Religion

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,477 posts)

6. He changed his statement.

Sun Aug 24, 2014, 01:17 PM

Aug 2014

There is a significant difference between "If your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down's baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare." (emphasis added) and "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

The first says "might be immoral", the second "would be immoral". The two statements are not equivalent.

Saying "I can't help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand." is being dishonest. His statement was quite clear.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Kudos to Dawkins for his apology. [View all] Starboard Tack Aug 2014 OP

Aside from the odious "eugenics" aspect of his dumbass remark... MADem Aug 2014 #1

I'll take 60 - 66 hours in the sweep intaglio Aug 2014 #2

Yep! He really needs to lose the Twitter account Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #3

Apologizing is the right thing. hrmjustin Aug 2014 #4

Yes, it is. Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #5

He changed his statement. Fortinbras Armstrong Aug 2014 #6

This is what I took from his original and I accept his apology. Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #7

Except that his original statement says Fortinbras Armstrong Aug 2014 #8

I understand where you're coming from Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #9

Why are you giving him the benefit of any doubt? Fortinbras Armstrong Aug 2014 #10

Because, if he is being dishonest, it will happen again. Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #11