The NAZI's had it figured out: death and sterilization to inferior races and beings and probably abortion but they weren't as "advanced" as we are as to ascertaining the status of the fetus (ultrasound, etc...).

At the same time, for the racial chosen, go out and have "many babies" for the Third Reich. I suppose you could call them logically inconsistent. LOL.

I love how you're all avoiding this question and making horrible arguments against eugenics (there are excellent arguments against eugenics, but the ones you're making are horrible).
There must be a line of child suffering, social burden, family burden, level of experience of life, etc, where you would say it's "immoral not to abort", as Dawkins is claiming for Down Syndrome.

I could show this easily by doing a Sklansky-like scenario, but I'll save the thread from that for now.

Given that this line exists, where is it? You guys claim that Down Syndrome, even with an IQ of 20, which is basically less than many animals, and sucks up huge amount of healthy human time that could be spent doing happier things, is not crossing the line where it becomes immoral not to abort. Ok. Then where is the line? How bad until not aborting becomes immoral?

The argument you are proposing could validate both anti-abortion and abortion as the only morally just alternatives, and I would certainly not make such an idiotic claim in either direction. I feel no need to nor defend it or attack it, as it is self-defeating.

Eugenics is crushed to smithereens by its complete lack of the very scientific basis it holds as a premise and you holding that is somehow "a horrible argument against it" is fairly telling that you are utterly clueless on the issue. In this case for example, neither you nor Dawkins can prove as a general rule the premises you hold against families where one or more member has Down's , thus the reasoning you both are employing fails beyond any hope of redemption or salvage.

It's the same kind of logic the Germans used, you've just replaced some words. It suffers from the exact same fallacies and errors. It is fascist reasoning, there is no pretty name for it.

I'm not using any logic. You don't know my beliefs. I'm asking you where the line is, that's all. Why is that so hard to answer?

Like I said, you guys are completely avoiding the question. It (and your outbursts of emotion) are good signs that you actually don't have good arguments against eugenics.
I'm asking you a simple question. Which seems to be too much for your moral system to process. Which means it's not very robust.

Killing completely helpless unborn children because of a mother's whim is a horrific thing to do, yet you're comfortable with that because there are overriding considerations (the mother's whims and pleasures).
Killing completely helpless unborn children because they're deeply damaged and dysfunctional, to the point of almost being an animal mentally and emotionally, is a less horrific thing to do, yet you're comfortable with that because it's the woman's choice.
Yet calling it immoral NOT to kill a deeply damaged and dysfunctional unborn child, is somehow not ok with you.

That seems a tad bizarre, no? A woman's whims are more important in deciding the death of a child than all other considerations, including the good of society and family members.

Anyway, you apparently lack the moral courage to face the questions I'm asking (which is fine - that's your right), so let me ask a different, easier question. If a woman had a child that you knew for certain would grow up to become the next Hitler if you let it live, and unleash eugenics on the world, would it be immoral not to abort it?

I'm getting into this thread late without much reading so my bad if I'm missing something here. But what exactly do you mean here? Like that its historical application has been without scientific basis? Because my impression was that it was widely accepted that there are a whole host of genetic disorders we could largely eliminate within a generation by mandating genetic testing and abortions. While the history is beyond horrible, it is easy to imagine a much more utopian genetic program that was firmly based in science. For what it's worth, my wife and I plan to screen any fetus we conceive and abort if necessary.

Sometimes I like to play a game where I imagine what things we accept today that our great grandchildren will find deeply immoral as we reject so much of the worldview of our own great grandparents. Tolerating the mass birth of people with sever genetic diseases as socially acceptable may well be on that list.

I suspect the bolded stems from your apparent misuse of the meaning of the word "mandate." Just so we're clear, a mandate is "an official order or commission to do something." In this context, an order by the government to have an abortion (e.g. China's One Child Policy). An order like this is inconsistent with pro-choice principles.

Go ahead.

I think that it is probably immoral to not have an abortion if you are reasonably certain that the baby will live only a short and painful life. Neither of these apply to Down's Syndrome. I definitely don't think that the expectation of a low IQ is a sufficient reason for it to be immoral not to have an abortion.

Hmmm....if you say so.

More seriously, yeah we don't know your beliefs. Makes your accusation of cowardice for not stating a view on the topic lack credibility.

This isn't that complicated or bizarre. Most pro-choice people defend the legality of abortion on the basis of freedom. That is, they believe that women rather than the government should make the decision whether or not to have an abortion. Thus, they think that the wrong thing for a government to do is to take this freedom away from people, either by forcing them to bear the fetus to term, or to abort it.

In fact, this is really just a standard part of the American (and of course elsewhere) tradition of political thought. For instance, the right to freedom of speech means that you can say what you want without government interference, even if your reasons for saying it are just selfish whims, and even if it damages society. Insofar as you support this right, you are endorsing exactly the same collection of claims (except about speech, although religion would also work) that you find bizarre here.

Of course, this doesn't say much about the actual morality of abortion. For instance, you might be pro-choice and believe that abortion is almost completely a morally neutral act, similar to other non-moral decisions we make. On the other hand, you might be pro-choice and believe that abortion is immoral (as was US presidential candidate John Kerry's view and the view of many other liberal Catholics). So the contrast you keep trying to draw between pro-choice views on freedom and their views about the morality of abortion (whether thinking it is immoral to have or not have an abortion in a specific instance) doesn't hold up. There is no real contrast.

Lol. Baby Hitler is aborted again.

First , you can't and won't know that a baby Hitler will be born; this is ridiculous. Its like traveling at the speed of light; impossible and a non sequitur.

Birth and death two mysteries within the scientific exegesis due to lack of courage.

Does it occur to anyone that the soul/spiritual being, a human being, had planned to incarnate within that particular body/family/clan/nation/race ? Does anyone give any credence to the fact that this is his desire in order to manifest a karmic balance either from the past or into the future (yes, there is future karma).

The human soul spiritual being does not become ill but he may incarnate within a body to which he is unable to manage appropriately. What you are seeing within a Down's Syndrome patient is a soul/spiritual being attempting to "live within" an improperly developed earthly body but in no way implies that that spiritual being is ill.

I know that it's a tough nut to crack but know that when you come across such humans that they are "working through" this illness which is absolutely necessary for his further development.

Notes from around the scuttlebutt: It has been said that many of the 'geniuses" or intellectual leaders of the human race spent at least one incarnation as a mentally ******ed being.

The best that can be done would be to take interest in the particular Down's Syndrome person or in fact any particular mental illness and our insight will, all things considered , bring us our conclusions. This is how compassion evidences itself, through a devotional interest in one's fellow man, as best we can.

I really can't spread some type of abstract generalization in this type of incident but so long as we have no idea of the nature of man, pre birth or his nature post death we will wallow in inchoate error. I can only give a little for life is much more complicated that we would like to believe and I'm right there, holding on.

Care to elaborate on the bolded?

You and your wife's decision is irrelevant to this discussion. We're discussing at a population level, not an individual level.

Silly analogy:


What we do know about most genetic disorders is is that by aborting that individual, we remove that diseased / disabled / what not individual from the future equation.

From this very basic premise, and then it is assumed that the applying this on the population level would:
a) Greatly reduce this disease / disability, ultimately perhaps removing it.
b) Greatly improve the overall genetic health of the population
c) Make life overall better for said population

there is also of course the implied premise of:
d) This and that trait is better than this and that trait

A is far from always true. Genetics is far more than addition and subtraction, you can't always jump directly from gene to trait. That said, it is the most solid premise and probably also the reason some people support eugenics.

B is largely unfounded. Ecology isn't that simple. A lot of people think of eugenics as vaccine, which is dangerously (and I do mean dangerously) wrong. For vaccines you have abundant data that populations are healthy without the disease in addition to clinical trial knowledge on the individual (the latter being of course void in our discussion).

C is a normative that rests on the largely unfounded B.

D is a normative. It's better than C, but still a normative.

Sure. Adult women are a far more privileged group than helpless unborn children. They form half of the population for whom special protective laws are made. They're clearly a dominant privileged group.
You can argue the same about parents of a newborn, or parents of a down syndrome child they don't want and who requires constant care, who are also helpless and dependent. Women have gone so insane trying to look after kids they don't want, that they actually kill their babies. Yet the law and morality says that this is wrong, even though that stance is a kind of state enforced loss of freedom. In many ways carrying a child to term is easier and less burdensome that the first year (or the entire life of a down syndrome kid).

I was hoping for good arguments against Dawkins' stance that not aborting is immoral, or even that eugenics of below animal-IQ humans is wrong. So far there's just disgust.
Alright, so your line is needless suffering and a short life.
I agree for an IQ of 50-70, and small number of down syndrome babies fall into this category, but an IQ of 20? That's below an ape. In addition there's a lot of suffering - down syndrome people have all kinds of medical and non-IQ mental problems - and a massive public burden. Wouldn't we be far better off bringing someone into the world (and caring for them) who can experience the world in a meaningful way? Who can meaningfully enrich the lives of others rather than burden them? If we have already established that the fetus and its future life is meaningless (and we have since the life of the fetus is deemed less important than the whims of the carrier), how is it moral to not abort?

I contend that someone with an IQ of 20 is less important than a dog, and isn't really human (in the same way a fetus isn't really human yet, which is why we can justify to ourselves killing it). That statement may make you uncomfortable, but it's not really controversial if you think about it. The apes we experiment on and kill at will are more "human" (in terms of their soul and experience of the world) than the bottom run of down syndrome children.

As for my views, I'm very much pro choice (although I think women who want one without serious reasons such as rape should automatically do some time - maybe a month in prison - rather than have zero consequences for what could be construed as murder on a whim), and of course anti-eugenics.

By equating the individual level to the population level, your reasoning is already so wrong (and loaded) that your questions are meaningless.

Shooting one bull doesn't matter (most of the time). Shooting all of them is pretty stupid. Anyone using the benefits of killing one bull as proof all of them should be killed, is obviously speaking nonsense.

The analogy is without comparison beyond as an illustration between individual and population level thinking.

Try to make this more coherent. I'm not sure what loss of freedom you are talking about here.

In this thread I've mainly been discussing your claim that there is some kind of inconsistency or bizarreness about being both pro-choice and opposing eugenics. I've shown that this supposed inconsistency relies on a misunderstanding of the pro-choice position. I haven't gone behind this to arguing against Dawkins' view because I can't tell if you've acknowledged that your original argument fails.

That isn't a line so much as an example. Or maybe a sufficiency criteria, but not the necessary conditions.

The conclusion for which you are arguing here is that it is immoral to not abort someone with an expected IQ >20. Two points. First, as previously noted, this doesn't apply to Down's (average IQ for young adults with Downs is 50, and as far as I know, there is no way for prenatal tests of expected IQ).

But whatever, let's play fantasy for a bit. The second problem is that I just don't see a good general moral principle that would justify this rule. For instance, you argue that the they would be intellectually below the great apes. So? Presumably you don't think we have a moral duty to go kill all the great ape fetuses. In the same way, presumably you don't think we have a moral duty to kill all of our pets with an IQ below 20. So it isn't something inherent to that low of an IQ that requires that we abort such fetuses.

Perhaps it is something external, such as the "massive public burden" such people place on society. But I have a better solution. Stop having government pay for such services. Presumably, if people are able to pay for having such a child on their own, that would be fine, yes?

I think experiments on the great apes are immoral, so that isn't a very good counterexample to my own views. That being said, the crucial move here is from the claim that someone with an IQ below 20 is of little inherent value to the claim that we are morally required to kill them. This is not intuitive implication, and you have given no argument for it, so I don't see why I should accept it.

You really just don't get what it means to be pro-choice. Putting someone in prison because they had an abortion for a reason the government deems insufficiently serious is not pro-choice. Furthermore, by constantly belittling women's decisions to abort as just a "whim" you exhibit a lack of empathy or charity towards those most directly affected by this decision.

So, for actual facts, here is a recent study published in BMC Women's Health regarding the reasons why women have abortions.

I certainly accept your point that genetics and ecology can't be described simply, and there is a tonne of complexity. My brother's PhD was in cystic fibrosis (a horrible, horrible disease one of my high school friends died from) and believe you me despite an enormous research program studying it, a complete categorization of causes is still far away. However, we can still speak in generalities. Genetic testing of the big known markers and aborting fetuses would remove a very significant portion of the disease from the population within a generation or two. And as complex as ecology is, I don't really see how one would not be able to say the "overall genetic health of the population" has been reduced. And yes, at some point if we are going to support or oppose something we have to jump over the descriptive/normative barrier to say that it is better to have a population without anywhere near the incidence of the horrible cystic fibrosis that we have but I feel that just saying it is normative isn't really an argument.

Btw, individuals, while different from populations, can still make decisions (such as not to bring to term a baby with cystic fibrosis genes) for reasons that have to do with the betterment of populations.

The problem is that we have some clue as to what constitutes good genetic health at the individual level, but we know very little about what constitutes good genetic health at the population level.

Diversity, for example, seems good when it comes to species. Even when this diversity often go against specific individuals. But we don't have very good knowledge of what this diversity should look like.

Sorry for your loss. I lost one of my childhood friends to that to, so I know how horrible that disease can be.

There is clearly a disagreement here. But where exactly?

Does everyone agree that it is correct (moral) to routinely test fetuses for Down's Syndrome?

Does everyone agree that it is correct (moral) for the mother (and father?) to have access to these test results?

Does everyone agree that it is correct (moral) for the mother to have the choice to abort the fetus rather than to give birth to the child with Down's Syndrome?

Does everyone agree that the government is not in the business of mandating abortions?

My disagreement is with the claim that it is immoral to not abort a fetus with Down's Syndrome. That is the thread title, so I don't think this should be that confusing.

When we get rid of all the non "normal's" and it turns out in some star trek esk twist they had the genes to save us from the virus it will be some of the best dark irony ever.

It is the thread title, but he apologized and "opened his mouth again" to publish this:
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/a...of-twitterwar/

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.”

Ok, I get it and don't believe that a woman should be jailed for having an abortion. But the difficulty is that abortions are fait accompli's ; no discussion here as the government has interposed with a yes/no vote and has voted yes.

It cannot be said that the government isn't involved with the whole process and of course the battle rages on with the government, if only by proxy.

My issue is that even with your salient points the Mother/Father have no knowledge with which to make a decision. If they were educated with the fact that a soul is arriving and is her womb they would have some amount of understanding to make a decision. they can have "free choice" and would have some knowledge of what they were dealing with.

As it is, the fetus is within the realm of "thoughts of the inorganic" or better put, treated like a lifeless rock and therefore your 5 points apply.

It could be, that with understanding a Mother will still go through with the abortion/or not but at least there is some understanding which is not apparent within our scientific/medcal systems.

Yes, karma and recurring lives is involved and in fact it should be noted that the spirit/soul being worked together with the Mother/family prior to birth even though the mother may speak to the negative. Its a grand plan, among many, and loss of understanding is directly related to our scientific stand on materialism which pervades world culture. Yes Joey, there is another realm of beings and you are one of them.

Now, in speaking to the horrors of giving birth to a Down's Syndrome child its a bit much. You'd think that the person was going entering into the 7th level of hell (LOL). The Downs Syndrome children I've met are as sweet as can be and to the point the Mothers/Fathers have all been of a nature that we could all do well to emulate. Its about someone else and the beauty of people giving this Love of the selfless. There are many good souls out there who would and do deliver even without progressive knowledge, they are some of our best.

That was anecdotal but if education is going to be given to prospective family's the hate filled approach would have to be balanced by proper education which can include speaking to he families of Down's Syndrome children.

On a personal note, I would not like to be given this choice, even when I advocate through my studies but if so, it would still be difficult. this is the reason, as you note, that the government/scientific mavens should be balanced so as to give these prospective parents some amount of relief in a very difficult decision.

Does everyone agree that it is correct (moral) for the mother to have the choice to abort the fetus rather than to give birth to the child with Down's Syndrome?

Of course not. Ugh. Even if you don't believe that that is pure evil, it's a damned slippery slope.

I once thought it was pure evil too. Now I realize that it is diluted evil. Sometimes it is even the lesser of two evils.

If you don't accept the claim that limited herd incidence of cystic fibrosis is good for the population, will you defend the claim that it is bad for the population? It seems to me this "we can't say anything at all about populations" position is a bit of a cop out. Sure, neither of us study genetic epidemology, so let's grant that there is a lot of uncertainty in that field and that neither of us are particularly well suited to quantify that. That doesn't lead us to "we can't say anything", I don't think. I think we can still accept at face value that reducing a horrible and prevalent disease would be a good thing for the population much in the same way we try to reduce nongenetic diseases even though, who knows, maybe malaria really is good for humanity because biology is weird and uncertain.

Of course, accepting the descriptive point - that reducing herd incidence of bad genetic diseases is good for populations - doesn't lead us to the government mandating abortions, or anything, but that is where the more interesting questions lie, I think.

Thank you for your kind words and let me echo them for you. It was a long time ago, those scars have long since healed

Yeah. Apart from tame_deuces being wrong, if you rely on dodgy arguments (we don't know ecology!!) to argue against something you find abhorrent, what happens when ecology and genetics ARE clear on who could be killed without losing anything? Is it now ok because "the science" validates it? Because "we don't know enough ecology and genetics" was the totality of the argument.

It's just incredibly sloppy thinking and even sloppier moralizing, and what's worse it creates a culture in which certain ideas are taboo or lied about. For example, it's often career suicide to suggest that there are large inherent probably genetic differences between ethnic groups, and that that explains much of the inherent difference in advantage and cultural success. Many people have lost careers saying that, while people saying the opposite are lauded even if their reasoning is clownish. When in actuality, the knowledge of that difference, if properly studied, would be incredible for making lives better. It's the tame_deuces argument applied to knowledge instead of ecology.

Non-idiotic arguments against eugenics include:

1. No one should live in a world where it's written somewhere that the value of their life depends on their genes; valuing all lives equally regardless of genetics is the most free and egalitarian and non-dystopian option, even if it imposes a burden. Provided the burden is highly manageable, the world is better if we bear it.

2. Cures will be found for various disorders as science advances, as will less burdensome method of care.

3. It's near impossible and fraught with tremendous risk to put a value on a life or an experience of life; unhappiness, inferiority, unfairness and struggle are part of the great tapestry of life, and to judge a particular suffering unworthy of living is a strike against the human spirit.

Well, you mentioned malaria. As you might know, Malaria is one of the worst and widespread endemics in the world. There is no known vaccine and malaria parasites are now so resistant that in effect there exists no medicine to its most common variations. The death ratios of malaria has been increasing steadily the last 10 years. Reading about malaria is one of the scariest narratives imaginable, I kid you not. It might now have the dramatic shock impact, but overall it makes ebola look cuddly... because it is slowly winning.

However, you have another disease. Sickle cell anemia. It is a horrible disease, one of the worst one imaginable to hold as a human being. To see someone die from it is something I hope we never have to experience. It is caused by a genetic mutation. Its impact on populations is negligible.

However, here is the catch: Part of the genetic mutations that cause sickle cell anemia protect against Malaria. If you root out the sickle cell anemia mutations, you're weakening the population against one of the worst endemics in human history (quite possibly the worst). In fact in the countries where hit the hardest (in these it can kill up to 20% of the children population), these sickle cell mutations will rise in the population. These days research even suggest that sickle cell traits evolved because of malaria.

Now, of course this logic doesn't carry over to all diseases. It does, however, show how vitally important it is that we know genetic effects on populations level before we go in and actively promote eugenic practices. It is not okay to drive in the dark because you won't know if there are people in the street, you put on the lights and you make certain.