‘Ethicist’ Richard Dawkins Says it’s ‘Immoral’ Not to Abort Down Syndrome Babies

So-called ethicist Richard Dawkins, famed as the world’s most active militant atheist, has now decided that all babies that don’t fit his definition of worthy should be aborted and that it is actually “immoral” if they are allowed to be born. Thus he feels that babies with Down Syndrome must be aborted and it is “immoral” not to do so.

The famed atheist recently took to Twitter to reply to a follower who said it would be an “ethical dilemma” to be pregnant with a baby diagnosed with Down Syndrome. In reply, Dawkins wrote, “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

So, as far as Dawkins is concerned a person with Down Syndrome is living a life not worth living.

But this is his opinion. This is not based on anything empirical. So, if that is all we are basing this decision on, how is any reason to abort not wholly legitimate? What if you don’t want a girl, or a boy? Kill it? What if you think black people don’t deserve to be born? What if… well, the what ifs go on forever because no reason would be off limits with the barrier of a sanctity for life broken down the way Dawkins is doing it here.

Whose life is “worth” living, anyway? How do we determine this other than with fleeting and arbitrary feelings?

Should Jason McElwain of New York have been aborted?

And how do we leave the period for determination for the womb? Can’t we decide that people actually born are leading worthless lives? Can we decide to “abort” people at any age and if not, why not?

So, here’s a suggestion: what if we abort at any age someone who claims to be an atheist? Seriously. Why not? After all, Dawkins is being so entirely subjective on whose life is worthy that he certainly opens himself up for being “aborted,” doesn’t he?

What possible, empirical reason would prevent the abortion of atheists?

In any case, after the Twitter war died down, Dawkins went to the Internet to post a longer explanation of why he’d abort a child with Down Syndrome.

Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else

If “reducing suffering” is your only criteria, then abort everyone because we all suffer somehow!

Seriously there is nothing but arbitrary nonsense in Dawkins’ “reasoning” here.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Illegal Immigrant Who Killed 2 Girls Released, Protected by Obama's DREAM-Styled Act
  • GarandFan

    Wonder what Dawkins feelings would be about those with “mental health problems”. I already know what the Third Reich did about that “problem”.

  • Sky__Captain

    I do believe Mr. Dawkins qualifies as poster child for a prophylactic company.

    • Jwb10001

      Abort your baby for the sake of it’s own welfare………….
      “might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare” WTF?

  • jim_m

    It’s a fact that the Nazi eugenics campaign whose end result was the Holocaust and the indiscriminate slaughter of over 6 million people, started with the mentally ill and people with congenital defects such as Down’s.

    Dawkins is starting us, no, pushing us down that road claiming that he knows better and that with his direction we can build a better society and a stronger race.

    Lefties, now do you understand why we call you fascists? This is why. These are the people that represent your ideology to the rest of the world. It is depraved and without any moral compass.

  • Paul Hooson

    No. Dawkins is way off here. Despite a myriad of psychiatric disorders among those with Down Syndrome, the suicide rate is very low compared to the larger population, strongly suggesting a strong degree of satisfaction with life among persons suffering from this disorder.

    • jim_m

      I’ve never heard of psychiatric disorder in people with Down’s. As children they are typically very happy. It is the prejudice of left wing elitists that if people aren’t as smart as they are and don’t share their same ideological views that those lives are simply not worth living. That being the case there are no atrocities that they will not excuse because the people upon whom they perpetrate them have no value in their eyes.

      • Paul Hooson

        Generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorders, repetitive action disorders, and a number of other mental health disorders contribute to a nearly 50% mental health crisis at some point in the life of Down Syndrome sufferers.

        • jim_m

          OK. Fair enough. I have heard of those issues. I had thought that you were referring to more serious psychiatric disorders (schizophrenia, Bipolar disorder, etc).

          • Paul Hooson

            The repetitive disorders can actually be an advantage to workers with Down Syndrome as they are much less likely to become bored with repetitive tasks such as sorting at some jobs, compared to other workers.

          • John Bear Rambo

            Fair enough. Jim thought you meant something else.

  • jim_m

    To be fair, Dawkins is not a bio-ethicist. He is an evolutionary biologist and his claims regarding eugenics and morality should be viewed as the hubristic nonsense that they are.

    Dawkins also believes in the neo-malthusian notion that the world is becoming unsustainably overpopulated and that drastic measures must be taken to reduce the global population. Apparently he has never bothered to read the UN projections of world population which have the total population peaking at between 9 and 10 B by 2075 and then declining thereafter. Seems that there should not be that much of a problem.

    So we can see that his views in the article above are based in ignorance, superstition and arrogance.

  • Laddie_Blah_Blah

    I have no doubt, whatsoever, that one hour spent with Trig would be a lot more interesting, informative, heartwarming, and fun, than spending an entire day with that dour old sourpuss, Richard Dawkins. Just the thought of spending an entire day with Dawkins is enough to induce an involuntary shudder.

    Dawkins has nothing to teach Trig, at all, but the old goat could learn volumes about life, vitality and wholesome goodness from young Trig. If anyone could meet the nearly hopeless challenge of coaxing a smile from Dawkins, it would probably be Trig.

    I see that Dawkins wears glasses. A commenter on another thread noted that the Khmer Rouge would have found that to be sufficient reason to end his life. If you want to kill, you can always find a reason to justify it.

  • Red Five

    I think Dawkins is ethically, spiritually, and morally retarded. Does that mean we could abort him?

  • John Bear Rambo

    Actively “militant”…Would you mind elaborating on your idea of what “militant” implies?

    Certainly not an sensationalist exaggeration to rile up the undereducated and purposefully ignorant.