[user104658]

Science first and foremost, at the very core of everything that makes it science at all, must be evidence-backed. Science doesn't deal in opinions, ever. Theory, yes, but that has to be backed up with observed statistics and facts to be scientific.

The Rooney example, what I'm saying is, just because Rooney is a professional footballer does not mean that just because he's playing a game, the game automatically becomes football.

Likewise, just because Dawkins is a professional scientist, does not mean that everything he says must be scientific.

This is basic casual opinion. He would abort - fine. He decided to throw in a comment about the "senselessness" and "immorality" of not aborting - why? I suppose only he knows.

None of it can even be described in the loosest of terms as "science".

In my opinion, he is a very clever man, and as such the comment wasn't made thoughtlessly. It's a clear and deliberate shock tactic to increase his (very profitable) notoriety.

I even think I have a good idea why. His academic and scientific works are complex and wonderful. However, he realised at some point that they are ultimately pointless, because people are not on the whole very intelligent, and can't hope to grasp it.

People en masse, being idiots, are good for only one thing: exploiting that idiocy for financial and personal gain. Something that he has done expertly for years.

The only choice that really makes sense, sadly.