Dawkins sparks outrage for saying Down Syndrome babies should be aborted

[Aractus]

I was responding to your post to Losty, where you said that accepting Down's syndrome as a defect required that you place less value on any given person with Down's syndrome as you would on anyone else. It doesn't, so long as you're not conflating biology and physicality with personhood.

Let me make my position clear. I'm not particularly fond of abortion, especially after 18 or so weeks. At 21 weeks a baby can be delivered put into an incubator and has the potential to survive. At 21 weeks it probably won't survive - but it can.

So if the anti-abortionists are not allowed to tell people that they shouldn't have an abortion, then the pro-abortionists are not allowed to tell people they should have an abortion.

But that itself isn't the biggest problem I have here. Our first-world societies are founded on the principle of Social-Inclusion. And within that philosophy we value humans as a resource. That's why, as I said, in the 3rd world we start with education, with disease and preventative public-health measures etc to start building a framework where the productivity and potential of that resource can start to be realised. If you went back say 200 years in the UK the predominant model of the time would have been laissez-fair. The wealthy didn't want to bring the poor out of poverty they were more interested in their own lifestyles. They didn't want free education or universal healthcare - how was it going to help them? But we know for a fact because it's been repeated all over the world that the social-inclusive model does make society better for everyone because they have a resource that isn't being exploited to its potential.

Now within that same model you have to be able to provide for those less fortunate, and the handicapped. Australia, for instance, is a very wealthy country and we can absolutely afford to take care of everyone who is unable to fully support themselves just at the same time as we should be doing everything we can to have those same people contribute to their potential whatever that may be. For a handicapped person it may well be that they are only able to contribute 20% as much to society as an able-bodied person, but it's still a contribution. It's still much better than saying "we don't want you to contribute, and we're not going to give you opportunity or a fair go" - the laissez-fair ideology.

What Richard Fucknuckle Dawkin says is absolutely offensive, small-minded, discriminatory, intolerant, it's just plain obscene. There is absolutely nothing constructive, healthy or redeemable about it.

The reason is because in most first world countries - you may well be fortunate like me not to have the issue of disability care affect you or your personal family - but it is a very real issue that affects a huge number of people in our society. And we absolutely don't do enough - firstly because we're not helping these people reach their potential as a resource of society, but secondly because they're treated like second-class citizens. You may as well point and call them Wolves. A return to laissez-fair, Eugenics or any other slippery-slope model is the wrong direction. Disabled people shouldn't be a problem for any first world country - we're wealthy enough to make sure they're comfortable, happy and free to live their lives, participate in the workforce - and - not be a burden upon their families. Dawkin's dumbass opinion is based on the fact that he thinks that Wolves are a drain on society and on their families. That isn't true, what is true is that society currently doesn't give them a fair go when they should be afforded that.