, the distinction between a foetus and a child is not biological, but relational. And for a pregnant woman who wants a child, the organism in her belly is her child, because she stands in mother-child relation to him/her.
Report abuse
This is so the wrong way round for managing the harms to the pregnant woman. It is entirely natural for oxytocin reasons and simple daydreaming reasons for such a pregnant woman to start to think of the foetus as “this child” and of mothering it. Modern cultures (certainly given low birth rates) aggravate this and have come to rather fetishise the mum to be condition. I don’t believe this is fully healthy. We would do well not to encourage our pregnant friends or relatives to so indulge their feelings, despite any shared glee. To further insist that motherhood is prematurely conferred because of these things, just makes matters worse, when sad and selfless decisions are taken and the status of mother needs to be removed again. I believe this to be wrong and loaded language to use in these circumstances.
Report abuse
There is research on Down syndrome and Happiness.
Check out these studies:
You can find them at brianskotko.com
The first one listed on self-perception is particularly interesting.
Skotko, B.G., Levine, S.P., Goldstein, R. (2011). Self-perceptions from People with Down Syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics, Part A: 155:2360-2369. Article. Press release.
Skotko, B.G., Levine, S.P., Goldstein, R. (2011). Having a Son or Daughter with Down Syndrome: Perspectives from Mothers and Fathers. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 155:2335-2347. Article. Press release.
Skotko, B.G., Levine, S.P., Goldstein, R. (2011). Having a Brother or Sister with Down Syndrome: Perspectives from Siblings. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A: 155:2348-2359. Article. Press release.
These arguments about happiness are all silly. They show our prejudice against people with cognitive disabilities, low I.Q. or whatever you want to call it. According to research, they are themselves highly likely to be happy people. Or, do we not count their own opinions as relevant in the calculation of “overall happiness.”
I have a child with Down syndrome. From my own experiences, I can report that my child is happy and has increased happiness here on earth.
Here is proof. People have told me my child: Made their day (co-workers). “Made my day” is an expression that means made my day a good day; “Is a ray of sunshine”; Reminds them of what is important in life (being happy, maybe?); Brightens the room when she walks in (teachers); Improves the dynamics in a group (teachers and co-workers); Is missed when she is not around. I could go on and on. I love going out with her, she makes people smile. So, she is happy, she makes me happy, and she makes other people happy. Whew!
For those still reading, here is more “evidence.”
The presence of my child at her elementary school resulted in a group of children being removed from special education classes and put back into regular education classes. Of course teachers contributed to this outcome, her parents also. This made a whole lot of people happy and resulted in a group of people getting a better education, thus improving their chances for success as adults.
It is society’s prejudice against people with cognitive disabilities that cause prospective parents to be afraid to bring them into the world. If they were counted as equal, and we made allowances for them, it wouldn’t be a problem raising them or taking care of them as adults.
We should be thinking about this; if we were more accepting, would we be happier?
Report abuse
I would also like to put into “evidence” that people tell me my child, who doesn’t have DS, is also “delightful.”
Everyone here is happy that you’re happy Lisa. Unfortunately that is all but completely irrelevant, but I’ll let others who are more sympathetic and patient tell you why, if they choose to.
Report abuse
I’d agree this is morally right, but not that it is the morally right decision, which implies it is morally wrong not to terminate, whereas IMO it’s morally right too.
I’m saying there are various senses in which the decision can be said to be right or wrong; that it’s much more complex than Dawkins and perhaps Sedan give credit.
The decision was not made retrospectively! The decision to terminate was made before the termination; you’re right, it can’t have been made afterwards, but I am not saying it was. We might adjudge the decision to be wrong retrospectively. There might even be a committee meeting (e.g. after my surgery except the illness was not found) where following much debate, a majority (not unanimous) decision was reached that we were wrong to reach the decision to operate (sense (i) of my prev. post), as well as that decision itself being wrong (sense (ii) this though shouldn’t need a committee, just the fact that there was no illness). Perhaps re sense (i) they feel the surgeon has been making too many misjudgements lately, and this is the straw that broke the camel’s back and we need to rethink how we arrive at these decisions. So there are various decisions here, but not all are retrospective.
Not necessarily. I’ve said before that taking utilitarian factors into consideration might, or might not, form a reasonable defence as to why a decision is morally correct. Utilitarian factors, in and of themselves, do not make a decision morally correct. Even when utilitarian factors are the only factors that need be taken into consideration – as is so with the baby in insufferable pain IMO – it is the utilitarian factors plus the judgement that they are the only factors that need be taken into consideration. With the case of DS, in contrast, they are not the only factors that need be taken into consideration, IMO.
In addition, saying “The morally right…”, rather than “A morally right…”, strongly implies all the others are morally wrong. As regards termination of a foetus with DS, I don’t agree. It is not immoral to terminate, nor is it immoral not to terminate. Both can be morally correct, since other factors than “least harm” may be taken into consideration.
So I disagree. Taking a Utilitarian stance – i.e. the view that utilitarian factors determine moral correctitude, rather than that they are just part of the consideration when determining correctitude – does support the view that “not terminating a pregnancy that has a high probability of resulting in a child with DS is immoral”. But then I agree with you that taking this stance “is to ignore the role of value judgements” – particularly the judgement as to the value of utilitarian factors in reaching moral decisions.
I think this is the driving force behind Dawkins’, and I think Sedan’s, argument. Where I think it is badly thought through is in the further attempt to defend it by saying that it does not imply that an adult with DS should have been aborted.
Prior to the event it argues that utilitarian factors are the only factors needed in determining that it is immoral not to terminate. That if it is not terminated this will result in more harm than if it is, from which it follows it should be terminated and it is wrong not to terminate.
But it then tries to hold that utilitarian factors can be ignored after the event, if the termination is not taken, and the result is an adult with DS. It tries to maintain that since it was not terminated, although this resulted, following the utilitarian argument, in more harm than if it had been, it does not follow from this that it should have been terminated nor that it was wrong not to terminate.
They can’t have it both ways.
If though utilitarian factors are only some of the factors taken into consideration when arriving at a decision, then you can. The utilitarian factors support that it would be morally correct to terminate; the non-utilitarian – a chief one of which is that one would never say of a DS adult that it should have been aborted – support that it would be morally correct not to terminate. Neither is immoral though.
Report abuse
Elizabeth,
Equating a foetus with a child puts you in the pro-life camp. That’s another argument and not the one we’re having here.
Report abuse
Again I think you have missed the point, although perhaps it’s a hard one for a man to actually see.
Or perhaps you haven’t. Perhaps you really think that somehow the act of taking the first breath confers “personhood” on a human organism.
But in case not, let me try to make my point a little more clearly:
The line between “child” as opposed to “foetus”, is legally an arbitrary one (birth), although nonetheless a reasonably sensible one for the law to draw, as it is the moment when the welfare of mother and infant can be practically separated.
However, because it is an arbitrary line, I suggest that a more philosophically defensible definition of the difference is one that is relational – that is a function of the mother’s (or “expecting mother’s”) relationship with that child. For a woman who becomes pregnant unwillingly, or who regrets being pregnant, her state is the one that is key – “pregnant” is how she will describe her state. The foetus is a secondary matter. However, for a woman who becomes pregnant willingly, she is carrying a child. She can sing to it, talk to it, even play little games with it (I did). It will respond to what she does, in fascinating ways, all of which contribute to the bond she will have with the baby when it is born.
This is not simply a matter of “oxytocin” (heh). It’s a matter of lived experience. And that woman’s relationship with her unborn child seems to me to lie at the heart of any calculus as to whether proceeding with the pregnancy will bring about net harm or net good.
And yet so many people here dismiss this entire relationship as though it is “mere” emotion, to take second place to the “rational” “logic” of wiser secularists who know better than she does, poor dear, about whether the child she wants to bear will result in a net increase or net decrease in human happiness (all the while ignoring the effect their own implicit negative evaluation of the lives will have on the lives of those with DS and other congenital disorders whose parents, mostly, had no choice all.
I am an atheist and pro-choice. I defend a woman’s right to choose whether to continue or not with a pregnancy. What I find myself appalled by is the anti-choice rhetoric I’m reading in this thread from those who, in the name of “rational” “logic” have abrogated to themselves the authority to decide on behalf of a pregnant woman what she should do should she get a prenatal diagnosis of DS.
It’s not rational and it’s not logical, it’s demeaning to both women and people with DS, and it totally ignores the fact that any evaluation of how a decision will impact on the “sum of human happiness” depends on subjective value judgements, i.e. on what the individuals and families, and indeed society as a whole, values.
Which goes way beyond a simple calculation of what, in monetary terms, each of us will cost the rest.
Report abuse
I am pro-choice.
It’s anti-choice arguments I’m reading here.
Obviously, it goes without saying that neither I, nor anyone else here is anti-life.
Report abuse
Of course it’s not irrelevant.
Your (or at least Richard Dawkins) stated grounds on which the decision should be made were those of “the sum of human happiness”. Lisa’s happiness with her child with DS sits on the plus side of the scales.
I’d argue that people going around telling pregnant women that it would be immoral to proceed with a DS pregnancy are sitting on the minus side.
Report abuse
Basically I agree with you, ajw, I think. I was just being a bit precious with the difference between two kinds of “right” – prospectively morally right, and retrospectively correct. It’s right to remove a pre-cancerous mole. Finding out on biopsy that it wasn’t cancerous doesn’t make removing it retrospectively wrong. That’s really all I was saying.
I would describe myself, in fact, ethically, as a Utilitarian. My beef with so many of the pro-Utilitarian arguments that have been made here isn’t that Utilitarianism is wrong, but that the notion of the “sum of human happiness” cannot be reduced to a simple economic calculus.
I’m still waiting for those who keep accusing me of lacking “logic” or “scientific methodology”, or of being “pro-life” (sure, I’m not anti-life!), to recognise this point, and indeed to see that dismissing the experience of those with children with DS or of pregnancy even as mere “feelings” not “rational logic” is to throw out the very data that they need to input to their math.
Oh well.
Report abuse
@Nitya : Yep, way too many people being born. And if we are going to keep on making babies, let’s at least make them as healthy as possible. It would be very hard to justify deliberately making unhealthy babies. Good point about most people knowing of negative stories too. I think a few contributors have been rather disingenuous to suggest that having a DS child is somehow preferable. Once one accepts that having a healthy child is better than having a child with detrimental abnormalities, the rest of the argument falls into place quite quickly.
@Sedan : The ‘bubble of denial’ is a useful phrase and I think your ‘magic wave’ test is very useful in getting to the crux. Most rational people would cure the disability if they could. The termination of a DS fetus is simply curing the disability in advance. Taking existing people out of the equation and trying to avoid excessive emotion brings it down to quite a simple argument which, when you think about it, is exactly what Professor Dawkins did.
@IYFNY : Some very salient points there from your direct experience. I completely agree with your assertion that we have a duty to look after people once they’re here and give them the best lives possible. Much of the confusion and upset has arisen from people thinking that to advocate termination of a (not-yet-person) fetus is somehow critical of people already here or even suggesting euthanasia for them! It’s patently not the same thing, as most of us would hopefully agree.
@Elizabeth : You said “There is no handwave that will make a person with DS into a person not with DS once that person is a person, and for a person with DS, having DS has contributed to made that person the person he/she is” – and I can see what you mean (no, really, I can). But the key point here is that the fetus is not a person and therefore, in a sense, we have the power to ‘take away’ the DS before they ever become a person. Following that logic, nobody is missing; they never existed. A different person would (hopefully) exist instead and to somehow miss the person with DS who never existed would be an extreme form of semantic pedantry.
Report abuse
Well, firstly, that was my point. The question, if you recall, was
The question was about parents of existing children, not about foetuses.
However, now that you’ve raised, as many have, this “the foetus is not a person” mantra, I’m going to point out, yet again, that this is merely an assertion, not a scientific fact. Drawing the line between non-personhood and personhood at birth is a legal convention, but is essentially arbitrary. It’s useful, but nonetheless conventional. Other cultures have drawn it slightly later (at the first breath, so that stopping the first breath is not murder), others earlier.
That’s why I say that the personhood is essentially relational, rather than biological. And thus fluid, and subjective. Many women like myself who experienced long infertility and/or repeated miscarriage know that they mourn not only each failed pregnancy, but even each failed conception, because it represents yet another potential child who will never be.
If we want to basic an ethical system on what contributes to the “sum of human happiness” these values are all relevant.
Report abuse
I’ll happily agree that I’m happy with Lisa’s happiness. Putting to one side that this yet another happy child example, I don’t actually see anyone disagreeing that happy children probably make the world a happier place.
But do you need the Down Syndrome to be happy? Are the happy people happy because of their DS or despite it? If you’re trying to argue that a child is happy because of the DS or that the parents are happy because their child has DS then that would be a hard case to make.
If you accept that the DS is not required for the happiness then logic would dictate that DS, along with its reduced IQ, reduced lifespan, reduced health and increased dependency, would be something to be removed for people who have the option of removing it at the appropriate stage (i.e. before the fetus becomes a person).
Now, just in case, this does not mean that I don’t wish Lisa and her happy child many more years of happiness. Neither do I mean that the child should never have been born. That would be unkind in the extreme. I also completely agree that we should all be more accepting and tolerant. To be fair, I think that society has been moving in that direction for quite some time and most people are now far kinder towards disabled people of all kinds than they perhaps used to be.
Report abuse
I am intrigued by Elizabeth’s suggestion that women who have had an abortion should be tried for murder.
I admit this is a tricky proposition. After all, a father might also consider that fetus as his child as might a surrogate parent. Let’s not forget about the rights of the grandparents too, that too would be insensitive.
What is abundantly clear, however, is that if a woman considers her foetus to be a child – given it a name, sings to it or plays games with it then it is immoral (and, under any sensible law, illegal) for her to kill that child.
Report abuse
By equating a foetus with a baby, you are accepting the premise of the pro-Life movement. As you know, I assume, ‘pro-life’ is the euphemism for anti-abortion or No-Choice. It follows from their premise that abortion is murder, as they frequently say.
Pro-choice means what it says. The pregnant woman has the right to make a choice, including the wrong choice.
Report abuse
I realise this, but the purpose of the question (I believe) was to establish an acceptance that parents would remove a disability if they could. Having established this point in principle, it is then possible to follow the logic back to a place where the parents could, in effect, remove the disability by ‘replacing’ the unhealthy child with a healthy one. I know we’ve covered this before and it’s not that simple in practice but, in theory, I believe the logic is sound.
This is a whole new area and I realise that there are many differing points at which terminating a pregnancy would be acceptable (if at all) by many different people. I think it has to be assumed, for the purposes of this discussion, that abortion is acceptable – at least at an early stage. Without that, the whole argument is rather pointless because it revolves around whether women should or shouldn’t terminate a DS fetus – not whether abortion is right or wrong.
To help, the wise man himself says below “An abortion is not killing a loved child, not killing a sentient being capable of suffering, any more than you are killing or hurting anyone when you refrain from intercourse and thereby prevent a potential child from being born.“. But please let’s not get into the general topic of abortion. Not today, anyway.
Report abuse
Why are you doing this, Sedan?
Saying things like:
What part of:
leads you to conclude I am suggesting any such thing?
But it is the woman’s body, and so while clearly she will take into account the effect of her decision on other members of her family, she, surely, is the one with whom the decision lies.
If you think that’s what I’m saying, then do re-read my posts. It is I who has been saying, over and over, that it is the moral decision lies with the woman, not me, or you, or anyone else.
Are you just misreading my posts, or what?
Report abuse
I did not “equate a foetus with a baby”.
I said that “child” versus “foetus” is a relational concept, not an absolute one.
If woman regards her pregnancy primarily as a state she is in and would rather not be, she will tend not to regard the growing parasite within her as a child. If she regards it primarily as the process of bearing a child, she will tend to regard it as a child. Both are entirely defensible IMO.
Report abuse
Well, I tend to take the view that positing the impossible and then arguing from it often leads to conclusions that have no bearing on reality. This tends to be the case with philosophical discussions of consciousness for instance (Searle’s Chinese Room for instance). And that was my point here – that by positing a scenario in which it is possible for a person with DS to be made into a person without DS, you are positing something that requires so much rejigging of reality to accommodate that it ceases to apply to reality. A sensible question, however, is: would the parents of a child with DS want to fix the child’s disabilities (which was the actual form of the original question, though not quite the wording) – and the answer is pretty obviously an overwhelming yes, because that’s exactly what the parents of children with DS spend so much time and effort doing – seeking medical help for cardiac problems, appropriate education and so on – with huge success.
Report abuse
Elizabeth
Are you sure that’s what you’re reading? I’ve read most comments and I don’t recall having read one that said that the foetus should be terminated without consent.
Speaking for myself, I know that I’ve added to condition that it’s the ultimate decision of the woman in question. I’ve said this repeatedly and yet I feel that the message is not getting through.
Doctors can but offer advice. It’s usually wise to follow their advice but it’s not manditory.
Report abuse
Of course you don’t need DS to be happy. But there’s no evidence that people with DS are less happy than others, nor that their siblings are, it seems.
If the issue is (apparently) whether bringing a child with DS into the world reduces “the sum of human happiness”, and therefore whether, in the very rare cases where a woman has a definitive test for DS and decides to continue with the pregnancy, she is doing something immoral, then surely what she wants, and what she thinks her family would want, are key factors, and much more important to the calculus than what people unrelated to her think.
If people here really want to increase the sum of human happiness and reduce suffering, then I suggest that expressing the view that people with DS are a net minus is likely to cause more human suffering than the tiny number of women who have a positive amnio and decide after all not to terminate do by bringing child with DS into the world.
Report abuse
At least one commenter expressed the view that eventually we might have a law against it, like the seat belt law.
And there have also been a couple comments about women not being “chemically” able to make a good decision.
That’s apart from the whole moral pressure thing. I think moral pressure on a woman to terminate because someone else thinks she should is in principle no different from moral pressure on her not to.
Both are likely to be profoundly hurtful.
Report abuse
Parasite? That’s blatantly the rhetoric of the No-Choice position. From the Pro-Choice position, aborting a foetus with the chromosomal abnormality in question is a means to avoid giving birth to a child with a disability. You are evidently in favour of a woman giving birth to a child with a disability if she takes the Roman Catholic view that a foetus is a child.
Report abuse
What? Not that I’ve heard. A foetus is a parasite, biologically. And if you are pregnant and don’t want to be, that’s it’s main attribute.
Sure. But it’s not the only reason for an abortion. A woman may have an abortion simply because she doesn’t want a child at all, and unfortunately finds herself pregnant.
Sure. If that’s the view she takes, then I’m in favour of her exercising her own judgement on the issue. That’s because I am pro-choice.
Report abuse
@Elizabeth.
I’m with Aldous. Paracite is a loaded term. I don’t think any woman would perceive the foetus as a paracite. It would be perceived as a pregnancy that was not proceeding according to plan. Your choice of words is value laden.
Report abuse
Yes, they were intended to be, because I’m talking about value.
I’m not saying a foetus IS a parasite, or that it IS a child or that it IS a foetus. My point precisely is that these terms are relational not absolute, just as a garden flower in one context is a weed in another.
There are legal definitions but that’s all they are – essentially arbitrary legal lines for legal purposes, and we need them. But in terms of ethics, we should recognise that they are relational terms, not absolute definitions. There isn’t even a single “moment” of fertilization let alone one of coming into personhood.
Report abuse
Some interesting comments here. That women in the Western World are fetishising the state of pregnancy .( unlike those in the “Third World ” who presumably treat the whole business differently?) That people emotionally affected by the consequences of having a child are unsuitable to make life and death decisions on medical matters. I’m guessing the authors are being deliberately provocative. Or possibly undercover Christians trying to portray atheists as cold hearted bastards.
Report abuse
Yes, Barry, that is the end goal, but it leaves out the critical step which is the focus of this hypothetical. That is to point out the logical inconsistencies in the stated opinions and the actual behavior of DS parents. I am fully willing to accept other moral and philosophical opinions, but I do ask that they at least be logically consistent with themselves.
Are people with DS and their families truly happier than other people? If they are then why would the parents take that away from them? It’s absurd. A fine coping mechanism, but not one that should become a matter of policy.
This isn’t to say that individuals can’t have an opinion one way or the other. But you can’t have both at the same time!
Report abuse
Yeah. I was wondering whether I was being trolled 🙂
Report abuse
I think Isis is on to something. Dawkins’ “obviously silly” comments over the last year have been all part of his long planned attempt to undermine Atheism. It all makes sense now.
Report abuse
Here is a source:
“When Down Syndrome is detected, most couples opt for abortion and most doctors recommend it”
This article discusses a study that show people deciding to have an abortion after receiving a diagnosis of DS were most of the time given negative and biased information.
http://www.brianskotko.com/images/stories/Files/ajmgprenatalguidelinesfinal.pdf
Report abuse
What about all those poor middle aged people who have ended up taking care of their very sick and sometimes unpleasant aging parents. I think there is a lot more of that going around. Or a healthy old person giving up social life, maybe career or hobbies, to care for a sick spouse. it is pretty common. I doesn’t happen to everyone, it just happens to some. It is the same with Down syndrome. There are aged people with Down syndrome who are not ruining anyone’s life. I don’t know what the percentage is, but I think it is irrelevant.
Report abuse
Sedan: Exactly, my child is just as important on earth as yours.
Report abuse
Lisa, the same principle applies. People should not be giving birth to unpleasant and very sick elderly people. That’s just wrong.
Report abuse
Oh, I meant to add my child with DS never physically hurt anyone, is very kind to others, is very open minded, and it is unlikely that she will do anything really horrible like commit a murder. I have never heard of a case of a person with DS murdering anyone. Perhaps, people with DS are an above average group in some important areas (social abilities, adaptive abilities) and we just haven’t figured it out yet because all we see is the low IQ.
My daughter is very unabashed about wanting to have what she calls “fun.” For people who are introverted (half the population) she can be a helpful person. I have a friend who said she never had fun at parties where there was dancing, because she was too embarrassed to dance but felt like she should. Then, she went to a party were there a lot of people with intellectual disability (low IQ), and she danced and had a wonderful time. And she decided not to be so self-conscience in social situations and to teach her children this lesson as well.
Did you know people with Down syndrome have a reduced probability of getting most cancers?
So, there are, in fact, some pluses. Of course to people who think having a low IQ is tragic, well, it might not add up.
Report abuse
Sedan: Sorry again but the example of the aging parent or very sick spouse was to point out that these caregiving situations occur in all populations, not just in the DS population. Not all people with DS are burdens to their families. We can’t use individual examples of misery and apply them to the whole population in either case.
Report abuse
Well, you didn’t ask me, but I would say the “new” person could end up being someone with very undesirable qualities or complicated medical problems. You never know. And you don’t take that into account.
Report abuse
Lisa, you sound very nice. I wish you the best of luck with your family.
Report abuse
I like your clarification here and I completely accept your point that people should be referred to according to their own preferences. I guess I was referring specifically to people with Down Syndrome but, now you mention it, I wouldn’t think twice about referring to a deaf person or a blind person. It must be very frustrating to be described with a patronizing euphemism and this is where the awareness raising comes in; I see no harm in referring to someone in a way that they feel most comfortable with – once I’ve become aware of it.
By the way, I’d never heard the term ‘Aspie’ before. It’s great and I shall try and remember to use it (where appropriate). My friend’s daughter is an Aspie (see, I’m using it already) and has only recently been diagnosed as such. I’ll be sure to tell her that she can call herself an Aspie if she wants to – I expect she’ll love it!
Report abuse
@Sedan – Aug 29, 2014 at 8:09 pm:
Your logic is sound and your hypothetical question (would you remove a disability if you could?) is ideal for establishing that most people WOULD take away a disability if they had that opportunity. The logical conclusion from this is that people would prefer not to have a child with the disability. Once this has been accepted (with a few exceptions) it would be completely reasonable to make a statement such as:
Down Syndrome is undesirable
The happiness question is then redundant really. One happy child in comaprison to another happy child has no real bearing on the fact that DS is undesirable. People making the best of their situation is great, but you’re correct in stating that it would be ‘absurd’ to try and argue that their children are happier at the same time as accepting they’d rather not have the syndrome. Even if you accept that their children are ‘just as happy’, it still makes no difference to the statement above.
The next part is acceptance of abortion. People cannot argue that a fetus is a child to whom they sing songs and play games at the same time as trying to argue that they agree with abortion. There’s a contradiction as you (and others) have stated elsewhere. For the sake of arguement, I think we have to acknowledge that (with a few exceptions) it is reasonable to terminate an undesirable pregnancy and so:
Abortion is acceptable
If you can agree with these two principles (allowing for minor exceptions), the decision facing someone who is pregnant with a Down Syndrom fetus becomes very straightforward. I’m not arguing that it’s easy or not filled with moral dilemmas, but it can be as straightward as follows:
I am pregnant with a Down Syndrome fetus
Down Syndrome is undesirable
Abortion is acceptable
The Down Syndrome fetus should be aborted
It’s this boiling down of the argument to its simplest elements that leads to the statistics speaking for themselves. It also shows that the statement made by Richard Dawkins (sidestepping the specific language used) was completely correct.
I believe that for anyone to argue against the above, they would either have to say that DS is desirable or that they find abortion unacceptable.
Report abuse
@Nitya
Parasite is indeed a loaded term. I understand what Elizabeth is trying to say when she asserts that she is ‘pro-choice’ but there have been an awful lot of statements that heavily hint at a ‘pro-life’ stance.
However, to be fair to Elizabeth, I would agree that nobody should be forced to have an abortion if they find themselves with a DS pregnancy. That would certainly be crossing a line and I don’t think anyone has really advocated that.
Report abuse
From me? Where?
All I have objected to (and I still object to it!) is other people thinking that it’s OK to put moral pressure on a woman to terminate. It’s because I absolutely support a Woman’s Right to Choose that come down as heavily on that as on moral pressure not to terminate.
That you think that that “hint[s] at a ‘pro-life’ stance” (if by ‘pro-life'” you mean anti-abortion, or anti-choice) you could not be more wrong.
And actually some here people have advocated moving towards coercion (the comment about a law, compared to the law on seat-belts). In any case coercion comes in subtle and less subtle forms. The moral coercion, I expect everyone here agrees, exercised by anti-abortion protesters outside abortion clinics is a very real encroachment on a woman’s right to choose. Equally, I suggest, is the moral coercion implied by Dawkins’ first tweet, and while he has retracted (sorta) that, others have still expressed the view that some how women need to be persuaded (poor things, they are biased, and chemically compromised by their oxytocin, geez) to terminate.
So yes, people have advocated “that”.
Report abuse
This is not a “fact”! It is the “fact” that some people do not “desire” to have a DS child, and it is also a “fact” that some people here desire people not to have children with DS.
That does not make it a “fact” that “DS is undesirable”! It is a subjective value judgement!
I don’t know why so many commenters are ignoring this crucial issue of value, despite basing their “logical” and “rational” position on an ethical framework that rests entirely on value!
No, there is no contradiction! The problem appears to me that some people cannot distinguish between universal statements and relational statements! To one woman (this one, once), a foetus is a child to whom she sings songs and with whom she plays games (and the “foetus” responds!) That’s because she wants her child, and her relationship to her foetus that of mother-child. To another, or the same woman at a different time, or to the same woman about a different woman, abortion is a perfectly morally defensible action. That is because that woman does not bear the mother-child relation to the foetus – or is prepared to take a different relation to it, because she does not want to have a, or that, child.
It seems to me as though some people (you, Barry?) are somehow fearful that if we allow any questioning of the arbitrary definition of a “child” as a foetus after birth and a “foetus” as the same child before birth, we opens the door to regarding abortion as murder.
It doesn’t, and indeed, it is important, I suggest, to recognise that that dividing line is an arbitrary and convenient one, not one based in science. The development of the capacity for sentience, and consciousness and self-consciousness is a gradual one, and while birth is a big step, it’s not the difference between life and non-life, nor between sentience and non-sentience nor between consciousness and non-consciousness.
What matters, I suggest, in discussion the ethics of abortion (whether there is an adverse pre-natal diagnosis or not) is that while the child/foetus is in the womb, the mother’s health and welfare are inextricably linked, and that link ceases on the birth of the child. That is why it is the woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy, not because the pre-birth child/foetus magically passes from not having the attributes of a person before birth to having them afterwards.
ETA and FWIW I would describe my “position” as: atheist; humanist; feminist; pro-choice; utilitarian.
Report abuse
Ok, I was using the word “fact” in the context that I had just previously justified:
I explained (with multiple caveats) that most people would take away a disability if they had that opportunity and that if this could be accepted (with a few exceptions) then you could reasonably state:
Down Syndrome is undesirable
Are you disagreeing with this? In which case, are you saying that DS is desirable or are you saying that it’s not possible to judge whether DS is desirable or not?
Report abuse
I’m saying that whether it is desirable depends on who is doing the desiring!
“Desirable” has a hidden subject as well as object.
Report abuse
@Elizabeth
It’s really difficult to reconcile all the above with your line of comments.
Report abuse
Where are you finding the difficulty?
Report abuse
In case it helps:
Atheist: I don’t believe in God or gods
Humanist: I think that morality is a human constuction
Feminist: I think women have as much right to control their lives as men
Pro-Choice: I think women have the right to decide whether or not they carry their pregnancy to term.
Utilitarian: I think the touchstone of what is right is what cause the greatest benefit to the greatest number and least harm to anyone.
I see nothing in my posts that contradicts those positions.
Report abuse
Barry, analyzing the issue as you’ve done is so much better than the alternatives, isn’t it? Having an inclusive, adaptive and evolving discussion rather than being afraid of tackling delicate topics and tough issues which lead to organizations and individuals making poorly informed (and often emotionally based) decisions.
A couple points on what you’ve written in this post.
The four elements you stated are a solid foundation of the argument, but can’t be thought of as being comprehensive and may not apply in every situation. (I know you know this, I’m just making it explicit for others who might misinterpret it.) Your thinking is sound as a general principle and sound for almost any individual who needs to make a decision. However, some of the extenuating circumstances are:
1) Some people truly do want and value a DS child more than one without DS. This is for many reasons, most of which are admirable, IMO. This would invalidate your conclusion (in this one case, not in the aggregate), but only if they were truly able to take care of the child themselves indefinitely without public support. If they are not able (which rules out the vast majority of such parents) then they should adopt, rather than conceive and birth their own DS child. In a sense this is just a clarification of your point: that DS is undesirable especially when considering the tremendous financial costs.
2) Some women may feel this is their last chance at having a baby and a DS baby is better than nothing. First, this is a lifelong commitment that should be evaluated well before the pregnancy rather than under extreme emotional duress. Second, again adoption is the better option and should be the one that society encourages.
There are others of increasingly less likelihood and interest, but for all of them the elephant in the room is the tremendous financial burden a DS child puts on society. We could keep pretending it’s not there in order to make people feel better about their choices and their own lives, but that won’t make the issue go away and it’s better to talk about it openly than have these decisions made for us behind closed doors.
Report abuse
Sedan, would you perhaps provide an estimate of the “tremendous financial burden a DS child puts on society”?
It seems to be core to your position.
Report abuse
Thank you!
I like both points 1) and 2) and think that you’ve covered the two main exceptions there – apart from people who fundamentally disagree with abortion of course, who wouldn’t come into the “what should I do?” discussion at all.
Point 1: If people genuinely prefer to have a child with Down Syndrome then adoption is an excellent suggestion. I hadn’t considered that and it makes good sense. Many people would be uncomfortable trying to equate the value of a life against the availability of public finances but it is a consideration and you’re right not to avoid it just because it’s a delicate topic.
Point 2: Elizabeth and I discussed this a few days ago and I believe it’s a perfectly valid justification for continuing with the pregnancy. I would imagine that most people who go ahead would be in this position of wanting to continue regardless of the consequences because it may be their last chance. Again though, I hadn’t thought about adoption and that would certainly be worth considering.
Report abuse
I would say anyone really. You, me, the woman who is pregnant, society in general? You must surely accept that for most people (> 95%), Down Syndrome would not be something they’d desire for their child.
Report abuse
Adoption in the UK at least is not a simple alternative to having your own biological child.
And raising a child, with or without DS, generates a great deal of happiness.
Report abuse
And so most people, when they receive a pre-natal diagnosis of DS, opt to terminate.
Why should the few people who desire the child they are expecting, regardless of the fact that it will have DS, be under moral pressure to terminate?
Report abuse
As for point 2, there are also other options available such as surrogacy and IVF (probably others too, I’m not an expert). All of which should be preferable to introducing another disabled child into the world.
Report abuse
And again with the de haut en bas “…should be preferable”. Preferable to you, perhaps, but not even likely to be an option for the woman in question, and it is the woman in question whose happiness, and whose family’s happiness, is at issue here.
Yes, you are “not an expert” in infertility. You are not even pregnant, I take it. So why do you think it is your job to say what is right for pregnant women?
Report abuse
No, this contains non sequiturs.
In order to conclude “the Down Syndrome fetus should be aborted”, it needs be established that not aborting is unacceptable. “Abortion is acceptable” is not good enough. The most you can conclude from this is that “it is acceptable that the Down Syndrome fetus should be aborted” – “should be” here taken in the weak sense that “it’s the best option”, not in the stronger compulsory sense. I.e. there are other options – maybe less acceptable, but still acceptable.
I’ve argued that “not aborting is unacceptable” in the case, should the termination not take place, of a baby with insufferable unendurable pain – which is more than just undesirable. Just because something is undesirable, does make abortion acceptable in that instance.
Report abuse
The term I find to be loaded, I sometimes wonder if it’s not deliberately antagonistic, is that term ‘pro-life’, as taken on board by anti-abortionists – hijacked I’d say if I were being antagonistic myself. The implication is that anyone who disagrees with the anti-abortionist position, is ‘anti-life’. The implication is that in aborting a foetus, not only are you terminating the life of a living organism, but “that’s murder!!!!”. And so many people fall for this. There’s plenty of instances on this page alone. “He’s pro-choice, and he muttered the p-l word – he’s a murderer!!!!!!”
What rot!
I’m pro-choice and I do not think it is mandatorily immoral to abort a pregnancy.
I’m also pro-life.
Analogously, I have been responsible for the termination-of-life of thousands of living organisms – in order that I could eat them. That does not make me a murderer. I think pro-life in this regards would be usefully employed for people who have a concern for the organisms’ welfare prior to termination. In other words they have concern for a living being, even though they will later end its life. I hope I’m pro-life in this sense. As opposed to those who treat them as insentient objects and coop them up in factories before termination (like battery hens). That I would say is anti-life.
Report abuse
Last sentence should read –
Just because something is undesirable, doesn’t mean not aborting is unacceptable in that instance.
Report abuse
Or we could try:
I am pregnant after several failed IVF attempts.
I am too old to adopt a baby.
I find my foetus has DS
Abortion at this stage of pregnancy is not immoral
I very much want a child
This may be the only time I ever become pregnant.
Therefore I do not have a realistic choice between a child with DS and a child without.
Children and adults with DS tend to be happy and friendly people.
If my child has medical problems associated with DS, they are likely to be treatable without undue suffering
Having a child will make me and my partner, my stepchildren and my child’s grandparents very happy.
We have access to the special educational provisions a child with DS is likely to need
I am a member of a society that provides supported group homes for adults with disabilities, and fosters inclusion of people with the DS in education and in the workplace.
Report abuse
The same can be said of the term ‘pro-choice.’
Report abuse
Yes, that’s much more like the real world.
Report abuse
Well, “pro-choice” is certainly loaded with the implication that what is important is that the woman should be free to choose.
From your posts, Sedan, I take it you do not agree.
Report abuse
Perhaps, would you care to give some examples.
Report abuse
Or we could try:
I am pregnant in a society that undervalues or discriminates against women
I find my foetus is likely to be a girl
Abortion at this stage of pregnancy is not immoral
?
If you’re okay with that, try replacing women/girl with homosexual or left-handed or even nerdy (but please, please not ‘Warren Buffett’) to see how it sits with you.
Report abuse
Exactly. Now you are getting it.
It boils down to values, right? You can’t do the Utilitarian calculus without values.
Report abuse
So, in your scenario here, the people in question have decided to reject abortion as an acceptable option for them. I covered that.
Just in case, I said “I believe that for anyone to argue against the above, they would either have to say that DS is desirable or that they find abortion unacceptable.“.
For example, someone who might not have another chance at becoming pregnant would opt out of my logical conclusion by rejecting abortion. That isn’t to say that they desire a DS child, they’re simply saying that a DS child for them is better than no child at all (assuming this is their last chance).
The logic still stands.
Report abuse
Sure, but then it you can’t generalise and say “it is immoral” to knowingly have a child with DS.
It becomes only immoral to have a child you don’t want. Which is arguably true.
Report abuse
I’d agree with that in a case where a baby would be expected to suffer unendurable pain. In such a case you could possibly make an argument that an abortion should be compulsory.
I wouldn’t go that far in a case of Down Syndrome. This is why I used the term “Abortion is acceptable” rather than “Not aborting is unacceptable”. The latter is the equivalent of forced abortions for Down Syndrome, which I wouldn’t agree with because people would simply avoid having the test if they thought they would have procedures forced upon them. I personally think it’s reasonable to allow for the very small number of people who wish to go ahead with having their DS baby for a variety of exceptional reasons.
Your ‘non sequitur’ point is accepted though. I think my language was trying too hard to accommodate the exceptions for Elizabeth and I probably weakened it as a result. If I change my third line as follows, it stands up a lot better:
I am pregnant with a Down Syndrome fetus
Down Syndrome is undesirable
An undesirable fetus should be aborted
The Down Syndrome fetus should be aborted
Report abuse
Oh no. Please not the Warren Buffett vs woolly mammoth argument again. I’m not sure I could take that!
Report abuse
Sorry, it’s still just as weak as the original. You haven’t presented any justification for “An undesirable fetus should be aborted”. Why should it be? There must have been countless examples of pregnancies that weren’t really wanted, were undesirable in some way, maybe because of DS, maybe because of who knows what. But in some the mother had the baby, in others didn’t, and in some they felt they had made the right decision, in others they felt they hadn’t. Where does this “should” arise.
And what do you mean by it should be? There are good reasons to? It’s the best option? It’s the only option? It’s unacceptable not to? It’s immoral not? There’s lots of strengths for “should be”.
Report abuse
For her personal satisfaction, a woman is prepared to endow a child with a disability. She rationalizes the disability almost out of existence to avoid any feeling of guilt. Understandable but not exactly praiseworthy.
However, it is quite irrelevant. The Dawkins advice was ‘Abort and try again.’ For someone who doesn’t have a realistic option of trying again, the argument doesn’t apply.
Report abuse
Barry, what makes one kind of act immoral and another not immoral? Dawkins gave his answer and AFAIK it is in line with mine.
Why would knowingly bringing a baby into the world that has a severe disability be immoral, but only a slight disability not immoral?
Is it immoral to steal a million dollars, but not immoral to only steal a dollar? What if I stole a single penny from 100 million people? Would that still be wrong?
You can answer this question at a higher level in the thread if it makes it easier to follow.
Report abuse
Elizabeth.
Perhaps I’m mistaken; you were the poster comparing the unwanted foetus to a parasite were you not? I find it difficult to reconcile that mindset and expressing the position of a feminist. By rights our views should be aligned because my position is similar to yours. BTW I am aware of the meaning of the terms; no need for definitions.
Report abuse
A woman does not endow a child with a disability by giving birth to it. A child/person is born with a disability, or has a disability as the result of an accident. A woman does not give a child a disability by giving birth to it anymore than she takes away a child’s disability by terminating the pregnancy before it’s born. After an abortion, you’re not left with a child without a disability that had one before the termination.
Report abuse
I can see what you’re saying and I accept your point.
However, the strength of ‘should’ relies upon the degree of ‘undesirability’. One could use ‘must be aborted’ if it were in conjunction with ‘A fetus with X is unacceptable’.
I’ve kept it deliberately open to allow for the various exceptions that I believe are reasonably valid. For example, a woman for whom this might be their last chance at becoming pregnant. Similarly, you could make a case for someone with enough wealth and resources to take care of a DS child quite comfortably for their entire life. I’m not saying that I agree 100% with those, but a case could be made.
Lastly, you should take into account that this is in response to the contradiction revealed by parents who accept that they would take away their child’s disability if they could. By saying that, they are conceding that the condition (DS in this case) is undesirable. They therefore cannot reasonably argue against others wanting a DS fetus to be aborted. In order to this, they would have to say that a child with DS is somehow preferable (which I believe some have done) or is at least irrelevant.
Report abuse
Barry, there is a difference between these two decisions:
Shall I give birth to a child that will have DS, or try again in the hopes of possibly later having a different child, without DS?
And
Shall I take action that will reduce the disability of my child with DS?
There is no contradiction when a mother says Yes to the pregnancy and Yes to the action that will take away the child’s disability.
Indeed, having said Yes to the first, it would be very peculiar to say No to the second, and of course nobody does. Parents of children with DS work hard, and effectively to make sure their children are healthy and well educated, so much so that life expectancy in DS has more than trebled and mean IQ gone up by 20 points.
Report abuse
Wow. That’s a big question and I’ve had to drink another coffee before responding.
As you may remember (we covered this on Aug 24), I don’t believe there is such a thing as absolute morality. Sure, there are things that most people can agree with as generally unacceptable (killing, stealing, lying etc.) but they’re still not absolute. Because of this, I would never make a statement such as “X is immoral”.
Let’s take your case with the one dollar vs one million dollars. The money (regardless of amount) generally belongs to someone else and you have no right to take it – which would be a logical argument rather than a moral one. It’s also illegal of course. But is it ‘immoral’ to steal in all cases? No, it’s not. Robin Hood would be one example but I’m sure there are many more such as a man stealing food to feed his starving family etc. Would it be moral to let his family starve? It’s all relative.
Richard Dawkins gets around the problem of absolute morality by using his own subjective morality as a point of reference: “if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering“. Now, this opens up another can of worms by introducing the sum of happiness. I won’t go near the question of how to calculate such a sum but my impression is that he was referring to ‘making the world a better place’ by avoiding the deliberate introduction of people with chromosomal abnormalities.
So, coming back to your question:
I wouldn’t describe either of them as ‘immoral’ but I take your point. Down Syndrome would be sufficiently undesirable to justify abortion I think but it’s obviously not as bad as the baby that would have a very short life in excruciating pain. This introduces the problem of a scale of suffering, which can not only be hard to predict (in some cases) but makes it even more important that people think it though logically on a case-by-case basis rather than resorting to illogical emotions.
By the way, Robin Hood sprang to mind because my daughter just moved to Nottingham to start her first job. Those people up there are obsessed with Robin Hood! He’s probably not the best example of why stealing can be morally defensible but I’m sure you ‘catch my drift’.
Edit: you were right, I should have answered this at a different level. Sorry.
Report abuse
Another non sequitur. There’s a difference between the condition of having DS being undesirable, and having a child with DS being undesirable. You yourself say that for a small percentage, having a child with DS may be desirable, even though having DS is itself undesirable – because it’s their only chance to have a child for example. So a reasonable argument against them wanting to abort would be “are you sure, this is the last chance for you to have a baby”.
Why this desire to oversimplify everything? :-
…and lots of other things. Sometimes what people desire is much stronger than anything they might not desire when deciding what they should do. Sometimes it has little to do with what people desire or don’t desire.
And this degree of ‘undesirability’; it’s not fixed. Just because, say, 99% of people don’t desire to have a child with DS, does not mean it has a 99% degree of ‘undesirability’ for everybody.
This simplistic attempt to reduce the issue of abortion and people with DS to a sound-bite ‘you should’ syllogism just flounders time and time again.
Report abuse
Sedan:
The simplest and most common moral rule in human societies is the Golden Rule: treat others as you would be treated. Why this should be the case (why humans should tend to home in on this basic rule) seems likely to be because we are a social species, and a shared system of moral rules based on this principle tends to result in communities thriving – tends to produce a positive sum game i.e. one in which on in total, everyone benefits more than if everyone looked only after their own interests, and to hell with everyone else’s. Indeed, community-level selection will tend to ensure that communities in which such rules are found, and whose members carry genetic traits that tend to lead to their formulation and adoption (empathy, abstract thinking, language capacity) will tend to thrive and thus be selected in a Darwinian manner.
Game theory suggests that the chance of a positive sum game are maximised (i.e. everyone is most likely to benefit) if there is a shared reciprocal agreement to help each other, plus a penalty system for “cheaters” (and there’s some evidence that our innate “cheater detection” systems may have been honed by adaptive evolution). Interestingly, I believe there’s some evidence from game theory that “justice tempered with mercy” is specifically beneficial – that draconian punishments tend to lessen the positive sum, while giving people the opportunity to learn from punishment contributes.
The problem with applying the Golden Rule to the issue of who, and with what traits, we “should” (i.e morally) bring into the world is that Game Theory, likely (IMO) to account for the origin of our moral sense and systems, is crucially dependent on who counts as a member of that society (i.e. as a “Game Player”) and who doesn’t. And the abortion question, like other ethical questions such as “how should we treat animals?” “how should we treat the ecosphere?” “how should we treat generations as yet unborn?” cannot be easily tackled within Game theory because they touch on the very prerequisites for the Game itself – the definition of who is a Player and who isn’t.
So how to solve?
I suggest that the first step is to recognise that the answer is not simple. “How should we treat children with DS?” is addressed quite easily by the Golden Rule, i.e. within Game Theory. We accept that people with DS are human beings, part of our society, i.e. Game Players, and we treat them as we would be treated: “how would I like to be treated if I had DS?” Which is why it’s sensible to make a simple legal rule about who “counts” as a “person” – e.g. a living human being from birth onwards. And presumably is why no-one here has suggested that once a human being exists, they have full human (“Game Player”) rights and responsiblities.
But the question: “should we introduce a new Player, with DS, into the Game?” is not readily covered by Game Theory – because it takes membership of the community of Players as a given. So how can we extend the principle of ensuring that we (as human beings) play a Positive Sum Game to the scenario in which the composition of the Players themselves is one of the decision variables in the Game?
One would be to estimate the summed happiness of hypothetical Society A, containing N players, M of whom have DS, and compare it with the summed happiness of hypothetical Society B containing N-M/x players, M/x members of whom have DS, and hypothetical Society C containing N-M members, none of whom have DS (1/x being the proportion of DS pregnancies that go to term).
But to make matters more complicated, Game Theory works very well with nice countable commodities. But not all commodities that reduce suffering and increase happiness can be readily counted. Pain killing drugs can be priced in terms of human labour, so can movies. But how do we price a smile? How do we price the joy we get from oxytocin rush that follows sex, or birth, or breast-feeding, or, indeed, any act of altruism? Or from watching a Hollywood tear-jerker? We know that having a pet to look after can improve the health, both mental and physical, of elderly people – how do we price that effect? Or the effect of loving grandchildren, with or without DS? Or for that matter, the satisfaction of overcoming a challenge? Why do people climb mountains or run marathons? And yet we do, because such activities are of value to us – they increase our happiness, and may even reduce our “suffering” (endorphins!) We are hard-wired (by evolution!) to love our children, to get a kick from a job well done, to empathise with others, and to codify these values in a set of moral precepts that maximise our chances of experiencing them, and of being the beneficiaries of them in others.
Having a child, even a child with DS, brings both challenge and joy to many families. Helping adults with DS also brings rewards to people without, and, of course adults with DS are as capable of happiness as the rest of us, and there’s no reason to think they are less happy than the rest of us. They also bring happiness to each other, and support each other. They may not pay as much in tax as they receive in monetary benefits (although I’d like to see the math on that – they certainly pay tax) – but who is going to try to price the joy they bring to society and to each other?
And unless someone can do that kind of calculus – evaluate the summed happiness of a society that includes people with DS against the mean happiness of a slightly smaller society in which women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of DS feel morally obliged to terminate, and do so, despite the fact that many of them will not have another child – then there are absolutely no grounds for saying that the first society is less happy and contains more suffering than the second.
And therefore no grounds for saying, in blanket, universally applicable terms, that it is immoral to not to terminate a DS pregnancy.
The issues of a prenatal diagnosis of an excruciatingly painful condition, of course, are different.
And of course saying that it is not immoral not to terminate a DS pregnancy is quite different from saying that it is immoral to do so. I don’t think anyone on this thread (well, maybe on) has claimed that second thing.
Report abuse
@ajw
It’s not being over-simplified; it’s simply being broken down into separate components in order to help identify which elements of those components someone might disagree with. The components can be argued separately and in greater detail but the overview (or ‘simplification’ as you might call it) helps to put the elements of the components into context. For example, having a long drawn-out argument about the sum of human happiness would address an element of the “DS is undesirable” component. Other elements of that component would be evidence of associated health issues as well as discussing the effect on the lives of the parents etc.
Yes, there’s a big difference. What I’m talking about is the condition. For someone on their ‘last chance’ of having a child, abortion might be unacceptable for them. That’s clearly different to them desiring a child with DS.
Exactly; that’s why it can be argued separately as one of the components of the argument.
In contrast to my ‘over-simplication’, you seem to have a tendency towards over-complication combined with very vague conclusions. You have previously stated “I do not think it is mandatorily immoral to abort a pregnancy.”, which is a rather long-winded way of saying you agree with abortion. You’ve also argued that Professor Dawkins should have said “it is not immoral to abort” instead of “it would be immoral not to abort”. This is incredibly vague and, once again, says little more than you wouldn’t mind if they aborted or not. Neither of these is particularly helpful when it comes to deciding on the correct course of action, which is kind of the whole point.
I can see that you dislike the word ‘should’ but, for the sake of argument, what do think someone should do if they find themselves pregnant with a DS fetus? In other words, how would you have answered the hypothetical question of a woman being unsure what to do if she found a fetus she was carrying had Down Syndrome?
Report abuse
Hypothetical questions of this sort don’t have answers – because the answer is a function of conditions not specified in the question.
And that’s the point – there is no single answer to the question. It depends on many factors. Which is why it is profoundly “anti-choice” to put moral pressure on a woman to make one decision on the other (terminate; don’t terminate) – the person best placed to answer in the specific (non-hypothetical) position she finds herself in is the pregnant woman herself.
While I appreciate that many commenters here are “pro-choice” in the narrow sense of being against the “pro-lifers” i.e. opposed to the view that termination is always immoral, there seems to be a curious refusal to see that by claiming that there are circumstances in which it is immoral NOT to terminate, they advocating an “anti-choice” position just as much as the “pro-lifers”, even, in some instances, claiming that the mother’s decision will be “biased” and that her decision-making capacity is “chemically” impaired, by “oxytocin”.
Report abuse
This is exactly why I said I “I won’t go near the question of how to calculate such a sum”. Phew!
But I do agree with you on the principles behind the golden rule. Even so, I think you need to be careful in differentiating between people making the best of a situation in which they find themselves and hypothetical people potentially putting themselves in that situation by not terminating a DS pregnancy when they had the chance.
Report abuse
Yes, but perhaps you missed my point, I’m not sure. To someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant (and who does not consider abortion immoral), the foetus primarily represents a parasitic organism of which she would like to be relieved, not a child she would like to have killed.
Can you explain? I’m simply saying that from the (or at least a) feminist perspective that the woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body, how she regards the conceptus/embryo/foetus will be a function of what she wants to happen – to bear a child or not. If she does not, then she (clearly) won’t regard the conceptus/embryo/foetus as a “future child” because she does not intend that it will become one.
There is always need for definitions, in case the meaning I associate with a word is different from the one you associate with it. By “parasite” I mean an organism that lives on or in another organism, and relies on it totally for its nourishment, while not providing any nourishment or benefit in return.
Report abuse
Barry, you’ve identified the disconnect everyone has had over the issue of morality (starting from Dawkins and those who misunderstand him).
It is perfectly understandable to say that “aborting a DS fetus is not immoral” (because there are cases where the mother is better off or thinks she is better off). There are exceptions, therefore not immoral. Once you’ve done that you’ve completely neutered the words “moral” and “immoral”; they no longer have any useful meaning. No act can ever then be labelled “immoral” as there might be extenuating circumstances for any action. Further, no individual act could be labelled immoral except as a tautology.
The only people who can then use morality with any authority are those who get their morality from God (or his proxies). Their morality (on say abortion) is absolute and that position can be respected (even though it is terribly, terribly wrong).
Remember Dawkins principle “If the argument we think we’re opposing is obviously silly & the person to whom we attribute it is obviously not, perhaps we’re mistaken.”
He is not a moron, I hope we can all agree on that. So it is clear that when he says that something is “immoral” (or evil or detestable or …) it is with the clear understanding that there are always exceptional circumstances. It didn’t just slip his mind. To believe that of him (that he is declaring a moral absolute) is either disingenuous, self-serving or just plain ignorant (possibly all three).
So perhaps atheists should refrain from talking about morality completely, even when we clearly define it in our terms. No matter how we define or qualify it, it will be misconstrued by some (some who do it deliberately others accidentally).
This also precludes us from saying that anything is wrong, if we are to be honest, because it will be equally misinterpreted and abused (reference your discussion with ajw).
We can’t say that FGM is immoral. We can’t say that it is wrong.
We can’t say that beheading someone for apostasy is immoral, nor that it is wrong.
I think that handcuffs our ability to communicate in the long run, but if someone were to be consistent, I can’t fault them for that.
Report abuse
Correction: I mischaracterized your discussion with ajw which was the semantic hand-wringing over “should” not “wrong.” I changed my examples halfway through the post, but the same principle applies. To be honest, you can never ever say anyone “should” or “should not” do any act, not if you want to be consistent. Rendering “should” another useless word.
Report abuse
I don’t think that accepting that what is morally right depends on the situation is the same as saying that morality if meaningless. In fact, I think the allegation by some religious people that “relative morality” is “no morality” is an error, and I think there is a good defence. “Natural morality” is a perfectly legitimate domain of philosophy, and an important one. I think the take-home message from this example is not that “immoral” is a “meaningless” term but that there are few acts (any?) that are always immoral – that doesn’t mean there many acts that are immoral sometimes!
The key, it seems to me (as a Utilitarian!) is to articulate the utilitarian principles that we think should govern any ethical decision (when often the decision is between two courses of action, neither of which is without its downside). And “Treat others as you would be treated” is a pretty good principle (i.e. likely to produce a positive-sum-game), even the task of identifying the relevant “others” is difficult, and even if the relative risks and benefits are not clear.
Well, I don’t respect it much! It’s intrinsically arbitrary. Even when I was a theist I thought it was rot. The Euthyphro dilemma really isn’t much of a dilemma, and even Jesus opted for the second horn, as of course did Socrates and Euthyphro.
It’s a good principle, but sometimes we are not. Wise people speaking out of field often make very silly mistakes, and sometimes their very competence in their own field leads them to underestimate their lack of competence in the field in question. Think of all those well-credentialed engineers who subscribe to ID. Think of Isaac Newton and alchemy.
I think that would be a great shame. Given that one of the major charges against atheism is that there can be “no morality under atheism” I think it’s important to develop and articulate a secular moral philosophy. Not that it hasn’t been done (most moral philosophy is secular). But I do think it’s important not to wade in with under-thought and apparently blanket moral precepts, claiming for them the imprimatur of “logical and “rationality” when, frankly, they wouldn’t past muster in Secular Moral Philosophy 101, especially when such pronouncements can do actual harm (in this case to people with DS and their families). It also misrepresents secular moral philosophy!
I think we can say that it is probably something that the people doing it would not like done to them (i.e. by applying the Golden rule), or, if they would, for reasons that can be fixed in other ways (changing attitudes to female sexuality for instance).
I think we can, again, by appeal to the Golden Rule, and the implications of Game Theory.
Not necessarily. But it is perhaps true that twitter is not the best medium for disseminating secular moral philosophy!
Report abuse
Barry, I mentioned long ago here that the golden rule was fine as a starting point, but it is a terrible way to actually make decisions such as these. Consider:
If your daughter contracted a terminal illness and the cure were to be $100 million would you want it?
If your son were held by ISIS and they asked for $50 million in ransom would you want the government to pay it?
Do you think the military should stage a rescue operation for your son which put the lives of many other soldiers at great risk?
If you were wrongly accused of a crime would you want a fair trial or would you simply want to be set free?
Individuals make selfish choices, this is human and understandable. Which is why, as a society, we have to be more objective and think about what makes sense in a cold and economically sound way.
In some cases we have to make a calculation (which is sometimes easy, sometimes near impossible) before getting emotional. We should agree beforehand that if your child or mine were to contract a terminal illness we would pay up to $10 or $20 million to cure it. We don’t wait until we are in that situation and let the most interested party decide.
In other cases we can (and should) educate and possibly give incentives for people to do what is overall best for society. If we think it is economically sound to subsidize a DS baby to the tune of $1 million because every person has the fundamental right to raise a child then we should be willing to spend that $1 million on every potential mother to give her fertility treatments, IVF, offer surrogacy, pay for adoption costs, etc. The fact that we don’t subsidize those costs means something.
Report abuse
Elizabeth, I think you dropped a negative here somewhere.
Report abuse
Sedan, you keep mentioning this One Million that it costs to raise child with DS.
Where di you get this figure? And have you compared it with what it costs to raise a child without DS?
Report abuse
Sedan, yes, thanks I did!
That should of course read:
Report abuse
Elizabeth.
Parasite is not a word devoid of emotional content; it carries baggage. There’s an implication that this is a foreign entity, draining the life from its host, while it continues to grow. I don’t think many women would view an unplanned pregnancy in such terms.
As you said, the way in which terms are defined is important. I couldn’t agree more. Words have power! Some words have neutral emotional impact, though I don’t think parasite when used in this context, is such a word
Report abuse
It’s not being broken down enough. You’re using some vague notion of undesirability; of what “should” means, without givings details of how imperative that “should’ is, other than it relates to this vague undesirability.
And it should be kept separate, not cobbled together into some fixed notion of degree of undesirability, just so you can jump to a conclusion about what people should do.
I know you are; that’s why your reasoning hits a non sequitur.
And this is why, saying that ‘someone acknowledging that DS is an undesirable condition cannot reasonably argue against others wanting a DS foetus to be aborted’, is a non sequitur. Just because DS is an undesirable condition does not mean (your argument says it does) that there are no reasonable arguments that a DS foetus should not be aborted.
As Elizabeth says, “the answer is a function of conditions not specified in the question.”
In other words, it’s vague. I’d want to know a lot more details before and if I offered any advice – and I’d make it clear that it was just advice, that the decision ultimately is the mother’s.
Suppose all the hypotheticals Elizabeth gives in the post of Aug 30, 2014 at 2:07 pm below, were the case. I’d certainly try to ensure she knew of all these factors first, and if she did, I’m sure she’d be able to make her own decision. If, in that specific case, someone really wanted my opinion, it would be that she should not abort. I would make it clear that it was my opinion, that it would be perfectly correct to abort if the mother came to that decision instead and that I would support such a decision.
Likewise, given enough facts, there could well be circumstances where my opinion would be that she should abort, with all the provisos given above.
What I would absolutely not do, is to say it was immoral to abort in the first case, and immoral not to, in the second. That’s the issue for me, on this page, which is why I haven’t given opinions on what someone should do, before.
In the case of a baby that would suffer unendurable, insufferable pain were it born, my opinion would be that the mother should abort, and although I’d do all to encourage her to get professional medical advice; were that not possible, I would make it clear that it was not just my opinion. That she really should abort and I could not support a decision not to. And I am perfectly aware that my opinion, and my decision to voice that opinion, may both be wrong, and I would be open to persuasion that both were wrong. But, given the facts that I have, I think I am right to reach that decision, even if it may be the wrong decision – a distinction that is often overlooked. In addition it would be wrong not to voice my opinion, even though the opinion may be wrong. But I need to take responsibility for voicing it, to have the courage that I may be shot down in flames.
Report abuse
Barry.M Aug 30, 2014 at 5:51 am
I am pregnant with a Down Syndrome fetus
Down Syndrome is undesirable
Abortion is acceptable
The Down Syndrome fetus should be aborted
Nope! It only needs be established that not aborting is undesirable.
That is correct.
Report abuse
You are calling a foetus a child. The Dawkins argument is on the basis of the Pro-Choice position that a foetus is not a child.
Report abuse
The “Pro-choice position” is that it is the woman’s right to choose whether or not to proceed with the pregnancy. What she calls her child/foetus is also her choice.
The important point is that until the child is born, its welfare is inextricably bound up with that of the mother, and that is why the choice as to whether the pregnancy continues to term should be that of the mother. Not because it changes label miraculously at birth but because at that point his/her rights can be separated from those of the mother.
Report abuse
She does, if the tests provided her with prior warning of the disability and she went ahead regardless!
Actually the abortion does take away both the potential child and the potential disability.
The foetus at termination was not a child. After an abortion, you are (except in unusual circumstances regarding fertility) left with the opportunity to produce a replacement child without the disability.
Given that thousands of sperm and eggs never mature into children anyway, this is positive in terms of practical realities, work-loads, and and a child’s future prospects, – although it may have emotional effects on those involved.
Report abuse
Given that one of the factors that lead to a positive screen is age, and that fertility declines in exact parallel with the probability of a DS pregnancy, this circumstance is far from unusual. While most babies with DS are born to young mothers, this is simply because those mothers are more numerous. Women who end up with a positive screen tend to be older, and are precisely those women whose fertility is likely to be compromised (and are more likely to have another DS pregnancy even if they do become pregnant again).
Report abuse
Nitya, I’m actually okay with the term parasite as long as it is used consistently by the mother and those making this argument.
If the fetus is a parasite then the mother (and pro-choice advocates) should have no problem if that fetus were used for medical experimentation, stem cell research, or even raised by another family as their own. Once the parasite is out of the body there should be no attachment to it (unless we want to claim intellectual property rights to our DNA).
However, once the mother expresses any affection for the fetus, calls it by name, sings to it, etc. she should no longer have the choice to abort, right? Regardless of whether the father seems unreliable, regardless of whether she has second thoughts about her future as an 18 yo girl raising a child on her own with no family support. Those are irrelevant and terminating the fetus (no longer a parasite) is murder.
Report abuse
True – depending on how imperative “should” is taken to mean.
Report abuse
How? To endow is to bequeath something, to give something. The foetus already has DS before the test, taking the test does not mean the mother gives the foetus DS.
That’s what I said, “After an abortion, you’re not left with a child […]”
Report abuse
ajw
Sep 1, 2014 at 12:47 am
I think most people understand the general meaning of “should”. The reasoning behind it can be moral, legal, ethical, logical or a whole bunch of things but, at the end, you really should know what it means. It doesn’t mean “would be immoral not to” and it doesn’t mean “this is what you absolutely must do”.
If you like, I can pick up on your use of the word “true”. What is truth? Whose truth? Yours? Mine? Can we really know anything? Well, we know two things for sure, as expressed in the wonderful lyrics of Eddie Vedder:
“I know I was born and I know that I’ll die. The in-between is mine.”
Report abuse
AJW: “A woman does not endow a child with a disability by giving birth to it.”
Alan4discussion: “She does, if the tests provided her with prior warning of the disability and she went ahead regardless!”
It should be clear what Aldous meant. He described it as “endowing the child with a disability” but you could equally say “deliberately allowing a disabled fetus to become a disabled child”. Either way, the end result of not aborting is exactly the same. The mother would, in effect, have produced a disabled child in the full knowledge of the consequences by way of the prior warning she was given.
As Aldous said, the woman can rationalize her decision if she didn’t have a realistic option of trying for another baby, but the result of her decision is clear.
Report abuse
@ajw (Aug 31, 2014 at 5:12 pm)
Yes, and that would be sound advice. I would also advise that she “should abort”.
What I was saying before, as I’m sure you well know, is very similar. If someone is pregnant with a DS fetus AND they don’t want a DS baby (or a DS baby is undesirable) AND they are comfortable with abortion (or that abortion is acceptable to them), then they SHOULD abort.
It really is that simple. You can argue all day long about the definition of desirability or how imperative the ‘should’ may or may not be but, barring a few exceptions (as already covered extensively), this would be a logical way to reach a conclusion on how to proceed.
Report abuse
@Elizabeth
Yes they do. They have hypothetical answers.
Q: “What should I do if I become pregnant with a DS fetus”
A: “Well, if you don’t was a DS child and you’re comfortable with the idea of abortion, then you should abort and try again”
Report abuse
The endowment, is the passing on of an extra chromosome, or the tendency to incorporate an extra chromosome in the zygote.
(A tendency which could be passed on to another generation, if the unfortunate child is capable of having an adult relationship.)
I think that spells it out clearly.
Report abuse
If it’s that simple, why would anyone be asking for advice in the first place?
You’d SHOUT AT THEM, would you? Not a hint of coercion then. Or perhaps you’re shouting at me?
Report abuse
@Nitya: Well, the only baggage I was attaching to the word “parasite” was the biological baggage – an attached organism that is dependent on you for its continued growth (and can, incidentally, make you feel quite ill).
If you received more than that, it was acquired en route 🙂
My point was simply that if you do not intend to have a child, and you are pregnant, then your relationship to the products of conception are different to the relationship you have to it if you intend to proceed to term.
@Sedan: no, I don’t think that thinking of your products of conception as a “child” means that you are committing moral murder by having an abortion. I had a spontaneous abortion at 12 weeks once – by that time I had mentally named my child, and prepared for his/her birth. When I lost it, I grieved. Nonetheless I did not think that a person had “died”, nor would I have considered it murder had a subsequent test shown that my child (i.e. son/daughter) would have a condition that would lead me to consider termination. What had “died” was virtual son/daughter I had anticipated welcoming into the world.
As I keep saying, the word “child” (in the sense of a non-gendered version of “son” or “daughter”) is a relational one. The legal definition of a “person” is a human being post-birth. It is not “murder” to kill a human being who is not a legal “person”, regardless of whether one thinks of that human being as a “son” or “daughter” or “child” or a “foetus” or a “parasite.
But we can play with semantics all we like. It seems that Nitya, Sedan, and I all agree that it is not immoral to terminate a pregnancy, and it is not “murder” to terminate a pregnancy. My point about terminology is that a pregnant woman varies in her relationship to the growing organism in her womb, and her language will tend to reflect that relationship.
I hope we all agree (not sure about Sedan) that the person who should make the decision is the woman, and that exerting moral pressure on a woman to make one decision rather than another is encroaching on her freedom to control her own body.
Report abuse
The child with DS is not “unfortunate” in any sense, at least not any more than any other child. People with DS appear to enjoy life as much, if not more, than anyone else (at least now that we treat them like the human beings they are). And many enjoy “adult relationships” including sexual relationship. Nothing unfortunate about that, either. In fact I think it’s great that finally people with DS are able to live lives as fully as the rest of us can, including getting married.
And the offspring of such a relationship will not necessarily have DS, although it is more likely than for a person without DS. If two people with DS conceive a child, there is a one in four chance that the embryo will not be viable (no birth), a 50% that it will not have DS and a 25% that it will. Of viable pregnancies, then, there is a 1:3 chance of DS.
It seems to me that the issues surrounding termination of such a pregnancy are exactly the same as those of any mother with a positive DS screen. Parents with DS have successfully raised children. However, obviously there are issues for a couple to consider if one or both have DS, just as there is with any couple where one or both carry a genetic disorder, and there are potential obstetric complications for a mother with DS, and many such couples choose not to have children.
Report abuse
It seems to me, there is a very great difference between “endowing a child with a disability” (by drugs or drink, for instance) and choosing not give birth to a child who will, because of his/her chromosomal/genetic makeup, will have a disability.
It might seem like a neat simplification to think of the world as having a finite number of lives to give away, and women lining up to choose which bodies those lives should be allocated to, but it’s not very sound philosophically (although it may make sense from a religious point of view). You deal with the pregnancy you have, not the pregnancy you’d like to have. The pregnancy you’d like to have is a different pregnancy and is as hypothetical as the person you are considering bringing, or not bringing, into the world.
And with DS, there is absolutely no reason to think that the person you will bring into the world if you do not terminate will not be a happy person, capable of bringing great joy into the lives of others.
Report abuse
@Elizabeth
Really? You wouldn’t consider them unfortunate in any sense? The NHS guide to DS states the following:
All children with Down’s syndrome have some degree of learning disability and delayed development, but this varies widely between individual children.
Babies with Down’s syndrome also often have short arms and legs and low muscle tone, making it harder for them to learn how to move.
Certain development milestones are often affected, including: reaching, sitting, standing, walking, communicating, talking and reading.
Which one these attributes would you regard as fortunate? Or are you perhaps saying the abundance of happiness balances out the negative aspects?
I can fully understand what you’ve said about people making the best of their situation and going on to have happy lives. To a certain degree we all have to play the hand we’re dealt with. The point here is that a mother faced with the choice of an abortion can have the pack re-shuffled and be dealt a different hand – if she wants to.
Report abuse
I do. I know for one thing it has a lot of variation in intensity; usually I can tell from the context, tone of voice etc what the speaker means by it, as I can in the statement of yours that I’m commenting to – I get it, one might say. If not I can ask for clarification – as I did in a conversation with Sedan. In your argument that’s not possible, it’s ambiguous, it’s vague, and you don’t seem to think it’s important to clarify it. Well you should (geddit??!?!?).
Have a look in the dictionary – it varies from –
‘indicating obligation, duty, or correctness’ – where it could well mean ‘it’s immoral not to’, or ‘you absolutely must’
through –
‘indicating a desirable or expected state’
down to –
‘used to give or ask advice or suggestions’ – where it often wouldn’t touch on morality
Of course you can, books and books have been written on this topic, and a few songs too. If you feel anything relevant or helpful will come of it, ask away, I’ll do my best to clarify what I meant in the few instances I’ve used it here. Hope I can be of help.
Given that the only issue I have with Dawkins’ essay at the head of this page is his use of the term “immoral” in respect of a decision not to abort a pregnancy, then it is hugely pertinent, when people use the term “should”, as to whether or not they mean it in the sense, “it’s immoral not to”.
Report abuse
Quite so. (Quite a poetical use of the term, given it’s link with inheritance:)
It’s not passed on when the mother takes a test and decides not to terminate. The mother doesn’t endow anything.
Report abuse
No problem. If only Richard Dawkins had said something like that – introduced some contingency into his answer.
Report abuse
Should:
Interesting that you need to add your own ‘enhanced understanding’ at the end of the correct definition. If you really believe that ‘should’ is equivalent to ‘you absolutely must’ then I strongly recommend reading the dictionary more carefully.
In any case, I did already spell it out quite clearly for you:
Barry.M (Sep 1, 2014 at 4:13 am): It doesn’t mean “would be immoral not to” and it doesn’t mean “this is what you absolutely must do”.
Report abuse
I completely agree! If only, eh.
Report abuse
You’ve caught me. I would shout at them to help hammer home my point that by using the word ‘should’, what I really mean is that they absolutely MUST do as I say.
Report abuse
Not at all,
The first point is that it is, AFAICS, a misuse of the word. It’s not even ambiguous; at best it’s bad English. The mother doesn’t give the foetus, nor the child, a disability by taking a test and making a decision. I’m not saying one can’t use words in new ways, I’d never have thought of using it in the way Alan4discussion [Sep 1, 2014 at 5:07 am] does, and I think that’s quite a good re-use of the word – it equates with the variant “being endowed with”, and with inheritance. If Aldous is using it this way, please explain how, because I’m afraid I can’t see it.
If it is a misuse, then let’s correct it. Let’s say “deliberately allowing a disabled foetus to become a disabled child” as you put it. But even this has undertones. Would you say to a woman “you deliberately allowed a male foetus to become a boy”? Why would you say this – “deliberately allowed”? How would the woman respond – “Yes. I had a boy. So?” What’s your point in wording it this way? “Deliberately” does mean “on purpose”. That the purpose, the intent, was to have a disabled child, rather than a child without disability. But the intent was to have a child. The intent is not, I’m sure in most cases, to have a disabled one.
Developing this idea, Aldous statement could be understood as having rather invidious undertones. To endow a child with disability means to give that child a disability. The only thought that comes to my mind, is that you give a child a disability by physically injuring it. If that’s done deliberately, then that’s immoral, if not downright evil. I’m sure Aldous wouldn’t want the listener to make such a connection, so shall we rephrase that please.
The way language is phrased can be pretty coercive, even if it’s not intended.
Report abuse
Elizabeth Aug 30, 2014 at 2:07 pm – I am too old to adopt a baby.
It does seem somewhat perverse, that someone assessed as “too old to adopt a healthy baby”, should be considered (or consider themselves) suitable to raise a DS child!
One of these assessments is wrong!
Report abuse
Yes, that’s how use of language works. What do you do when someone SHOUTS something at you? See if the dictionary can inform you what the SHOUTED variant means? We’re constantly enhancing our understanding of what people say; and sometimes we miss the point, even if we do look it up in the dictionary.
And I’m saying it can mean that – it doesn’t matter what you choose to spell out for me.
Or are you saying “I, Barry.M, don’t mean it “would be immoral not to”, when I say “it should be aborted”. Ok, you can spell out what you don’t mean by it. So what do you mean by it? And how would you justify that?
Report abuse
Yes, the first one is. I am talking of the UK context, where the cutoff for adoption of healthy babies is (or was when I last checked) 25. However, the cutoff for adoption of other children (“hard to place”) children is non-existent AFAIK. This is simply because there are a tiny number of healthy babies available for adoption and making a strict age cut-off reduces the number of couples applying.
The situation is of course very different in the US, but in the UK the entire system is about placing the adoptees with appropriate families not finding babies for would-be adopters.
Which leaves most couples with fertility problems in the frustrating position of not applying to adopt until they are too old to adopt a baby, not least because when you DO adopt, you are asked to use birth control unless conception is impossible, because they don’t want to compromise the adoption with the birth of another child, nor to waste all that assessment on an adoption that doesn’t eventuate.
My info may be a bit out date, but I’m not aware that things have changed radically. Certainly there remain very few babies available for adoption, and rigorous assessments for adopting a “hard to place” child.
ETA: I just remembered something. Quite a lot of our fellow would-be adopters (a while back) asked if they could adopt a baby with DS (a lot of couples really want babies, rather than older children). But it turns out that babies with DS are also in extremely high demand from adopters.
Report abuse
Hum. “My phraseology may have been tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding, but I can’t help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand.” You couldn’t resist, could you! ‘Wanton eagerness to misunderstand’ — really?
Judging by the firestorm of attention, this Twitter post was brilliantly executed marketing in terms of website traffic. Hat tip. Certainly hooked me!
I’m a fan of Dr. Jarod Diamond’s thesis, albeit oversimplified, of ‘Guns, Germs, and Steel’ being the factors of human tribal evolution. I think he understates the influence of the glue that holds tribes together, especially very large tribes, that being their operating system such as their world view, social contract, or religion.
This ‘operating system’ includes the terms and conditions in which its members relate to other members and non-members. So this ‘Abort the Down Syndrome fetus” brouhaha caught my attention and, to me, raises a question: Why not — not abort the extra-chromosome fetus, in terms of our operating system’s logic?
I don’t think we should, on balance.
I hold this view by deduction, from studying human operating systems in general and my own anecdotal evidence (admitting a statistical insignificant sampling).
One of the most enduring, continuously functioning tribal operating systems is Judaism — the ancient, Talmudic version practiced by the most orthodox of that sect. Regardless of one’s opinion about its various truth claims, what this sect does not do is devour its young. Its operating system holds that human life is the pinnacle of a created world where humans are responsible to ‘finish and perfect’ the physical world; that everything has purpose and that purpose must be understood and, therefore, everything must be stewarded according to its purpose — and figuring what that purpose is, mastering it, and teaching it is a kernel of the operating system.
This ‘know it’s purpose’ narrative leads to some fascinating (to me, anyway) thinking.
For example, this sect believes humans are mostly Godly souls with a fractional component of physicality. One’s essence is so spiritual that, in proportion, one’s physical attributes are about the equivalent of one’s little fingernail. Who knew! One ancient explanation of ‘who’ special needs persons are, includes the notion that they are humans with an overdose of Godly soul — or underdose of physicality such that they are mostly angelic. And, in turn, anyone that spends time with them — caring for them, for example, will be drawn closer towards the Godly.
One of the tenants of this operating system is cohesive sharing and the most virtuous kinds of such sharing is to give to those who cannot express thanks in return — it is the perfection of ‘charity.’
Whether or not one believes the above is existentially true or not misses the point. The safest place for a Down Syndrome person is in the observant, Orthodox Jewish community — as they believe they are potentially the agents of Godliness if one understands their purpose and how to relate to them — and how relating to them thoughtfully is of supreme benefit. And this operating system has been around for thousands of years — an evolutionary success by any measure.
In my own experience, my deeply bitter, angry, wounded-by-divorce older brother was transformed over a two year period of caregiving of our mother, since passed. She was slayed by the collapse of dopamine production — Parkinson’s Disease. She was an accomplished artist who left a treasure of original artwork to our community. She expressed her exasperation with the God of her faith about the pointlessness of her suffering. Yet my brother was transformed by his care-giving. His kindness toward her came to the attention of a divorcee’ in a manner that captured her heart and culminated in a second marriage for both that is the happiest of endings.
Secondly, I am close friends with a family that has a youngest son with Angelman’s Syndrome. The three older sons, now all married, are the most amazing young men. They are unfailingly patient, kind, and the epitome of the sons any community would welcome. They are quite candid in their explanations, and give credit to their youngest brother, Jud. They learned civilization from their kind parents.
I think human evolution is ultimately the evolution of tribes, as a critical mass of membership size is essential. And the terms and conditions in our operating systems are a factor sometimes as influential as Guns, Germs, and Steel — and may or may not have anything to do with what is existentially true scientifically — as if to suppose the most effective evolutionary successes are quite irrational.
Like not aborting a Down’s Syndrome fetus.
Cheers.
Report abuse
Well, they might be unfortunate – they might not manage to marry the person of their dreams, or get the job they really wanted, or have health issues that cause them pain, but on the whole, people with DS do seem pretty happy people, no less happy than the rest of us, and arguably (now that we treat them as members of society) happier.
You are still confusing the subject and objects in your argument. A person with DS is not a person who happened “unfortunately” to “catch DS” and would otherwise not have it. A person with DS is a person with DS, and there’s nothing “unfortunate” about that. She came into the world with DS and has grown up as a person with DS, and there is no “misfortune” that has befallen her that has given her, or made her, DS.
It may be a “misfortune” to her family that instead of having a different child, a child without DS, they had this child, this child with DS. But as far as the person with DS is concerned, they run the gamut of fortune and misfortune just as the rest of us do. you could say I am “unfortunate” because I am not beautiful, or gifted at athletics, or brilliant at math, or have a patient temper, or whatever, but it would be rather pointless because these things are not misfortunes that I have met in life, but rather simple differences between myself and different people who do have these attributes.
A person with DS is no more “unfortunate” that she is unlikely to win a Nobel Prize than I am. It’s just who we are – non-Nobel prize winners with our own lives to live and enjoy.
Well, as I’ve said many times, often not. Women who get pre-natal diagnoses are often on the edge of their fertility anyway (the fertility cliff is exactly mirrored by the DS cliff). But that’s not the point here – you are mistaking the “misfortune” of having a child with DS when you’d rather have had a different child, one without DS, with the non-misfortunate life of a person with DS, who often have a simply fabulous one.
I am also leaving aside the experience of actual parents of children with DS who often also have a fabulous time, once the shock has worn off, and the challenges begin to be overcome.
tbh, I’d infinitely rather raise a child with DS than a child with severe autism or even what are known as Conduct Problems. But there’s no prenatal test for those.
Report abuse
Which is precisely why I shall say again for you:
“If you really believe that ‘should’ is equivalent to ‘you absolutely must’ then I strongly recommend reading the dictionary more carefully.”
They are patently not the same and, however hard you try to find a dictionary hinting that they might be, they’re still not. I honestly can’t understand why you would choose to massively over-complicate things by trying to justify abstract meanings for everyday words.
Report abuse
“Should” generally implies a moral dimension. “Must” may also do so, but quite often doesn’t.
You should have an abortion translates more readily, at least in UK English, as “It is my view that it would be immoral for you not to have an abortion” than “One of your options is to have an abortion”, but could plausibly mean “I think the best thing for your welfare would be for you to have abortion”.
You must have an abortion could mean “I order you to have an abortion” but could also mean “I will ensure you have the means to have an abortion if that is what you want”.
English is complicated! Which is why Twitter requires skill.
Report abuse
Barry, why are you telling a 13 year old girl should she just get an abortion without first consulting a trusted adult and getting competent medical advice?
Do you really think a woman should go to jail for an illegal abortion just to avoid having a DS child?
Given the tremendous risks to the mother associated with having an abortion in some parts of the world don’t you think it’s reckless to insist that’s always the best option for a pregnant woman?
Who are you to judge that not having a DS child is worth losing her husband and being disowned by her family for religious reasons?
Shouldn’t a man undergo rigorous scientific testing before aborting his fetus? Did you think of that, Barry?
Hopefully, you get the point. A good hypothetical question has the minimal amount of extraneous conditions. Not only does adding such constraints make it less useful and instructive it makes it unworkable as it opens the door to everything you didn’t specify: there are countless valid reasons why abortion might not be the best option given the two constraints you singled out (or any other two constraints).
Hypotheticals only work in a constructive, collaborative discussion. They fail when people want to be combative and deliberately misinterpret what others have to say. For example, to assume that Dawkins was suggesting that men should abort their fetuses because he didn’t say otherwise. Think that’s ridiculous? It’s just as ridiculous to think that Dawkins was insisting that a woman who wants a DS baby and is not comfortable with abortion should be forced to get one anyway.
Report abuse
Canus,
You have turned those with disabilities into agents of good in others. Carers become better people, you say, by developing the virtues which are needed to look after others.
For two reasons, I think this is a spurious argument in regard to deciding to bring a child with disabilities into the world. Parents, teachers, and all those involved in the education and upbringing of children, have ample opportunity to develop patience and all the virtues you somehow think it requires a disabled child to produce. It would also seem to me quite indecent to see those with disability and disease, not as persons but merely instruments of virtue in others.
This is a typically Christian view. Didn’t Jesus die for our sins on the cross? Hurrah for pain and suffering!
Report abuse
“Hypotheticals” fail when the answer is intrinsically dependent on conditions not stated. The question “is it immoral not to abort a DS pregnancy” is about as useful a question as “How long is a piece of string?”
In other words, the question can only have a meaningful answer if the answer is couched in terms that specify under what conditions it might, or might not, be immoral (just as the answer to the string question can only be answered by someone making specific hypotheses about the string in question).
What is still getting my goat somewhat in this whole discussion is the assumption in the pro-Dawkins camp (led by Dawkins himself) that those who disagree with him are “haters” (Dawkins’ word) who are not “constructive” or “collaborative”. And who are “emotional” instead of “logical”.
I don’t hate Richard Dawkins (I have read most of his books, and greatly enjoyed them, and also some of his articles), and my criticisms of both his original tweets and his not-pology are based on what I see as incoherent logic in his position. And I am not alone. There’s an excellent article here, which sums up my position better than I have managed to do myself, including quotes from bioethicists interviewed, and entitled “Richard Dawkins would fail at philosophy 101” – and that’s really the point. It’s not that his critics (or many of them) are questioning his logical “act-utilitarian” rationale for morality in itself, nor that we are “haters” – it’s that we think he’s doing a terrible job at squeezing a coherent position out of it vis-a-vis DS.
Report abuse
Alan, I think this was clear enough already. It was obvious what Aldous meant even if the word “endow” was not the best choice. We could argue over whether the parents endowed the child when passing on their DNA, but that would be a meaningless aside.
What’s clear is that the mother, through her inaction, is responsible for any disability in a fetus that she knowingly does not terminate when given the reasonable option.
An imperfect analogy is a builder who notices that some of the components of a building are substandard (e.g. the steel rivets) and chooses to continue with the construction rather than tear the building down and start again.
Report abuse
Sedan Sep 1, 2014 at 12:49 pm:
Agreed.
Report abuse
It’s a question of moral responsibility. Where we are able to make a decision, we can’t shrug it off as ‘natural’. A heavy weight, dropped from a height, breaks someone’s arm. ‘ Gravity did it,’ is not a defence. Somebody did it, so the issue of culpability arises. ‘Biology did it,’ is not a valid excuse for refusing moral responsibility for the consequences of one’s decision.
In a country with non-religious abortion law a woman has the right to choose. That means she is free to make the wrong decision, if that’s what it is. If the right decision is that made by the 90% of women who decide to have an abortion, the obvious conclusion is that refusing an abortion is the wrong decision.
Those who are arguing that Downs is really no big deal, in the balance of human happiness a trivial difference, or even positive, are saying that abortion is, in principle, the wrong decision. That would be a reason for changing the Abortion Law. (I’m discussing this, as Dawkins is, in relation to the situation in England.)
Report abuse
Alan, are you an astronomer? If not, do you know how to calculate the next eclipse?
I am not, and I don’t.
But a Ptolomaic astronomer would know that, even starting from a completely mistaken idea of how the planetary system works.
So, if you perchance need to know when the next eclipse is, do you ask me – the post-Copernican layman who knows the Earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way round – or the Ptolemaic astronomer?
Report abuse
That is correct. The genetic endowment of the trait/disability, is simply revealed by the test. – But a decision to continue (or not) with the pregnancy is a deliberate decision when options have been offered.
This is a common usage in biology and genetics.
For example:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_behaviorism
Report abuse
Yes, and I would hope, and I’m sure most mothers would take that responsibility to heart when coming to a decision as to whether to terminate or not – though I wouldn’t class taking responsibility as inaction.
Report abuse
“Unfortunate,” Alan? Is a child with a cleft palate also unfortunate? Is he/she incapable of expressing joy? Do his parents love him any less? I have a video of a child with a cleft palate playing joyfully which proves my point.
Have you no humanity?
Report abuse
Actually, it’s very easy to give the one and only correct answer, if you are in possession of a phallus, in well less than 140 characters to the question, “What would you do if you were pregnant with a fetus with _______________?” Here is the correct answer:
“If it were me personally, I might [Choose one] abort / not abort, but that will never be my decision to make. Ever.”
Either option is less than 100 characters, which leaves plenty of room for tags and hashtags. Of course, if the question is not directed at you personally, the correct reply is almost 100 characters shorter still.
Report abuse
Let’s say there were an upper age limit of 25 for adoption in the UK, which I don’t think is the case.
Perhaps there’s a very good reason for that, e.g. older parents do not provide as good an environment for children or often can’t fully support them until adulthood. Then most likely those same reasons would apply to why we wouldn’t want to encourage 45 year old women to have children (whether they have DS or not).
If there is/was no good reason for that prohibition (no adoptions over 25) and as a society we want to give every person an equal chance at parenthood (perhaps even despite the poor odds), then shouldn’t that be the current outrage on the internet rather than furor over these innocuous tweets?
(this is basically expanding upon the contradiction Alan pointed out)
Report abuse
As in the classic moral quandaries such as:
Should you wash your jeans every day?
Should you wait a half hour after eating before swimming?
If you’re chased by a bear should you climb a tree?
In other words, the only time “should” generally implies a moral dimension is when someone is looking for an excuse to express righteous indignation.
Report abuse
Wait a minute. I thought that DS children have been shown to be happier and to make those around them happier. Didn’t you see all the studies and personal anecdotes that so clearly prove that here?
So how can intentionally giving a child such a super ability be such a bad thing? We should celebrate it instead.
Report abuse
Yes it is a question of moral responsibility, and I’m sure most mothers with DS foetuses, and DS children, take that responsibility very seriously, particularly when deciding whether to terminate.
And it’s not a question of culpability – and yes I can see you used it in reference to breaking someone’s arm, which would involve culpability – but let’s just be clear on this.
The mother is not culpable for the foetus having DS, nor for the child having DS if she decides not to terminate. Culpability is responsibility for a wrong, it means blameworthy. The mother is not to blame for the child having DS, regardless of whether or not she had a choice of termination. She is morally responsible, if she had a free choice of abortion, for bringing the child into the world, as is any mother. But it would be a misuse of the word to say she is culpable for the child. The child is not a wrong because it has DS.
I’m sure most mothers of children with DS take the moral responsibility seriously, I can’t really see anyone thinking “Oh, I’m sure it’s no big deal”. Having children, full stop, is a big deal, it’s a huge responsibility, moral and otherwise. That does not mean it’s not a positive part of life. Having a DS child would carry more difficulties and greater responsibility; it can still be a positive part of life.
It isn’t. It’s not a majority decision – it can still be the right decision for the remaining 10% because their circumstances are different.
Report abuse
Stop blaming Twitter. If you are a man, when a woman you are not likely to impregnate muses about what she would do if she were pregnant, the only correct response fits perfectly into even the most limited format. A one-character format would give you one character more than you need.
Report abuse
The problem – in addition to the fact that on the subject of What to Do If You’re Pregnant, all men should just keep their mouths shut unless they’re asked directly – is that even this “nuanced and thoughtful commentary” is really just a restatement of the same thing. He could have fit, “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral in the logical way to bring it into the world if you have the choice,” into 140 characters with room for tags and hashtags. “I’m sorry you were offended” is not nuanced and thoughtful commentary, no matter how many characters it uses, especially if you double-down on some of the most offensive points.
Report abuse
Ptolomaic astronomers could make mathematical projections based on their historical objective observations, without any understanding of gravity as the driving force.
That of course has nothing to do with the 20th century US invention of ID in order to pretend Xtian fundamentalism is school science, and has nothing to do with the topic of Down Syndrome!
Report abuse
Thanks, I didn’t know. (You should have kept quiet – I was impressed by your creative usage:)
Report abuse
You are right, “should” does not always carry a moral dimension. I think it might even be the most complex word in the English language.
“Who should appear but old Tom”
“A couple of pounds should see you through”
“I should coco”
But it can; and does when the speaker uses it correctly to express a moral obligation – perhaps because they are “looking for an excuse to express righteous indignation”, or perhaps because they feel there really is a genuine moral obligation.
Report abuse
That’s an idea. And, of course, we often do.
Report abuse
No. It isn’t. It implies it when it’s being applied to an ethical issue, like abortion.
No “excuse” is needed, apparently.
Report abuse
should as a modal verb:
1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions.
2. used to indicate what is probable.
Meaning #1 is the correct use in the current context.
Sedan is being chased by a bear; he should climb a tree.
Barry.M had to attend a speed awareness course; he should drive more slowly.
ajw thinks that ‘should’ can be mean the same as ‘would be immoral not to’; he should read the dictionary more carefully.
Etc.
Report abuse
Ok – my fav bedside read…
The Cambridge Guide to English Usage – Pam Peters – Cambridge University Press 2004
“The major role of should nowadays, in English everywhere, is to express obligation or necessity”.
Often one does not need to make it explicit what type of necessity. If we were talking about abortion in Ireland then it may be unclear whether “should” expressed legal or moral necessity. In the current context, it seems to me if we’re talking about necessity, then that’s moral necessity. If you mean something else, do clarify. So one possible meaning, maybe not the one you intended, but you don’t seem too bothered about making your meaning clear, is “should” is equivalent to “it is morally necessary to”, ergo is equivalent to “it is immoral not to”.
Or –
Oxford English Dictionary
must, v.1 [http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124229#eid35589526]
3.a Expressing necessity
from above “should […] is to express […] necessity.
ergo “should” is equivalent to “must”. Presumably “absolutely must” is still expressing necessity, again correct me if you intend something else by this, ergo “should” is equivalent to “you absolutely must”
The Cambridge Guide is clear. “The major role of should nowadays, in English everywhere […]”
That’s not implying an abstract meaning, that’s an everyday use, the major use at that.
Report abuse
Absolute tosh.
Just in case: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tosh
Report abuse
I think it’s time we were reacquainted with the last sentence in the Richard’s expanded reply.
Report abuse
There is no difference in the decision that has to be made — whether to bestow the genetic abnormalities of the fetus on a child or not. How does it come about that 10% of women do so?
Mental impairment 99% Stunted growth 90% Umbilical hernia 90% Abnormal teeth 60% Shortened hands 60% Low muscle tone 80% Obstructive sleep apnea 60% Narrow roof of mouth 76% Flat head 75% Large tongue 75% Protruding tongue 47%Abnormal outer ears 70%Congenital heart disease 40% Flattened nose 68% Undescended testicles 20%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
Report abuse
I merely reported how one extremely resilient tribal operating system, millennia old — Orthodox Judaism approaches these special needs persons. It’s also a world-view full of less than scientific perspectives, as if reasonableness ipso facto ever led to civil behavior. I agree with your point about any number of other ways to learn ‘virtues.’ I can enumerate a host of life lessons I would have rather learned by reading about then having lived through.
Elective abortion based on chromosomal sampling is a most recent innovation of course, so ‘deciding’ to abort for such reasons was unknown in antiquity. I’m quite sure the Orthodox Judaism forbids abortion except in the specific case where a plurality of medically qualified judges rules the fetus, is fatally assaulting the mother and is judged a ‘rodef’ — a’ pursuer-with-apparent-intent-to-kill-another.’ Otherwise, abortion is forbidden, recognizing the social contract seeks every reasonable care for mother and child.
I can’t speak to what Christianity holds as I don’t know of any singular, authoritative opinion. As for the Nazarene, a casual examination of the Christian texts establishes he was a typical Pharisee (parushim) theologically, consistent with the Jewish late second temple period, in so far as the texts are accurate about him. The idiom and narratives are most certainly Jewish, albeit it’s hard to know what was edited over the years.
Cheers,
Report abuse
Richard, you make make a moral distinction between ‘this fetus should be aborted’ and ‘this person has no right to exist’, but in the real world this distinction is impossible to maintain. The fact that having Down Syndrome is considered a good reason to abort a fetus has a palpable impact on the quality of lives of people who have the condition. It contributes to a culture where people with Down Syndrome are seen as lesser and their contributions to society are negated or ignored.
The logical implications of your argument also lead us down a dangerous road. There are many human conditions which contribute to suffering, both on the part of the individual and society. If we were able to diagnose those conditions prenatally, would it be possible to judge the potential worth of that life on the basis of that information? For example, what if we came up with a prenatal diagnosis for alcoholism? Would it be justifiable to abort a fetus on that basis alone? Think of the various contributions that alcoholics have made to society across the centuries, and how much poorer we would be as a culture without them. We cannot reduce humans, with Down Syndrome or without, to a simple diagnosis, and judge their potential worth on that basis.
A true humanist point of view would seek to value all people, to help them find their strengths and allow them to make their full contribution to society, not to make judgements about whether they should be born or not.
I also challenge those who feel that a child with Down Syndrome is a burden on their siblings to actually talk to people who have a brother or sister with Down Syndrome. There are challenges, of course, but the ones I have talked to feel strongly that their brother or sister adds immeasurably to their lives. You will find variation, of course, but my point is that having Down Syndrome is not an automatic predictor of family harmony or family tragedy. You simply can’t use a single diagnosis to predict how a life will be.
Report abuse
genetic abnormalities are not bestowed on a child by having a test and deciding not to terminate. The child would have those genetic abnormalities even if the mother hadn’t taken the test. Neither do you “un-bestow” them by terminating. You are not left with a child without these genetic abnormalities after an abortion. If we could discover a way to remove DS from a foetus that would result in a child without DS, that would be “un-bestowing”. You would be left with a child without these genetic abnormalities. But as yet, we can’t.
In some cases because they feel it’s the only chance they will have to have a baby.
Did you mean to post all those stats? If so, why?
Report abuse
For a scientist and writer with the standing that Dawkins has, to say it might actually be immoral, when there are plenty of people putting good arguments that it is not immoral – that I think is trying to impose his views on someone.
Report abuse
Barry.M says it’s
Barry.M even gives us a nice definition of tosh.
Barry.M does not propose any grounds why it might be absolute tosh.
I’m spotting a pattern here.
Report abuse
The problem here concerns the nature of persona identity.
Nobody “bestows” these things on a specific person. What they do is permit a specific person to be born who has these attributes, and possibly, by so doing, prevent a different person being born who does not.
But as neither person exists when the decision is made, no-one bestows these attributes on any person.
The mistake (and I think it is one) seems to arise, ironically, from the more usually religious notion that the person and the body they inhabit are separable. Indeed there almost seems to be the implicit idea that “personhood” is a bit of woo that slips into a newborn’s body at birth, and that therefore it is “immoral” to provide that bit of woo with a poorly-crafted piece of kit.
I suggest that this is an unhelpful model. I would also point out that it is not the one espoused by Richard Dawkins in his OP, where he make it clear that he regards personhood as the result of a gradual process, not a discrete attribute acquired at birth.
Report abuse
> In some cases because they feel it’s the only chance they will have to have a baby. ajw There are two notable things about your post. You have got yourself into a linguistic muddle because you confuse a 'fetus' with a 'child'. The distinction is crucial to the argument. By making the decision to let nature take its course a woman ensures that the child she gives birth to is mentally and physically stunted and with the characteristics that are listed in the Wikipedia article (within the percentages indicated). The 'circumstances' of the woman do not affect this outcome. Whatever reasons there may be for not going through with a termination, they do not change the disabilities which a child will have to live with as a result of her decision. [Removed by moderator.] A woman who justifies choosing to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome because it is 'her last chance' is putting herself first. Whether or not that is an ethical decision, I leave it to you to consider.
Report abuse
Richard Dawkins – “the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral”
Not really!
Telling people something is, or might be, (generally) immoral, and that they should think deeply about the issue when deciding, is “pointing out the merits of the case”, rather than simply “imposing your own views” (as theocratic politicians who ban abortions regardless of merits or family circumstances), do!
Are there? – or are they simply pronouncing their own arguments “good”?
There are people making arguments that they personally find raising disabled children satisfying, and that there are special cases where it might be moral to raise such a child,
The evidence is that mildly Downs children, can be happy when heavily subsidised by the efforts of others and funding by the family or the state, – but it is simply a “moral” assertion, to call this acceptance of lower aspirations, and future prospects, with required higher levels of long-term support, “good”!
If it was “good”, it would not need substantial social and medical support, to bring the standards of life up a bit, towards the comparable levels of healthy able children living in similar regional and financial family conditions. The negative effects on siblings can be substantial!
Report abuse
@ajw
Yes, he said this with reference to the child’s own welfare. He also referenced his own morality. I don’t quite see how you equate that to ‘imposing his views’ on anyone.
In the same way that ‘you should’ doesn’t mean “you absolutely must’, ‘it might be’ doesn’t mean ‘it absolutely is’.
For people who might misunderstand (deliberately or otherwise) he clarified it even further with “I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else” (as pointed out by Nitya).
Report abuse
(A tendency which could be passed on to another generation, if the unfortunate child is capable of having an adult relationship.)
“Appear” to whom? My personal observations of a neighbour’s DS son and of special education indicate otherwise!
I know! I know of DS 13 year olds in residential care or special schooling, getting pregnant because they are vulnerable when out on their own, and incapable of understanding contraception.
Really!
It is unlikely they will be able to live lives as fully as the rest of us, but some may go part of the way.
.. and hundred percent chance of one or more DS parents struggling to raise a child -very possibly a DS child – unless the responsibility is passed to the public or some adopting couple, who are prepared to put in the resources to compensate for the disabilities!
As I have said earlier, I do not wish to discourage you from doing your best for your DS son, but I think your rose-coloured spectacles are clearly showing here.
Report abuse
The judgement is made about a fetus, not a child. Terminating Downs syndrome fetuses is a means of preventing the occurrence of Down syndrome in children.
The fetus is human but not a human being. The priority for humanists is human beings. For the religious it is their ideological opposition to abortion which comes first.
Report abuse
This is just denial of responsibility for personal decisions!
That is correct!
Yes she is, if she turned down the option to terminate the pregnancy, and if she knowingly decided to give birth to a DS child, after she was given clear information that the foetus had Down Syndrome.
That is correct!
That is wrong and is simply a denial of responsibility for a personal decision, (if it was taken under a legal system where abortion was offered as an option).
Report abuse
If anyone is looking for stats, who cannot look up their own, or are still in denial that Downs confers disabilities, here is a link:-
http://www.chw.org/medical-care/genetics-and-genomics-program/medical-genetics/chromosome-abnormalities/types-of-chromosome-abnormalities/numerical-abnormalities/down-syndrome/
>
About 40 to 50 percent of babies with Down syndrome have heart defects.
About 10 percent of babies with Down syndrome are born with intestinal malformations that require surgery.
More than 50 percent have some visual or hearing impairment.
Children with Down syndrome may have hearing loss due to fluid in the middle ear, a nerve defect, or both.
Children with Down syndrome are at increased risk of thyroid problems and leukemia. They also tend to have many colds, as well as bronchitis and pneumonia.
Some here with rose coloured spectacles, are still arguing that these disabilities DO NOT IMPINGE ON THEIR HAPPINESS or their satisfaction with life!
Report abuse
Under Utilitarianism this would only be the case if you could provide evidence that a having person with DS in the world in addition to, or instead of a different person reduces the sum of human happiness and increases suffering.
Nobody has provided such evidence, and many people have provided evidence that it is not the case.
The Utilitarian argument simply fails in the case of DS.
Report abuse
No, it is not. It is a means of preventing the occurrence of children with DS.
These two things are not the same.
Report abuse
And I think your grey-coloured spectacles are showing. What you have described are reasons for improving attitudes to DS. They do not demonstrate that a person with DS brings more unhappiness into the world.
And I do not have a child with DS, btw. However, I do know a number of people with DS and their families and friends, and their experiences are very different from yours, largely because they are surrounded by people who affirm their existence and their qualities, not dismiss them as being “unfortunate” or “disabled” or “undesirable.
And yes, that includes happily married couples with DS.
ETA:
http://www.down-syndrome.org/perspectives/67/
Report abuse
Terminating Downs syndrome fetuses is a means of preventing the occurrence of Down syndrome in children.
It quite clearly is in the context of specific abortion decisions after diagnosis, which is the context in which it is presented.
Nobody suggested that individual abortions would totally remove the Downs population generally.
You seem to be nit-picking and grasping at straw(men)s to make a case for denial.
Report abuse
I think your rose-coloured spectacles are clearly showing here.
That’s the thing about the harsh reality of disabilities! They are not pretty or pleasant for those afflicted!
Attitudes of others will not resolve physical or mental disabilities, although they may mitigate them to some extent!
This is just denial, hiding behind a negative proof fallacy!
I’m afraid that anyone who cannot grasp that the linked lists of medically identified disabilities REDUCE the happiness of those suffering with them, is in a level of denial, from which no reasoned argument will extract them!
Report abuse
What’s the difference between “mitigate” and “resolve”? Yes, the attitudes of others will mitigate – and may resolve – mental and cognitive disabilities. This was shown spectacularly at the 2012 Paralympics, which has gone a huge way towards removing the barriers between people with disabilities and a normal life. One mechanism is simply the removal of prejudice; another is the provision of facilities and interventions that negate the disability, for instance access ramps, or, for that matter, spectacles. The same is true for cognitive disabilities. Many jobs are well-able to be done by someone with impaired (relative to the mean) cognition, particularly if some basic support is in place. “Disability” is a function of relationship between an individual and the environment, not an attribute of the individual per se. Dyslexia, for instance, does not exist in environments in which there is no written communication.
Absolutely not. It’s a challenge to those who make this positive claim to support it with evidence. It’s their claim, the onus is on them to demonstrate it. On the other side, we have in this thread, plenty of evidence that people with DS are as happy as anyone else, particularly in a society that does not treat them as “ineducable” as in the bad old days nor routinely institutionalise them from an early age. But the same is true of all children – treat them right and they will mostly be happy. Mistreat them and they won’t be. But there is no intrinsic reason to expect a person with DS to be less happy than anyone else, and some evidence that they tend to be rather happier than many of us. As for the happiness they bring to others – that has been also well-attested in this thread.
It appear to me that anyone who cannot grasp that treatable medical conditions do not necessarily result in reduced happiness is the one in denial. Sure it would be nice if we lived in Big Rock Candy Mountain land and never had any illness or grew old, or experienced any difficulty in making ends meet or putting food on the table, but it’s not what life is like, or even what would make us happy, ultimately. We evolved to find satisfaction in solving problems and overcoming challenges. To deny this seems self-evidently odd to me, and if you don’t deny it, then the argument that a scenario that may increase problems and challenges must result in greater unhappiness makes no sense.
And evidence suggests the reverse, in the case of DS.
On the other hand, a condition like EB probably does. I’m specifically talking about DS. And among other pertinent facts, most children with DS are born to low-risk mothers. So we’ve got to, if we are to be a humane society, foster attitudes and put in place structures in which people with DS can thrive. And in such a society, there is no reason why any given person with DS should not bring as much happiness into the world, and experience as much, as anyone else.
Report abuse
What we are seeing on this thread, it seems, is the gulf between Britian and the United States. We have comprehensive national health and social care systems. In the United States, they even shoot doctors who carry out abortions and picket clinics where they work. From our point of view, very largely, this is quite retrograde and encourages deference to the religious anti-abortion stance, in general and on this particular issue.
Report abuse
A fine rebuttal to what absolutely nobody here is saying.
Report abuse
Utilitarianism does not say that one action is preferable to another only if you can prove it (the proof doesn’t change the reality). That’s self-serving nonsense.
Although evidence has been provided that you choose to ignore).
Report abuse
So it is possible to make accurate statements about the world – even about its future states – without correctly understanding how it works?
Report abuse
You are still, in my view, confusing the issue of whether or not you bring a specific person in the world, who will have DS, and may or may not be a happy person who brings joy to his/her friends and family with the issue of whether DS is preferable to not having DS.
We don’t have a choice as to whether a specific person has DS or not, although there are many ways of making sure that a person with DS has as much chance of happiness, and of spreading happiness as anyone else.
Women do sometimes have a choice as to whether or not to take on that task.
But few people (on your side of the fence) seem to be taking the point that because the vast majority of babies with Downs will be born to people who have no choice in the matter (no positive prenatal diagnosis) in order to have a society in which we “maximise the sum of human happiness” we need be able to accommodate people with DS into society. And given such a society (which is a Good Thing, on Utilitarian grounds) then there is no good reason not to bring a person with DS into it.
Only in some fantasy future in which we can eliminate all disability from the world (whatever that would mean) would it make sense to say that we should not permit people with disabilities to be born, because we aren’t set up to cope with them.
Far from being in “denial” it is I who accepts that we need a society which can accommodate disability. And I suggest that we are a better and happier society when we can.
Report abuse
I didn’t say that it did. But to make a claim that action A is immoral on the grounds that it reduces the sum of happiness, you have to show that it does. There may be other grounds for preferring one action rather than another, but if those are your grounds, then you have to show that they obtain in this case.
I’m not sure whose “self” you think that the “nonsense” is “serving”.
Far from ignoring it I have provided both counter-evidence and counter-argument
AFAIK your only response has been to tell me I didn’t understand stats or science.
Report abuse
Moderators’ message
A reminder that our Terms of Use require comments to focus on the arguments and not on the perceived shortcomings of any users who disagree with you (regardless of which side you’re on).
Many thanks to those of you who have argued your positions without resort to insult.
To those who, after a long thread, may now be feeling tempted towards rudeness or personal criticism of those who disagree with you, please don’t, as comments of that kind will be removed.
Thank you.
The mods
Report abuse
I am perfectly clear on the distinction. Any linguistic muddle here concerns your use of terms involving “giving” i.e. “endow”, “bestow”
I agree with this passage. The outcome of which is that a much greater responsibility, moral and otherwise, lies on the woman, if she is considering having the baby, than would be if the foetus were not DS. One implication of this is that she needs to think a lot harder about whether to have the baby. Also she will have to do a lot more work ensuring the baby has the best possible life, given it has DS. I have no reason to think that most mothers in this situation, don’t do this.
Deciding to have a child, any child, carries a lot of responsibility. For each, and probably every, child there will be particular difficulties, some of which the mother may take into consideration if she’s wondering whether to terminate the pregnancy. E.g. she would rather raise a child in a better environment than she has. She may calculate that is not insurmountable, let’s say she thinks she can improve the environment if she puts in some effort, and even if in spite of that effort, this maybe wouldn’t work out, she makes the judgement that although the environment she has is not the very best for her child, it’s still perfectly fine. To my mind that’s taking some moral responsibility. She may of course have totally miscalculated, it may be it would turn out much worse, or much better, or she may have got it pretty much right. Let’s say she’s still undecided, and the one thing that will tip the balance is how much she really wants a baby, now. If she does not terminate, is she putting herself first?
If though she justifies choosing to give birth because she really wants a baby, now, and she knows it will perhaps be difficult, she knows it may reflect badly on her child’s welfare, but she doesn’t really care, she just wants a baby, then yes I’d agree she is putting herself first. She’s not taking responsibility for her actions.
I know that raising a child, and caring for an adult, with DS is much more difficult than without, and carries much greater moral, and other, responsibilities. If a woman justified choosing to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome because it is ‘her last chance’, and she just didn’t care about the child’s welfare, about how it would impact on her, and others around her, on the financial cost, and so forth, then again I’d agree she is putting herself first, in a much more irresponsible way than the first mother.
But again, I have no reason to think that many, or even any mothers in this situation would do this.
So if they do everything in their power to ensure the baby, those around her, herself and society at large will still have a reasonably good life, then even if its being ‘her last chance’ plays a role in her decision, is she is putting herself first? And if she’s lead a reasonably commendable life, done her bit for society, is that so bad?
So you should. Say someone said to either of the women who decided not terminate, but did their utmost in shouldering responsibility for that decision, “I think you were just putting yourself first”, I can imagine some of their responses as to what he might do with what he thinks. And I could support that.
Report abuse
Not at all! I am comparing the prospects of the aborted foetus with the prospects of the healthy replacement child.
The problem is your focus on the potential Downs child to the exclusion of the usual alternative replacement who is very probably going to have a better quality of life.
Where there is a diagnosis and an abortion option, we certainly do have a choice. There is no evidence based reason to deny this!
Really????? Including the severe cases with physical mental and emotional disabilities????
In very many cases ( particularly severe cases) there are not.
This claim is just made-up wish-thinking in the face of the disability evidence.
They certainly do, and need to take responsibility for their decisions.
Nobody suggested that individual abortions would totally remove the Downs population generally.
While civilised developed societies do look after undiagnosed and unexpected Downs Children, the majority are only born to people not expecting them because over 90% of those expecting them, choose abortion!
Which most developed countries try to do.
THIS IS THE FLAWED REASONING YOU KEEP REPEATING!
Consider this made up analogous example:
in order to have a society in which we “maximise the sum of human happiness” we need be able to accommodate people with BROKEN LEGS into society. ….. And given such a society, then there is no good reason not BREAK PEOPLE’S LEGS.
SPOT THE IRRATIONALITY!
Providing for the unanticipated disability at birth, in no way equates with deliberately choosing to have individuals born with the disability or celebrating them having a disability!
That is a silly absolutist strawman claim! There is no rational or ethical reason to deliberately have children born with disabilities to provide employment for support services.
The existence of support services is not an excuse to deliberately inflict disabilities on human beings, when such damaging anomalies can so simply be avoided by a termination, and a new pregnancy, – which in the vast majority of cases, can be followed by an opportunity to produce a healthy disability-free replacement child, who would otherwise have not existed.
Report abuse
Only in the minds of those argumentatively perverse in their opposition to abortion.
Yes it does!
It means that there are less of them to share the limited and overstretched resources, they need for a decent standard of life, and more able bodied people to earn the resources the societies use support them!
Many people’s contributions to society are greater or lesser! That is simply a feature of reality. To pretend otherwise, is self-delusion!
While their contributions can generally be fairly assessed as less than those of their mentally sharp, able bodied peers, much effort is made by families and caring societies, to recognise their efforts and encourage them in their endeavours.
Report abuse
I’m an Associate of the Royal College of Music. Does that make me a musician? Do tell
I have a B.A. Hons – does that include me within the mentally sharp? Do tell
I often cycle around the Kent countryside, as much as 10 miles some days (Wowww go me!)
Does that make me able bodied? Do tell
Robert Schumann – a severe melancholic depressive, with episodes recurring several times alternating with phases of ‘exaltation’ and increasingly also delusional ideas of being poisoned or threatened with metallic items. – does that include Schumann within the mentally sharp? Do tell
Robert Schumann – attempted suicide by throwing himself from a bridge into the Rhine River. Buggered if I could do that – Does that make Schumann able bodied? Do tell
Robert Schumann – a great pianist – could you match him – could I with my ARCM? Would we even come close? – Does that make Schumann able bodied? Do tell
Does it even matter whether he was able bodied, whether he was mentally sharp?
Robert Schumann – would you fairly assess his contribution as less than than those of his mentally sharp and able bodied peers? As less, perhaps, than yours?
Would any of us, even come close?
Report abuse
Yes, actually. Many hundreds of thousands if not millions of us come close (and often surpass). You may not come close to the absolute best example you can find of the disabled (or whatever it is you’re trying to demonstrate) since you are at best average, but the contributions of the non-mentally disabled have far exceeded them.
One example of people who have contributed more? Richard Dawkins. Do you want to limit that discussion to just composers? If you’re asking for a list of composers who were better than Schumann yet somehow managed to do so without being mentally challenged, the list is not short.
This is a preposterous response to Alan’s statement. Outliers exist, but you wouldn’t want to bet on them.
This makes about as much sense as me saying that women are equally good tennis players because I personally couldn’t beat Serena Williams.
Report abuse
If I stick to examples near to home,
There is my neighbour’s (mildly) Downs son who now in his upper twenties, has never had paid employment, and often needs to be accompanied when he goes out, – and my own (youngest) twins who are nearest to him in age.
One is head of software development at an IT company, writing business software handling £billions of business transactions, and the other is a lawyer handling property sales.
While we have all helped the disabled lad over the years, there is no doubt who is contributing more to the economy which pays for supporting the disabled – and the services for everyone else!
Report abuse
While their contributions can generally be fairly assessed as less than those of their mentally sharp, able bodied peers,
While it is commendable to identify areas of expertise which disabled people can develop and exercise, without being too restricted by their disabilities, – and a handful can be cherry-picked as outstanding examples, – this simply does not address the issues for the large majority of disabled people, (especially mentally disabled people), who do not have some outstanding ability on which they can specialise to make a living, or pay for the support they need.
Even if such cherry-picked outstanding individuals had been aborted, there is no way of knowing what contribution a replacement sibling would have made, – and no reason to assume it would be a lesser contribution.
Report abuse
And here we have it again: how do you measure that contribution?
What is the measure? What is the input to your “stats”?
Report abuse
One problem here is that there is an implicit assumption that are “disabled” on a more or less unidimensinal scale. This is obviously quite unrealistic.
Stephen Hawking is probably one of the most physically disabled people alive. He is probably also one of the most intellectually gifted. He is probably pretty average as a husband.
Stephen Fry is probably one of the most intelligent people in Britain. He is also probably one of the funniest. He’s also probably one of the more severe sufferers from bipolar disorder.
Stephen Wiltshire is probably one of most gifted artists in the medium of line drawing we have seen in the UK. He has an MBE for services to art. He has profound autism.
Temple Grandin is also autistic, and like Stephen Wiltshire, received Special Education. She has revolutionised the design of humane cattle slaughtering facilities.
Chris Burke is an film and tv actor and folk-singer. He has DS.
John Nash won the Nobel Prize for economics and suffered from severe schizphrenia.
Mozart may have had Tourette Syndrome.
Van Gogh probably had psychosis.
These people are all exceptional in more than one dimension, and, moreover, are in the “high tail” of one distribution and the “low tail” on another. More common is for people to be less exceptional on many dimensions, although a substantial number may be fairly exceptional on one or two. In fact, while more people are near average than not on any one dimension, fairly few people are near average on many dimensions.
“Normal” isn’t normal.
And “contribution” needs to be defined if people are going to claim it as a dimension along which to measure “worth bringing into the world”.
Report abuse
I think no one has yet successfully minded being deceased. Whether they were previously a ‘person’ or not. I also think the planet net-suffers, and that a sterile planet would end all suffering. Now if we do the sums…..Oh dear. That’s not a pretty picture. Or a sad picture. It’s an absent picture. But it’s beyond my current budget anyway, and one has to live within one’s means. Or other people’s.
Wel, I didn’t like that answer, so I’ll pretend it’s incorrect, and go for fractional net-good instead. I can’t define this, but I’ll pretend I can. That should help. Now if we do the sums….Oh dear. The outcomes are time-variable, and can’t be computed without a time-machine. Mine’s broken. Curses! the one time I forget to insure it.
Hang on, got to get it down to 140 characters…..down’s…..cute……hardwork…..sometimes…..er…..copy something rimmer said……er….is it better?…..what was better again?…..oh I see…..it’s sometimes better….
Looks like I can’t help. Can’t we just agree to pop off Cliff Richard?
Report abuse
I’ve read down the comments quite a bit, and find that your comments, Ryan, line up best with mine. The two whacks at the same ball sound the same. Additionally, I think the apology sounds like a defense, not an apology. That’s fine by me–we don’t always have to apologize for our ideas when they hurt someone, but call it what it is.
Certainly there’s nothing about explanations 1-4 I can take any issue with, although most Down’s kids have seemed happy to me. Most also have occasional outbursts of serious, even physically violent, temper. I’ve been told by two people that’s common with the syndrome, but I wonder how much is also environmental. In most families, they’re the center of attention, and not a little spoiled. But I don’t see that they’re suffering from that; au contraire, their siblings and parents are. Their suffering when dying of leukemia is awful to behold, but any child can die of cancer or some other horrible disease. Not an issue, I think.
Dr. Dawkins, I’ve read most or all of your recent gaffes, and the worst deal with not having a real feel for being a woman in the modern world. So much has changed for the better during just my lifetime; however, very important things–often dealing with our bodily integrity and control–haven’t changed at all. I see some of your followers think that most people who argue with your points of view do so just to argue, or to be annoying, or to jump on you in particular for little reason, and so on. I think you’re making definite errors in judgment, many of which come from not knowing how others have to live in this world. That’s not an insult, just a fact. I have no idea what it’s like to be black in the U.S., so I’d never presume to tell them how they should feel, or think about their place in our society, etc.
Certainly I agree that Twitter isn’t good for thoughtful people; that you’re a target for the religious right, and that you’re watched far more closely than any of us are in public.
So I’d rethink this whole Twitter business when it comes to subjects outside your experience or education…or pay grade (as we say in the U.S.). So much of what you are asked to discuss is too nuanced for Twitter. Hell, it’s too nuanced for a short article. I’ve made one tweet in my life, just to see if it works. I never found anything nor anyone of interest to follow in the three days I read it. Just be silly on the damn thing from now on.
Report abuse
You’ve given your list. Here is mine: {everyone else you’ve ever heard of}.
So people can achieve despite their disabilities? That’s an inspiring message that might be useful to young people with disabilities, but hardly worth mentioning here.
I wonder what these people might have accomplished if they hadn’t been disabled?
How many of the people on your list are only successful because of their disability? Perhaps the autistic. Perhaps. It’s almost as if they were “enhanced,” but that original thought of mine might offend someone.
Report abuse
I’m more disturbed by the seemingly sycophantic who believe that you’re “running away” or you’re telling people what they may or may not discuss, when you are doing neither, than I am about Dawkins’ lack of experience or education about a topic. I’m tempted to ask, “straw man, much?” That’s the charge we level at religious people when they talk about atheism and those of us who are atheists/anti-theists. The religious argue against something we did not claim, e.g., something cannot come from nothing. You’re being admonished in precisely the same way, as though you’d said something you didn’t even imply.
I fully understand when you’ve had enough, whether it be personal attacks, accidental affronts, or simply sheer incompatibility. When you’ve had enough–or better still, when you believe you might be nearing that point–go, for a while, or forever.
I was recently told that because I had been a rape crisis worker in a large city, I was “too close to the problem” to have a “meaningful” answer. I rolled that around in my head a bit, wondering why education and experience in a field disqualifies one from having an opinion? The same could be said of you. You’re obviously rational, educated, and have a child with Down Syndrome. I guess you’re disqualified, too.
Report abuse
Alan, please refrain from making comparisons between your non-disabled children and the disabled until you have a definitive method of quantifying everyone’s “contribution” to society. Only the advocates of the disabled are allowed to do so without any evidence or well-defined metrics.
Your sons may make vast contributions to the global economy which generate the wealth allowing us the luxury of taking care of our disabled, but your neighbor’s DS child generates more smiles, which is perhaps more valuable.
Report abuse
you state here that you opted for the possibilty for an amniocentesis.. I think that when you take this option you are a priori more likely to A) have thought about what to do when … and B) follow through with an abortion when it gives a positive result for the Down syndrome..
it always is a personal choice to opt for an abortion, but as said, those who would do it, also go through the nerve-racking waiting for the result..
those who oppose abortion will not opt for an amniocentesis in the first place.. what´s the use..
I am a doctor (working as a trainee neurologist in Germany.. just one more year and I´m all done) and sadly do sometimes see children who are profoundly disabled (mentally, physically or both). usually these disabilites are due to an infektion which the mother had during pregnancy or the child had in early childhood, or an accident (car/ falling out of a tree..).. rarely do I see patients with a chormosomal syndrome like Downs…. these children that I see (as neurologist in the making) have some form or other of epilepsy and have one convulsion after the other, and are for the most part not aware of being a part of the human race (which in itself should be no reason to not exist.. please don´t get me wrong on this..).. I know I have no say in these matters, and do not wish to have.. it must be agonising sometimes to have a child who is so profoundly disabled… which is why I am all for the possibility to have an abortion if you have forknowledge about the disability of a child..
unfortunately the tweet ended up in a wider broadcast than intended.. does that mean that prof. Dawkins should keep his trap shut… No, not at all… being somewhat more careful in what to communicate with only 140 characters to be used… yeah, I think so…
unfortunately the tweet found its way into the lap of headhunters and they really went for blood.. there is no means of reasoning with these kind of people, but we should still try to and not let them tell us what we can or cannot say/ broadcast on TV/ radio or the internet…
Report abuse
leave twitter to the rest of the twits….
I really like that one-liner mate 😉
Report abuse
my sister had a child (I had a nephew) with DS, who unfortunately died before the age of 3 from a meningitis.. we were all saddened by this, me also, albeit I barely knew him..
his elder brother was set back a peg by merely the fact that he had a DS brother who needed special attention.. now that he is alone again he is the centre of attention of my sister..
so I do agree a bit with Nitya that a DS child can have a slightly negative impact on a family as a whole and on siblings especially..
my sister would not have had another child with DS she said.. she altogether wanted no more children after he had died.. she felt she was too old to give birth again.
I do not agree however that that should be a reason to terminate a pregnancy, there are other reasons to do that, and those reasons are not mine to determine, although I would have a difficult discussion with my girlfriend (or future wife) if she were to be pregnant with a DS child and not opt for an abortion… simply because I would not prefer to have a pre-disabled child..
Report abuse
cmiiw… is that really a word or an abreviation… if so, what the heck does it mean?
Report abuse
Well, precisely, Sedan.
I assume your comment is meant to be ironic, but yes, that is precisely the issue.
Or, if you want to be more quantitative, perhaps compare the carbon-footprint of Alan’s son with that of his neighbour.
There are a great many dimensions along which to measure “contribution”, whether positive or negative.
Report abuse
My point was that there are many dimensions along which we can be advantaged or disadvantaged, and while it is rare to be at the high tail of one and the low tail of another (although some extremes are associated, as you point out), it is perfectly possible.
So I come back to: what is your metric for “contribution”? If it is solely financial/economic I suggest it is inadequate. Who makes a bigger “contribution”: a man who makes millions selling microsoft operating systems, or a woman who makes a pittance looking after the hygiene needs of patients with dementia?
So what instead?
Report abuse
well said.. if it were a clergyman who said the child is disabled because the mother had outer marital sex, there would be absolutely no murmur in church… she (the mother) would most probably have even more problems than just a ´problem-child´.
Report abuse
good argument.. I also would sit down (no pun intended here..) and talk with my other half on what kind of impact a Down child would have on our lives (and its own..).. ultimately it would be her choice to either abort or not.. it would be my choice to stay in a relation or not… easily overlooked in our free society where women (luckily) have a 100% say about their lives and bodies.. but having said that… a foetus will become a person (hopefully, and hopefully a non-disabled person), and that is im my honest opinion not a life she solely can, and should, have a say about. (which is another thing which is sometimes very easily overlooked). but we cannot wait and sit around for a foetus to fully develop, come into the world, be raised and when fully conscious be asked: would you like to live?
having said all this though, and I know this is a bit contradictory to what I have stated just two lines ago, a foetus is not a person, yet!!
these are the kind of (moral) discussions I like.. it´s not as simple as everybody would like it to be.. there is no black or white. there may not even be any gray..
Report abuse
being alive is intrinsically a beautiful feeling… i beg to differ.. there are occasions I would have rather not been alive…
and what of all those people who cannot come to this conclusion because they have no working consciousness (comatose patients come to mind and children who are so mentally disabled that they have no idea whatsoever that they actually are .. there are these kinds of people..).. there are quite a few of these people, just lying around, wetting their beds and themselves, being fed either by a tube or they have a relfexive swallowing funktion…
and what about those suffering in hte world due to drought and famien, not to mention the idiocy going on by the hands of those who say they are doing the work of god (I mena IS and the likes..)??
you also said:
Suffering is caused by not accepting when something doesn’t go the way we did expect it and sooner or later everything ends up in a way we didn’t expect it. Happiness is caused by growing (especially mentally and morally) on the situations which did end up in a way, we didn’t expect it.
I have a little difficulty with those tow lines..
my persoanl feeling about happiness is that you work on a situation and it near enough ends up the way you perceived it to be, because you worked on it becoming that way.. happiness is what you make of your life.. and yes, a lot of things happen without you being able to do anything about it.. happiness could also be just being not happy about those things and letting life happen, unfold as it does, without the aim of directing it.. happiness is what happiness is, sam same for unhappiness/ suffering..
some comment about suffering by the great Jedi Master Yoda springs to mind.. but I don´t want to come over as a Star Wars geek (which I am, by the way..)
Report abuse
I wish a hell of a lot of religious asswipes would have that thought though.. that would make civilisation for the rest of us a lot nicer..
but you have a point.. it could be ( not: it is ) dangerous to cross the road an a busy morning.. is could be that you get hit by a big lorry and end up either dead or disabilitated.. is it therefor a bad thing to have a child and risk the chance that it gets hit by this said lorry??
maybe it is.. live is full of hazards and it´s part of life having to deal with these kinds of ordeals and the suffering which follows.. we have all lost loved ones..
I personally don´t think that a lesser life span (and nowadays DS people reach an older age than a century ago..) is reason to abort the foetus..
I cannot explain exactly what would be a good reason, but I think that if you can now perceive that a child, when it has reached adulthood, cannot cope for itself without professional help (and parents do tend to die before their children, leaving them (these DS people and the like) to be taken care of professionals) or the help of others per say, then it would be immoral to have this child.. a human being should, at some point in life, have the opportunity to fullfil his/ her own destiny..
I´m not sure that every DS child falls into this category of being helpless in the world, and for that matter I am quite sure that a lot of those walking this earth who don´t have DS or professional help, do fall into this category..
as I have said in an earlier post.. this makes for good discussions.. what is the quality of life, and who am I to decide this for somebody else…??
Report abuse
This is the nonsense which some people have been persistently asserting. There is nothing “minor” in the frustration, unhappiness, emotional, mental and physical disabilities, which have been listed and linked on this discussion.
Or perhaps you are just making stuff up and it is his deep understanding of biology, and mental, and physical disabilities, which you have failed to understand.
Have a look at the medical conditions I posted earlier in this discussion https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/#li-comment-153074 – and think about if you would be happier if YOU suffered with those disabilities, and would really prefer to be afflicted by them!
Report abuse
This is a long thread, so for those who may have missed some of the key issues:-
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/#li-comment-154421
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/#li-comment-154311
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/#li-comment-153074
Report abuse
Elizabeth:
And I have a bipolar friend who is on his ‘down’ phase at the moment and currently sleeps 22 hours a day. He lost his job a few years ago and will probably never work again. So what though?
The fact that a handful of ‘disabled people’ can make the best of their situations and achieve great things doesn’t allow anyone to hold them up as some kind of disproportionate argument against Alan’s statement “their contributions can generally be fairly assessed as less than those of their mentally sharp, able bodied peers” – bearing in mind that this was specifically in reference to DS people – before we started talking about Stephens Fry or Hawking (neither of whom has Down Syndrome as far as I know).
As much as some disabled people might achieve great things, it is normally despite their disability rather than because of it.
Coming back to the point though, I think it has already been mentioned that 99% of people with DS suffer from mental impairment – not mental enhancement. Even though some people with DS might be happy and possibly even make their families happier, it still isn’t something any rational person would want for their child if they had a choice. Being realistic, mental impairment is rarely seen as a positive attribute, is it. I don’t see any need for lengthy calculations to explain why such a syndrome is undesirable.
Report abuse
Not sure why this point seems so hard to convey, but let me try one more time:
I am not arguing that we should not terminate DS pregnancies. I am arguing that not immoral NOT to terminate DS pregnancies.
Clearly, most people who get as far as a positive pre-natal diagnosis decide to terminate.
Most people, however, with DS are born to women who did not receive a pre-natal diagnosis, and who were not “at risk”.
Therefore we are talking about a tiny proportion of people with DS – that small fraction of people with DS whose mother’s received a pre-natal diagnosis of DS but decided to continue to term.
Of this tiny proportion, most will have compromised fertility, therefore their option was not simply “abort and have another” but “abort and risk not having a child at all”.
Their decision, therefore, would be based on the value they put on having a child at all, versus having a child with DS.
Children bring a huge amount of happiness into the lives of their parents, especially when they are dearly wanted, as, by definition, this tiny subset of children with DS are.
My point is: if you want to make the utilitarian argument that the morally correct decision is the decision that most enhances human happiness and most decreases human suffering, then you have to compare the likely happiness that child with DS – welcomed into the world by their parents, who knew in advance that the child would have DS, but nonetheless were prepared to meet the challenge – brings his/her family and friends and the likely reduction in happiness created by the sliver of other people’s tax dollars they have to pay on account of the minimally increased total rate of DS births attributable to people knowingly proceeding with a DS pregnancy.
And that balance to me is not one that can be evaluated as a general rule as the term on the left is hugely dependent on the evaluation by the person who actually would make the decision – the mother.
Therefore, my argument is that the principle of a Pro-Choice should remain paramount – the decision is the mother’s. Not the decision of anyone here or elsewhere who think they know better.
And, personally, I would rather live in a society (i.e. it would increase my happiness to live in a society) where we valued people for something other than their monetary worth, and were prepared to do what we could for those less able, whether it is a smart person doing something for us dumb ones, a fast person doing something for us slow ones, a money-making one doing something for us poor ones, a friendly one doing something for us sour ones, or a sane one doing something for us mentally ill ones.
Because most of us will be on one or other of the ends of those spectra at some point in our lives.
Report abuse
Noticed errors after the correction window closed. The above should read:
Therefore we are talking about a tiny proportion of people with DS – that small fraction of people with DS whose mothers received a pre-natal diagnosis of DS but decided to continue to term.
Of this tiny proportion of mothers, most will have compromised fertility, therefore their option was not simply “abort and have another” but “abort and risk not having a child at all”.
Report abuse
Is this clarification enough????
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28948946
Report abuse
Let the mother sign a contract that she would not receive any government support above and beyond what the average child/citizen would receive and I will fully support her selfish decision.
At least that way her burden is only on herself, family, friends (and probably church). Let’s see if that effects the calculus of her decision.
(By the same principle I would also let motorcyclists ride without helmets if they are willing to be forego any medical care they couldn’t pay for themselves.)
Think what that “sliver” of tax dollars might have done for the girls of Rotherham who are actual existing people and not manufactured problems.
Report abuse
Speaking personally, a society that insisted on any such thing would increase my unhappiness.
I suggest it would also increase the unhappiness of every person with DS and every family with a family member with DS.
So I dispute that such a thing would tend to “increase the sum of human happiness”, although I obviously accept that it would increase yours.
Report abuse
Which is why we should let economists run the government based on math instead of psychiatrists do so solely based on feelings.
Report abuse
Because money has value and feelings don’t?
Report abuse
There is a lot more to economics than money, but no, that’s not why.
Simply put, economists are better at weighing feelings than psychiatrists, et al. are at understanding math.
For example, an economist could weigh the value of a mother making a selfish choice of having a DS child vs. offering 10 mothers fertility treatments to produce 10 non DS children. An economist could balance out the presumed joy that that extra DS child brings to the world vs. the vastly improved lives of dozens or perhaps hundreds of children who could be given better education, child services and oversight (once again reference Rotherham).
Economists make decisions based on real statistics, not anecdotes (even when there are 10 or even 20 anecdotes!).
Report abuse
ok
I doubt that.
Check the bolded. As I’ve said before: all the math and stats in the world won’t help you without a measure of what you doing the math and stats on.
No economist can “balance out the presumed joy” of anything without measuring, or estimating it in some way. And that is the point I’ve been making throughout this thread (or one of them) and which you seem reluctant to address.
And those statistics represent measures of something. So what is your measure of joy?
Look, Sedan, you seem to have me pegged as stupid person. I’m not. I do stats for a living, essentially. I also teach statistical methodology. And you can’t do stats without variables and you can’t have variables without measurements. So what are you measuring, and how?
Report abuse
Professor Dawkins,
As I thought that my critical reply to your article might be too long for this thread, I recently posted a comment containing a link to the reply. However, as the comment in question appears to have been deleted without explanation, I am now posting my reply in full below.
Respectfully,
Hane
Report abuse
Elizabeth:
Ok. Let’s put to one side the unnecessary examples of disabled people who have achieved greatness. We can also put to one side the mothers of DS babies who simply didn’t know they were having one. We can also forget the 9 out of 10 who reasonably abort a DS fetus when they’ve been warned in advance.
As you say, the very small percentage of mothers under the spotlight here are those who have been described as immoral (by Richard Dawkins) for deliberately continuing with a pregnancy in the full knowledge that they’ll be bringing a DS baby into the world.
Immoral is one word used. Others have included unwise, illogical or selfish. Let’s stick with immoral though – as defined by Richard in the ‘apology’ at the top of the page. It should be mentioned yet again that he was referencing his own morals, described in this instance as “a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering”. The “reduce suffering” part is often omitted and results in this obsession with calculating “the sum of human happiness”, which in turn results in countless examples of wonderfully happy DS children and their equally happy parents. The way I have understood Richard’s moral stance is that he wishes to increase happiness by reducing suffering. Now, you could easily argue that this is my own interpretation, but it does makes sense – I’m pretty sure that he wasn’t insisting that everything failing to increase the sum of human happiness is immoral. That would be silly.
One measurement would be the mother’s satisfaction / fulfilment from having a child (a DS child in this instance) compared to the detrimental effects from that child having impaired physical and mental ability. One might try (somehow) to calculate whether or not the mother’s desire to have a child is more important than that child’s own welfare.
Another measurement would be to see if reducing suffering increases happiness. Of course, this would require an assumption that the DS child is suffering by being impaired as described. One might even argue that the impaired mental ability results in happiness due to ignorance of the situation!
However, at the end of all the possible measurements and calculations, you’re still left with the simple reality that the pregnant woman can usually do whatever she wants to, regardless of the consequences. In one sense, that’s how it has to be in a free society – but it doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree with her decision.
P.S. I don’t think you’re stupid either – far from it!
Report abuse
Sure, although I think the point of my examples was missed – it wasn’t that disabled people can achieve greatness, it’s that there is no single dimension along which a person’s “ability” can be valued. Most of us are “abnormal” (i.e. far from the mean) on some measure. Being near the mean on most measures is itself “abnormal”! But, as you say, let’s put that to one side.
It makes immense sense. And it’s my own ethical stance.
“Detrimental effects” on whom? Plenty of good systematic evidence has been presented that suggests that people with DS are happy, their siblings on balance appreciate having a sibling with DS, that their parents, while stressed, gain joy from their child (and remember – we are only talking about those parents who went into this knowingly). So we are left, I guess, with the taxpayers who are putatively left with a slightly higher tax bill than they would otherwise have.
Sure, if the child were likely to be miserable, as is the case with some disorders that are detectable pre-natally. But there is no reason to think that people with DS are miserable and lots of reasons to think that they are as happy as, or happier as, than the rest of us.
One could. Or one could refer to studies that have examined the mental health of people with DS, which is, on the whole, better than those of people with other intellectual impairments, but there is still an increased prevalence of some mental health problems (including developmental disorders such as ADHD). However, again, remember we are talking about that subset of people with DS whose parents actively prepared for and welcomed their arrival. I’m not aware of any studies done on this subgroup. What is certainly clear is that prospects have vastly improved for people with DS over my own lifetime.
I think this is a cop-out. I think it is perfectly valid to present a secular moral philosophy with an argument as to why it would be a good universal. Indeed, most moral philosophy is secular, and forms the basis for our laws and justice systems and ethics committees. I have no problem with Dawkins saying what he thinks is immoral, and presenting a Utilitarian rationale. But if that’s what he is doing, then saying, oh, well, it’s just his own opinion, needn’t apply to anyone else, is a contradiction. If a moral philosophy is going to be more than a platitude, it’s got to be more than “the right thing is the thing you think is right”. And Dawkins (rightly) claims more than this for his stance. My beef (well one of them) with Dawkins, is his misapplication of Utilitarianism, not the fact that he attempted to apply it.
Well, that’s a relief! Thanks 🙂
Report abuse
I’m sad you missed my point entirely. Unfortunately, your blind devotion to a brilliant man with outdated information, has left you among the ranks of the intellectually confused on this issue. Oh and when referring to a human being with a medical condition, it is customary to use “person first” language. It is a child with Down syndrome, not a Downs child. Similarly you don’t have a “cancer baby”, “Alzheimers mother”, or a “diabetes son”. I have a son with Down syndrome. I hope this difference is not lost on you Alan. It is out of respect to the individual. Unfortunately, also, this debate has seemed to bring out the worst in people. So sad. It is the type of commentary I’d expect on the webpage of the Klu Klux Klan. “Was the hospital catholic?” Really Alan? Please, I hope you were just carried away in the moment.
Report abuse
You can’t, in all conscience, lecture on another’s word order (this issue incidentally covered elsewhere in the thread with a little less dogmatic certainty) then proceed yourself to use such terrible and offensive language as this quoted…
Report abuse
Now you’re confusing the foetus with the child; you’re endowing the foetus with personhood, even after it has been aborted. The aborted foetus does not have prospects, “having prospects” is not a condition attributable to an aborted foetus “as a potential child” – it is not potentially a child if it is going to be aborted, certainly not if it has been aborted. The physical matter that is the aborted foetus may be ‘recycled’ in some way – based on an advert I vaguely remember, one may say it has the prospect of becoming part of an iPad (Wowww!!!) or the “not-so-good” prospect of becoming part of a cheap biro (‘Booo!!). And of course that’s all anthropomorphic, metaphorical, poetical, dramatic, etc etc nonsense might we say? (As an aside it would be interesting to know how it would affect sales if “part of your iPad is made from an aborted foetus” were used as a promotional campaign)
You were though quite right when you said “[t]he distinction is crucial to the argument”. It is a very complex distinction to make – as Dawkins correctly says “There is no hard and fast dividing line” as to when a foetus can be attributed with personhood, and for good reason it “is much debated among moral philosophers”. It’s taken me a couple of days to get my head round it in the current context, and I’m coming to the realisation that however you are making the distinction, it is confused – you are talking of endowing, of prospects, which should be used, other than metaphorically, when talking about “persons”; except that you are insistent you are talking about foetuses and not children. But you are still endowing them with personhood attributes [and that is a correct use of endow – one endows ‘persons’ with such attributes}. You are regarding the foetus as a person.
A mother-to-be may attribute personhood to a foetus (still in womb, yet, or not, to be aborted) by singing to it, playing games with it etc. Attributing personhood in this way is a value judgement. If a woman (now perhaps not a mother-to-be – see what I did there – but still a person) discovers her foetus has a condition such that she will consider abortion, and up to that point she has developed emotional attachment, then it may be emotionally difficult to accept abortion, even if logically she accepts it is what she wants, and she has made up her mind to, and she will, abort. The emotions won’t sway her decision, but she still has to deal with them. Some do this by grieving (which may be judged dramatic – but if it helps, who cares?), some by distancing themselves, telling themselves “it’s not a child, it’s a foetus” – none of which is being dramatic, it’s being hard-headed, and is quite reasonable a thing to do.
By contrast many/all anti-abortionists would disagree with all this. For them a foetus is a person from conception, and for some even before that. For them this is a fact – maybe scientific, more likely God-given – not a value judgement. In taking this attitude, the anti-abortionist can attribute blame; can say a mother is committing a crime by killing a child when she aborts a pregnancy.
One rebuttal of this, is to say that personhood is attributed, not God-given, and the foetus is in the process of becoming a child until such time as the they can attribute it to themselves; perhaps decisively when they can metaphorically say “I am” – or literally screeeeaaaaam. The woman, in aborting, is not guilty of anything because the foetus has ceased being, in the process of becoming a child. That is not killing a child, it is preventing the foetus becoming a child.
Where you stand on this is very unclear to me. What is clear to me is your determination to apportion blame, as far as I see in much the way the anti-abortionists try to. But of course in the opposite direction. Your determination is focussed on blaming the woman for not aborting. That she is then to blame for the child having DS, and to blame for inflicting all this supposed negativity emanating from a child with DS onto anyone coming into contact with that child.
Now it makes no sense to me, and I think to others, how this endowment comes about. It seems spiritual, ethereal in some way. It’s certainly not scientific – you don’t give T21 to a foetus nor a child by taking a test and signing a form. In order not to link the child with the foetus you are creating a phantasm, a spirit of the child that the foetus was to be, were it not aborted. I fancy Dickens wrote some very good books along this line.
Then you blame the mother for not killing this phantom child, just as we can blame someone for allowing a person to slowly die, whilst they are enduring unendurable, insufferable pain, by not authorising their termination.
However, even though a foetus that is to be aborted has no prospects, the mother-to-be has the prospect of having a child if she is pregnant, if she is carrying a foetus. By aborting we are eradicating the prospect of her having a child, of the occurrence of that child. We are then, preventing the occurrence of that child. And that child would, were it allowed to occur, have some positive and some negative aspects to his/her life. Quite what aspects exactly, we don’t know, and quite what, exactly, has not been determined at the time of abortion. So we can say we have prevented the occurrence of some positive and some negative aspects, in the world; but we cannot say we have prevented the occurrence of some positive and some negative aspects in a specific child, because that child may not have had them. That child may not even have come to be.
By leaning against a wall, we are not preventing that wall from falling down, if it was not going to fall down anyway. And if it was not there in the first place?
A mother-to-be, given the choice, is responsible for having a child knowing it to have DS, just as anyone given the choice is responsible for having a child that upsets someone, sometime, and that sometime will bleed and cry sometime.
Allow her that choice, and that responsibility.
Report abuse
.
If the DS fetus wasn’t aborted and went on to become a DS child, that child would have prospects, wouldn’t it. It is very clear (to me) that these prospects are being compared to the prospects of the healthy replacement child.
Report abuse
Quite! –
With misunderstanding tangled and buried in increasingly confused verbosity!
Choices carry responsibilities and responsibilities should be allocated according to personal choices!
It is one thing to claim a personal choice. Quite another to claim that having made an exclusively personal choice “claimed as a right”; everyone else (including the infant) should then, (without being consulted or involved in the choice) be required to provide demanding and costly support arising from that choice, or struggle with the consequences of someone else’s selfish or dogma-driven personal decision!
(A statutory system of insurance is no justification for deliberately causing car wrecks, rather than taking evasive action!)
Report abuse
@Alan
To put UK numbers on this (and also to make Elisabeth’s point), in the UK there are some 512 (from memory) terminations following a positive test or set of tests for DS. 750 babies with DS are born. 700 are unexpected and 50 are despite a positive test.
We are discussing the behaviour of 50 women per annum here. Late testing, emotional bonding, religious beliefs and social pressure and an uncertainty some may have of Pete Singer’s rational reassurrance of non-personhood, cause this number and in my view forgiveably.
The more selfless choice is undeniably that of the 512. For them they deserve our consolation and support. DS risky parents, those most inclined to test, are generally those that want children with the least options if they fail.
Accounts of older and more dependent individuals with DS are scarce not because of numbers but because of an unnwillingness to talk about such hardship for the carers. The accounts I have tracked down of older offspring in the bottom half of the ability and health range, read as horrible compounded miseries. (It is for the possibility of these the 512 are sacrificing some of their own happiness.)
It is for this real possibility of later suffering that the 700 should receive our unconditional support.
As nine week, high reliability tests become available the harms to the 512 should go down and the selfless decisions should become less onerous and as they become so, more may test and go the selfless route if possible.
I do not know and have been trying to find out if these new tests better indicate more severe potential outcomes. If so this would be a benign attribute.
These considerations must be decoupled from societal attitudes towards disability. This latter needs a separate vigorous pro-active program (Normal is abnormal etc.) Tests for all manner of ills real and imagined are in the pipeline will make this DS issue seem trivial. Fudging the fixes for appearances sake won’t cut it. We must also appreciate that in eliminating the most debilitating conditions we reset the norm and the view of disability only ever re-scales. The seeming harm of ameliorating health programs to attitudes to the most disabled are, at least, only transient.
Report abuse
I want to tuck in at the end here and re-pose Simon Baron Cohen’s question “If we could cure mankind’s susceptibility to schizophrenia, should we?” (And he was probably thinking mostly of autism here but making a general point, so to add to autism, what of bipolar or depression?”
The answer, probably, to all of these would have to be no. All the conditions are in some sense a valuable capacity with the volume control up to eleven (yes even the anhedonia of depression may be misfiring of a-get-you through strategy in bad times) . Turned down even just to ten we may get considerable benefits albeit at some cost to the genius/savant/artist/entertainer.
Culture has become increasingly clever at exploiting the prodigious mix we present with our great variety of settings. Mixes of settings amongst still others allow translators of novel thoughts and insights to reach more of us. And as with genetic diversity the cultural diversity brings a tolerant strength and rapid adaptability. The sociopathic may find it easier to solve the trolley problem when delivering the lesser catastrophe really matters.
So no to curing some of these forever more, we may wake up one century and find ourselves stupid or understimulated, or hopelessly gullible or…. Limiting the excess of these conditions however must remain an absolute task. And maybe if we reduced our eccentric count a little the costs are more fairly shared.
But anencephaly? Neural tube defects? Surely. DS? Surely. Williams syndrome? Getting less sure. IQ and health impacts for this genetic disorder are not as severe in their worst extents, I think, as DS. There is a line….somewhere.
To repeat an earlier post, electing to remove a potentially seriously adverse health condition, gives transient problems for the existing diminishing population with that condition but only if we do not take good care of our cultural attitudes. Our culture is dependent on our rich variety and our ability to cope with that. We all get to help here except that weirdy Ms Utterly Normal. Still weirdness is what we do. She’ll fit right in.
Report abuse
The line is drawn by medical ethics and the law. By these standards (in the UK and elsewhere) Downs is a disability which justifies abortion. If the glowing tributes to Downs are accepted, then it’s an enhancement, not a disability. Therefore, the law should be changed to exclude Downs as a valid reason for abortion.
Report abuse
Nonsense. DS represents a huge and variable range of both abilities and disabilities and as I have found its long term negatives for the more disadvantaged are poorly represented by the surveys of families with children with DS.
Report abuse
[…]
Indeed the child would have prospects, as would any child that “occurred” as the result of an un-aborted foetus [which btw seems grammatically rather awkward, indicative of equating the “occurring” child with a foetus, whilst endowing the child “with prospects” with personhood thereby equating them with a child, which is not to say either such equation does not have a valid use – I’m rather mixing my metaphors]. He is though, specifically talking about the prospects of a foetus compared to a child (leaving aside that it is pushing the bounds of sense to say this of an aborted foetus, the only prospect it has is the bin). And it is essential to his argument that we attribute qualities of a child to a foetus – that way it’s not immoral to suggest aborting the possessor of those qualities.
To say of a foetus it has prospects comparable to an actual child, is one line of argument, used by anti-abortionists to support the claim that aborting a foetus is tantamount to killing a child. Since I am of the view that endowing personhood involves value judgement, then I could not say it is invalid to take that line. Though I would refute the conclusion, again because, and unlike the anti-abortionists, I am of the view that endowing personhood involves value judgement; it’s not God-given.
Many on this page, including Alan4discussion, are arguing that because DS should be eradicated (which I think it should, as should polio, which is a good argument for eradicating a foetus with DS – though not for eradicating the people who have DS/polio), they then conclude that foetuses with DS should without question be eradicated. This without question is the point at issue. It is used, taking a similar line to the anti-abortionists, to try to pin blame on the mother; though for not aborting, rather than for aborting.
Alan4discussion does this by endowing a foetus with personhood though quite how he does this, I’m at pains to understand. The anti-abortionist endows personhood on a foetus as an act of God; I, and others here, do so as a value judgement; Alan4discussion, it seems to me, does so in some spiritual sense, (we almost have a Holy Trinity here) but then seems to deny this using rather confused turns of phrase, what with medical conditions being endowed by taking tests and making decisions?!?
And while I agree, as a humanist, with one conclusion we can take from the anti-abortionist ‘no abortion – without question’, that a child’s life is a joyous, sacred event, I find the conclusion arrived at in a similar way from this ‘abortion – without question’ line of thought, that a child with DS would have better been aborted, to be obnoxious and offensive. And the conclusion reached by both, that a mother who has taken responsibility for a difficult decision is culpable, also to be obnoxious and offensive.
If one truly and fully denied equating a foetus with a child, then ceteris paribus one wouldn’t have a good reason to abort. There’s nothing especially problematic about a foetus having DS. In early term the foetus has no nervous system so won’t be aware of it, the mother-to-be can’t be aware either which is why she needs to take a test to discover it has DS and mental retardation of an early-term foetus hardly makes sense. So if you allow that the negative attributes a child with DS has are relevant to the discussion as to whether there are ever sufficient grounds to abort, then you have to justify why you deny that any positive attributes a child with DS has, and there are many, are relevant concerning whether there are ever sufficient grounds not to abort. And you haven’t achieved that; you achieve the former by allowing that the foetus is in the process of becoming a child, you only achieve the latter by denying the foetus is in the process of becoming a child. Having your cake and eating it, it seems.
There are sufficient grounds to abort a foetus with DS, and sufficient grounds not to. The former are far more copious than the latter, which is reflected in the ratio of actual abortions to non-abortions. In some, rare cases, there are not sufficient grounds for the necessity, let alone absolute necessity, of aborting, and the choice and responsibility should then lie with the woman carrying the foetus.
Report abuse
Phil, I am truly sorry but It's all there: Dehumanizing language ("Down's child"), an attempt to discredit good information (A 1:4000 chance is pretty slim in any circle), and the attempt to discredit all medical professionals working at Catholic hospitals? Claiming to be an authority on Down syndrome because he played with his neighbor's child? One person? These opinions are based on conjecture, very similarly to the opinions of various white supremacy groups. You can transpose the subject matter, but the style is the same. I find this conversation deeply disturbing. Again, with the advances being made to help quality of life, including the mild to moderate intellectual disabilities that people with DS face, Dawkin's opinion that he and we may be better off without their existence, is doing more harm to my son then his disability. I will not be commenting here again. [User’s email address removed by moderator – trust us, we’re only thinking of you!] I am a young, college educated, labor Democrat raised, non-religious, pro-choice citizen of the US. I abhor the politicalization of Down syndrome, a condition that has truly brought happiness to my life.
Report abuse
Apologies for being so verbose. I’m sure those who like to bandy phrases such as “prospects of an aborted foetus” without due consideration of what that actually says, would prefer nice, compact sound-bites. Likewise those who have difficulty knowing how to consult reference books. Unfortunately I have to warn that the study of ethics and morality is difficult; and involves rigorous analysis of what people say.
If you think I’m bad, try reading Kant; but most scholars in the field of ethics and morality think he’s essential reading if only to fathom what his arguments were.
It’s occurred to me that one of the great strengths Dawkins has as such a compelling writer is his inspiring, metaphorical ascription of attributes held by living beings, to inanimate objects. “The Selfish Gene” being a case in point. This has though brought criticism that his readers might easily misunderstand the scientific thought behind his work; not that he misunderstands it himself of course. Interesting that many of his supporters seem to have picked up this habit of ascription; though of course their writing isn’t quite so compelling. One for the meme theorists to ponder, perhaps?
Here we go again. Misconstrued use of English!
The choice to abort or not, is not allocated to the woman carrying the foetus. If she chooses to keep quiet about it then she has that choice. Nobody allocates it to her. It can be denied her, though practically that would involves millions of pregnancy tests every few months, as soon as carrying a foetus with DS by those desperate for a child went ‘underground’.
Neither is the responsibility. She has the responsibility for the choice she makes, nobody gives it to her even though she can refuse to accept it. I know you would like it to be allocated, and I know who you might like to do the allocation, given you freely and thoughtlessly do this, e.g. allocating responsibility to a mother, of giving a child DS.
I’m presuming you come from a country where you have a vote, you can lobby politicians, you can demonstrate, join rallies, jump on a soap box? I’m sure you’re aware of the impracticality of consulting for every “personal choice” made, even if it’s only consulting you. That’s why I choose to live in a democracy, and why I’m glad I have that choice. Giving you the vote is one way of consulting you; one way you are involved. I choose to exercise my option of giving an opinion, and in this case I seem to be winning, there is some support for women who choose to have a child with DS. Perhaps you need to become more politically active?
Report abuse
If the people want the economists to run the government, they will vote for that. If you think they’re wrong in not voting for that, you need to get back on your soapbox, and try putting together a decent argument. And good luck; given recent history I’m not sure I want the economists to run the economy.
Report abuse
I thought I made it clear in the first place, but I’ll explain it one more time!
The DS foetus IF NOT ABORTED, has POTENTIAL PERSONHOOD in which situation it has future prospects and medical conditions, comparable with those of a replacement sibling.
It is because of those unfavourable prospects, that the abortion is desirable. I would not knowingly take decisions to inflict disabilities on to my children.
Report abuse
The time machine you need is to make a change and wait and wait, maybe sending a proxy ahead, a youngster of some sort trained to check the statistical outcomes. She then discusses the results with her peers and they decide to do another tweek and wait and send measurers further ahead. When you are a hundred and ninety there may be a really good step forward. OR You can nip twenty years ahead to Denmark or thirty years back to the USA for a quick check.
And yes.
Report abuse
I appreciate your particular concerns, but hyperbolic language clouds the discussion. “Person first” had some good qualifications laid against it by In your face newyorker elsewhere here. It does depend if you wish to assume it to have actual positive merit (Aspie say) or build a community around it (Deaf).
Your personal experiences are wonderful and I am delighted. But this is a statistical issue and DS has a wide reaching profile and experiences with children are only a part of the issue.
I much appreciate your offer of personal experiences in more detail. In fact, I need more experiences from much older parents to help me understand the varieties of prognoses.
May I suggest you get the mods to remove your email address? I think you may suffer for your generosity. These things get hoovered up and flogged on.
Report abuse
I have put various links on this discussion to high-level medical advice.
Choices carry responsibilities and responsibilities should be allocated according to personal choices!
Not really! The fact that support is very likely to be required from the father, the extended family, social and medical support services, should be evident even with a cursory observation – and that the required efforts of such people should not simply taken for granted.
Try telling that to women in Ireland who want abortions!
This ASSUMES that society will step in to belatedly support those taking such actions. In many third world countries they would just be left to their own devices.
The lawyers of whatever country would explain to you why this view is mistaken.
Responsibilities have already been legally allocated in most countries. I simply recognise this fact.
I think anyone who has read through this discussion, would see the suggestion that my comments are “thoughtless” as comically missing a whole list of relevant points.
Report abuse
Alan, you’re not crazy. Your thoughts were perfectly clear the first (several) times you explained them.
Report abuse
I think we have make-it-up as-you-go-along faith-thinking here!
Mmmmm? I have been involved in the selection of two MPs, worked on campaign teams, and am currently local vice-chair of a political party!
Did you have some suggestions, or examples of your level of involvement?
Report abuse
I don’t think aldous was saying that DS should be excluded, just pointing out that is one of the logical consequences of accepting the rose coloured glasses view of DS.
Other logical consequences (some of which I’ve pointed out before) are that research for curing and treating DS should be cut and that parents of DS children should not be held up as saints or martyrs, but treated as ordinary (perhaps slightly more selfish) parents.
Report abuse
Phil, I wish we could promote your post to a higher level and/or put it up at the top of the thread, it is a very clear and concise presentation of one side of the discussion.
As you say, this issue is only going to become more common as technology progresses and we might as well get it out in the open now.
Report abuse
Links to personal blogs are against the site’s terms and conditions, so are deleted.
You have posted a long list of unsupported assertions and confused claims as to what fallacies are, and what is classed as “reasoning” (as distinct from disorganised, muddled or emotional thinking)!
“I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one”.
Logic is a deductive process. Emotional claims as responses, are neither evidenced nor logical. Emotional biases have no place in processes of logical deduction.
Reasoning about morality is no different in logical process to any other “reasoning”!
Considering emotional effects on people can be logically assessed, but muddling emotional feelings into the thinking processes is neither logic nor reasoning.
Many of the points on which you are confused, have already been dealt with in detail on this thread and on its links (in my comment immediately above your post) to medical evidence, covering the ranges of disabilities and their effects, on DS individuals and their extended families.
Report abuse
Well yes, there is something problematic, which would be the ongoing development of the fetus with DS into a child with DS.
The concept being explained here really isn’t that complicated. It is, very simply, the difference in prospects for a child with DS compared to the prospects for a child without DS. If you accept that the prospects for the child without DS are considerably better (as most reasonable people would agree), then to avoid the child with DS, you should abort the fetus with DS. A replacement child without DS would have better prospects by way of its normal (non-diminished) mental/physical ability.
That analysis of what people say does not include repeated deliberate misunderstanding of the meaning behind what they’re saying. It seems amazing that people who can appear so intelligent (if their self-promotion is taken at face value) can actually understand so little.
Report abuse
Phil, this is the whole “autism … enhanced, DS not enhanced” position that many criticized Dawkins for after completely mangling and seemingly intentionally distorting what he said.
The part about DS really shouldn’t be that controversial, it is not an enhancement and any argument that we need to keep adding people with DS to the population is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence.
The case for autism is much fuzzier, partly because the spectrum is so broad and varied (in my inexpert opinion). I certainly wouldn’t rule out the possibility that eliminating autism (et al.) might be for the overall good. Of course, that would require drawing a line somewhere, e.g. we wouldn’t try to eliminate people who were merely introverted).
There’s no doubt that some great accomplishments have been made by the autistic, schizophrenic, depressed, etc. But while those might have been enhancements for the individual, were those attributes actually required to accomplish those feats? I’d argue no. We are not going to miss out on ever inventing the warp drive because we have eliminated autism, for example.
The question is then, for me, is it worth it? There is not only a huge cost to society in supporting the vast majority who turn out not to do great things, but arguably the vast majority suffer somewhat from their condition and it’s not fair to them. The same calculus applies as with DS, just with different parameters.
The good thing is that we can do this gradually and/or reverse course if we like. It’s not as if we’ll lose the ability to create “enhanced” autistic individuals if we later decide that we need their unique insight as engineers (or even if we want to produce DS children as contented street sweepers). This kind of brave, new thinking is maybe what the world needs.
Report abuse
Ok, not sure where your recent comments about an aborted foetus having prospects stands, so you can understand why it wasn’t that clear.
That’s exactly how I would phrase this – it is not something the woman should, without question, have to do. For a woman for whom this is the last chance for a child, an abortion is both desirable and not desirable. It’s a dilemma.
This is a good illustration of the knots in which trying to maintain this without question entangles us.
Your argument is that a mother who does not abort a foetus with DS is knowingly inflicting that disability on the child. Because this is blameworthy, you argue that without question the mother should terminate the foetus with DS.
Compare:-
A child suffers a serious accident which renders her severely disabled for the rest of her life, as severe as a child with DS. By your argument, the mother of this child is inflicting disability on her child if she does not terminate her life immediately after the accident. Because this is blameworthy then without question the mother should terminate her child’s life.
That of course is rubbish. But it follows from your argument.
Neither mother inflicts disability on her child. It is inflicted through accident, or through genetic variation, neither of which the mother is responsible for unless she deliberately planned the accident or deliberately genetically modified her child’s DNA. What she is responsible for by allowing the child a life, are the consequences of having the disability, both for the child and everyone connected to that child.
You might argue that in allowing the child to live, in both cases she has inflicted a negligible tax increase on each of us, which seems to be what’s bothering you here. And if you want to try arguing it through Parliament that support should be denied for both mothers for this awful, blameworthy action, then good luck to you.
In most countries it would be illegal to terminate the child’s life, and in some countries it would be illegal to terminate the foetus. This mitigates the responsibility in both cases, passes the responsibility onto the State. You seem to want to remove all responsibility, away from the State, and push it onto the mother. So if you want to make it illegal not to terminate the foetus, then you need to think about laws making it illegal not to terminate the child’s life, to keep your tax-bill down.
The whole mess is simply cleared up by removing this without question; by ceasing in this attempt to blame the mother for something she isn’t to blame for.
Report abuse
Me…..?
Co-founder and vice-chair of the Trotsky-Anarchist Syndicate In Support of Pro-Choice Foundlings. 🙂
I suggest you come and heckle us!
Report abuse
Yes. As I was saying, endowing the foetus with personhood, regarding it as an entity that is becoming a child (and you’re not regarding it that way if you’re going to abort; it’s not then going to be a child, it’s going in the bin) – that is problematic. Remove that personhood and the problems go away. A foetus that is becoming a child with DS will have mental retardation. A foetus that is going to be aborted, will not, even before it’s been aborted.
That’s a little overly simple, as I’ve said before, and plenty more needs to be taken into consideration, but I agree with this providing the “should” does not imply without question.
If people are saying one minute that prospects apply to an aborted foetus, and the next only to an un-aborted foetus; if people use loaded, ambiguous terms without clarifying; if people misconstrue English meaning in use of words like “endow”; then that’s not deliberate on my part. And if what they say is confused, not because of awkward or ambiguous usage, but because there is no meaning behind it because their thinking is confused, then that’s not misunderstanding.
“My aim is: to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense.” [Wittgenstein]
Report abuse
It doesn’t follow from the argument because all accidents are not equal. A mother (or anybody else) who takes all reasonable precautions and an accident nevertheless occurs, is not blameworthy. A mother who, with knowledge of the consequences, ensures the transmission of disability from the fetus to the child, is guilty of culpable negligence, unless she can plead mitigating circumstances.
The contrary argument — that Downs is a blessing –makes women, who prevent the occurrence of Downs, the guilty ones. On this premise, the law (of England and elsewhere) would be changed and abortion of a Downs fetus would be a criminal act.
Obviously, whether or not the termination of a fetus was legal or illegal, it would be murder to kill a child. You are failing, once again, to distinguish a fetus from a child. What is your justification for this confusion? Are you arguing from religious doctrine?
Report abuse
Nice one, Oliver: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29107896?SThisFB
Report abuse
This muddles two arguments.
1). A woman (not necessarily a mother) who takes all reasonable precautions and nevertheless finds, after taking a test, she is pregnant with a foetus with DS, is not blameworthy. This is comparable to your first sentence.
2). A mother who, with knowledge of the consequences, ensures the “transmission” of disability from the 7 year old that had the accident, by not terminating her life, to the 8 year old that is visited regularly by care-workers and has severe mental retardation, is guilty of culpable negligence. This is comparable to your second sentence.
Your first sentence I would agree with; which supports 1).
2). is rubbish. From which it follows that your second sentence is too.
That, is for me to know, and for you to find out 🙂
Report abuse
That’s a good bet. Any argument not based on religion would have to at least make a little sense. This one is totally incomprehensible. (It’s “nonsense” in the normal meaning, not Wittgenstein’s meaning which would be too generous.)
Report abuse
Ok you lost the bet. So now you’ve found out.
I can understand why someone would put my mumblings down to espousing some religious doctrine if they couldn’t follow the logic behind it. Debates often run along lines similar to the Ancient Greeks describing the Sun’s apparent motion as Helios driving a golden chariot drawn by fire-darting steeds.
If someone asked them “why not think of the Earth as rotating?” they’d respond that‘s just nonsense. But more than that they give reasons why it’s nonsense – that we’d be blown away if it was rotating. Of course nowadays we can give reasons why it’s not nonsense.
The difference between you and I, is that I think that the “blame-apportionists” argument (“mother inflicting her child with DS”) is misguided, and I can give an explanation why I think that. You have only stated that you think I’m misguided, and your only explanation why is that I’m pushing a religious doctrine, which I’m afraid misses by a mile.
I’m not that interested in convincing blame-apportionists that they’re misguided, what’s important is that there are people who agree that they are, even if they don’t agree with my analysis as to why. And that they’ll use their vote. And I have feedback that there are such people.
Report abuse
Which didn’t make it a bad bet, except in your odd view of the world where you can retroactively make perfect decisions.
You’re right, I can’t follow the logic behind your argument, because there is none. I defy anyone here to be able to explain more clearly your position on this and keep it consistent with what you’ve written. It can’t be done.
You would have had a point if you wanted to equate terminating a DS foetus with euthanasia, in general. That a mother might be morally obligated as the primary caregiver to approve the killing of the child to reduce his/her suffering. That could have led to an interesting discussion.
But you didn’t make that point, what you said about accidents and blame is literally incomprehensible and logically absurd and there is not any point in debating it.
Report abuse
+1
I have repeated clear reasoning and explanations, enough times without answering further false analogies which claim to be logic!
Report abuse
No, not at all, just one you would lose.
Which takes us back to Sedan Aug 28, 2014 at 3:22 am where you made what can fairly be described as a retroactively perfect decision
“a fair coin flip […] you lose (which will happen 50% of the time)”
You don’t seem to have a good track-record of distinguishing “will”, “should” and “might” on this page. This may be part of the problem – difficult to tell.
This has underpinned my argument right from the start, though it’s more complex than just saying “terminating a DS foetus equates with euthanasia. What bit weren’t you reading?
Here’s a simple summary of my position:-
“For it to be morally defensible to assert (i) that a foetus without question should be aborted, and thus, because it is without question, (ii) not to abort would be immoral in some sense (perhaps legally, or ethically or whatever); it is necessary but not sufficient that it would be morally defensible to terminate the life (euthanasia) of the person that foetus would have become.”
Assume it would be morally defensible to terminate the life of a person dying in unendurable insufferable pain (euthanasia). This is necessary for it to be morally defensible to assert that a foetus which would become such a person, should be aborted without question. It is not though sufficient. If the person was in this unendurable state throughout its life, these two factors would I think be sufficient. It would then be immoral not to abort.
If the person had a long and enriched life before succumbing to this unendurable state, then even if one knew the foetus would become such a person, and finish their joyous long life in this horrible way, this may still not be taken as sufficient to have aborted the foetus. It would not then be immoral not to abort.
For it to be morally defensible to assert that a foetus with DS without question should be aborted then it is necessary that it would be morally defensible to terminate the life of the person with DS that foetus would have become.
And it isn’t. So it is not morally defensible that the foetus with DS should be aborted without question. So it is not immoral not to abort.
Report abuse
And my point was that both abilities and disabilities will be variable and that upsides cannot be assumed a uniform positive offset. It is a big enough statistical risk of some very bad outcomes that should drive decision making on termination and targetting cures.
Report abuse
I’d argue yes, absolutely. Creativity and the ability to focus are very variable capacities. I am very lucky to work with and count as friends very high IQ individuals who contribute disproportionately to society in terms of their intellectual and artistic creative output. Three have been/are diagnosed schizophrenic, many are aspie, some clinically so, one OCD, several bipolar.
There are a growing number of studies that confirm my anecdata. Here’s just one. More recently insights into schizotypal behaviour have shown another possible driver for creativity. Schizophrenics partially lose access to semantic memories. The result is that the brain confabulates its replacement. They make shit up to explain what already has a viable/cultural explanation.
The point is that mental illness is extremely negatively correlated with these positive attributes. Simple social disablement denies any useful life to be had BUT those dancing on the edge, with symptoms clustered around these psychopathologies, not suffering disablement by their mildness of expression, their being in remission or by being controlled by drugs (yay!), these people may be particularly productive.
In evolutionary terms these mental fine tunings may be advantageous in moderation, even better turned up a bit, but go catastrophicaly wrong turned up a bit more. To take out the whole attribute because of its failure at one extreme of expression is the essence of Simon Baron Cohen’s question.
Report abuse
I’d agree. How far is synaesthesia “making shit up”? I recall a woman who sees sounds as coloured shapes, debilitated by this condition when walking through a busy city at night. Conversely Messiaen, for whom musical notes were coloured, would write the colours he saw underneath the notes in his scores. Not at all helpful for me as a non-synaesthete who doesn’t speak much French, given how difficult his works are anyway but no doubt hugely influential on his musical creativity. Information overload in both cases, but in different directions.
Then there is the colour phi phenomenon; how much is colour perception itself “making shit up”? But could we have done without it?
Report abuse
Synaesthesia is an interesting one. It is suggested that it results when the associative cortices’ spurious neuronal cross links are pruned back (mostly between 18 months and 48 months) they are done so less comprehensively than in others.
(Human babies brains grow threefold in volume between birth and eighteen months and it has been recently argued that this physical expansion tears apart existing neuronal connections and that the perinatal conditions permit the creation of new neurons and connections to fill the space. The connections they make are manifold and spurious because the intial chemical gradients defining specific structures no longer exist. Pruning is subsequently mediated through experience and cultural inputs by microglial cells implementing a use it or lose it heuristic.)
It is also argued that this (novel mostly in the animal kingdom) crosscoupledness is the basis of our metaphorical brains. Boo Bah is the rounded shape and Kiki the sharp edged one. This not just for the written words but also the sounded words. Uplifting is better than falling back. Our physical experiences and the dopamine or cortisol hits they elicit map to abstract concepts. The more our cognitions are cross coupled maybe (within reason) the more our metaphorical landscape may grow. This may expand our capacity to map experiences in one domain to another, enabling us to plug a conceptual gap in one. It may increase our experience of feeling we understand something. (This can cut both ways and is broadly good in moderation). It may simply trigger richer aesthetic experiences.
For me the genius of western society now (and very possibly other societies in earlier fragmented times) is its ability to substantially utilise the myriad different and different types of cognitions resulting from the notable production spread of its members to leverage an astonishing level of inventiveness, aesthetic-itch-scratching satisfaction seated upon a seemingly stable and mostly kind socio-political infrastructure.
Report abuse
I have tried to read all the comments here but have given up because of the amount. Hope I am not repeating anything but I cannot really see how people can be offended if they have read even a quarter of all the stuff RD has written. It can only be true that people are looking to be offended if they take a small part and not take into account his whole ethos.
I would also like to ask (and hope again I am not repeating what anyone has already written) ;
If the option was offered of a “cure”, rather than abortion, how many would turn it down? What morals would suit there?
Report abuse
A human foetus is human but not a human being. Terminating a foetus is abortion. Killing a human being is homicide (in the circumstances envisaged). You are taking the position that abortion is a form of homicide. This is the Roman Catholic position and not the pro-choice premise on which Dawkins is arguing. Your argument is pointless, in the context, unless you want to start by claiming that the Roman Catholic position is correct, as appears to be your intention. That’s another discussion.
You’ve also got the dogmatic approach, typical of religion, by insisting that decisions are taken ‘without question’. From a humanist point of view, pro-choice means pro-choice. A woman is free to make the wrong choice on this issue, if that’s what it is.
Report abuse
With all due respect aldous, you’ve missed the point.
I’m NOT arguing that a foetus with DS should only be aborted if it is defensible to terminate the person it would become. The argument rests on that phrase without question – which is then used by others, not me, to claim that a woman who does not abort is blameworthy – that her actions are then in some way immoral. I totally disagree with this. It is anti-pro-choice.
I am not insisting the decisions are taken ‘without question’. The people I am arguing against are taking that position. And that is what I am arguing against.
Report abuse
Phil, can you tell me what your three schizophrenic friends have accomplished that is so fantastic that it could not have been done by someone without schizophrenia or other disorder?
If not, then you are not disagreeing with me. Those individuals may have contributed more than they personally would have (sans schizo), but these individuals were not required to advance technology, culture, etc. their accomplishments would have happened anyway in a purely healthy population.
Report abuse
No. What I am failing to get across here is that it is not about the psychpathology of say schizophrenia. It is about a proposed virtuous genetic characteristic that enhances creativity in some of the population and which under unfortunate circumstances (double heritage, specific epigenetic, environmental or cultural triggers) can be a catastrophe.
Baron Cohen’s question is should we eliminate a possibly virtuous genetic trait because of this small percentage of terrible outcomes. The examples of my friends and colleagues absolutely shows that only in remission or under other means of control are the virtuous capabilities accessible.
Our “normal, healthy society” may be thriving only because of these genetic predispositions in their pre-clinical form.
If you could genetically eliminate all risks of autism from the population would you?
Report abuse
An interesting Ted Talk demonstrating the exact process of synesthesia you’ve mentioned. ( for anyone interested. )
Report abuse
Phil, I understand the point you’re making and it doesn’t disagree with anything I’ve said.
Whether it is schizophrenia or autism we make the same calculation. Is the benefit derived greater than than the cost? You, me and Baron Cohen are doing the same thing albeit with different sets of data and different values.
Your question is like asking if we should ban guns in America. Are the benefits worth the occasional ‘terrible outcome’?
Another similar question, even more relevant perhaps, is whether we should legalize or even promote mind altering drugs such as LSD.
My gut feel is that schizophrenia and severe autism are bad things and we’d be better off completely eliminating them, but I’m willing to listen to people who have compelling arguments that go the other way.
Report abuse
Sedan. No. You said this-
The point is, you don’t get to draw the line. All or nothing. Complete elimination of the tendency, no matter how mildly or severely it is expressed. Do we genetically engineer out the cause of autism to manage the 1% severely affected, knowing Dr Sheldon Cooper will be no more, just as we should engineer out the genetic causes of deafness. (I’ll gladly argue that with anyone.)
Should we try to eliminate autism from human society altogether? Never. The risks are insanely large.
Nitya. Thanks for pointing to Ramachandran. Its fascinating how rapidly this area moves on. His hunches have been paying off nicely. I wonder what else he he foresees?
Report abuse
AFAIK there is no single clear identifiable marker for whether someone is ‘autistic’ or not so that makes your hypothetical difficult to answer.
I would not set off an atmospheric chain reaction that instantly removes autism from 1 billion people across the planet. No, that would be reckless.
However, I would run an experiment that removed autism from 5000 people out of a population of a million and study the effects.
Even in the imaginary world of Big Bang Theory Sheldon Cooper is not a unique genius. Who is to say that by removing autism from a million other people that one of them might not be just as smart? If the cost associated with the autism of those million were spent on better education the math might even work out more in favor of eliminating autism.
Let’s look at it another way. If autism overall were a benefit to society why would we bother trying to prevent it at all? We would encourage mothers to take all the risks that we believe might make autism more likely. If vaccines caused autism (which they don’t, this is hypothetical) we would encourage vaccine use because more autism is better for all of us right?
Report abuse
I find 21 occurrences of the phrase in this discussion. They are all used by you, quoting you or, in one instance, by a poster who said it would be his personal decision. You are, therefore, having a spurious argument with yourself on this point.
Report abuse
Nicely done.
Report abuse
Perfectly put. Well done.
I’m now waiting for ‘spurious’ to be redefined in excruciating detail…
Report abuse
Yes, well done aldous, you’ve stabbed the straw man.
You have though made me aware that what I said was ambiguous, thanks for that.
So to rephrase :- “The argument rests on that phrase without question – which (the argument, not the phrase) is then used by others”
An argument can of course be phrased in many different ways, and still be the same argument. Various people are using this argument, both for and against it, and phrasing it in various different ways.
I am arguing against the argument, part of which can be phrased “without question a foetus with DS should be aborted”.
Does that make it a little clearer for you?
Report abuse
Why do feel the need for it to be redefined? Straw man argument or not, aldous’s use of the word “spurious” is perfectly comprehensible. All he now needs do is put together an argument why and how my argument is spurious. I await with eager anticipation.
Report abuse
Did I say it needed to be redefined? In fact, I didn’t even say it should, which you would undoubtedly misunderstand as must be redefined. Before long, you’ll be making a magnificent case outlining how you are against those who without question insist on unnecessary redefinition of perfectly adequate words.
Report abuse
No, Just a conjecture on my part, given you expressed some expectation of this… a conjecture that you might feel the need for it, not that you think it needed to be, which aren’t necessarily the same thing.
Why, do you feel a need for this to be done?
🙂
Report abuse
There is one major thing wrong with this statement:
What makes you sure that a Downs child would cause any suffering? That’s a ridiculous and almost entirely baseless assumption.
Report abuse
The medical evidence based on observations of Downs children!!??
. . . . . . . In the view of those who have not looked at the evidence, or bothered to look at the links on this thread!
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/#li-comment-153074
Would you be happier if YOU suffered with those disabilities, and would you really prefer to be afflicted by them, or watch a child suffer with them when this can be avoided?
Report abuse
@ Alan4discussion:
Thank you for your reply.
Firstly, while the form of a deductive argument may be value-free, deductive arguments require import from premises, which are necessarily value-laden in moral reasoning. Given that at least one of the premises in the debate in question concerns the sum of happiness and suffering, the formulation of such a premise would require one to make evaluative judgments about the weight of these emotions and about the appropriate methods of quantifying them. As Professor Dawkins’ utilitarianism concerns the total sum of everyone’s happiness, peoples’ emotional responses towards their loved ones with Down’s syndrome must also feature in the evaluation.
Secondly, moral reasoning is different from propositional reasoning, because whereas the conclusion of a propositional argument states what is or is not, the conclusion of a moral argument states what one ought to do. Such imperative statements cannot be deductively entailed by statements of fact. Furthermore, because such imperative statements are not true or false, it is questionable whether they can be used as premises in valid deductive arguments. Therefore, it is not at all clear whether deductive logic is applicable to problems involving ought statements.
Thirdly, even if there is a way to analyse a moral decision via a deductive process, Professor Dawkins provides no evidence that he has done such a thing. His conclusion does not, as he claims, follow logically from a pro-choice stance. A pro-choice stance entails that the choice to abort or continue the pregnancy is the right of the woman. Unless he introduces further value judgments about what one ought to do, he cannot arrive at the conclusion that one ought to abort with reference to a pro-choice stance and empirical facts.
Respectfully,
Hane
Report abuse
Is your entire life picture based upon assumptions?
Report abuse
I thought your response to be very moving. Thank you for sharing your story.
Report abuse
Hane, your responses are of the type typically associated with denials of science launched by the religious. This is not an accusation that your opinions are based on religion, just that your denials are equally spurious.
Basically what you are doing is asserting that your position (whatever that may be, which you conveniently don’t put down in detail), is superior to Dawkins’ because he hasn’t exhaustively researched and rigorously proven his conclusions to your satisfaction. Ignoring that you (or anyone who holds a counter opinion) have also done nothing of the sort.
The assumption being that anyone who tries to apply even a hint of reason or objectiveness to their analysis of a problem can be immediately discounted if they don’t have every answer. That creationism is equal to evolution until every missing link is supplied and every minor puzzle is solved.
Hand waving is not a better approach to solving problems, even moral problems. That is what you are proposing as an alternative.
Report abuse
Not really! Reasoning is reasoning and logic is logic. Objectives or value judgements may change but unless the reasoning process is logical the results will be flawed.
Moral arguments should not be plucked out of thin air!
Without a factual evidenced basis for scientific predictions of outcomes to be made, there is no basis for making judgements on possibilities of obtaining “what ought to be”, and no basis for expecting any particular outcome on which evaluations of suffering or happiness can be made.
If they are just dreamed up out of the air or determined by “introspective faith in intuition” then there is no basis for assuming any connection with material reality at all!
What is perfectly clear, is that without an objective, evidenced, informed view, of the practicalities, followed by a logically reasoned possible range of outcomes, there is no basis for making any judgements whatever!
Trying to cast doubt on evidence based rational decision making, makes no counter-case, and offers no realistic alternative process!
Report abuse
Firstly Dr. Dawkins, I am a fan of your writing and spoken words on the need for a more reasoned and rational approach to life; or rather the complete lack of a need for religion and the belief in a god. I even had the pleasure one time of you signing a copy of ‘The God Delusion’ for me. I am also pro choice and I do not have any close relative or friend with Downs Syndrome.
Additionally, I can understand how 140 characters is not enough to express any sort of a complex idea adequately, and how concise writing like that is easily misconstrued. I even have sympathy for you, for the fireballs of hate aimed your way.
However, having read your apology/explanation I am disappointed with its implications and I strongly disagree with your conception of morality in the case of Downs fetuses.
To say on the one hand that abortion is a choice for the woman, and then on the other say that she might be acting immorally from the point of view of the child’s own welfare is duplicitous.
I can assume you would be pro abortion in these circumstances because of the burden that having a child like that would be on the parents, the challenges the child would face in life, and after the parents passing, the possible burden on the wider community.
I believe you are on a slippery slope here. For example, is it immoral of impoverished people all over the world to have children? These children have little hope of a good education, live unhealthier lives and on average have lower life expectancies. Where would you draw the line there?
Report abuse
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
Impoverished people who cannot properly support children, should have contraceptives available to them, rather than having contraceptives denied to them by legislator politician-mind slaves of the Catholics and other religious groups!
Report abuse
http://www.neatorama.com/2010/07/24/evolutionary-biology-explains-why-poor-people-have-lots-of-kids-at-a-young-age/
Report abuse
This is good corroborating info. It is why Melinda Gates said the Gates Foundation chooses to tackle health and child mortality issues before moving on to offer contraception. Contraception is substantially ineffective without motivation in its users.
Report abuse
“However, we’d rather have the you without the disability”
No… you would not ever have “the me” without the disability. The disability is part of “the me” as this thing called “me” ever exists. If I did not have my disability, I would not be “me” but someone else, even from embryo on.
Report abuse
This is a silly semantic argument. Anyone who bothered to read anything about Prof. Dawkins (and one would assume that someone referring to him for advice would have) knows that he STRONGLY believes in not forcing his opinion on others, and when he gives an opinion it is simply that and based on his own personal morality and logic. His response, while brief and perhaps “unsympathetic”, was not at all disingenuous nor doe he not have a place to express his opinion on a matter.
If you are the type of person who can’t do a little research on someone, and insists that every time someone speaks they should consider how every single person might misinterpret it, then perhaps YOU are the one who should stay off twitter. Dawkins never, ever states that a person who doesn’t choose to abort is immoral, nor doe he imply that. He simply states his own personal opinion on the subject, just like he was asked to do.
This concept of tiptoeing around every issue out of fear of offending someone is nonsense. People get offended, it happens, be offended and if you’re offended enough, start a cause and offend back. Feeling and emotions are ever important to the human status but they are still immaterial, subjective constructs and need to be treated as such. If you are offended by something someone says,, step back and get to the root of WHY you are offended, then create a logical argument that refutes the offending statement. Simply stating “you’re wrong because you hurt my feelings” is a quick way to get your opinions ignored.
Report abuse
I feel like you are making some pretty big stretches of logic here, as well as basing said logic on fallacies. First of all to the point that “happiness is based on morality”. I disagree with that entirely and would argue that morality is based on happiness, in that net morality is more likely when people seek happiness. But to that point we also need to discuss what happiness is. I feel you argument infers that there is this intrinsic, almost tangible thing that is happiness, but that isn’t the case as happiness is simply a concept, a construct of the limitations of language and expression. As to what happiness “is”, it’s a word we use describe positive emotions we feel. Positive emotions are chemical reactions in our brain caused by outside stimuli and other variables. For example when someone says “I love you”, they are actually saying so much more about how they wish to protect you, how they value your existence, etc all of which results in a form of self-validation, which in turn causes hormones such as dopamine, etc to release in your brain and cause the emotional response we refer to in the English language as happiness.
Now when i say it is my opinion hat morality is based on happiness, if you think about the evolutionary process it makes perfect logical sense for beings such as us who evolved with large brains but frail bodies, to also evolve a sense of morality for self preservation. I would actually suggest that morality could be traced back well before homo sapien, and probably as far back a some of the first mammals. Mammals were not that well suited for the environment they first arose into, a world that was harsh and terrible and filled with a large amount of predators that could have easily wiped us out. In a word like that, does it not make sense for evolution to favor those that work together, protect each other, help the weak, etc in order to ensure the maximum reproductive possibility? Does it not make sense for a creature out of place to band together rather then compete with itself when there is already so much outside competition?
That all out of the way, we as modern humans have more or less taken the reigns of our own evolutionary process, we’ve grown beyond the need for Darwinian evolution, or at least aren’t patient enough to wait for it to take us to the next step, and have created an evolution of culture and technology. What this new world also affords us is the ability to define and redefine things, especially when it comes to personal morals. What once may have been “It is immoral to abort any fetus because every member of the clan adds to the numbers and increases our chances of survival” can now be seen as “It is immoral to bring into the world a child which has a statistically higher chance of suffering and lower chance of success then the vast majority”. The only real difference between these two is that the first is a necessity of the time(hundreds of thousands if nor more years ago), the second is, not a necessity, but a practical analysis of the time (now). Still are both morally and logically based, however one has a larger impact on the future of human race then the other.
Now I think the real problem here is that people look at morals as if they are absolute, and cannot vary in any degree. This is simply not true, the very fact that different people hold different morals means that there is no absolute morality. Morality varies from person to person and no one morality is more “valid” then another. If there was such thing as absolute morality, we would have no need government or police, we would all know exactly what was moral and behave as such. Instead morality flows and changes and varies in scale. While some issues of morality may seem pretty set in stone (don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t rape) and necessary for a functioning society, others are less so and are more personal. These personal morals are generally based on worldviews, political views, religious views, and practicality. That’s where this specific moral quandary comes in, personal morals based on logic, practicality, and worldview. Sometimes morals like this are accused of being “cold” or “harsh” but that doesn’t make them less true. It also doesn’t mean that the people that hold them will follow them. Of course some will come in here and say it is not “honorable” to hold morals yet not live to them but to that I reply, I don’t care and neither should anyone. “Honor” is just another construct that means different things to different people, so if in my opinion my actions or words are “honorable” then they have to be by the very nature of honor.
To conclude, too many people equate moral/immoral to good/evil and that is a false dichotomy. Moral and Immoral may seem to represent good and evil in some ways, but they are not the same thing. And someone saying that your actions are “immoral” while perhaps offensive if you choose to take it as such, is simply a statement of opinion and a way to understand the views of the accuser.
Report abuse
Yes, I agree entirely that given the situation you just presented, it absolutely would be immoral not to terminate the pregnancy as in not doing so you are bringing a larger burden on the rest of your family and possibly your community as a whole. Just because the moral thing to do is to abort in that situation however doesn’t make the situation right. So while it is immoral for that family not to abort, it is even more immoral for us as a species to allow this horrible culture that created these conditions in the first place to continue, as the culture itself reduces the sum of happiness in a massive way. Instead it would be humanities moral imperative to fix that situation and create a place where it wouldn’t be immoral to not abort.
The same goes for the DS argument, right now the moral thing to do is abort. Again that doesn’t make it the “right” thing to do because right and wrong is an even more personal construct then morality, but it is morally sound. However that also means that it is our moral imperative as a species to use science to hopefully find a cure for the disorder and in turn change the answer to that moral question.
Report abuse
Unfortunately for all of you, none of you have a child with Down Syndrome. Our daughter is the greatest joy in our life and it is not just because we cherish her smile. She graduated from high school with her peers, has a job in a grocery store, uses a computer to Google her favorite actors and writes stories which she prints and puts in a binder. She does her laundry, cleans her room, makes her breakfast and lunch and reads out loud to her father and me every night. She takes care of our 4 boxer dogs and waters her plants. She manages her feminine time of the month and refills her own thyroid prescription every month.
Who the hell are you to say that her life is not worth having just because she has Down Syndrome? She comforts me when I’m sad or feel defeated by my job. She makes us laugh with her sharp eye for the ridiculous. She will never forget your birthday or fail to wish you sympathy for the passing of your loved one. Thank heavens she was born to us and not to you. She is the best thing that has ever happened to our family of 5 and we are all better people because of her.
Whether she can feel the pain of being aborted is not the issue. Depriving those cells of what they will become is.
Having Down Syndrome is not a capital offense.
Report abuse
Just to add new scientific information:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32153941
Testing pregnant women’s blood for disorders in unborn children promises dramatic advances in medicine, researchers have said.
A US team writing in the New England Journal of Medicine say Down’s syndrome can be reliably tested for in the mother’s blood.
“I think it broadens access to testing. really; a number of women will decline invasive testing because of the risk of miscarriage and they may well take up non-invasive prenatal testing.”
She said progress in the area was “very rapid” and tests for other genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis were also becoming available.
Meanwhile, Great Ormond Street Hospital has started offering similar tests.
Report abuse
Unfortunately South Americans have the Catholic Church and theocracy inflicting counter-productive archaic laws on them!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36595448
Fears over the Zika virus have contributed to a “huge” increase in the number of women in Latin America wanting abortions, researchers say.
Estimates suggest there has been at least a doubling in requests in Brazil and an increase of a third in other countries.
Many governments have advised women not to get pregnant due to the risk of babies being born with tiny brains.
The findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Sixty countries and territories have reported cases of Zika being spread by mosquitoes. More than 1,500 babies have been diagnosed with microcephaly caused by the virus.
Zika prompts abortion dilemmas
A termination remains illegal in many parts of Latin America, but women simply turn to unofficial providers.
Women on Web, which advises women online and then delivers pills to end a pregnancy, is one of the largest.
Report abuse
One thing that amazes me is the absence of the term human rights in any of the above commentary. A white collar criminal may detract from the sum of human happiness (whatever that is), but we don’t dismember him and she enjoys a “right to life” under any Western constitution. A depressed adult may be themselves miserable and bring down those around them, but no one doubts they have a right to live. If Mr. Dawkins were disabled in a car accident, we would not think it our right to take his life; our views on whether his life is a good thing would stop at his right to life. I may see little social value in a narrowly trained scientist who thinks people should care about his rather simple social and moral musings because he has a phd in something, but I don’t doubt he has a right to life. Why does that principle not apply to early human life – because it is not convenient for adults to be consistent. We can shape our own lives better if we deny rights to the humans we create.
So we’ve decided that some humans don’t have a right to life. All humans are not equal. Human rights are not universal. They depend legally on how developed you are. Practically they also depend on how wanted you are – just like orphans in earlier ages.. If you are born, you have a right to life technically at least. If you are wanted you will be protected by a parent. If you are unborn and unwanted you don’t have a legal right to life and may not be protected by a parent. If you are marked for abortion and accidentally born alive, no one may bother to respect your legal right to life and you may be left to die since your parent won’t protect you and the medical staff didn’t think you had a right to life to begin with.
Despite the advanced state of our society we treat young disabled humans like pre-modern peoples did – we destroy them or leave them to die.
On a personal level, I taught a downs child. He was wonderful and happy. My son played football with a downs girl this summer. When he fell and cried, she was the only one to ask him “what’s wrong” and tried to console him. The most compassionate child on the field. I would value her life more than a narcisistic biology teacher for the logical reason that I enjoy thinking about her much more.
Report abuse
He would however in many civilised countries have the right to choose. Such matters have been discussed on threads on voluntary euthanasia.
You don’t seem to have much regard for expert scientific opinion! Making disparaging remarks, is NOT equivalent to presenting a reasoned argument.
Abortion of early stage deformed embryos is because the quality of human life is valued , and many of us would not voluntarily wish a child to live a life with deformities and handicaps.
A common error of the so called “pro-life” advocates, is their inability to distinguish a sentient human being from a piece of human tissue composed of bunch of cells with no brain – usually due to being taught medical biology by theologians instead of scientists.
Report abuse