Richard Dawkins on Down syndrome: Immoral that such a person should live

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 20, 2014

Culture, Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From world’s smartest man and biggest Darwin advocate Richard Dawkins: on baby with Down Syndrome: ‘Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world’.

Look, we can’t afford to pay Dawkins to say this stuff (it costs a ton to even talk to him) so don’t blame us.

Incidentally, my closest childhood friend was a boy with Down syndrome (Johnny, 1948-1957).

He died at a time when there was no pediatric open heart surgery for children where we lived. I dedicated one of my popular science books to him.

It is really hard for me to talk about this because I don’t understand the hatred some people have for people who have Down syndrome. If Johnny had lived …

O’Leary for News

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Interesting commentary: http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/richard-dawkins-a-gift-from-god/Dionisio_{August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

A_B writes. “Barb, and the nuclear bomb has, at its core, nuclear physics. And chemical weapons have, at their core, chemistry (as do much of modern weaponry, and the Nazi gas chambers). Why is ID not opposed to all science?” Why would we be? The same science that provides us with the understanding of how our universe came into being also provides us with the knowledge to create and test nuclear weaponry. Your analogy fails. ID has never been opposed to science. “Could it possibly be because the others do not contradict their sacred belief system?” The Bible commands us to be peaceable with all men. We cannot drop atomic bombs on nations and claim to be at peace with all men. Nuclear physics does not have to be destructive; governments assigned scientists the task of creating and building nuclear weapons. That is not a science problem, it’s a political one. Chemistry allows for many beneficial things including therapies to treat diseases. Chemistry also allows for the introduction of mustard gas into modern warfare. Again, a political problem. “Darwin, the ID anti christ, was opposed to social Darwinism.” He can be opposed to it all he wants. His theory brought about its creation. He has to deal with that.Barb_{August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Barb, and the nuclear bomb has, at its core, nuclear physics. And chemical weapons have, at their core, chemistry (as do much of modern weaponry, and the Nazi gas chambers). Why is ID not opposed to all science? Could it possibly be because the others do not contradict their sacred belief system? Darwin, the ID anti christ, was opposed to social Darwinism.Acartia_bogart_{August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

A_B:
Heart lander, current evolutionary theory is simply a scientific, evidence based explanation of how life on earth became so diverse. It says nothing about morality, right and wrong, or ethics.
Allow me to introduce you to social Darwinism and eugenics. Both of these concepts have, at their core, current evolutionary theory.Barb_{August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

anthropic @ 67
We should always try to interpret scripture by other scriptures, if possible. If James is saying that...
Agree. Here's Paul, confirming what James wrote too: Christians should be lights in the world, by reflecting Christ's own Light.
Philippians 2 (ESV) 12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. 14 Do all things without grumbling or disputing, 15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, 16 holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain. 17 Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all. 18 Likewise you also should be glad and rejoice with me.
Commentary from the Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries
2:12 Therefore. On the basis of Christ’s supreme example, Paul resumes his appeal. The apostle’s presence encourages the Philippians to obey, but the basic motivation is from “God who works” in them (v. 13), and their obedience will flourish in Paul’s absence as well (1:27). your own salvation. As in 1:28, this is salvation in the full, redemptive sense with particular stress on the sanctification of the believer. The sanctifying process calls for obedience to the exhortation of vv. 1–5. See 1 Cor. 6:11. fear and trembling. This is awe and reverence rather than panic and alarm. The right emotions are stirred by the presence of God (v. 13), and not by questions or doubts about eternal security. 2:13 God who works in you. The use of human effort (v. 12), far from violating God’s will, is just what He commands for achieving His saving purpose (Eph. 2:8–10). Having invoked the example of Christ, Paul reassures the Philippians that they do not will and work on their own, but their wills and their actions are the very arenas where God’s own power is working (4:13; 1 Thess. 2:13). 2:14 without grumbling or questioning. The Philippians must not imitate the ancient Israelites (Ex. 15:24; 16:7–9; 1 Cor. 10:10). Note also the allusion in v. 15 to Deut. 32:5. The Philippians may well have been guilty of grumbling against church leaders, as the Israelites did against Moses (v. 29; 1 Thess. 5:12, 13). 2:15 that you may be. The corporate witness of a united church is in view. blameless and innocent . . . without blemish. The meanings of these terms overlap considerably. Paul describes the quality of life required of “children of God.” Such persons will “shine as lights in the world,” in marked contrast to their “crooked and twisted” contemporaries, but offering hope to them at the same time (cf. Matt. 5:14–16; Acts 2:40). 2:16 holding fast. Paul is concerned with the Philippians’ own fidelity to the gospel of Jesus Christ (1:27; 2:1–5). the word of life. This refers to both the gospel and the ethical teachings founded on it (1:27; 4:8, 9). I may be proud. Paul’s pride on the “day of Christ” (1:10; cf. 1:6) will be the Philippians’ spiritual growth rather than his own (1:9–11). 2:17 if I am to be poured out. Paul here refers not to his present suffering, but to the possibility that he will die as a martyr. drink offering. A libation normally of wine, not blood, that accompanied sacrifices. sacrificial offering of your faith. The Philippians’ gifts to Paul (4:10–20). I am glad and rejoice. For Paul, suffering can cause joy to flourish. It is to be the same for the Philippians (v. 18).
Glad you brought this up, so that we could clarify it, having in mind the many onlookers who visit this site. Thank you. Rev. 22:21 :) :) :)Dionisio_{August 22, 2014
August
08
Aug
22
22
2014
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

A-B " “But I give creationist credit for trying to discredit evolution by calling it a belief system. It is a unique, although stupid, tactic that only convinces those that are already convinced.” Astonishing. Starts off with righteous indignation for his belief actually being a non-belief then grand stands and finishes on a soap box with a faith affirmation. A-B "It has been modified to account for new discoveries (eg. Drift) but the basic concept (natural selection acting on variation) remains sound and unchallenged."DavidD_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart: Do you really want to open the Pandora’s box of religious caused violence? And I won’t even mention the crusades. According to the Encyclopedia of War, less than 7% of all major conflicts were caused by religion: http://carm.org/religion-cause-war And the estimated deaths caused by religious wars is about 2%: http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/09/18/is-religion-really-the-number-one-cause-of-war/ Non religious men who have obtained power have been far deadlier and more likely to commit mass murder. Pray A-B that you never have to live under an athiest ruler. Even if you don't believe in God, those who do will be far less likely to murder you.Mr. Cheese_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Mark Frank. I will take a look at what you wrote. Probably in the end we will just have to agree to disagree, but that's okay. Prof Leff was interesting in that he said we desperately wish for two contradictory things, absolute & knowable morality ("slavery is wrong") and yet complete freedom to define right and wrong for ourselves. As a materialist, he thinks that there is no basis for absolute morality, and yet he too "knows" that some things are right, and some things are wrong. That's why ethics, though real, are unspeakable.anthropic_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

#62 Anthropic I think we will have to agree to differ about the ontological status of human beings. As I said, I have done the metaethics argument about a thousand times on this forum and need some dramatic stimulus to undertake it again. In fact I have had the dispute so often I wrote up my opinions here (look at the bits on metaethics). The most relevant one is "Subjective does not mean trivial".Mark Frank_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

anthropic @ 67 Agree. Sola Fide. Sola Scriptura. Solus Christus. Sola Gratia. Soli Deo Gloria.
Can that faith save. This introduces the crucial issue of the relationship between faith and works. The question under scrutiny is, What kind of faith is saving faith? James’s question is rhetorical; the obvious answer is that faith without works cannot save. Faith that yields no deeds is not saving faith. The New Testament does not teach justification by the profession of faith or the claim to faith; it teaches justification by the possession of true faith. Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries
Dionisio_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

Don't mean to get into a theological argument here, but if we are not saved by faith alone in Christ alone, then we'll have to delete the gospel of John and the Pauline epistles. We should always try to interpret scripture by other scriptures, if possible. If James is saying that salvation into heaven requires a certain level of works, this conflicts with the central message of the Gospel that the finished work of Jesus on the cross is sufficient. Nothing else. Of course, if we are talking salvation from the consequences of our sins, a definition used frequently in the scriptures, that's a different matter. Or that a profession of faith is not the same thing as having actual faith. Or that faith without works is useless to help others. Or that without works, we will not get certain rewards in heaven. All these are reasonable in the light of other scriptures.anthropic_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 58 Faith Without Works Is Dead 14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.Dionisio_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

A-B @54 - You stated, "But I give creationist credit for trying to discredit evolution by calling it a belief system. It is a unique, although stupid, tactic that only convinces those that are already convinced."
Belief System The belief system of a person or society is the set of beliefs that they have about what is right and wrong and what is true and false.
Please tell me how you believe that you ultimately came into being, i.e. became human, without invoking evolution. (All the atheists and agnostics that I know use evolution as their 'belief system') But I’ll go first – I came into this designed universe through a planned process from a Supreme Being who provided an objective reference for reality. (My ‘belief system’) BTW, my belief system provides an objective reference for - reason vs meaningless, right vs wrong, good vs evil, intelligence vs stupidity – are these real or illusions? Consider the fact that you have the ability to think abstractly about the question – why is that?
stupid /ˈstu•pɪd/ adj › lacking thought or intelligence: Consider this, to remove any ‘creator’ from our very existence including the beginning of our universe is to remove any ‘thought or intelligence’ from the equation. By definition, you are ultimately left with an existence from stupidity.
Heartlander_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 58 Hearing and Doing the Word 19 Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. 21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. 22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24 For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. 26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. James 1 (ESV)Dionisio_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 58 Testing of Your Faith 2 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. 9 Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, 10 and the rich in his humiliation, because like a flower of the grass he will pass away. 11 For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits. 12 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. 16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. 18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures. James 1 (ESV)Dionisio_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

Hey, Mark Frank 50. I think where we part company is on two points. First, the ontological status of human beings. Are we just another animal brought into being by chance processes, or something more? Second, is objective morality possible without an absolute source of morals? Note that if we are merely another type of animal, then there is no reason to be squeamish about eating fetuses. Or children -- animals do stuff like all the time. That's why ethicists such as Peter Singer openly call for the killing of infants who do not measure up to parental standards. And as the late Yale Law Professor Arthur Leff pointed out in his article, Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law, without God as a source of absolute morality, we simply have no choice but to make up things on our own. We want to believe that certain things are right and others are wrong, that the law is based on morality, that our neighbor will be prohibited from doing something bad to us because it would be, well, wrong. But without an unevaluated Evaluator as a source of right and wrong, none of this is truly possible. As Leff puts it, any laws we make are subject to the devastating response, "Sez who?" Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot do? http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3810&context=fss_papersanthropic_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

AB says:
But I give creationist credit for trying to discredit evolution by calling it a belief system. It is a unique, although stupid, tactic that only convinces those that are already convinced.
Actually, it has persuasive power because it is true. Only those already indoctrinated by evolutionists and taught to view historical science as if it is as reliable as every day science have trouble seeing this. Now if you could remove the uncertainty by providing real experimental evidence that life can evolve from chemicals, that a single cell can actually evolve into a multicellular organism, that prokaryotes can actually transform themselves into eukaryotes, that self consciousness and mind and morality can actually evolve, etc ad nauseum, then perhaps it would be wrong to call it a belief, but I seriously doubt that will happen.tjguy_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 58
1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. [ESV]
Amen! The holy spirit dwelling within the Christians takes the (worldly)'fun' out of sinning, hence we confess it and repent, because we only want to give glory to God. As we grow in our walk with Christ, many times what we consider sin is not counted as so by worldly standards. As our sanctification progresses sins should turn rare.Dionisio_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

“It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”
I wonder what personal relative changing standard of morality he used to make that moral pronouncement. He makes these moral pronouncements as if they have meaning for everyone, but what he forgets is that there is no such standard that applies to all. In reality, if there is no God, "morality" is a figment of our evolved imagination. Nothing is truly right or wrong for anyone, let alone for all people everywhere - at least in an evolutionary world. Nice try though, by Mr. D.! What it shows us is that Dawkins thinks his own personal moral values have real meaning and value. In fact, he seems to think they should be held and adhered to by all! A bit arrogant, wouldn't you say? I mean what gives him the right to make moral pronouncements and judge others based on HIS ideas of right/wrong?! It shows that he can't "practice what he preaches" and thereby exposes a big problem with his worldview.tjguy_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. [ESV]kairosfocus_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Mung @ 55 Peter was not a Christian when he did that. Jesus had not been crucified or resurrected yet. Christianity had not been born yet. It was about to happen, but shortly after that incident you quoted. Actually, not long after that incident you cited, Peter denied knowing Jesus three times! However, the Acts of the Apostles describe quite a different Peter after being baptized with the Holy Spirit following the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. But still Christians can make mistakes. In the NT we see at least one occasion where Paul had to correct Peter on a quite important issue. That's how it goes normally, Christians correcting one another, lovingly. Sometimes that's part of the discipleship process. As Christians grow in their faith during their sanctification, errors become less frequent and relevant. But there are fundamental issues that a Christian should not get confused about.Dionisio_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart @ 52
No matter how Christian a person is during their life,...
what do you mean by that statement? or did you mean:?
No matter how Christian a person is [claims to be] during their life,...
you seem confused about some terms you like to use quite often... I would be more careful in your case. BTW, did you see my post # 45? Did you ignore it intentionally or just didn't notice it? Anyway, you don't have to comment on it, because it was written mainly for the onlookers who visit this blog without leaving any comments. :) The same applies to this comment too. :)Dionisio_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Arcatia_bogart:
I know that it is an argument that I can’t win.
It may be an argument you can't win, but not for the reason you give. Arcatia_bogart:
No matter how Christian a person is during their life, the moment they commit violence the other Christians rally around and claim that the person couldn’t really have been Christian because a Christian won’t commit violence. Now, isn’t that handy?
You mean like when Peter cut off that guy's ear? John 18:10
Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus.
Mung_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

DavidD, you ascribe far too much power to a book that I and many evolutionary biologists have never read. It also must be a great talent to be able to ascertain the motives of a man who has been dead for a century. What creationists like yourself always neglect to mention is that Darwin himself was opposed to "social Darwinism", which eugenics is an offshoot. Darwin was just a man. He proposed a theory that has been significantly modified over the years. He was correct in some things and wrong in others. In his day, there was no knowledge of DNA, RNA, genetics, etc. What makes him respected by scientists is not his theory alone. After all, it was mostly a compilation and summarization of things that were already known. It is the fact that with each new discovery, his theory survives. It has been modified to account for new discoveries (eg. Drift) but the basic concept (natural selection acting on variation) remains sound and unchallenged. But I give creationist credit for trying to discredit evolution by calling it a belief system. It is a unique, although stupid, tactic that only convinces those that are already convinced.Acartia_bogart_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Heartlander A-B @41. "From THE DESCENT OF MAN" Nice quotes and accurate. Even Darwin disciples and proselytes forget the underlying circumstances with which their prophet wrote these so-called holy writings to which they even to this day won't question and ultimately try and prove. His first holy book "Origins" was inspired not because he was a scientist who stumbled upon some amazing revelation which was observed in real time, but rather his beef with God for taking his daughter from him. Then he proceeded to do the usual "there couldn't be a designer because he wouldn't do things this way" schtick. His second book like his first, was written during a time of racial conquering and Empire building. Whites were conquering darker races and thought to be superior to those sub-human races, hence the need to scientific justify the racism and bigotry. Without Darwin's take on life, many disgusting scientific programs would never have gotten off the ground. Without that second racist book, many don't realize that it had a more powerful impact than his first "Origins" account. Of course in their minds, all they need do is invoke "Godwin's Law" and all is forgiven. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FmEjDaWqA4 -DavidD_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Mung: "There’s no Pandora’s box to be opened. There is no such thing as “religious caused violence.” I know that it is an argument that I can't win. No matter how Christian a person is during their life, the moment they commit violence the other Christians rally around and claim that the person couldn't really have been Christian because a Christian won't commit violence. Now, isn't that handy?Acartia_bogart_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

A-B @ 47
What does evolution, or religion for that matter, have to do with morality? Neither (including god) are the source of morality. Morality is simply a set of man made rules for living together in a group. Religions have simply documented these rules in text.
Hmmm… So man is the source of morality - and man’s behaviors and brain formed thru evolution – but evolution has nothing to do with morality – although Darwin wrote Descent to show haw man’s morality evolved. Oh, and religion is merely the documentation of man-made rules acquired via evolution… Fascinating stuff… Dare I say jeanyus!Heartlander_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

#44 Anthropic Thanks. I also found your #28 thought provoking. Here is what it provoked!
Note that, if Dawkins is to be taken seriously, we should have no objections to eating aborted human fetuses. After all, we eat bacon, right? And there should be no problem with chopping up fetuses to make products that perhaps make our skin look younger, or give us shinier hair. We use pigs as much as possible, so who could object?
I think these examples over-simplify a complicated issue. It needs more context. Consider a couple of more concrete examples at opposite extremes. A survivor of a plane crash eats the foetus of a dead passenger because there is no other food available and without doing so he would die. This is deeply upsetting but no more immoral than the famous 1972 Andes disaster where the survivors ate the dead passengers to survive. A company makes a business of paying young women for their foetuses after abortion so it can use them as part of a process for making cosmetics. This is deeply immoral because of the pressure it puts on the women and the many people who would be very upset by the idea. It is also thoroughly disturbing in the same way that the Andes flight was disturbing – but that is not what makes it immoral. It also makes me worry what else such an insensitive company might do. Yes there are problems but they are not to do with the moral claims of the foetuses. In both these examples I am assuming the foetus had already been aborted for other reasons. If we are talking about aborting a foetus in order to eat it or use it in any other way then that is completing different. This is wrong but how wrong it is depends on several factors – including (but not limited to) the age of the foetus. Like many others (including I suspect Dawkins), I see a gradual progression from a meaningless bunch of cells at fertilisation through to a full human being late in pregnancy. During this time its moral claims become steadily greater than those of a pig at a similar level of development. It becomes progressively more unethical to destroy or abuse the foetus as it develops. The foetus has some moral claim even from fertilisation but it is very small. On the other hand the Yuck factor of eating foetuses does not strike me as making it wrong to do so. I have a similar Yuck factor about eating meat of any kind – but I don’t think it wrong for others to do so – including my family. Some women like to cook and eat their placenta. I don’t think it is wrong – just odd.
Fortunately, most materialists don’t actually live according to logic of their metaphysical position. But it is educational to have that logic spelled out by such a prominent advocate as Dawkins.
This is a long-standing dispute. It is a popular misconception on this forum that the only alternative to an objective moral code enforced by a deity is a meaningless do as you please morality. This is so over-simple as to be laughable. There are all sorts of alternatives. However, I have fought that battle too many times!Mark Frank_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart:
Do you really want to open the Pandora’s box of religious caused violence? And I won’t even mention the crusades.
There's no Pandora's box to be opened. There is no such thing as "religious caused violence."
Mung_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Heartlander, I don't see what point you are trying to make. These are points of conjecture on Darwin's part. He may be correct on some and incorrect on others. Darwin may be the foundation on which modern evolutionary theory was built, but the Brody has been greatly modified. That is why the term Darwinian evolution is only ever used by biologists in the broadest sense. Yet ID uses it as an insult knowing that it doesn't explain everything. By the way, in Darwin's day, the terms 'idiot' and 'moron' were medical terms that did not hold the negative connotation that they do today. Since then we have cycled through terms such as 'retarded', 'handicapped' and 'special' in much the same way. How long do you think it will be before we find a term to replace 'challenged'. ',Acartia_bogart_{August 21, 2014
August
08
Aug
21
21
2014
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply