Dawkins: Not Aborting Down Syndrome Feotusus is Immoral

[WasatchMan]

Most of you have probably heard Richard Dawkins newest controversial tweets saying that it is immoral to bring a child to term with down syndrome if you know this going to be the outcome when it is a fetus.

 

While this does seem a tad heartless/brash, I can see the argument.  This comes down to the fundamental nature of man as a rational animal. If you know you will create a human with a very limited capacity to live a rational life, is it ethical to bring this human into reality when you can determine this outcome while it is still a fetus? 

 

I am still mulling this over (so please don't jump down my throat, I know this is a touchy subject!!), but I would love to hear thoughts on this from the FDR community!

 

Here is a video that shows the tweets: http://youtu.be/w4-GCk6-azM

[Lars]

How would you break it down in terms of UPB?Should we kill someone if we know for certain that they will never live up to our subjective standards for a happy life? Humans below a certain threshold of rationality deserve to die? What is that threshold? Raising a Down Syndrome child is evil? How does it violate the NAP?Why should we strip all potential personhood away from a fetus with Down Syndrome? Their capacity for economic contribution is limited? You could say that about any type of disability.It's sickening how some mothers think they own a developing fetus just because it's inside their body, the baby is not her property to dispose of as she wishes. Being unprepared to raise a particular child does not mean the child must die. Obviously, if you don't want a child, you should take the necessary precautions to block successful insemination, be responsible

[MMX2010]

I also can see his argument.

 

Naturally, I differentiate between a governmental system that forces all Down's syndrome babies to be aborted (BAD!) and a free society which strongly encourages (with financial penalties, if necessary) all Down's syndrome babies to be aborted (reasonable). 

 

But I'm open to the concept. 

[SamuelS]

I don't see how one can make an objective judgment about the value one subjectively gets out of existing...a "normal" person may be less happy than the downs person, or vice versa, I wouldn't force either one to continue existing but that's far from stopping them in the first place.

[st434u]

I would not say it's immoral. But I wouldn't say it's immoral to do it, either.

 

Although personally, I would want to make pretty darn sure that the tests were reliable before I went forward with something like this. Because of this, I find Dawkins' statement troubling. What if the tests are wrong? In that case you've just condemned tons of perfectly healthy fetuses to die based on your calling the lack of an abortion in these cases "immoral". Also, it can be a slippery slope. What about less severe problems, like cleft palate?

[jpahmad]

What if tests detect that the fetus has a rare genetic disorder and will most likely live a short and painful life?

[Pepin]

Can't watch the video at the moment, but I followed this a few weeks back. From what I read, he is not saying that it is immoral to abort, rather that it is the best choice.Given that abortion is not immoral anyway, it makes sense for someone to abort a fetus if they do not have the financial or emotional means if it is something they are unable to handle. It is twenty times more difficult to raise a child with these complications, and the obligation continues well into adulthood.

 

This decision isn't much different than someone aborting because they do not have the financial or emotional means to handle a child, except that they would have if the child did not have the complication.Seriously, put yourself into this situation. You are ready to have a child, you get the fetus screened, and then you find that your child is going to take twenty times more time and money to raise. You may have been ready for a child, but you certainly aren't ready for this.

 

I know a couple that has a child with this and all I can give them is praise because they devote the majority of their time to the child. I really doubt that most people are capable of the same level of commitment, not because they are cowards, but because it is extremely extremely difficult and costs so much money.

 

I am not saying that people must abort a fetus which has been confirmed to have down syndrome, or that people with down syndrome ought to have been aborted, rather that people ought to make the same economic calculation that they did when deciding if they wanted a child in the first place, while adjusting the numbers to fit the current circumstance.

[MMX2010]

Because of this, I find Dawkins' statement troubling. What if the tests are wrong? In that case you've just condemned tons of perfectly healthy fetuses to die based on your calling the lack of an abortion in these cases "immoral".

 

From what I recall in high school biology, the Down's Syndrome test is easy to do and not very prone to error.  (All you have to do is detect a third copy of a specific chromosome in a fetus' genotype.) 

[Wuzzums]

I can see the argument BUT 99% of people with Down Syndrome report that they live happy lives . 

 

I think the main point he is making is that you shouldn't have kids if they're doomed to a bad life. I agree, nobody has the right to give another person a bad life if they can avoid it.

Like for instance in this video  a woman tells us about her hardships growing up as a child and the difficulty of being a mother with Moebius Syndrome. There's a 50/50 chance her offspring will have the same syndrome, and what does she do? She has 3 kids, one of which unfortunately has the syndrome.

 

It just blows my mind. You had a bad life and wish you never had the illness, you know there's a pretty good chance your kid will have the illness, you thus know that your child will have a pretty bad life and still decide to flip the coin? 3 times?

[AnarchoCarpetalist]

From firsthand experience (my brother is severely mentally retarded) I know how unbelievably hard it can be to raise and live with a severely mentally handicapped person. We're not talking about people who are a bit slow, but people like my brother who no matter what will never learn to add 2 + 2, will never learn to read and will never be able to find even part time employment. Of course I love my brother a huge amount, but one of the great hypotheticals of my life is "would I, my parents, and society be better off if he was born 'normal'? Or perhaps not born at all?"

 

Most people with downs syndrome can find some sort of employment or independence, but when you have someone that literally will have to be babysat and talked to like a 3 year old for their entire life, I don't know, it just seems different to me. It's not like raising a child where they gradually change and grow up and become independent. My brother is in his 20s and will always have the mentality of a 3-4 year old.

 

I guess I don't really have anything to add to the argument, just that I think the fetus/baby's happiness isn't the only one to be considered in some situations. I really don't like arguing from consequences instead of first principles, but just feeling empathy for my parents it makes me... maybe not sad but I guess uncomfortable about bringing more eternally dependent people into this world.

[MMX2010]

I guess I don't really have anything to add to the argument, just that I think the fetus/baby's happiness isn't the only one to be considered in some situations. I really don't like arguing from consequences instead of first principles, but just feeling empathy for my parents it makes me... maybe not sad but I guess uncomfortable about bringing more eternally dependent people into this world.

 

I'm a private SAT tutor, and I've tutored two siblings-of-mentally-disabled people.

 

One was a boy whom I felt was defeated by the constant attention his disabled brother got.  He was certainly soft-spoken and always sad. 

 

The other was a girl whom I liked a lot.  I felt her optimism and social skills were a direct result of having her brother.  She knew how to be caring without being impatient, and I admired her lack of impatience (if that's even a term). 

 

I get what you're saying, though, about needing to consider the happiness of others. 

[st434u]

From what I recall in high school biology, the Down's Syndrome test is easy to do and not very prone to error.  (All you have to do is detect a third copy of a specific chromosome in a fetus' genotype.) 

 

Ok, well if it's easy to do, non-invasive somehow, and highly reliable, then I would support the practice. But I still wouldn't call it immoral not to do it. That shows a rather significant misunderstanding of what the term implies. But then again, Dawkins is a socialist, so that is to be expected.

[MMX2010]

 But I still wouldn't call it immoral not to do it.

 

 

I think I get what you're saying and I totally agree with it. 

 

I'm a very big fan of scientific knowledge, but I get this intuitive "shudder" when imagining mothers being forced to abort Down's Syndrome fetuses. 

 

There's no way in hell I'd want any government to be in control of that.  There's also no way in hell I'd want to expose mothers who give birth to Down's Syndrome babies to ridicule in a free society. 

 

I would support insurance incentives in a free society to abort such a fetus.  But I don't know what financial incentives in a DRO ought to exist in a free society. 

[WasatchMan]

A lot of great thoughts here! 

 

Should we kill someone if we know for certain that they will never live up to our subjective standards for a happy life? Humans below a certain threshold of rationality deserve to die? What is that threshold? Raising a Down Syndrome child is evil? How does it violate the NAP?

Why should we strip all potential personhood away from a fetus with Down Syndrome? Their capacity for economic contribution is limited? You could say that about any type of disability.

 

I don't see how one can make an objective judgment about the value one subjectively gets out of existing...a "normal" person may be less happy than the downs person, or vice versa, I wouldn't force either one to continue existing but that's far from stopping them in the first place.

 

 I don't consider this to be a subjective issue, or one about economic capacity. This is a severe disorder that disables the most fundamental part of being a human.  I will attempt address the morality issue better at the end of this post... I hope.

 

I would not say it's immoral.

 

This decision isn't much different than someone aborting because they do not have the financial or emotional means to handle a child, except that they would have if the child did not have the complication.

 

I can see the argument BUT 99% of people with Down Syndrome report that they live happy lives . 

 

 

I think I get what you're saying and I totally agree with it. [Re: But I still wouldn't call it immoral not to do it.]

 

So, in my mind, these are the hard questions to ask around the question "Is it immoral not to abort a fetus when you know it will have Down Syndrome?"

 

Besides some randomness in genetic combinations, what would be the fundamental difference between a Down Syndrome fetus now, and a healthy fetus conceived a month from now? At the fetus stage, and given the same parents, are these essentially the same person? They both would enter the world at the same stage in their parents life, in society, and in their parents mind would be no different except for waiting an extra month for a non disabled child.  Both now and a month from now fetuses are only potential human beings, and you can't have both, you can only choose one.

 

What is the difference between completing the development (i.e. bringing to term) a person you know will have Down Syndrome, and having an operation at birth to give the child Down Syndrome? Especially if your answer to the first question is they are essentially the same person, how could one think it is an ethical choice to bring their child into the world with a disabled brain when they can restart and give their child a non-disabled brain?

[Lars]

What is the difference between completing the development (i.e. bringing to term) a person you know will have Down Syndrome, and having an operation at birth to give the child Down Syndrome? Especially if your answer to the first question is they are essentially the same person, how could one think it is an ethical choice to bring their child into the world with a disabled brain when they can restart and give their child a non-disabled brain?

I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting that killing a fetus with Down Syndrome and trying again with a new egg is the same as curing the disability. Yeah, as far as everyone else is concerned they're the same, but not internally the same consciousness.

 

Technically speaking, the preemptive abortion of disabled children can't be considered morally good since it affirms positive action, something which can never be universal. It can't be considered morally evil either since killing a potential person is not the same as murder, although the line between 'potential' and 'person' is quite blurred.

 

There's no objective reason to deny these people a chance at life, even if they must be given up for adoption. It may be quite a hassle for mothers in question, but it's all part of the risk you take in becoming pregnant (especially at an advanced age).

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

If you're not willing to have a Down's kid then don't get pregnant. 

[MMX2010]

 

So, in my mind, these are the hard questions to ask around the question "Is it immoral not to abort a fetus when you know it will have Down Syndrome?"

 

 

 

I think Lars nailed it by pointing out that there are no positive obligations.

 

So the only way you can frame this is by suggesting that Down's Syndrome babies are stealing something from someone, or that their parents are. 

[Josh F]

Evolutionary biologists say the darndest things.

[JamesP]

NaA

[WasatchMan]

Technically speaking, the preemptive abortion of disabled children can't be considered morally good since it affirms positive action, something which can never be universal. It can't be considered morally evil either since killing a potential person is not the same as murder, although the line between 'potential' and 'person' is quite blurred.There's no objective reason to deny these people a chance at life, even if they must be given up for adoption. It may be quite a hassle for mothers in question, but it's all part of the risk you take in becoming pregnant (especially at an advanced age).

 

I think Lars nailed it by pointing out that there are no positive obligations.

 

So the only way you can frame this is by suggesting that Down's Syndrome babies are stealing something from someone, or that their parents are. 

 

Yeah, I think you are probably right.  Not aborting does not pass the coma test, and therefore can't be considered immoral.

 

The only argument (and it is pretty weak) I can see where you may be able to get a positive obligation is that becoming pregnant doesn't just happen out of the blue or when you are in a coma.  If you take the examples of people who know their offspring will 100% get down syndrome before even conceiving (lets say this is true for the sake of argument) would them procreating anyway be considered immoral?  If your answer to this is "yes", then it seems to come more down to the morality around a fetus.  Because if it is immoral when the sperm and eggs are separated when you know the outcome, then we are in fuzzy territory once conception has happened.  In other words, the positive obligation is derived from the choice to create a human being. 

 

I am not comfortable knowing the morality around a fetus, or when a fetus can/should/ought be considered a human, so I can't make a firm stance on this now, and tend to agree with Lars.

 

 

NaA

 

Would you care to educate me why? Or is that a dictate? It might turn out to be a bad argument, as this great discussion here I think has just about flushed out, but I really don't see any glaring fallacies.

[JamesP]

"NaA"

 

Would you care to educate me why? Or is that a dictate? It might turn out to be a bad argument, as this great discussion here I think has just about flushed out, but I really don't see any glaring fallacies.

 

Just an observation. Dawkins did not make an argument. Saying that something is immoral without providing the argument puts it in the category of "not even wrong," as he would say.

 

I haven't read the rest of this thread to comment on whether anyone has come up with a valid argument to support this conclusion, but I know that Dawkins didn't provide one.

[MMX2010]

 

 

The only argument (and it is pretty weak) I can see where you may be able to get a positive obligation is that becoming pregnant doesn't just happen out of the blue or when you are in a coma.  If you take the examples of people who know their offspring will 100% get down syndrome before even conceiving (lets say this is true for the sake of argument) would them procreating anyway be considered immoral? 

 

It's impossible to know, before conception, that a fetus will have Down's Syndrome.  That's literally impossible, unless time travel is ever developed. 

[st434u]

So, in my mind, these are the hard questions to ask around the question "Is it immoral not to abort a fetus when you know it will have Down Syndrome?"

No. I don't see how it could be. They are not violating anybody else's rights, and they are not creating a monster who will violate anybody else's rights. It can't be argued that it is in the interest of the fetus to be terminated, so there is nobody's rights who are violated here. It could be perfectly okay though, to have contractual obligations whereby all people living in a gated community or apartment complex agree to do it as part of their conditional ownership of their individual property/homes.

 

Besides some randomness in genetic combinations, what would be the fundamental difference between a Down Syndrome fetus now, and a healthy fetus conceived a month from now? At the fetus stage, and given the same parents, are these essentially the same person?

They are not the same person in the least. That randomness in genetic combinations is a large part if not most of what differentiates one person from another. Yes, environment and resulting epigenetics play a role, but it is by no means the entirety of the difference.

 

Then again, as I said before, I would support the practice if the first one is confirmed to have Down's Syndrome and the second does not, but this is an extreme case and I would certainly not apply it to all forms of genetic or embryological problems. In any case, I would be doing it for the benefit of the parents only. Claiming that you are doing it for any other reason seems dishonest. And I suspect that Richard Dawkins would be one to argue for other such reasons, and completely disregard the benefit to the parents.

 

What is the difference between completing the development (i.e. bringing to term) a person you know will have Down Syndrome, and having an operation at birth to give the child Down Syndrome? Especially if your answer to the first question is they are essentially the same person, how could one think it is an ethical choice to bring their child into the world with a disabled brain when they can restart and give their child a non-disabled brain?

But they are not the same person. Having an operation at birth (or before birth) to artificially create Down Syndrome, if that was even possible, is clearly and intentionally aggressing against the (present or future) baby's body and property.

 

However, carrying to term a fetus that developed Down Syndrome on it's own, without intentional intervention, would not be the same thing at all, since the damage to the future baby's body and property would generally not have been intentional, but rather a result of an accidental genetic mutation which is mostly unpredictable and unwilled.

 

It would be different if the parents did something during the time of conception or shortly thereafter to willfully alter the environment inside the mother's body (or the father's) so as to intentionally cause or increase the chances of Down Syndrome developing in the embryo/fetus.

 

An interesting gray area that I just thought about, would be if the parents used in-vitro artificial insemination of many eggs and among those, selected the one with Down Syndrome to carry to term. I don't have an answer to that one.

[Hannibal]

You guys are using a very narrow definition of morality. Morality concerns personal actions as well as actions which affect other people.

 

That aside, foetuses aren't people. There is no reason a woman shouldn't abort a foetus for either her own benefit, or to prevent a defective being from coming into the world, for that being's own sake.

 

Dawkins is merely suggesting that a mother could abort a Downs foetus, and make another instead - resulting is a net reduction in the likeliness of future suffering. If suffering is bad, and happiness is good, and aborting doesn't violate anyone's rights - then his statement makes sense.

[WasatchMan]

You guys are using a very narrow definition of morality. Morality concerns personal actions as well as actions which affect other people.

 

That aside, foetuses aren't people. There is no reason a woman shouldn't abort a foetus for either her own benefit, or to prevent a defective being from coming into the world, for that being's own sake.

 

Dawkins is merely suggesting that a mother could abort a Downs foetus, and make another instead - resulting is a net reduction in the likeliness of future suffering. If suffering is bad, and happiness is good, and aborting doesn't violate anyone's rights - then his statement makes sense.

 

Yeah, I tend to agree with you, and that was what my line of questioning was trying to get at.  However, as I have pointed out, I am not 100% on what moral rights a foetus's do/ought have.  Given that, I do think a lot of people who have commented do have the right perspective that it probably shouldn't be considered immoral to not abort, but it would their preference that you do.

[Hannibal]

 I do think a lot of people who have commented do have the right perspective that it probably shouldn't be considered immoral to not abort, but it would their preference that you do.

 

Thats where the different kind of morality comes in (i.e. not any kind of morality concerned with people's rights). For example, Ayn Rand didn't drink, save a little snifter at christmas for the sake of custom, because alcohol numbs the mind and reduces a man's ability to reason. As reason is the source of all morality, she thought it immoral to drink for pleasure.

 

I drink for the pleasure of the taste, not the sedative effect, so I don't see a little drinking - at an appropriate time - as immoral. I would view using drugs that numb my mind as being immoral, because it's my mind that makes me a man. 

 

In the same way, I might (i've not bothered to really think about it) view deliberately giving birth to a being who can;t look after themselves as being immoral too.

[dsayers]

I don't know what Dawkins did or did not say. I just wanted to point out that, "it is immoral to bring a child to term with down syndrome," cannot be a true statement. This becomes evident when you rephrase it to, "If your fetus has down syndrome, you must abort." Unchosen positive obligations are unethical. Furthermore, "bringing to term" is a biological function. The claim being considered would basically be applying a label (immoral) that applies to behaviors to a non-behavior.

[bugzysegal]

What if tests detect that the fetus has a rare genetic disorder and will most likely live a short and painful life?

 

This exact question was posed in the introductory philosophy class I took to finish up my degree!

Thats where the different kind of morality comes in (i.e. not any kind of morality concerned with people's rights). For example, Ayn Rand didn't drink, save a little snifter at christmas for the sake of custom, because alcohol numbs the mind and reduces a man's ability to reason. As reason is the source of all morality, she thought it immoral to drink for pleasure.

 

I drink for the pleasure of the taste, not the sedative effect, so I don't see a little drinking - at an appropriate time - as immoral. I would view using drugs that numb my mind as being immoral, because it's my mind that makes me a man. 

 

In the same way, I might (i've not bothered to really think about it) view deliberately giving birth to a being who can;t look after themselves as being immoral too.

 

Hah people have used drugs for centuries to achieve the effects you so value.  Mathematicians and scientists were very big on meth like substances. They dramatically improve cognitive function for the period they are active.  Alcohol obviously is not one of those substances, but would you be in favor of constantly bumping meth in small amounts?  This is more than theoretically possible. If you were careful to maintain a normal sleep schedule by tapering off use within a certain buffer of bed time, you could do this indefinitely with negligible side effects on your health.

[Josh F]

Thats where the different kind of morality comes in (i.e. not any kind of morality concerned with people's rights). For example, Ayn Rand didn't drink, save a little snifter at christmas for the sake of custom, because alcohol numbs the mind and reduces a man's ability to reason. As reason is the source of all morality, she thought it immoral to drink for pleasure.

 

I drink for the pleasure of the taste, not the sedative effect, so I don't see a little drinking - at an appropriate time - as immoral. I would view using drugs that numb my mind as being immoral, because it's my mind that makes me a man. 

 

In the same way, I might (i've not bothered to really think about it) view deliberately giving birth to a being who can;t look after themselves as being immoral too.

You must be familiar with the arguments for UPB, right?

[Bipedal Primate]

You guys are using a very narrow definition of morality. Morality concerns personal actions as well as actions which affect other people. That aside, foetuses aren't people. There is no reason a woman shouldn't abort a foetus for either her own benefit, or to prevent a defective being from coming into the world, for that being's own sake. Dawkins is merely suggesting that a mother could abort a Downs foetus, and make another instead - resulting is a net reduction in the likeliness of future suffering. If suffering is bad, and happiness is good, and aborting doesn't violate anyone's rights - then his statement makes sense.

Well said, I agree.For those who have doubts about whether a fetus is a person, I always use this example:An egg is not a chickenA seed is not a treeA fetus is not a person

[J. D. Stembal]

What if tests detect that the fetus has a rare genetic disorder and will most likely live a short and painful life?

 

You and your spouse can get screened before conception. Jews do it all the time. Waiting until gestation to test for genetic abnormalities is like waiting to fall to the treeline before pulling the ripcord on your parachute.

 

(Edit: My bad! Apparently, genetic screening for Down's Syndrome can only be done after conception. http://umm.edu/health/medical/pregnancy/before-you-get-pregnant/genetic-counseling)

 

I know some people love to make appeals to emotion when it comes to abortion, in particular. Think of the children!  However, Down's Syndrome is not lethal, nor is it painful, as far as I'm aware. People with this condition live fulfilling lives, albeit, differently than most.

 

What Dawkins is suggesting is eugenics. A woman's right to personal property first applies to her body, and anything in it. However, rephrase his assertion as, "Is your baby XY on the 23rd chromosome? Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring another man into the world if you have the choice." I've sure a feminist has already beat us to the tweet.

 

Considering how much disease we inflict voluntarily on ourselves (metabolic disorders and such), squabbling over the genetics of a small percentage of unborn children completely misses the point.

 

http://news.sciencemag.org/2011/04/preventable-chronic-diseases-are-now-worlds-biggest-killers

 

According to the above article, in 2008, 63% of world deaths were from preventable diseases, like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Why are we bothering to tweet about a non-fatal genetic disorder that affects one in seven-hundred babies?

[JamesP]

Violent parenting afflicts 9 out of 10 babies. You'd think there'd be an outcry. It's got terrible long term consequences.

[WasatchMan]

One thing I am observing with this thread is that everyone seems to agree that a fetus is not a person, but the language of "person" and "baby" is still being used when trying to argue against this idea.  I can see that there may be an argument that a fetus is a person, but unless you want to make that argument, or at the minimum concede that as your assumption, using that language strikes me as manipulative.

[jpahmad]

Just curious, for those who are participating in this thread, I'd like to run a quick survey.  The question for the survey is this:

 

 

If you are one to feel badly about testing and aborting a fetus that has tested positive for Down's Syndrome, do you feel bad because...

 

 

• (A) you empathize with the fetus?

or

• (B) you feel bad for violating a principle?

 

I guess you can answer by just typing "A" or "B" or both.

[J. D. Stembal]

One thing I am observing with this thread is that everyone seems to agree that a fetus is not a person, but the language of "person" and "baby" is still being used when trying to argue against this idea.  I can see that there may be an argument that a fetus is a person, but unless you want to make that argument, or at the minimum concede that as your assumption, using that language strikes me as manipulative.

 

I don't think anyone in this thread is using language as a form of manipulation. I recognize the progression of development.

 

• Egg (plus sperm)
• Zygote
• Blastocyst
• Embryo
• Fetus
• Infant
• Child
• Adult

I'm sure you can add more subdivisions to this progression but it is reasonable to conclude that every adult human - indeed, every adult animal that reproduces sexually - follows a similar model for development. I wouldn't argue that a fetus is a person, but it has the capability to become a person after it is born. Some hunter-gatherer cultures didn't consider you to be a person until you survived early childhood, since infant mortality was still extremely high. Who has the emotional capacity to have a funeral ceremony for every dead baby when there were so many? We've only conquered infant mortality in the last hundred years or so. Relatively recent medical advances have quite a lot of bearing on how casually we can now speak of terminating unwanted genetic abnormalities in the womb, which is essentially eugenics. Dawkins might have well have tweeted, "We've got too many babies being born, so let's start getting picky about their genes. Abort it and try again!"