Interfaith Group

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

8. That is just twisting words.

Mon Sep 1, 2014, 10:16 AM

Sep 2014

When you have a test that will tell you with 100% accuracy whether a person will be born with a certain abnormality, that does not equate to giving the fetus personhood at all.

Although there has been some preliminary research on this, this is not something that can corrected in utero.

This has nothing to do with pro-lifers and it is offensive to have it twisted in that way. This is all about pro-choice. You are pregnant. YOu have a test to look for chromosomal abnormality. YOu choose whether to have an abortion or not.

It is Dawkins that is making the anti-choice argument by saying that it would be immoral for someone not to have an abortion. It is he that is placing some measure of value on the fetus.

I know you want to find some way of defending Dawkins on this massive misstep, but trying to say that criticizing what he says somehow plays into the hands of the anti-choicers is just bullshit.

He is the anti-choicer in this scenario.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

25 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nobody is better at being human, Professor Dawkins, least of all you [View all] hrmjustin Aug 2014 OP

If we could all just be more like him, the world would be perfect. cbayer Aug 2014 #1

He does leave a lot to be desired. hrmjustin Aug 2014 #2

Interesting. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #3

So you agree with Dawkins that it is "immoral" not to abort a fetus with Downs? Fortinbras Armstrong Sep 2014 #4

I don't know that suggesting a burden on a potential mother is helpful in this discussion/issue. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #7

My problem with Dawkins' pronouncement Fortinbras Armstrong Sep 2014 #11

Eugenics is about changing (improving) the genetics of a population cbayer Sep 2014 #5

You said it yourself. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #6

That is just twisting words. cbayer Sep 2014 #8

I didn't twist anything. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #9

I think you are reading something in to this that is not there. cbayer Sep 2014 #10

Well, we agree on abortion. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #14

Again, carrying a down's child to term is entirely up to the person cbayer Sep 2014 #15

If a fetus is not a potential person Fortinbras Armstrong Sep 2014 #12

The key is; potential. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #13

You seem to be raising the question as to whether it is moral for a woman cbayer Sep 2014 #16

I am stating that it is morally fine. 100%. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #17

What if a woman was being paid to do it cbayer Sep 2014 #18

Sure, i accept the revised hypothetical. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #19

Yes, but it doesn't have to do with abortion. cbayer Sep 2014 #20

Well, what I was trying to drive at is: AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #21

I would insist on a psychiatric evaluation of anyone that wanted to do that, frankly. cbayer Sep 2014 #22

Woah, that may have carried a negative connotation. Let me clarify. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #23

Most women who encounter this have one single risk factor - age. cbayer Sep 2014 #24

kicking. hrmjustin Sep 2014 #25