[cerveza_fiesta]

Illuyankas, on 22 August 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

I understand you don't personally feel this way, but you know you're advocating that women who don't want or can't handle even the chance of a baby with Downs be forced into keeping it despite their wishes, right? Like your province (and statement) is explicitly 'your rights as a person are gone, you are now the incubator of BABY with all the permanent negative bodily changes health-wise and chance of death that entails' in an irrational and harmful way, and all that. Plus the arguments such as 'a woman who doesn't want a baby with Downs enough to want an abortion but is forced to give birth to it is going to resent that baby for both her and its whole life, which doesn't suggest a good life for that baby especially when the alternative is the unfortunately inevitably shitty adoption service for disabled babies' etc.

I don't know if the line at 24 weeks is the only solution but I do know that abortion should be the woman's decision to make, regardless of outside pressure, and if she wants that abortion she's going to get it, no matter the risk of death. Whichever province you're in has dickhole rules, incidentally. Totally agreed on Dawkins, at least.


Oh and I meant his work on genes, Cause.

Before you go on a big rant Illy, I'll clarify. I absolutely did not advocate anything in that post, and I'm unsure how you interpreted it that way. Apologies for the confusion at any rate. I was trying to relate a personal experience in the context of the place I live.

EDIT: ok, I can see how you interpreted it that way actually.

I'm saying that:

• The system such as it is doesn't necessarily allow for abortion, or even inform you about the *possibility* of birth defects before you're quite a ways along with the pregnancy.
• At the point you are in a position to make an informed decision, you are already quite emotionally invested in the idea of having a baby and one's expectations can override any and all logic. It certainly did with me.

If you want me to actually advocate something, then I advocate unequivocally that the choice should always be with the parents. Access to abortion should be available at any stage of the pregnancy within reason (where you draw that "reason" line isn't a debate I want to enter here), and the state should absolutely not attempt to interfere either by forcing abortions or by restricting access through convoluted rulesets.




EDIT EDIT: In addition to relating my experience, I wanted to point out the other factors that might influence the decision. It's not just a matter of "baby has down syndrome, do we abort or no". The real situation is a lot more nuanced.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 22 August 2014 - 03:46 PM

[Illuyankas]

I can agree with that. Besides, I don't always rant*.




*this is a lie

[Gredfallan Ale]

cerveza_fiesta, on 22 August 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

RE Dawkins comment, it shows a severe lack of empathy and understanding. It's like reading a FB post by a highschool student who has no experience in real life! It's profoundly dumb to suggest that all downs babies should be aborted as though a) people actually *have* a choice in the matter 100% of the time; and b ) people should be in his enlightened and logical mindset regardless of the emotional circumstances. Fuck that guy.


TL;DR: You don't necessarily know about it until it's too late to act, you can't trust the tests, and you aren't making any decision with a clear mind. Also, Dawkins is a shitbird tweeting that as though he's some kind of authority on the matter.

Do you want to know what sounds like something written by a high school student on facebook? An ad hominem directed against someone who has a different, but validly defendable, opinion. There is nothing inherently disrespectful with Dawkins' tweet, it's a valid opinion and one that I share. Sure, it probably goes against ethical values that many share, but that, in itself, is no reason to call the statement outrageous.

Please read his tweet again, slowly. He did not attack anyone, he did not swear, he was not disrespectful. Someone asked a question on twitter, he gave his opinion. Sure, it lacks a reasoned argument to back it up, but twitter limits a message to 140 characters, what did you expect? The opinion "It's immoral to through with a pregnancy knowing the baby has down syndrome" is not inherently wrong nor inherently disrespectful.

Moreover, since when is authority important for the validity of an argument? (Actually, I think Dawkins' expertise, evolution, is very relevant to some of the ethical considerations surrounding abortion, such as considerations regarding the mind/soul.)

[EmperorMagus]

Gredfallan Ale, on 24 August 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

Do you want to know what sounds like something written by a high school student on facebook? An ad hominem directed against someone who has a different, but validly defendable, opinion. There is nothing inherently disrespectful with Dawkins' tweet, it's a valid opinion and one that I share. Sure, it probably goes against ethical values that many share, but that, in itself, is no reason to call the statement outrageous. Please read his tweet again, slowly. He did not attack anyone, he did not swear, he was not disrespectful. Someone asked a question on twitter, he gave his opinion. Sure, it lacks a reasoned argument to back it up, but twitter limits a message to 140 characters, what did you expect? The opinion "It's immoral to through with a pregnancy knowing the baby has down syndrome" is not inherently wrong nor inherently disrespectful. Moreover, since when is authority important for the validity of an argument? (Actually, I think Dawkins' expertise, evolution, is very relevant to some of the ethical considerations surrounding abortion, such as considerations regarding the mind/soul.)

Actually, it is both inherently wrong and inherently disrespectful.

It is wrong because there is no one set of rules regarding morals, and by calling an act "immoral" in general ,you are without doubt wrong.

It is disrespectful because by saying that, he is actually calling all the parents that are making sacrifices for their children with disabilities wrong doers. He has no right to judge them.

This post has been edited by EmperorMagus: 24 August 2014 - 09:38 PM

[amphibian]

If one finds oneself agreeing with something Dawkins says, one should take a moment (or several) to check if one is being a huge jerk.

Why? Because odds are high that Dawkins is being a huge jerk and/or completely wrong. He's the liberal version of Ann Coulter - a member of the group who not only makes money from being a professional jerk, they revel in it.

[Shinrei]

Yes, his use of the word "immoral" is entirely inappropriate. That is a powerful word, impressing a very weighty sense of judgement.

[Shinrei]

Also, in regards to the cold calculations on "burdens" and "suffering," I give you this.
http://normalaswekno...ichard-dawkins/

Now, I can accept all of the normal abortion reasons like not financially capable, or not ready/dont want children, but id you DO want children, having a child with downs should be seen as a perfectly beautiful choice. Because rmember, it's pro-CHOICE and you can especially take your "burden on the state " arguments and stuff'em.

[Gredfallan Ale]

EmperorMagus, on 24 August 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

Gredfallan Ale, on 24 August 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

Do you want to know what sounds like something written by a high school student on facebook? An ad hominem directed against someone who has a different, but validly defendable, opinion. There is nothing inherently disrespectful with Dawkins' tweet, it's a valid opinion and one that I share. Sure, it probably goes against ethical values that many share, but that, in itself, is no reason to call the statement outrageous. Please read his tweet again, slowly. He did not attack anyone, he did not swear, he was not disrespectful. Someone asked a question on twitter, he gave his opinion. Sure, it lacks a reasoned argument to back it up, but twitter limits a message to 140 characters, what did you expect? The opinion "It's immoral to through with a pregnancy knowing the baby has down syndrome" is not inherently wrong nor inherently disrespectful. Moreover, since when is authority important for the validity of an argument? (Actually, I think Dawkins' expertise, evolution, is very relevant to some of the ethical considerations surrounding abortion, such as considerations regarding the mind/soul.)

Actually, it is both inherently wrong and inherently disrespectful.

It is wrong because there is no one set of rules regarding morals, and by calling an act "immoral" in general ,you are without doubt wrong.

I think it's impossible to exclude a statement that says that something is "immoral", if you accept one that states that something is "inherently" wrong. I don't believe in universals, especially not in ethics, but that does not exclude me from judging something as immoral to my standards. Morality or ethics are at loss if we only accept statements that can be considered eternal and absolute truths, as I don't believe there is an absolute frame of reference to fix those statements to. Once you accept that, ultimately, ethical consideration are subjective, there is nothing wrong with stating something is immoral as long as you appreciate the fact that it's a subjective statement. "I think murder is immoral" is the same as "murder is immoral" if you assume any statement to rely on subjective frame of moral reference.

EmperorMagus, on 24 August 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

It is disrespectful because by saying that, he is actually calling all the parents that are making sacrifices for their children with disabilities wrong doers. He has no right to judge them.

He does not say that, he did not judge parents that are making sacrifices; you're building a huge straw man out of his statement. The only think he is saying is that if you know an embryo has Down Syndrome and decide to carry on with the pregnancy, then that is immoral. He did not say anything about the sacrifices of parents of children with Down Syndrome or called their efforts to give their children the best postnatal (after birth) care immoral. It's you who is putting those words in his mouth.

For one that accepts that there are no absolute frame of morality, you seem to make a lot of absolute statements yourself. "Inherently disrespectful" is such a statement, but judging a moral statement as "inherently wrong" also presupposes an absolute frame of morality to be able to reject a moral value you do not agree with. You can disagree with a moral statement, subjectively, but you cannot judge it as inherently wrong.

[Gredfallan Ale]

amphibian, on 24 August 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

If one finds oneself agreeing with something Dawkins says, one should take a moment (or several) to check if one is being a huge jerk.

Why? Because odds are high that Dawkins is being a huge jerk and/or completely wrong. He's the liberal version of Ann Coulter - a member of the group who not only makes money from being a professional jerk, they revel in it.

You know what, I don't care if you consider me a jerk if that allows me to agree with a lot of the thing Dawkins has written. I've read most of his books, some of his scientific papers and I agree with a substantial part of his statements.

Sure, you could just go around and call me, or anyone that agrees with him a jerk, but I don't think such an ad hominem proves anything.

And, by the way, when Dawkins says something, odds are he's at least partially right.

[Gredfallan Ale]

Shinrei, on 25 August 2014 - 02:39 AM, said:

Yes, his use of the word "immoral" is entirely inappropriate. That is a powerful word, impressing a very weighty sense of judgement.

That depends on the agreed use of immoral. For me, any moral statement is subjective, therefore saying something is immoral is the same as saying that you think something is immoral.

Would you be so hard pressed if someone calls murder immoral? Or genocide? Or do you think it is always inappropriate to morally judge something?

However, I agree with you that his statement is heavy, it is functionally so, as it sparks discussions and debates like wildfire. Most discussions surrounding aborting focus on the immorality of aborting any pregnancy, while I think it's immoral to continue some pregnancies with the knowledge we have today. However, the latter statement is carefully filtered from the public debate unless something as controversial as Dawkins' statement comes along. I'm glad that sometimes it does, as it opens up avenues of debate that were otherwise carefully closed.

This post has been edited by Gredfallan Ale: 25 August 2014 - 07:34 AM

[amphibian]

I find that most people who focus on pointing out strawmans and ad hominem statements are often missing the point.

[Cause]

Ans people who point out philosophical semantics are not really scoring points either. Moral is a word that can't be defined and yet we all understand it.

[Gothos]

Cause, on 25 August 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

Ans people who point out philosophical semantics are not really scoring points either. Moral is a word that can't be defined and yet we all understand it.

And yet we all understand it differently.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Gredfallan Ale, on 24 August 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

cerveza_fiesta, on 22 August 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

RE Dawkins comment, it shows a severe lack of empathy and understanding. It's like reading a FB post by a highschool student who has no experience in real life! It's profoundly dumb to suggest that all downs babies should be aborted as though a) people actually *have* a choice in the matter 100% of the time; and b ) people should be in his enlightened and logical mindset regardless of the emotional circumstances. Fuck that guy.


TL;DR: You don't necessarily know about it until it's too late to act, you can't trust the tests, and you aren't making any decision with a clear mind. Also, Dawkins is a shitbird tweeting that as though he's some kind of authority on the matter.

Do you want to know what sounds like something written by a high school student on facebook? An ad hominem directed against someone who has a different, but validly defendable, opinion. There is nothing inherently disrespectful with Dawkins' tweet, it's a valid opinion and one that I share. Sure, it probably goes against ethical values that many share, but that, in itself, is no reason to call the statement outrageous.

Please read his tweet again, slowly. He did not attack anyone, he did not swear, he was not disrespectful. Someone asked a question on twitter, he gave his opinion. Sure, it lacks a reasoned argument to back it up, but twitter limits a message to 140 characters, what did you expect? The opinion "It's immoral to through with a pregnancy knowing the baby has down syndrome" is not inherently wrong nor inherently disrespectful.

Moreover, since when is authority important for the validity of an argument? (Actually, I think Dawkins' expertise, evolution, is very relevant to some of the ethical considerations surrounding abortion, such as considerations regarding the mind/soul.)

Fair enough, poor choice of words on my part. I should have written "Dawkins is a shibird for tweeting....". Not that he is a shitbird in general for having an opinion on things.

My core objection to his statement is in his abuse of authority. He's a very influential person with a very well followed twitter account. He has formed his reputation by articulating and arguing better than most the position against the existence of god. Dawkins is a role model for a lot of people as a result of his reputation and his opinion is the basis of many, many others' opinions. From that position of authority, he comments on the morality of allowing a down syndrome baby to be born. This comment has nothing to do with his primary area of expertise, glazes over the depth of the subject, but his attitude is nevertheless propagated among his devotees as a result of his fame.

Atop the core objection, in general I think propagating such a black n' white opinion on an extremely nuanced subject via twitter a) is a mean-spirited, shitty thing to do; b ) promotes discrimination toward the mentally handicapped and their parents; and c) dehumanizes mentally handicapped people, making it easier for society as a whole to overlook discrimination.

And I know 160 characters is hardly enough to express a complex opinion...I just expect a bit more of an influential man who writes entire BOOKS on his core area of expertise. If you're going to wade into such blatantly controversial waters with an opinion, have a 1 page essay or at least a well-reasoned blog post backing up your statement for godsakes. Encourage people to explore why you think the way you do. Don't speak in flippant absolutes.

Here's his apology actually - found this after I typed the above

======================

Quote

"The choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else," he wrote.

"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," he concluded the entry.

=====================

He almost gets there with the first line, though his views are *automatically* imposed because of his position of authority, and he doesn't recognize that fact. The second line reinforces my opinion of "yep, he's a total shitbird", because a well-meant apology generally doesn't gloss over the issue at hand while blaming half the problem on the rest of the world.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 25 August 2014 - 03:49 PM

[cerveza_fiesta]

amphibian, on 25 August 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

I find that most people who focus on pointing out strawmans and ad hominem statements are often missing the point.

Sometimes yes, but strawman is a pretty valid one to point out in this case. We're collectively fabricating a meaning for Dawkins' post from just a few of his words, and Gredfallan is absolutely correct that we should question where that meaning came from.

[Illuyankas]

Ahahaha that's like the definition of a insincere 'sorry you were offended' apology attempt

[Gredfallan Ale]

cerveza_fiesta, on 25 August 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

(...)

Atop the core objection, in general I think propagating such a black n' white opinion on an extremely nuanced subject via twitter a) is a mean-spirited, shitty thing to do; b ) promotes discrimination toward the mentally handicapped and their parents; and c) dehumanizes mentally handicapped people, making it easier for society as a whole to overlook discrimination.

Although I see where you're coming from, I don't agree with this statement.

I think that

cerveza_fiesta, on 25 August 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

And I know 160 characters is hardly enough to express a complex opinion...I just expect a bit more of an influential man who writes entire BOOKS on his core area of expertise. If you're going to wade into such blatantly controversial waters with an opinion, have a 1 page essay or at least a well-reasoned blog post backing up your statement for godsakes. Encourage people to explore why you think the way you do. Don't speak in flippant absolutes.

I tend to agree with you here. While I partly agree with Dawkins' statement about abortion and severe abnormalities in embryogenesis, I do not agree with the way he expresses his opinion.

Nonetheless, most of the posts in this thread misrepresent what Dawkins has actually said or attack him for having a deviating ethical view. Sure, we could react to challenges to our moral convictions by shorning, I'm sorry I couldn't resist to use that term, the challenger, but that rarely adds something to the discussion other than "don't deviate from my views or I'll call you an inconsiderate jerk!".

cerveza_fiesta, on 25 August 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

He almost gets there with the first line, though his views are *automatically* imposed because of his position of authority, and he doesn't recognize that fact. The second line reinforces my opinion of "yep, he's a total shitbird", because a well-meant apology generally doesn't gloss over the issue at hand while blaming half the problem on the rest of the world.

Illuyankas, on 25 August 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

Ahahaha that's like the definition of a insincere 'sorry you were offended' apology attempt

I think he could have done a better job apologizing for his failure to communicate in a considerate manner, but that's all I find wrong with his apology. As he probably still agrees with his statement, I don't think he should apologize for his opinion or his expression of his opinion alone.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Gredfallan Ale, on 25 August 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

cerveza_fiesta, on 25 August 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

(...)

Atop the core objection, in general I think propagating such a black n' white opinion on an extremely nuanced subject via twitter a) is a mean-spirited, shitty thing to do; b ) promotes discrimination toward the mentally handicapped and their parents; and c) dehumanizes mentally handicapped people, making it easier for society as a whole to overlook discrimination.

Although I see where you're coming from, I don't agree with this statement.

I think that

cerveza_fiesta, on 25 August 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

And I know 160 characters is hardly enough to express a complex opinion...I just expect a bit more of an influential man who writes entire BOOKS on his core area of expertise. If you're going to wade into such blatantly controversial waters with an opinion, have a 1 page essay or at least a well-reasoned blog post backing up your statement for godsakes. Encourage people to explore why you think the way you do. Don't speak in flippant absolutes.

I tend to agree with you here. While I partly agree with Dawkins' statement about abortion and severe abnormalities in embryogenesis, I do not agree with the way he expresses his opinion.

Nonetheless, most of the posts in this thread misrepresent what Dawkins has actually said or attack him for having a deviating ethical view. Sure, we could react to challenges to our moral convictions by shorning, I'm sorry I couldn't resist to use that term, the challenger, but that rarely adds something to the discussion other than "don't deviate from my views or I'll call you an inconsiderate jerk!".

cerveza_fiesta, on 25 August 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

He almost gets there with the first line, though his views are *automatically* imposed because of his position of authority, and he doesn't recognize that fact. The second line reinforces my opinion of "yep, he's a total shitbird", because a well-meant apology generally doesn't gloss over the issue at hand while blaming half the problem on the rest of the world.

Illuyankas, on 25 August 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

Ahahaha that's like the definition of a insincere 'sorry you were offended' apology attempt

I think he could have done a better job apologizing for his failure to communicate in a considerate manner, but that's all I find wrong with his apology. As he probably still agrees with his statement, I don't think he should apologize for his opinion or his expression of his opinion alone.

===Point 1===

This is the main one I'll stand my ground on. I should have listed a), b ), and c) in exactly the reverse order. It absolutely dehumanizing to an entire category of people to say** that they are born because of an immoral act or omission on the part of their parents. "Promotion of discrimination" and "Dawkins being a dick for propagating that idea" are consequences of the former.

Think about ye olden days when bastard children were regarded as the lesser of children born in wedlock for no reason other than the immoral act (extra marital sexytime) of their parents. Dawkins isn't saying explicitly that we should apply the same discriminatory tier system to healthy vs. down babies, but his comment does promote the kind of attitude that makes such a system possible.

**I deliberately chose "say" instead of "imply". He does outright say,"...it would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice".

===Point2 ===

Don't worry about it too much. You're right, but folks get emotional about topics like this -- myself included. It's easier to accept the ad hominem (within reason) and move on.

===Point 3===

Been thinking about this one. His comment is a direct response to an indirectly-asked question:

"I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma."

So of course you're right. He doesn't have to apologize for what he said. He was responding to a question, but it was phrased very poorly. He's a public figure that influences the opinions of others, and especially on contentious issues like this, I think he has a responsibility to ensure the opinion is expressed thoughtfully and with consideration to how his words might be interpreted.

[Gredfallan Ale]

cerveza_fiesta, on 26 August 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

===Point 1===

This is the main one I'll stand my ground on. I should have listed a), b ), and c) in exactly the reverse order. It absolutely dehumanizing to an entire category of people to say** that they are born because of an immoral act or omission on the part of their parents. "Promotion of discrimination" and "Dawkins being a dick for propagating that idea" are consequences of the former.

Think about ye olden days when bastard children were regarded as the lesser of children born in wedlock for no reason other than the immoral act (extra marital sexytime) of their parents. Dawkins isn't saying explicitly that we should apply the same discriminatory tier system to healthy vs. down babies, but his comment does promote the kind of attitude that makes such a system possible.

**I deliberately chose "say" instead of "imply". He does outright say,"...it would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice".

I think I want to it leave at this, I see that I inadvertently truncated most of my initial reply (there's hardly anything left), but I think that adding it now would only set in motion another round of partial disagreement. Let's agree to disagree, there's no harm in that, I think.

cerveza_fiesta, on 26 August 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

===Point2 ===

Don't worry about it too much. You're right, but folks get emotional about topics like this -- myself included. It's easier to accept the ad hominem (within reason) and move on.

"The ethics of the world belong[ed] to society, to that fraught maelstrom of relationships, where argument and fierce emotions wage[d] eternal war."
(The Crippled God, Chapter 13 [I think])

At the end of the line, I think emotions are one of the few things we're left with to determine what's moral and immoral As I reject any formal and absolute reference frame to ground our ethical considerations to, any rational argument is ultimately at loss for a simple reason: the utter lack of axioms. While we might evaluate some statements empirically, by comparing them to what we can observe, I don't think empiricism gives us much insight into morality as I don't think "good" or "bad" is an innate property of the universe or anything in it; it's us who label things thusly.

Sure, we can argue about the coherency of one's ethical framework, discussing whether one held value is contradicted by other held value; whether the rational argument given for a certain value is internally consistent, but without any means to externally ground them, it might be that all that is left is emotion, even if it doesn't prove anything. For one, from a rational perspective, I'm at loss for reasons to actually live, but from an emotional perspective, I have plenty.

This post has been edited by Gredfallan Ale: 27 August 2014 - 11:49 AM

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

I'm firmly in the camp of it being the parents choice and it's not for anyone else to judge. If someone feels they honestly couldn't cope and therefore the resulting child would have poor quality of life, then maybe abortion is the better option than the child being born and ending up possibly neglected or hurt. However, I do feel Dawkins was making a judgement on parents who choose to have a child with Downs Syndrome by stating that the choice was immoral - how is that not a judgement? You can't state the choice is immoral but then infer that it doesn't apply to people who've made the choice already, surely?

Dawkins' apology though? Textbook "I'm sorry you were offended, but it's your fault you were." The man is a professional jerk - like so many others he's figured out controversy sells and manipulates said fact.