[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.