Agnostic.com

12 9

LINK Richard Dawkins: It’s “Wise and Sensible” to Abort Fetuses with Down Syndrome | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | Patheos

I think Dawkins has once again ventured out of his area of expertise. It's a slap in the face for parents of downs syndrome children.

Sometimes I wonder if his desire for headlines outweighs hsi humanity.

snytiger6 9 May 13
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

12 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

@Anytiger6 I disagree...I don't see it as a "slap in the face for parents who chose to keep a child with predictable handicaps".

Choosing a healthy birth vs accepting a disabled child in to your life is a wise choice...IMO.

I also don't look at this statement as a "desire for headlines".

He knew he'd get flack for his strong opinionated views.

That's your POV...

Not that of many who support Dawkins.

He's been unique and outspoken....not for any desire for headlines but because he's a scientist first and an agnostic second.

1

This is a personal decision. In my world I would not be viewing and visiting the child as a fetus, trying to get all the pics and tests that I could, etc. because I'm still into the natural way of childbirth. Imagine coming back from a doctor visit and you tell friends that you saw baby Jane on a screen and she waved at you. I'll get to know her when she is born.

1

Dawkins has a problematic view, imho. Eugenics is unethical.

3

Nothing inherently wrong with the statement. That's just his opinion. I personally agree with him. Bringing a child with down syndrome in this world is a serious choice. Will the child be happy? Will the parents be able to cope with the extra challenges?

If you had a choice between pre-ordering a mechanically good car and another that would have lots of "issues", who on their right mind would prefer the latter? Of course, if parents don't know about it and the child is born, that's a different thing. Then parents should embrace their child and try to provide the best they can for them.

So basically, it's a matter of choice and nothing more in my opinion. No shoulds and no musts.

The only way I can see someone being offended by the statement is if they endorse religious morality.

Btw the astrazeneca vaccine used kidney cells by an aborted fetus. I don't see the millions of people
who benefitted from the jab having an issue with it.

Also, a human fetus before 4months has less cells than a fly. I don't see people morally questioning themselves whenever they kill an annoying buzzing one during the hot months of summer.

What I don't understand is why The Friendly Atheist decided to post this. It seems to me very divisive and without a purpose.

2

I agree with you. This is a personal choice; the rest of us should mind our own business.

that would be fine and dandy if it wasnt for the army of religious authoritarian nuts, with their dogmatic "sacredness of all human life" doctrine being forced down our throats. in state legislatures, freedoms can be killed by the likes of them. it IS our business. who else will defend this fundimentalfreedom, among the most tragic of all freedoms when abridged, from solid ground? is there an "area of expertese" that should rule over such fundimental questions. we already have popey dopeywith an army of experts

2

Well, it is a choice. Not everyone could handle having a child with down syndrome.

2

There are plenty of Down Syndrome people who are able to live independently. They may need some help occasionally, the same as EVERY other human. We ALL need help occasionally.

1

Dawkins' reference to the new religion of Wokeism is spot on, and this is a perfect example. The dishonest response of the author is proof. Screw these litmus tests.

4

Ahhhh.... first off, if parents are unaware their unborn child has downs, it's certainly no slap in the face if they're adult enough to realize they had no choice. Second, I would do it. I'm not going to bring a child into this world if I know beforehand it will have serious issues. About 30% of fertilized eggs pass naturally, so this bullshit about the sanctity of unborn life is just bullshit. Of course, I expect the finger pointers and loud-mouth jerks will condemn him. There's always some assholes out there taking things out of context.

3

"Sometimes I wonder if his desire for headlines outweighs his humanity." Only sometimes?

3

This right here is why whenever someone brings up Dawkins my reply is "he's not an atheist, he's a nut case. Big difference"

5

No one should be forced into an abortion or forced sterilization - doing so is akin to Nazi Germany. That said, abortion should be available to all who want it. Dawkins is approaching a scary line by encouraging abortion for such things. Also, by saying such a thing, he emboldens those who want to strip a woman's rights to control her own body.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. He says one thing and fools run off at the mouth and say something else, pretending he's implying or endorsing it. The poor state of reading comprehension in this country is just sad.

Write Comment More
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:596269
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.