Richard Dawkins on babies with Down Syndrome: 'Abort it and try again – it would be immoral to br

Wasn't fully sure where to place this so please move if there is a better forum for it, thanks.


Richard Dawkins on babies with Down Syndrome: 'Abort it and try again – it would be immoral to bring it into the world'

www.independent.co.uk... world-9681549.html

This man is living proof that high academic intelligence doesn't equal a high emotional or overall intelligence with an understanding of the human condition and society in general.

Who is he to decide the value of somebodies life? (for the record I am pro-choice)

It seems he has miss-judged and miss-represented the reasons why somebody brings a child into this world and what make a person a valuable member of society.

Can a person with downs not bring joy and happiness to those around them?
Having had contact with and worked with people with down syndrome in the past I can say they are often very caring, gleeful people with courage and a even perhaps greater understanding of emotions and relations that Dawkins' has has demonstrated.

It seems Dawkins' has become the very thing he decided to fight against. He has developed a messiah complex, running round tweeting at people 'don't do this', 'this is wrong, you are wrong'...... he has almost developed his brand of atheism into a religious doctrine.

I stopped identifying myself as atheist as I didn't want to be linked in any way to people such as Dawkins ramming their ideologies down peoples throats.

I found a great description of him in the Guardian a while back that made me chuckle:
"I don’t. Having grown up after Dawkins made the transition from lauded science communicator to old man who shouts at clouds".
www.independent.co.uk... world-9681549.html


Your thoughts?

My thoughts?

Richard Dawkins can kiss my ass!

I have a sister that has downs. The quacks masquerading as doctors told my mother the same thing. She said FU. After Kathy was born, the doctors then said she would never make it to 2 years old, and that we would have to put her in an asylum! My folks repeated the same message. FU!! Kathy doesn't have a malicious bone in her body. She is innocence embodied.

She is turning 52 this year.

I miss my sister.

Mr Dawkins, rest assured that Love from the human soul extends well beyond your current way of thinking.

a reply to: b14warrior

what a terrible attitude he has. People with disabilities have such an inner beauty...and those without disabilities can learn from them:

a reply to: b14warrior

Sorry to sound unsympathetic, but I have worked with Downs Williams and they are quite something to deal with. They are sexually predatory and aggressive and can be dangerous. People forget that Downs people are very different physically, being lower 'slung' they have a terrific force if they turn on you and, even if they hurt workers - as they do - the worker has no compensation as the Downs has no responsibility. It can cost over a million in sterling to care for these individuals throughout their lives and there is little one can do for the severe Downs.

There are Downs who are not so afflicted and can lead good lives with little supervision and that's fine, but how you tells the Dows Williams before birth, I have no idea.

I do agree with Dawkins that whereas there are conditions that we have no choice to deal with I think women should all have the chance of the test to find this condition. Downs use to die around the mid 20s but now they live well into the 50s and beyond so their care, once the parents are too old to look after them is considerable. Were it a condition that was curable or workable it would be different. I tend to look at the numbers of people in the world already and providing for them when they reach old age, add to the figures the number of Downs who normally need care throughout their lives and then factor in the budgets needed. We are coming to the point where budgets cannot cope and sacrifices and very hard decisions are going tohave to be made.

I mean no offence to anyone and I know a number of people with Downs children and most of them have to make a choice as to whether, once they reach teens, they should ask for them to be put into a home. One family, the lass drives herself and virtually lives a normal life so there is a terrific difference in the degree of Downs disability.

I'm hardly a friend to any religion, but this guy is just a complete douchebag and needs taking down a peg or two. What an offensive man he is.

F**k Richard Dawkins! Hes an insider wanna be elite and they think they are god and the masses are sheep. Read Carroll Quigleys book tragedy and hope(its a long read but worth it) and especially read this because its short sweet and tells us whats going on and how they think of us, its called silent weapons for quiet wars here's the link please read.
www.lawfulpath.com...

a reply to: Shiloh7

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: b14warrior

Sorry to sound unsympathetic, but I have worked with Downs Williams and they are quite something to deal with. They are sexually predatory and aggressive and can be dangerous. People forget that Downs people are very different physically, being lower 'slung' they have a terrific force if they turn on you and, even if they hurt workers - as they do - the worker has no compensation as the Downs has no responsibility. It can cost over a million in sterling to care for these individuals throughout their lives and there is little one can do for the severe Downs.

There are Downs who are not so afflicted and can lead good lives with little supervision and that's fine, but how you tells the Dows Williams before birth, I have no idea.

I do agree with Dawkins that whereas there are conditions that we have no choice to deal with I think women should all have the chance of the test to find this condition. Downs use to die around the mid 20s but now they live well into the 50s and beyond so their care, once the parents are too old to look after them is considerable. Were it a condition that was curable or workable it would be different. I tend to look at the numbers of people in the world already and providing for them when they reach old age, add to the figures the number of Downs who normally need care throughout their lives and then factor in the budgets needed. We are coming to the point where budgets cannot cope and sacrifices and very hard decisions are going tohave to be made.

I am aware of the great spectrum and range of varying needs and the great cost that these can manifest.
I wonder where Dawkins (or even yourself) suggest we stop?
There are people that need a great deal of care and cost a huge amount of money whilst suffering from Autism, it is a condition that can vary from mild to extreme and whilst there is no way of telling if they will suffer from this whilst
still developing in the womb, if we could, would it be right to tell women to abort them?

I'm sure there are many other conditions and disabilities which we can detect before birth that will cost the tax payer...... are we to suggest that only seemingly healthy fetuses should be birthed.

I see some of your points, but my point of Dawkins ramming his psuedo-religious doctrine down peoples throats, becoming what he hates and just generally being an asshole that 'shouts at clouds' still stands.

a reply to: b14warrior
Would generally defend Dawkins as a lot of his comments are taken out of context or misrepresented. However on this one it seems he really is just being an utter dick. (no pun intended)

a reply to: ScepticScot

Out of interest, do you feel his rape comments were taken out of context?

a reply to: b14warrior
Don't want to wander too much off
topic, but in that instance yes (up to a point anyway) . He was making a reasonable point but made it badly.
Twitter is fairly awful medium for nuance.
On the subject of this thread i think he is just plain wrong.

I agree with Mr Dawkins on this matter.

Just being practical and realistic. They ultimately become a a drain on society and resources. Also if they reproduce they further degrade the gene pool. And we already have more than enough worthless people doing that as it is.

It's really in everyone's best interest.

Let me preempt the all the bashing:

Blah blah blah, that's terrible. Blah blah blah you're a scum bag. Blah blah blah.
Oh well get over it. It's the reality of it.

a reply to: watchitburn

Actually the reality of it is eugenics. Congratulations.

a reply to: watchitburn

originally posted by: watchitburn
I agree with Mr Dawkins on this matter.

Just being practical and realistic. They ultimately become a a drain on society and resources. Also if they reproduce they further degrade the gene pool. And we already have more than enough worthless people doing that as it is.

It's really in everyone's best interest.

Let me preempt the all the bashing:

Blah blah blah, that's terrible. Blah blah blah you're a scum bag. Blah blah blah.
Oh well get over it. It's the reality of it.

There are a huge amount of other disabilities and conditions that we are able to detect before birth that also run a high risk of being a FINANCIAL burden on the state and taxpayer.

Out of interest, should others take the same stance on other disabilities and conditions? How far do you take it? I'm not saying you are a terrible person, just perhaps you haven't fully thought this out, haven't fully worked out that people with downs are a small section of people with either physical or mental disabilities that will cost the taxpayer.

I also think you have perhaps not realised why some people feel compelled to have children in the first place.

I remember watching a documentary earlier this year called Growing Up Down's, on the BBC. It left a deep impression on me. Down's people are very lovable and loving characters.

Don't make the mistake of thinking all atheists are mr dawkins. Most people in community view him with contempt these days.

a reply to: watchitburn
Any other handicaps or undesirable characteristics you want to screen out of the gene pool??????
If a condition totally removes quality of life for the individual there is a moral argument otherwise are you really suggesting we should abort any pregnancy that might be inconvenient for society.
Note not being anti choice but against abortion being made based on a idea of collective good rather than individual choice.

Is this not a perfect reason to build a time machine?
We could go back in time and convince his mom to abort him.
He is a complete waste of skin.

Aww.... someone is getting desperate for attention in his old age.

He is desperate for immortality in the only way he can conceive it - by being discussed and remembered for generations to come. With the clock ticking, he is really cranking up the d-bag angle of being memorable.


ETA: I do find this story hard to believe... just shocked he would say this. As a Christian, even I can see that he (or his caricature, more specifically) gives atheists a bad name. Most atheists I know have a solid moral radar, even though their belief system differs from mine. He is becoming an atheist strawman... either by his own hands or by the creation of others with an anti-atheist agenda.

So, he has an opinion... So what? Some are going to agree and some will disagree. It should be totally up to the parents - only they know whether they are up to the challenge that a special needs child brings.

So much emotional, dramatic energy going into one man's opinion. What WILL the ladies at church say???

a reply to: b14warrior

I could think of many immoral things going on in the world and I can tell you right now from the disabled people I have come across over the last 2-3 weeks in my ventures, they are a lot happier than that Dawkins muppet.