RE: Dawkins sparks outrage for saying Down Syndrome babies should be aborted
August 26, 2014 at 5:49 am
(This post was last modified: August 26, 2014 at 5:50 am by ManMachine.)
(August 21, 2014 at 11:22 am)Napoléon Wrote: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/s-syndro...story.html
Quote:CONTROVERSIAL scientist Richard Dawkins has sparked anger once again - this time by claiming foetuses with Down's syndrome should be aborted.
The outspoken athiest author said parents should abort unborn babies with the condition and "try again".
I love how all the religious jump to say he's a horrific man with no morals but I 100% guarantee that ANYONE who is told they have a down syndrome foetus on the way would absolutely consider abortion.
Sure it's not the nicest thing in the world to say, but let's be real, who really wants a down syndrome child? Some people may accept it and live with the child however it is born but given the opportunity I think most of us would choose to have a healthy child with no defects. That's not immoral.
Also, wtf is this article getting at? "Controversial scientist". What's he controversial for? Really?
This is very real for me as trisomy 21 runs in my family and when my wife was pregnant we had to have these tests done, so up to the point we knew for certain everything was ok it was a choice I was faced with.
I understand the arguments from both sides, I can also say our decision should the test prove positive for trisomy 21, would have been to carry on with the pregnancy.
Dawkins is entitled to express his opinion, as am I. That's the wonder of a society with free speech. I think it is easy to intellectualise these matters but you never know how you are going to feel until you are faced with the decision.
Everyone has the right to feel and act according to their own conscience, whatever that may be, what is important here is people's right to choose. Dawkins comments are fine - for him - the question is, did he considered the impact they would have when he gave them? If he didn't then that would seem foolish, if he did then one has to ask what his intent was. Another 'sensationalist' comment to bump his public persona? It is also easy to see how this can be misinterpreted as sanctioning eugenics, perhaps this is where he is headed. Who knows, but the more I encounter Dawkins the more I find myself questioning his integrity.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
