[Redway]

"CONTROVERSIAL scientist Richard Dawkins has sparked anger once again - this time by claiming foetuses with Down's syndrome should be aborted.

The outspoken atheist author said parents should abort unborn babies with the condition and "try again".

He made the comments during a Twitter debate, provoking fury from many online.

Down's syndrome is a genetic disorder that delays growth and causes intellectual disability."

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/s-sy...ail/story.html

[GiRTh]

I like and respect Richard Dawkins but I think he may have gone too far in this instance.

[Crimson Dynamo]

"I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma."


was the question

"Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

was his reply

----------------------------

he also added this

"“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,” he says about what he would tell a parent of a baby diagnosed in the womb with Down syndrome. “And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do.”

And, again, Dawkins says it would be immoral not to kill such a baby in an abortion.

“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,” Dawkins says.

Dawkins then deplores the horrible way in which parents of children with Down syndrome are forced to provide them with a loving home and care and support simple because they have a certain genetic condition. His comments are sure to stoke the fires of condemnation coming from parents and families of people with Down syndrome.

“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.

Dawkins then aplogizes for the tweets, only in the sense that they did not offer his complete thoughts on the matter.

“Of course I regret using abbreviated phraseology which caused so much upset,” he says — ignoring the fact that his longer position paper issued today essentially makes the same arguments for killing babies with Down syndrome."


I see no issue here. I agree with him

[the truth]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

"I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma."


was the question

"Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

was his reply

----------------------------

he also added this

"“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,” he says about what he would tell a parent of a baby diagnosed in the womb with Down syndrome. “And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do.”

And, again, Dawkins says it would be immoral not to kill such a baby in an abortion.

“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,” Dawkins says.

Dawkins then deplores the horrible way in which parents of children with Down syndrome are forced to provide them with a loving home and care and support simple because they have a certain genetic condition. His comments are sure to stoke the fires of condemnation coming from parents and families of people with Down syndrome.

“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.

Dawkins then aplogizes for the tweets, only in the sense that they did not offer his complete thoughts on the matter.

“Of course I regret using abbreviated phraseology which caused so much upset,” he says — ignoring the fact that his longer position paper issued today essentially makes the same arguments for killing babies with Down syndrome."


I see no issue here. I agree with him

this particular line is right up there with the nazis

" It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

[the truth]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

I like and respect Richard Dawkins but I think he may have gone too far in this instance.

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.

[Tom4784]

He's pretty much turned himself into Katie Hopkins, makes an obscene remark every once in a while to remind everyone he exists. He is a parody of himself.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

He's pretty much turned himself into Katie Hopkins, makes an obscene remark every once in a while to remind everyone he exists. He is a parody of himself.

what utter nonsense

[Ramsay]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

He's pretty much turned himself into Katie Hopkins, makes an obscene remark every once in a while to remind everyone he exists. He is a parody of himself.

The sad truth.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

He's pretty much turned himself into Katie Hopkins, makes an obscene remark every once in a while to remind everyone he exists. He is a parody of himself.

True. No idea why he felt the need to pipe up about this. It's a completely personal decision for the parents involved and there is no "right" or "wrong" answer.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Many women undergo amniocentesis and make a decision. Its a fact.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Many women undergo amniocentesis and make a decision. Its a fact.

Yes of course some decide to keep the child. That is also a fact

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Yes of course some decide to keep the child. That is also a fact

Indeed but Mr Dawkins has his opinion and backs it up. There is no drama here.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Indeed but Mr Dawkins has his opinion and backs it up. There is no drama here.

Healthy babies can end up being disabled through illness or accident, should parents turn their backs in that scenario as well?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Healthy babies can end up being disabled through illness or accident, should parents turn their backs in that scenario as well?

how would a parent know a healthy fetus would end up that way?

[AnnieK]

I don't think they can detect downs till after 12 weeks so there is little chance of an "early termination". It's obviously down to personal circumstances and peoples strength to deal with a child with special needs but I don't think I could abort my child because of Downs Syndrome

[Cherie]

There are plenty human beings who should be denied birth, Down's syndrome kids wouldn't be in that category imo

[FlippingEck]

Originally Posted by Cherie

There are plenty human beings who should be denied birth, Down's syndrome kids wouldn't be in that category imo

not imo either Cherie.. it's a hideously ridiculous thing to say.. he clearly opens mouth before engaging brain.

[JoshBB]

What the hell He's the reason I began labelling myself as a Humanist, he's not very humanist-like.

[Stu]

Dawkin's gimmick is an increasingly tired one. He's about as affecting as Louise Mensch. I hope there is truth behind his fundamentalist attitude to material science because the idea of his soul knocking about for eternity is a real kick to the knees of anyone's day.

[joeysteele]

I don't agree with him at all.

[JoshBB]

Looking at his twitter, this was hugely taken out of proportion. Disappointed that you made me think so badly of him.

The real tweet:

If I were a woman with a DS fetus I personally would abort. So do most women in fact. If you wouldn't, good luck to you, it's your decision,

[Livia]

He's the antithesis of a religious fundamentalist... but just as irritating.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

He's the antithesis of a religious fundamentalist... but just as irritating.

Yes! Exactly. And he is muddling the simple issue of Atheism and, better descriptions not being available, "giving it a bad name" even though it isn't a "movement" at all. People have started associating Atheism with "that Dawkins guy" and certain beliefs and doctrines and treating it like a pseudo religion. "Oh you're an atheist so you must believe that...X is because y... Dawkins thinks... "
**** Dawkins. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a god or Gods and because I DON'T subscribe to an organised belief system. There's nothing more to it than that.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes! Exactly. And he is muddling the simple issue of Atheism and, better descriptions not being available, "giving it a bad name" even though it isn't a "movement" at all. People have started associating Atheism with "that Dawkins guy" and certain beliefs and doctrines and treating it like a pseudo religion. "Oh you're an atheist so you must believe that...X is because y... Dawkins thinks... "
**** Dawkins. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a god or Gods and because I DON'T subscribe to an organised belief system. There's nothing more to it than that.

That has nothing to do with this topic though, as well as being an atheist he is a geneticist.. I think it would be this that inspired the comment.
Unless it was the use of the word 'immoral' as it seems only people who subscribe to a religion are afforded morals.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That has nothing to do with this topic though, as well as being an atheist he is a geneticist.. I think it would be this that inspired the comment.
Unless it was the use of the word 'immoral' as it seems only people who subscribe to a religion are afforded morals.

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.