Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is it immoral to have DS kids?

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 2:58:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Soo..

Richard Dawkins recently said that it's immoral to NOT abort a fetus with down syndrome.

What do you think? Anybody here agree with Dick Dawkins?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 3:01:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do you guys think that this stems from Dawkin's heavy biology and natural selection background? This sounds like eugenics to me.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 3:01:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Forgot the link...

http://liveactionnews.org...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 3:06:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Fourth post.

I think the main problem with this is...

First of all, it values human life by how much they affect society positively. If they're unable to affect society in ways that certain people see as good, then they're less important.

When he was asked about autism, he said... "People on that spectrum have a great deal to contribute, Maybe even an enhanced ability in some respects. DS not enhanced."

So, it seems that Dawkins is creating a subjective standard by which *he* views things as important or not important.

But the question is this...

Under his materialistic worldview, is a child with autism even more "beneficial" to society than one with DS?

But, let's assume materialism is true, and there's no inherent "value" to anything.

Then how does this make Dawkins any different than religions? Catholicism, for example, claims that every life is infinitely valuable. Dawkins claims that they're not all infinitely valuable. If materialism is true, aren't both of these positions just as correct? If there is objective value, then how does Dawkin's materialistic worldview even work? Because materialism doesn't seem to support objective morality, or inherent value to things.

What do you guys think?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 9:21:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 9:13:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Yes.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 9:35:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you know any child is going to be born with defects, kill it before it's born.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 9:35:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 9:35:09 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
If you know any child is going to be born with defects, kill it before it's born.

Why not after it is born?
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 9:39:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 9:35:48 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:35:09 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
If you know any child is going to be born with defects, kill it before it's born.

Why not after it is born?

Because then people like to call it 'murder'. I'm fine with both.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 9:54:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yama simply doesn't care for life, beyond its usefulness. If a child is going to be useless or a burden, it should be criminal to have said child imposed on society.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 10:06:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It is only not immoral, at least, in my opinion, because children with Down Syndrome don't suffer enough (they can still life happy and joyful lives with that condition). There are conditions out there, however, that are so horrific and cause so much suffering that death would be more merciful than life.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 10:33:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 2:58:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Soo..

Richard Dawkins recently said that it's immoral to NOT abort a fetus with down syndrome.

What do you think? Anybody here agree with Dick Dawkins?

Oh, I see, lol.

Well as you already know, I am Pro on this statement. Also Pro on Eugenics.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 10:35:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 2:58:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Soo..

Richard Dawkins recently said that it's immoral to NOT abort a fetus with down syndrome.

What do you think? Anybody here agree with Dick Dawkins?

We should also sort a debate topic on this....
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 11:20:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 9:39:07 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:35:48 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:35:09 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
If you know any child is going to be born with defects, kill it before it's born.

Why not after it is born?

Because then people like to call it 'murder'. I'm fine with both.

You are unequivocally a terrible person. I don't normally say that about people but eugenicists deserve it. Your ideology is what drove the forced sterilization and murder of millions of people.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 12:09:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 9:54:49 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
Yama simply doesn't care for life, beyond its usefulness. If a child is going to be useless or a burden, it should be criminal to have said child imposed on society.

That's pretty immoral.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 12:11:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 2:58:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Soo..

Richard Dawkins recently said that it's immoral to NOT abort a fetus with down syndrome.

What do you think? Anybody here agree with Dick Dawkins?

Lol, it amazes me how quick Dawkins switches from being a moral subjectivist when it's convenient. He does this a lot.

And, no I don't agree with him, I think that is an immoral perspective.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 12:31:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 2:58:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Soo..

Richard Dawkins recently said that it's immoral to NOT abort a fetus with down syndrome.

What do you think? Anybody here agree with Dick Dawkins?

In a nut shell Dick Dawkins is exactly that, A dick.

What about Stephen Hawkins who has motor neurone disease, does he get to be wiped of the face of the earth as people like him may just be a problem that the world has to bear.

What a completely selfish arrogant twat.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 12:49:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 10:06:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It is only not immoral, at least, in my opinion, because children with Down Syndrome don't suffer enough (they can still life happy and joyful lives with that condition). There are conditions out there, however, that are so horrific and cause so much suffering that death would be more merciful than life.

I'm curious, can you name a few of those conditions?
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 12:58:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 2:58:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Soo..

Richard Dawkins recently said that it's immoral to NOT abort a fetus with down syndrome.

What do you think? Anybody here agree with Dick Dawkins?

Why do people make such a drama out of it?

Dawkins' logic:

P1) If a fetus is diagnosed with a detrimental condition, it should be aborted to prevent suffering.
P2) DS is detrimental to a persons well being.
C1) A fetus diagnosed with DS should be aborted.

He never said that actual born people with DS don't deserve to live.
But he did say it is not about eugenics.
"Down syndrome screening is NOT eugenic. Almost always caused by non-hereditary chromosomal abnormality, heavily influenced by maternal age."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 12:59:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 10:06:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It is only not immoral, at least, in my opinion, because children with Down Syndrome don't suffer enough (they can still life happy and joyful lives with that condition). There are conditions out there, however, that are so horrific and cause so much suffering that death would be more merciful than life.

Hmm... But who gets to decide which person's life is worth living? I mean, that seems like it's based on subjective man-made standards. And if we can, on a whim, simply determine what is "too much suffering" why can't we do this about DS kids? Or anybody else?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 1:01:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 12:58:20 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 8/25/2014 2:58:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Soo..

Richard Dawkins recently said that it's immoral to NOT abort a fetus with down syndrome.

What do you think? Anybody here agree with Dick Dawkins?


Why do people make such a drama out of it?

Dawkins' logic:

P1) If a fetus is diagnosed with a detrimental condition, it should be aborted to prevent suffering.
P2) DS is detrimental to a persons well being.
C1) A fetus diagnosed with DS should be aborted.


What are the defenses of those premises? Prima facie, they both seem false. For the same reason we don't just kill people who are suffering...


He never said that actual born people with DS don't deserve to live.
But he did say it is not about eugenics.
"Down syndrome screening is NOT eugenic. Almost always caused by non-hereditary chromosomal abnormality, heavily influenced by maternal age."
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 1:02:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 11:20:27 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:39:07 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:35:48 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:35:09 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
If you know any child is going to be born with defects, kill it before it's born.

Why not after it is born?

Because then people like to call it 'murder'. I'm fine with both.

You are unequivocally a terrible person. I don't normally say that about people but eugenicists deserve it. Your ideology is what drove the forced sterilization and murder of millions of people.

Nooo. That's religion that does that. Hitler killed all the Jews because he was Christian.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 1:43:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 1:01:02 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/26/2014 12:58:20 PM, Skikx wrote:
At 8/25/2014 2:58:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Soo..

Richard Dawkins recently said that it's immoral to NOT abort a fetus with down syndrome.

What do you think? Anybody here agree with Dick Dawkins?


Why do people make such a drama out of it?

Dawkins' logic:

P1) If a fetus is diagnosed with a detrimental condition, it should be aborted to prevent suffering.
P2) DS is detrimental to a persons well being.
C1) A fetus diagnosed with DS should be aborted.


What are the defenses of those premises? Prima facie, they both seem false. For the same reason we don't just kill people who are suffering...

This is based on the concept that letting people suffer without a good reason, even if you could easily prevent it, is immoral.
A concept with which most people agree, I think.

A person with a detrimental condition will generally suffer more then a person without such condition, otherwise it wouldn't be a detrimental condition.
Having a child that will suffer more then necessary is therefore immoral.
An abortion prevents that child from being born and thus from suffering.
Ergo aborting the fetus is the moral thing to do.

Dawkins himself says DS is only an impairment, it doesn't have and benefits.
And if it doesn't offer any benefits, but comes with several detriments (http://www.nichd.nih.gov... http://www.nichd.nih.gov...), it is a detrimental condition.

There is, however a difference between killing suffering people and aborting a fetus. The person is an intellectual and sentient being, (usually) capable of making the decision whether to live or to die for him- /herself. A fetus is just a lump of cells, no feelings, no thoughts.
Therefore you can't hurt the fetus, nor infringe its will to live.


He never said that actual born people with DS don't deserve to live.
But he did say it is not about eugenics.
"Down syndrome screening is NOT eugenic. Almost always caused by non-hereditary chromosomal abnormality, heavily influenced by maternal age."
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 1:59:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 1:02:49 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:20:27 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:39:07 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:35:48 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:35:09 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
If you know any child is going to be born with defects, kill it before it's born.

Why not after it is born?

Because then people like to call it 'murder'. I'm fine with both.

You are unequivocally a terrible person. I don't normally say that about people but eugenicists deserve it. Your ideology is what drove the forced sterilization and murder of millions of people.

Nooo. That's religion that does that. Hitler killed all the Jews because he was Christian.

I was referring to eugenics as being the bad ideology, but Hitler wasn't a Christian. He was either deist or an atheist.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 2:53:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 1:59:16 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/26/2014 1:02:49 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:20:27 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:39:07 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:35:48 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:35:09 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
If you know any child is going to be born with defects, kill it before it's born.

Why not after it is born?

Because then people like to call it 'murder'. I'm fine with both.

You are unequivocally a terrible person. I don't normally say that about people but eugenicists deserve it. Your ideology is what drove the forced sterilization and murder of millions of people.

Nooo. That's religion that does that. Hitler killed all the Jews because he was Christian.

I was referring to eugenics as being the bad ideology, but Hitler wasn't a Christian. He was either deist or an atheist.

I protest both of your claims.

1. I am a horrible person by your eyes and a great person in other's eyes. So am I really so horrible?

2. I believe Hitler was christian. He did have his forces wear the iron cross... of which we derived from Christianity.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 3:00:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 9:54:49 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
Yama simply doesn't care for life, beyond its usefulness. If a child is going to be useless or a burden, it should be criminal to have said child imposed on society.

Why is that child a burden to society? Is it because the said kid cannot work? Well, if the labor of his/her parents provides food for that kid, then it shouldn't be a problem.
Is it because that kid receives welfare? Well, why not put him/her in a simple job, and much of his/her livelihood would come from his/her parents' support?
A utilitarian view of life is truly scary.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 3:02:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 1:02:49 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:20:27 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:39:07 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:35:48 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:35:09 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
If you know any child is going to be born with defects, kill it before it's born.

Why not after it is born?

Because then people like to call it 'murder'. I'm fine with both.

You are unequivocally a terrible person. I don't normally say that about people but eugenicists deserve it. Your ideology is what drove the forced sterilization and murder of millions of people.

Nooo. That's religion that does that. Hitler killed all the Jews because he was Christian.

Hitler's ideas concerned racial purity. His claims about being Christian were used to gain the support of the "Christian" populace.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 3:04:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 2:53:46 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 8/26/2014 1:59:16 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/26/2014 1:02:49 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/25/2014 11:20:27 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:39:07 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:35:48 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/25/2014 9:35:09 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
If you know any child is going to be born with defects, kill it before it's born.

Why not after it is born?

Because then people like to call it 'murder'. I'm fine with both.

You are unequivocally a terrible person. I don't normally say that about people but eugenicists deserve it. Your ideology is what drove the forced sterilization and murder of millions of people.

Nooo. That's religion that does that. Hitler killed all the Jews because he was Christian.

I was referring to eugenics as being the bad ideology, but Hitler wasn't a Christian. He was either deist or an atheist.

I protest both of your claims.

1. I am a horrible person by your eyes and a great person in other's eyes. So am I really so horrible?

Go ask any parent of a down's syndrome kid and they'll tell you the same.

2. I believe Hitler was christian. He did have his forces wear the iron cross... of which we derived from Christianity.

I would suggest you read this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, it's Wikipedia, but it's a well-researched article that goes over his views. He wasn't a Christian, was quite skeptical of religion, and didn't believe in the Judeo-Christian God (I know, quite shocking considering he hated all the Jews and whatnot). His and his party's public stance on religion was only to appease churches, not alienate Germans (who were almost universally Christian), and provide a counterweight to the atheistic Soviet communism that the Nazis opposed.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 8:33:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 12:59:11 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/25/2014 10:06:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It is only not immoral, at least, in my opinion, because children with Down Syndrome don't suffer enough (they can still life happy and joyful lives with that condition). There are conditions out there, however, that are so horrific and cause so much suffering that death would be more merciful than life.

Hmm... But who gets to decide which person's life is worth living?

Anyone who isn't dumb enough to see that someone's life will cause more suffering than joy. It has to be obvious though, if it is even debatable then don't end the life.

I mean, that seems like it's based on subjective man-made standards.

Not at all. Getting a nail ripped off is causes more suffering than sneezing. This is true regardless of any opinion.

And if we can, on a whim, simply determine what is "too much suffering" why can't we do this about DS kids? Or anybody else?