we are in agreement then, its everyone own decision. If my baby has downs and I abort because of it you will support my freedom to do so right?
Yes I agree that Dawkins is a fucking tool for telling people they are immoral to bring a child with Down syndrome to this world
Yeah man you can kill your fetus. Choice is yours. Now can you agree that Dawkins was completely out of line for that disgusting comment?
I thought I already agreed that your version of what he said is disgusting. I admire your emotion on the subject, but if you want to be taken seriously then hold off on the Hilter comparisons. Burning jews is not even in the same ball park.
Hitler's philosophy was eugenics, which dominated European philosophy for decades until he shamed it and everyone abandoned it. He systematically killed the retarded, Downs people, etc. I assume this is why Magnifier mentioned Hitler.
I re-read the 2 articles early in this thread. Dawkins simply said that it's unethical not to abort a Downs baby. He did not say that his ethic should be enforced by law. So he would say, you should go by my ethics, but if you don't, you shouldn't be forced to. So rest easy, anti-abortionists. Pro-abortionists will gain no power even if Dawkins' ethic spreads.
It's not that he has the power to force people. It's that he thinks people should abort their Down syndrome babies or they are lacking morality. Some sick ass shit
The other side of this topic is real interesting, where are the ethical lines with regards to genetic manipulation down the line? A woman wants her child to be 6'4", have an IQ of 160 and to be a great athlete so she has certain genes switched on or off, is that ok? What about when everyone starts doing it? What about when only the wealthy can afford it, so the wealthy kids are always the richest, smartest, best looking and the gap widens? Just some ethical issues to think about regarding what will be possible in 30 years (of less).
So what? He's not forcing anyone to do anything. I don't see the comparison with Hitler myself. Words are different than actions. I don't see how Dawkins telling people what he thinks is moral is any different than you telling people what you think is moral. barfo
So what? A man lost his basketball team because of telling his girlfriend to not bring a black man with her to the game. I guess Down syndrome is okay to talk about. They don't have the same rights as the black folk?
I don't think Dawkins is an NBA owner. But if Sterling had said Down Syndrome people instead of blacks, then I would guess the reaction would have been about the same - maybe a little less because most of his players don't have Down Syndrome. Why is it ok for you to express your moral opinions but it isn't ok for Dawkins to do so? barfo
Tell that to the white supremacist. There draws a line to when a person is saying a certain people are lower than others. A waste of medical expense, etc... Of course he has a right to say what's on his mind, just as the white supremacist can say that white people are better than everyone else. Still makes his opinion disgusting.
