Dawkins sparks outrage for saying Down Syndrome babies should be aborted

[Esquilax]

And I've still seen no evidence presented that very many foetuses are diagnosed with Down's before 21 weeks?

That's why my own position on this changes depending on how far along in development the diagnosis is, and why Dawkins specifically mentions that he's against any form of hard dividing line between consciousness and non-consciousness in fetal development; if it's a late term diagnosis then obviously the situation is different, because... well, the situation is different.

Which is also why I'm not a fan of the blase generalizations that the Dawk was initially throwing around.

http://www.babycenter.com.au/a1487/scree...n-syndrome

(Emphasis added). As I said before, foetuses are diagnosed in the first and second trimesters (and probably the third as well). As I said before, it is not a 100% certain test. And as I also said before, you can still give birth to a baby with down's after receiving negative diagnoses for the foetus. Dawkins seems to live in some magical land where he thinks that such solid diagnoses do happen - it simply isn't the case, there is no way to know 100% whether your foetus has Down's before it is born.

Sure, the tests aren't perfect. No test is. But since when has anyone ever waited for 100% certainty on an issue before they act? 100% certainty is pretty much impossible for all but a few very simple things. But it's an easy decision to make, if we're talking about early term abortions, because you don't lose anything by aborting an early pregnancy.