Dawkins sparks outrage for saying Down Syndrome babies should be aborted

[Esquilax]

ETA: I did go back and read this. "It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice." No. Not in all cases. It was not immoral for my parents to bring me into this world. I have a viable QOL. I get along with my extended family overall quite well. I travel here and there. I follow soccer and other olympic sports, including attending events. I have an interest in politics as it relates to atheism and infrastructural issues, attending my local district councilmeeting most every month.

My life is different from yours (all of yours), and yours is different from mine. But mine is just as valid, thanks to family and community.

Of course your life is valid, and all the reasons you listed are great. None of them were an issue before you became a person, though. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: human beings have inherent worth that is not impacted by outside factors. But that worth comes from their humanity, not the physical container they inhabit.

When a fetus is aborted, nothing is lost. I bet some of you hesitated when you read that, but it's true; there's no person in there, no soul, no life before a certain point. Get rid of it and nothing changes. That's a simple fact of biology, and any pro-lifer out there who wants to argue differently has a hell of a big burden of proof to shoulder for all their talk of souls.

I do get why this conversation would make some people uncomfortable, but from the perspective I have, where personhood doesn't begin at conception, it doesn't make sense for me to be discomfited by Dawkins' conclusion. It only makes sense if you believe that there's some specific identity floating out there somewhere, waiting to inhabit that one and only specific body, that is cheated out of it and has to vacate when that fetus is aborted.

But that's not true, and trying again for a physically healthy kid later doesn't mean that this is some second human soul who gets to live where its predecessor didn't. It just means that the kid who gets born does so without whatever disability the previous fetus would have had. Same parents, same environment during childhood, same everything but for that one thing.

That belief doesn't invalidate anyone currently living, nor does it necessarily make it immoral to choose to continue any given pregnancy unless the diagnosis is so severe that the resultant child would have no hope of a decent quality of life. But from a pragmatic standpoint I can see that the reasoning behind it is valid and sound.