Dawkins on Down Syndrome foetus: "Abort and Try again"

[the_bob_delusion]

“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,” -Dawkins.

Discuss. 

[isgodnu]

Standing shoulder-to-shoulder, the entire world's population could fit within the 500 square miles (1,300 square kilometers) of Los Angeles.

[lealta]

To be clear, when you say require, the Church does not enforce.

The church cannot enforce a woman's choice, but the church does have the right to excommunicate a woman if they so choose. And as far as the Catholic Church goes, the only reason I brought it up in the first place was in response to your comment:

In all the abortion topics, I've never seen anyone say that in the case where it is to save the life of the mother, that that is immoral.

As a Catholic, you should know that the Catholic Church DOES consider it immoral, even if it is done to save the mother, if they specifically abort a fetus. 

[ruloinfovoter]

Yes, the Church cannot enforce, that's what I said.

And yes, the Church has the power to excommunicate.

So so far, I am waiting to hear something I don't know.

As to the next part about why you brought it up.  I have no problem with why or how come you brought it up.  It was someone else that asked the question about who cares.  

No, I believe you misrepresent the position of the Catholic Church.

You can read my previous posts.  I spelled it out very clearly.  There is no misunderstand, at least not on my part.

[watta*drama*queen]

http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-and-love/parenting-and-families/why-i-kept-my-baby-after-finding-ou...

You discuss Bob!

[iapetus_rocks]

Bob. I agree with Mr Dawkins. Why knowingly bring a disabled child into this world?

I understand there might be personal reasons but I would posit that these are selfish reasons, ignoring the huge cost to society  of caring for and and even attempting to educate such people.

I know the sentimentalists will can me for my opinion but to knowingly bring into this world a disabled child is really a rather  selfish act, ignoring that their decision to do so would  impose some cost to the rest of their community and it would condmen that child to a life which would be miserable.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@iapetus_rocks wrote:

Bob. I agree with Mr Dawkins. Why knowingly bring a disabled child into this world?

I understand there might be personal reasons but I would posit that these are selfish reasons, ignoring the huge cost to society  of caring for and and even attempting to educate such people.

I know the sentimentalists will can me for my opinion but to knowingly bring into this world a disabled child is really a rather  selfish act, ignoring that their decision to do so would  impose some cost to the rest of their community and it would condmen that child to a life which would be miserable.

---

I agree with you.

On saying that I would have difficulty aborting  a child with DS. 

I think you would have to be a really strong person to make that decision and live with it.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@iapetus_rocks wrote:

Bob. I agree with Mr Dawkins. Why knowingly bring a disabled child into this world?

I understand there might be personal reasons but I would posit that these are selfish reasons, ignoring the huge cost to society  of caring for and and even attempting to educate such people.

I know the sentimentalists will can me for my opinion but to knowingly bring into this world a disabled child is really a rather  selfish act, ignoring that their decision to do so would  impose some cost to the rest of their community and it would condmen that child to a life which would be miserable.

---

You give two reasons for not giving birth to a disbaled child 1) that the child is condemned to a life of misery and 2) that society should not required to incur the cost of supporting the child for the whole of its life.

1) In the case of children with Downs syndrome- the ones Dawkins was specifically referring to - these people do not inevitably have miserable lives - in fact the ones  I have met have all been conspiciously sunny natured and happy - both as children and adults. Should there be a sliding scale - with a medically and legally determined cut off point -  on which to measure potential life quality?

2) If the burden on society is so onerous should we also  consider euthanasing those whose condition is not apparent until after birth or  who become a burden on society through an acquired disability later in life?

What is the fundamental difference between aborting a six month old foetus, euthanising a newly born infant or euthanising an adult who has been left with brain damage as the result of an accident?

None of these questions necessarily represent my personal opinions - I put them forward only for consideration and discussion.

[i-need-a-martini]

But isn't part of the problem she-el, that you won't know how profoundly disabled physically and intellectually the baby will be in utero. And I suppose there is the dilemma, because equally you can't know how ABLE they WILL be.

It's a hard philosophical debate to have because it doesn't have definitive answers.

[katydidthat]

Another post not representing my opinions, but putting forward something for discussion.

To generalise ...  there are two types of post on threads like this:  

The "I would" ...

and 

The "society (or "they") should" ... 

But, what really matters is the decision of the pregnant woman, (and her partner, if there is one).  If someone finds out they are pregnant and the fetus has a disability and the parent/s think that they would be totally unable to cope raising this child, then they have a choice.  If parents want to go ahead and have the baby, that's another choioce.  

What I'm sayinig is that "they" don't have a say ... and "they" shouldn't.  

And, Dawkins should really start thinking or getting some experience in particular areas before he spouts off ... but ... hang on ... is there a book to sell at the moment?  

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

But isn't part of the problem she-el, that you won't know how profoundly disabled physically and intellectually the baby will be in utero. And I suppose there is the dilemma, because equally you can't know how ABLE they WILL be.

It's a hard philosophical debate to have because it doesn't have definitive answers.

---

Which begs a coiple of  questions: if a mother can choose to abort a "defective" foetus, should she also have the right to euthanise a "defective" new born infant; and if post natal tests proved the infant to be "defective" aat what age would it be considered too old to be euthanised .

It is also worth considering that In some places "partial delivery' abortion is considered OK