Jeremy Stangroom

*wakes up* I agree with Dawkins.

@SIN_Notung No you don't! :) (Not the bit where he suggests that relevant moral distinction between autism & DS is ability to contribute...)

@PhilosophyExp I'll have to read through the justifications (only just woken)... but isn't his conclusion a defensible one?

@SIN_Notung Of course. But how one gets to the conclusion is crucial (because of what the logic of bad argument will likely entail).

@PhilosophyExp @SIN_Notung How is the conclusion that people who don't terminate DS fetuses are immoral defensible?

@Humanisticus @SIN_Notung It would be defensible if it were true that on balance a DS life involves more suffering than quality, etc.

@PhilosophyExp @SIN_Notung Except it doesn't involve more suffering than quality, not even close, ergo it's not a defensible position.