Dawkins sparks outrage for saying Down Syndrome babies should be aborted

[Dystopia]

Bullshit. Let's not pretend. Let's actually be realistic. These are foetuses we are talking about. Not babies. Not actual people. These foetuses aren't capable of any thought, and even if they were, how can you pretend to know what a handicapped baby would think? This is absolutely ludicrous.

That's irrelevant, if I'm the mother of an handicapped unborn child, even if she/he is incapable of thinking, it's up to me to decide. My point on putting myself in both sides is to say 'I wouldn't want someone to abort me' but on the other want 'I would want to abort if I was a woman', it is merely an abstract idea.

Stop giving the foetus a mind. It doesn't have one. Not yet. This is exactly my point, you are thinking of the foetus as though it is a human who has rights like everyone else. Bottom line is, it isn't and it doesn't.

I'm not thinking like that, but the mother has the right to carry on a pregnancy if she wishes so, that's the only point I find relevant on this discussion

Some people don't like it, but the mother comes first.

Agree completely, that's why she can carry on a pregnancy if the child is handicapped

Both options are valid but one option is more logical makes more sense than the other.

People's ethics aren't always logical. And who are you to say one makes more sense? Have you met a mother of a child with down syndrome who genuinely loved him/her? If you did, you probably shouldn't be saying the choice is illogical, sometimes people are not capable of doing it. That's why it is a decision. Even if a decision is not logical or rational, emotions play a big part too, sometimes our decisions are not at all rational but they can make us feel more happy or fulfilled etc.

As for your understanding of Dawkin's positions on this matter, yeah, it's as deluded and incorrect as all those article headlines I quoted earlier. I'll reiterate what I said. Nobody is "pro-abortion". To say anyone is pro abortion is completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting their position on the matter. In an ideal world people wouldn't have to have abortions. But we don't live in an ideal world.

I've already noticed Dawkins was merely saying his opinion after being requested, it's valid, different people would give a different opinion.

I brought up the incestuous offspring scenario because it highlights the hypocrisy of people who want to say "people should get to choose whether they have disabled kids or not" which is effectively what you're saying. Most people's contention with incest usually has little to do with the fact that people are brother and sister (or whatever other relation). In fact it's more to do with the higher chances of disabled or deformed offspring. In this case people tend to be vehemently against incest. It's seen as immoral to have a sexual relationship that has a higher chance of producing disabled offspring. Why is that? Why is it that in this scenario it's seen as bad to bring a disabled child into the world when it could be avoided, but when a 'normal' family has the opportunity to abort a child that will be disabled, it's immoral.

Didn't you just say people consider incest immoral?

When it's a case of incest (and I'm not familiar with the exact probability of producing an handicapped child) it can be avoided and people are aware the odds do not favor them, it's a risky behavior. When it's a normal family it's usually an exceptional unplanned case. I don't treat both cases differently. And I'm not against incest, I just wouldn't personally bang my sister. I can be against procreation in incestuous relationships, but not against incest. If a couple (brother and sister) wanted to raise and handicapped baby, I'd let them, it's their choice.