Why would this comment be inspired by being a geneticist when the hereditary component of down's syndrome risk is less than 1%, though? Add to that the fact that very few people with down's syndrome even go on to reproduce at all, and it becomes a complete non-issue from the point of view of "preserving the gene pool".

He'd have been better to tell people to stop waiting until they're middle aged to have children, if his concern is prevalence. Risk is 1 in 2000 with a maternal age of 20 years old, 1 in 900 at 30, 1 in 100 at 40 and (for the menopausal IVF advocates)... At 49 the risk is 1 in 10.

If his concern ISN'T prevalence then his judgement is not at all from a geneticists point of view... Like I said in my first post, the decision about whether or not it's something they are able to take on is completely down to the parents. It affects literally no one else.

He's using shock tactics for screen time, he's been doing it a lot over the past couple of years and it's pathetic. And especially sad, as his earlier academic work is fascinating (The Selfish Gene, etc.). Of course, The Selfish Gene is a (brutally) hard read for a niche interest. Much more money in hooting and hollering to the retarded masses on Twitter for exposure.

What about the child? He may be speaking as to the quality of life a severely affected Downs child has and their life expectancy.
As a geneticist if he can detect before birth how affected a child would be then I believe he is right to advise as he does.
The retarded masses on twitter will find a new thing to flail their arms about tomorrow no doubt.

The only prenatal indicator of downs is the extra chromosome, there's no way to determine the severity even at birth. It can go either way, from very high functioning (not even requiring a carer) to completely disabled, you just have to wait and see how the child develops.

I personally am very dubious about anyone who decides to take it upon themselves to determine another persons quality of life and whether it's "worth living"... Or determining whether or not they get to live at all... Especially When there's such a wide range of potential outcomes.

^ well said.

brilliantly said its nazi-ism returned....if we start murdering babies because of disabilities they may have, where does one draw the line?

he is an evil attention seeking scumbag. hes wasted all his so called studies and alleged intellect. what in hells name does this brutal discrimination and attempts to support the mass extermination of millions of innocent unborn children achieve? I personally think this crosses the boundaries of free speech and veers into the same territory as evil war mongering street preachers.

Great post TS, this really is the crux of the matter: who is he to determine whether someone else's life is worth living?

:clap1:

His arrogance makes me sick.

Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'

A mainstream Down's Syndrome student is celebrating her GCSE success.

Jessica Skelton, 16, achieved six passes in the week that biologist Richard Dawkins caused fury by insisting it is right to abort Down's foetuses.

Atheist author Dawkins provoked fury when he suggested it would be "immoral" to bring a Down's child into the world "if you have a choice" during a Twitter debate.

Today Jessica's father Tim, 47, said: "Dawkins is an ignorant idiot sitting in an ivory tower.

"Jessica's success is proof people with Down's Syndrome can live successful lives and I have no doubt she will work in the future and have a happy, independent and full life.

"When she was born, doctors painted a rather bleak and negative picture. They said Jessica would never be able to achieve what other children did.

"At the time, I remember saying if our daughter got one GSCE in the future it would be the equivalent to having a child who went to Oxford - now she has six."

Jessica passed English literature, English Language, combined sciences, art, dance and performance and textiles all at E grade.

Tim, a head baker at Sainsbury's in Bournemouth, said: "She was disappointed because she had hoped for As and Bs but then she has such high expectations of herself - just like everyone else in life."

Jessica, a student at the Bishop of Winchester Academy in Bournemouth, was one of the area's first Down's pupils to attend mainstream school.

Today she started a new Saturday job in a cafe in the city.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...#ixzz3BErvf8KZ
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...#ixzz3BErW0i3S
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

Great post. Makes Dawkins look quite ignorant.

Excellent. :clap1:

Yes there is, following the diagnostic evaluations between 11-18 weeks depending on the method then the fetal development can be monitored to diagnose heart and gastrointestinal viability.

As I'm sure you know Down Syndrome is a lot more than having physical deformities ... testing for certain viabilities doesn't say a great deal about the overall picture. You can't give an unborn baby an IQ test.

It says everything about the overall picture if the child is found to be so compromised that they'll have a severely restricted quality of life and the chance of them surviving until maturity is slim.
Would I as a mother want to be faced with that choice? No. It's unimaginable.

“In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice,” he writes.


..I've only just read what he said...I worked with a Down's Syndrome child for several years...she was cheeky, she was funny, she was lazy, she was intelligent, she was affectionate, she was hateful, she was happy, she was angry, she was one step forward and a million steps back some days but those one step forward days were some of the best in my life...she exhausted her parents....so fairly much like every other child...I don't know how much going to mainstream school will benefit her in the future, maybe not at all.. but her presence at a mainstream school benefitted everyone else there/children and adults...she was very vulnerable to illness and that caused and will cause many health issues..maybe she won't have as long a lifespan as her parents would like her to...and maybe her presence in their life has many restrictions on them, a bit more than the average parent..and I know that circumstances in their case meant they didn't know their child would be Down's Syndrome before she was born ...but I do know that even if she were never to reach adulthood and no matter how difficult it's been for them to parent her ...whatever time they've spent with her and however much time they will all have in the future, they would not have been without her in their lives for one split second ..she's lucky to have amazing parents but they know how lucky they are to have her as well...

Yes to all the content above, what an amazing post.

This is the statement in full ( if he had more than 140 characters with which to explain)..

“Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, 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 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. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else.”

There we have it, it was his opinion is all.. we all have one as a scientist it was offered without the shackles of emotive language.

Well that is quite different to how it comes across earlier in the thread..

Its a very common view to have, not that that makes it right or wrong. Most women have the downs screening..I had it myself. I never really gave it any serious thought but the midwife just mentioned it slightly and asked if I wanted it (at my 12 week scan) and I said yes..my risk was something like 1/250k so it was never something I had to think about in seriousness anyway really.

Its hard to get across what you actually mean on twitter..

Shackled? :joker:

He made that tweet himself. Chose exactly what that character limit would send out into the internet. What crux of the issue he would want encapsulated in a soundbyte. Then surely thought it through - no matter what his 'apology' would have you believe - and clicked send.

He done a pretty **** job of it. He might be a gifted geneticist but when it comes to Twitter he's rubbing shoulders with Joey Barton and the Iron Sheik.

I knew it was a risk for older mothers but didn't realise how much more either.
Pre-screening probability
The risk of Down's syndrome varies with maternal age:[1]

1:1,500 at 20 years
1:800 at 30 years
1:270 at 35 years
1:100 at 40 years
>1:50 at 45 years and over

Yeah shackles, what are you supposed to do compose a mini gnostic gospel for every tweet?
:hehe:

The word would imply his hand was forced.

Mine you you knew that was the point I was making anyway.

As the mother of a disabled daughter, none of us has the right to play god. A disabled child, may be born with a brain which could help the suffering in the world. Each situation is different. He would but many wouldnt.

No the word doesn't imply that in this context, I said the 'shackles of emotive language'
Meaning scientists don't always conform to explaining their views in a way that are unnecessarily embellished or wordy.

But he did explain them in that bit you posted. He still chose to send out a bit of a crap tweet. Not conforming to explaining their views in a way that are unnecessarily embellished or wordy is one thing but wow, slow down Maurice.

You're kind of implying he was trapped by the character limit in certain moments. Now he was actually freed from having to go on a big long spiel about it. I'm confused. Which is it?

I've realized I'm using this as arsenal against his character more than any implied fascism of his material morality [because it can and all likelihood in a future society will be as fascist in it's implications than any religious code of conduct that came before it. Or I read too much Philip K. Dick].

He is entitled to post whatever he likes of course. The argument - for whatever it is because it immediately became blown out of proportion by it's very nature and context -really just rests on where you put it on a scale of pharisaical crassness.

He obviously must have felt some of that sting himself because he did come out and make a half hearted apology. Why? Either he genuinely believes like I do that it was in poor taste or the vainglorious prat really is that quick to buckle and retract over a bit of backlash.

That he knew he was going to get. It's beyond silly and I've included myself in it :(.