The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Disability and humanity > Comments

Disability and humanity : Comments

By Vaughan Olliffe, published 3/12/2014

Earlier this year, Richard Dawkins tweeted that it would be immoral not to abort a baby if you knew it had Down Syndrome.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
The average mother in the developed word gives live birth to less than three children in her lifetime. With the depletion of our resources that is more than enough.

Over her reproductive age every woman produces about 350 eggs each capable of being fertilised. In the prime of her life almost in every case an aborted fertilised egg can be replaced at some later date. At least early in a pregnancy a woman has the right to decide if a baby is the best decision for her, particularly if the potential child is genetically defective.

It is strange that many of those who oppose abortion are the philosophical descendants of the people who murdered so called witches (many of whom were only affected by rye flour poisoning) and who have had to be dragged reluctantly into accepting any scientifically verifiable discovery that failed to match their dogma. Many thinking, competent, people paid with their lives for confronting dogma.

The sensible limit to abortion is that no one has the right to inflict pain or disadvantage on a conscious personality. The foetus, throughout pregnancy, is not a conscious personality.

We need to get our priorities right. All pro-lifers should ask themselves what is their personal priority between unborn foetuses and the 20,000 plus children who die each day because we do not feed or house them adequately or did not provide adequate birth control measures to their parents.

Similarly a terminally ill person should be able to determine the time and place of his or her last breath.

I do not know the author's religious conviction. My own view is that one person's religious persuasion should have no influence over another adult’s life nor should religious people be free to indoctrinate young minds.
Posted by Foyle, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 6:27:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foyle,

I generally agree but would eliminate the word in brackets below,,

"I do not know the author's religious conviction. My own view is that one person's religious persuasion should have no influence over another adult’s life nor should [religious] people be free to indoctrinate young minds
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 6:55:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This guy needs to read his bible a bit more, there a very clear prohibitions about disabled people in his little black book.
Lev.21:17-23
Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. ... Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 8:32:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think we need to be realistic here. Down Syndrome babies in reality get aborted not for reasons of preventing their suffering. They are aborted because their parents in most cases don't want a disabled child (i.e. for selfish rather than altruistic reasons).

Once you sanction the abortion of some classes of disabled unborn children or their later infanticide , the question arises of where do you draw the line.

It is only short step to reach the Nazi conclusion, based on eugenics, that all disabled or genetic inferiors should be forcibly sterilised or (worse still) exterminated.

If it were known in advance that Stephen Hawking was likely to develop motor neurone disease, would Messrs Dawkins and Singer have recommended that his mother have him aborted?
Posted by Bren, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 8:38:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To take a clumsy statement of Dawkins’, foolishly made via a medium that only allows 140 characters per comment, and then run with it without addressing his clarification (http://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar), is dishonest.

The worth of a foetus or baby, disabled or not, is a side issue. No-one has the right to live at the expense of someone else’s body, and foetuses should not possess rights that are denied to the rest of us.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 10:12:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Bren!
What's missing in this morally bankrupt argument is the fact, we can if we choose, alter or replace the sometimes missing genetics that cause many genetically transferable conditions; i.e., Alzheimer, dementia, downs syndrome, moronic stupidity/political incompetence?

And indeed, actually create a vastly superior human/alter a still living one!
Stronger, leaner, faster, brighter, more cognisant and less affected by the wear and tear of aging, which in reality, is a breakdown in normal rejuvenation, also reversible, with GM?

And all preferable to stilling a beating human heart!
I mean the argument that a fetus is unaware throughout the full term, could be extended into early infancy outside the womb/the frail and aged!

We seem to have little problem or remorse stilling a beating human heart, but balk at the genetic modifications that might fix many problems permanently!
Why?
Because that would be playing God! And terminating "lessor" humans isn't?
Jawol?
Don't bury the problem; fix it!

All well and good to talk about disability and what it might cost us or the parents.
But what of the cost of (reversible)aged care?
As opposed to healthy, spritely, totally self reliant oldsters that need none of it; or cupboards of pills!?

And how much more could we evolve or advance, if we could keep our Einsteins alive and well; and effectively contributing for a further 50-60 years?
Or failing that, far better able to care for the Grandkids, when or if mum needs to go back to work!
Or, retain mental faculties, still elastic enough; to not only learn new disciplines, but keep up with the kids!

What would be lost if we knew what we know now, and had our current maturity, wisdom and judgement at an effective 18-19? Well?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 10:49:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy