The question: "Is it better to have been born?"

If you take a look at your attempt to address the question, you'll see that there's almost nothing of intellectual value that your statements add to that question:

Your "philosophical" statement comes down to the following two claims: "I feel like this. Other people feel differently."

People with DS are arguably more happy than "normal" people. People with DS are less self aware and self conscious.

If you want to use the happiness metric then maybe persons with DS should be ahead of "normal" people for a right to live.

wil: I was focused on Down's specifically just because of Dawkins' argument, and because it seems potentially flawed specifically with regard to the morality of aborting fetuses with DS.

I was focused specifically on utilitarianism with a goal of maximizing "happiness". I realize this could be glossed various ways. But His argument seems to be that he assumes that there is greater happiness in the world without the child then with it (or especially with a non-DS replacement, i.e "try again", but I think if he thinks it's morally required to abort, he must think even the absence has greater utility). Even within the framework where the happiness of one theoretical person is entirely equivalent and comparable to anothers (I'm at least somewhat uncomfortable with that but it seems necessary to the framework) it's not clear at all that the child with DS is going to be less happy, where happiness is something that is best determined by speaking to the person whose happiness we're measuring.

Maybe instead his measure of utility is something less subjective, where a non-disabled person's greater utility is unquestionable. But the tangent that we're engaged in involving suffering and wishing that one was not born seems to have more to do with happiness in the subjective way I'm using it. It's not clear to me at all that overall happiness is increased in the way that he assumes.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I answered the question in terms of whether I'd have wanted to be born into this world if I had DS. That answer was no. Then I just started talking about current situation. I didn't know that turned into the new question. For me, yes, currently, I'd rather have been born.

I respect your opinion and choice, if you decided to opt out, but I still believe it is relative. I'm not sure you can know how you would think if you were in fact born with DS.

Again, a bit silly, but it's sort of like being deaf and not realizing that other people can hear. If you were made aware of some current deficiencies you currently have, would that change your current happiness enough for you to deem your life immorally unhappy? If you realized you were "deaf", would that change your stance on living? The level of difficulty is relative to others, where a baseline is arbitrary. I have difficulties and deficiencies compared to others that could be relative to someone with DS, and by this baseline, I should also have been aborted in hindsight.

Of course we realize this. I addressed this when I answered in saying that I was thinking of this as a 38 year old man and not a 12 week baby. If my development would have indeed pushed me towards being totally happy all the time because I was indeed born with DS and don't know any better, then everything kinda gets distorted. I think the sadness of having to move backwards in mental capacity would be the reason I would opt out. Never having that mental capacity with DS would mean I don't know what I'm missing, as you point out.

We could say the same thing about a severely mentally ******ed child who many be born to rich parents and live their entire lives completely happy because their parents provide them with toys and ice cream for their entire lives, but looking at that from the outside, is that really a good choice? Most people would probably say no. I would say about the question of have I ever met a person with DS who didn't want to be born, no, but I'm unsure if they have the mental capacity to even contemplate the question. If they lack even that mental capacity, I'd say the life was probably not worth living.

Arguable, but fair enough. I do think this is a drastically different stance, that of "probably not worth living" to "immoral to live". It's just a difficult stance to objectively support, which is why I think RD begins to backtrack a little bit by the end, in saying that it depends on the person.

How much less mental capacity would you need to have before you opted out?

Does your logic apply to other things, like economic situation? If you were sufficiently poor, would you opt out of life and basically say "I would rather be aborted than be poor"?

If not, how are you distinguishing between the cases?

I understand what you're getting at, but I think we've all thought about these at some sort of adult level when we see other people suffering or disabled. Some people wouldn't want to live with an arm, or being burned, or being poor, etc. But if we asked Hawkings I'm sure he'd much rather have been born than not born (I think, anyway).

But just for the sake of it :

1. Poor I think I could handle.
2. Physically disabled, not sure.
3. Mentally disabled/mental illness, opt out.
4. Suffering (dying of cancer, etc), definitely opt out.

I have a child. I've thought that if something happened to her.. I could possibly opt out. Not positive on that one but the anguish would be soul-crushing.

Dawkins doesn't get to plead naivety about making an inflammatory remark on Twitter since this has already happened to him more than once. If he can't figure out how to handle Twitter responsibly, then he should either quit it or hire someone else to curate his account.

This is true as a Downs Syndrome person is, upon observation, more like a loving child. It would be very difficult to vote against the life of such a person but from the attached the praxis is that the overwhelming majority are aborted notwithstanding the antipathy to abortion within the Roman Catholic Church and Islam and probably even Protestantism.

My personal experience is positive regardless of the medical difficulties of those with the genetic defect and I am sure that the idea of "suffering" being a mainstay of the Down's Syndrome person is specious.

there is no "slippery slope" here but a matter of ignorance about birth or incarnation, and the polar opposite, death.

The approach to Down' Syndrome, within our culture, speaks more about us than the defect in and of itself.

Down's Syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome.

Perhaps Dawkin's bringing this to light will offer some knowledge to those who had never considered it in the past.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...syndrome-tweet

The idea of Dawkins bringing and advocating more happiness into the world is tripe.

The thread is back!

What does this say about your perception of those who are mentally disabled or suffer from a mental illness? Do you see the underlying arrogance that exists in order for you to make such claims?

Since I view morality as subjective, I don't see the problem with him stating that in his opinion, it would be immoral.

Yeah that was my first thought too. Probably not true in all cases but if you have ever been around someone with it in my experience they seem to have more joy.

I've rearranged your sentences slightly so that parts that seem to go together are next to each other.

I don't doubt the sincerity of his stated beliefs. But that sincerity has little bearing on the matter. And trying to pretend like he's "strictly" doing it for attention is also wrong (as in, somehow if he also believes his statements it takes away from that intention). The point is that he wants the attention.

That's possibly because you're a bit of a fanboy.

July 2014: Dawkins on rape

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...nt-pedophilia/

November 2013: Dawkins on airport security

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...y-8919618.html

August 2013: Dawkins on pedophilia

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3895514.html

August 2013: Dawkins on Muslims in science

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3732678.html

To claim that he's naive makes you appear naive. He's had plenty of time to learn how to manage social media, and it seems quite clear that he knows what he's doing and he's doing it intentionally.

Disagree. He's stated his opinions many times in shows. Other atheist scientist types have said essentially the same thing. They've discussed it over and over again. Not controversial. He sends out a tweet, then all of a sudden the twitterverse goes ape-**** because they are too stupid to understand what he's saying.

Perfect example :


DeGrasse Tyson says essentially the same thing about Muslims. If DeGrasse Tyson tweeted the same exact tweet, the twitterverse would freak out on him, too. The Muslim world has moved backwards, and we have data to back that statement up. Is that racist? Is that anti-muslim? It's not either. It's an observation of their scientific output.

I agree very much with every other tweet that was so "controversial". Ann Coulter says things that are essentially stupid just to get attention. Dawkins says things that are totally logical, but they are perceived as controversial. There's a huge difference, and it's that difference that doesn't attribute him to acting like an attention whore.

You've made point exactly for me on two fronts:

1) You're clearly a fan boy.
2) He's doing it to get attention.

No. What is arrogant about what I'd prefer? Many doctors have made specific requests about their end of life care in case they are not able to make their own decision when it comes to mental capacity. Does that make them arrogant?

I'm at a loss for why you are attributing arrogance to a state.

We just disagree then.

You should actually watch that video from DeGrasse Tyson. Only takes a few minutes.

Maybe you're just as unfamiliar with the term "arrogant" as you are with "attention whore."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogance

In order for you to think that mental ******ation is sufficient cause for you to prefer not being born, you must believe something about mental ******ation is beneath you. Somehow, they're worse than you, dumber than you, or less important than you. And that makes them unworthy ("in your opinion") relative to you.

Your logic is basically terrible, and your pseudo-intellectualism doesn't help.

* "Dawkins isn't an attention whore because he believes what he says." The sincerity of his beliefs, or even the factual nature of some of his claims, doesn't change anything with regards to the fact that he's seeking attention by making those claims.

* "What's arrogant about stating my opinion?" Really? You think that simply framing something as an opinion shields you from having an attitude of superiority?

Clearly. The difference is that my position is grounded in relevant observations. Your position is grounded in trying to avoid calling your hero an attention whore.

That you don't see how this video (that I've seen before) is irrelevant to the point merely adds to the claim that your intellectual engagement is lacking. Maybe mental ******ation isn't as beneath you as you think.

I'll ask you two questions.

1) If you state a fact, and it's perceived as controversial, are you automatically seeking attention?

2) If you filled out a living will and had non-resuscitate instructions in there in case of diminished mental capacity, does that make you arrogant?

Wil, I think you've moved slightly from Dawkins' premise. Not that you shouldn't, it's just an observation. He based his stance on "sum happiness", which I took to mean that which affects all parties involved, not just one's own happiness. Some of the scenarios in which you opt out may not actually produce sum-happiness when you include those around you.

The mentality of people should be different when debating whether to have children. They should realise that there is a less than 100% chance the baby will be born 'not normal'. Throwing your toys out the pram and having an abortion because your kid will have Down's Syndrome if born is wrong because you should have already realised that getting pregnant does not guarantee a perfectly healthy baby. So after accepting this realisation and you still choose to fall pregnant, you choose to accept the option the baby potentially being less than normal.

I'm against abortion but I do have a massive problem with the 'woman gets raped, falls pregnant' scenario. I could not berate a woman for aborting in this situation

I agree with almost none of this except for last part. Why do you think your opinion should be how others think? Not saying you can't have an opinion, but you're implying that whatever happens, under whatever circumstances, they should be accept?

It's a bit of an overreach to say the least.