With a Tweet Advocating the Abortion of Down Syndrome Babies, Dawkins Proves He Has Foot-in-Mouth

[rug]

August 21, 2014
by Terry Firma

Yesterday, in a discussion about abortion on Richard Dawkins‘ Twitter feed, this happened:



He’s had quite the year, hasn’t he?

I have to confess that this one’s a little personal for me. My next (adopted) daughter, with whom we’ve been officially matched and who will join the family in about six months (pending a mountain of cross-national red tape we still have to work through), comes from a group of young kids with handicaps. Those handicaps run the gamut: from albinism to spina bifida, from strabismus to missing or deformed limbs. And yes, some have Down Syndrome.

- snip -

Dawkins has toyed with similar themes in the past. In March of last year, he tweeted:



http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/08/21/with-a-tweet-advocating-the-abortion-of-down-syndrome-babies-richard-dawkins-proves-he-has-foot-in-mouth-disease/

[okasha]

1. A really silly remark.

His family should probably begin to think about conservatorship.

[Brettongarcia]

12. Isn't your remark insulting to those who have gone into conservatorship?

[Humanist_Activist]

2. I don't see what is wrong with Dawkins remark, I would have used unethical or irresponsible...

instead of immoral, but I agree with the sentiment.

[d_r]

26. What I see that is "wrong" with his remark

is that he isn't saying something along the lines of "it is a woman's body, and her right to decide what to do. If she doesn't feel that she is suited for having a child with Down Syndrome for whatever reason, that is her choice and it is valid."

What he says it is immoral not to have an abortion - in other words, it is immoral to knowingly allow a child with Down Syndrome to be born.

He further clarifies this when asked "where he would draw the line" - if he would see it as immoral to allow a child with Autism to be born. He replies that individuals on the spectrum often have areas of high functioning and may have something to contribute to society, that a child with Down Syndrome does not.

Here's my problem with that. It is complete bigotry and based on a lack of knowledge. He leaves the realm of talking about abortion, and enters the realm of talking about living human beings. His comments reveal that he views this group as inferior and not contributing to society.

It is a prejudiced view based on stereotypes and a lack of real information. If this statement was made about any other group of people - an ethnic group, race, religion, sex, gender, or ability - we, as good liberals and progressives would be aghast. We'd be shocked. But in this case many are repeating their own prejudiced, stereotypical views.

Today the average lifespan of individuals with Down Syndrome is 60, and some folks live to 70. Many individuals with Down Syndrome get married, can have children, can drive a car, can go to college, have meaningful employment, have good quality of life with rich and meaningful relationships and experiences.

And many don't. But the sad, sick part of this is that we are a part of the reason that they don't.

We know from research, especially Sue Buckley's research in schools in the UK, that many of the learning patterns that we thought were purely characteristic of individuals with intellectual disabilities in general, and Down Syndrome in particular, such as lags in communication and language, can be broken through inclusive educational settings, exposure to social interaction with typically developing peers, and particularly in Down Syndrome a focus on visual and kinetic learning styles.

But instead, we repeat stereotypes and prejudice and treat these children as inferior and we expect that they will never be independent and so we treat them that way and assume they will never learn so we treat them that way. And guess what our prophecies can be fulfilled. We have benign sort of bias that "oh that sweet little child that will never learn. Let's put them somewhere they will be safe and not bothered with all that learning that other children are doing."

For empiricists, the IQ range of many individuals with Down Syndrome is in the moderate to mild range of intellectual disabilities, and many individuals approach the low-normal range of IQ measures. And despite Hawkin's claim that individuals with Down Syndrome have no areas of strengths, social understanding is a strength of many individuals with Down Syndrome (although I'm not sure if Hawkins can actually understand that due to his own difference in ability).

So, in general, I think it is wrong to stereotype individuals with disabilities, and I think that in the case of Down Syndrome it is particularly egregious because of the harm it does to these individuals.

It saddens me deeply that individuals who would be considered liberals or progressives agree with these stereotyped and prejudiced views.

[Humanist_Activist]

27. Some of them aren't able to become independent or live fulfilling lives...

its not prejudiced to point this out, yes, some people with Down's Syndrome are on the milder end of it, and are nearly as able as most other people. Others, however, are not, and part of the issue may be education, but it could also be developmental disabilities themselves. The other issue is this, there is no way for prospective parents to know which end the child they birth will be on. Many don't have the resources available to properly take care of such a child if they are more disabled than most DS children. I see nothing wrong with encouraging people to terminate on this basis, indeed I would find it to be more ethical than purposely creating a person who is permanently disabled for some misguided need to pretend to be selfless or something.

[bluestateguy]

3. Would we tolerate a privileged male advising women to have the child?

I think not. We'd regard it as patronizing and sexist, or trying to imply control over women's bodies.

I'd like to think that be advising abortion, we'd react the same way to Dawkins.

[okasha]

5. The word he doesn't get is "choice."

[Brettongarcia]

11. Dawkins explicitly uses the word "Choice." And he gets it right

Dawkins is saying that in his own opinion, carrying a Down's Syndrome fetus to term, is immoral. He does not say however that his sense of morality should be imposed on others, by law. He is merely indicating his own sense of what is right; without imposing it by LAW on anyone else. Even as it is not Dawkins, but the Roman Catholic Church, EWTN, that lobby to have its antiabortion ideas made into laws, and forced on everyone.

In contrast to the Catholic Church, Choice is at the center of what Dawkins says. Dawkins explicitly says that "if" you have a "choice"? Then given choice, then abortion is the choice that you should make. There is no statement in Dawkins advocating this as a law, to be forced on others.

So how is it that the normally nit-picking Okasha here - suddenly misses a key word?

If you are religious? Then note this: Jesus himself warned about religious conservatives and adamant defenders of traditional churches. He told us that religious conservatives would be literally, nit-picking: "straining" at or over-concerned with "gnats." But swallowing camels.

Jesus warned that defenders of religion would be continually, obstinately, refusing to see the larger points. That they would be whitewashing the important problems, repressing them, going into Denial about them.

And that is exactly what we see here and now.

[MellowDem]

8. So, the Pope, you're talking about the Pope, right?

Or many other religious leaders.

Course, I don't think Dawkins is anti-choice, much less the leader of an organization that actively tries to take away choice of others.

This is just Dawkins opinion on this issue. I don't see the implication of controlling a woman, or see it as patronizing or sexist.

Otherwise all opinions on things that don't effect us personally are controlling, patronizing, etc. etc.

I see a lot of false dichotomies though.

[longship]

4. Love Dawkins...

But these days, only for his science.

I love his writing. But his off-the-cuff remarks are strange, and so often insensitive. I wonder what's going on in his brain. Alas, these days he is often his own worst enemy.

Just gotta shake my head.

[hrmjustin]

6. Talk about a major WTF moment!

[AtheistCrusader]

7. "That’s not a factually wrong point of view."

Then why is that admission not the end of the discussion?

[edhopper]

9. Why a second thread

About a subject that you just posted and is active?

[cbayer]

10. That's funny! Do you object to that in general or just when rug does it?

[edhopper]

13. People can post what they want

just wondering why a second thread about the exact same thing that was posted a couple of days before that is still high up on the list.
It's not like there was no response the first time, it's a very active thread.

[cbayer]

14. Yes they can and I just wondered if you objected when it was done in general

or just in this case?

Because it seems that it is often the case that the same topic is posted over and over again.

Just asking.

[edhopper]

15. Sometimes people post the same subject

as other posters.
Maybe the same article that two posters read. (I sometimes start to do that when I see it was already posted)
I don't know how often the same poster starts a thread about the exact same thing, considering the first thread did not go unnoticed.
This post was about the exact same quote as the first thread.
Just wondering why it was posted again.
Usually when a poster wants their thread to stay in play they just bump it.

[cbayer]

16. Well, I guess I don't think there was really any reason to say anything about it

at all, and I think you were driven to do so by your own agenda.

But I could be completely wrong about that.

[edhopper]

17. Do you think

a second post about the exact same Dawkins quote, within days of the first one, by the same poster, was driven by any agenda?

[cbayer]

18. Yes, it certainly was. It's a big story.

There are at least two threads about it in GD that I can find.

Dawkins is a legitimate topic here. If there is a follow up on a story about him, I think it's legitimate to post that.

Same with the pope or any other figure who casts a large shadow in the world of religion.

But making a deal about a member posting a second thread seems, well, a bit petty.

And he is certainly not the only one who does it, but I suspect you won't say anything about those that post threads that support your position.

Whatever. Who really cares, seriously?

[edhopper]

19. What follow up?

It's the exact same story posted twice by the same poster.

I don't know? You seem to care a great deal about why a I asked about the repeat thread.

[edhopper]

20. Since you bropught up the Pope,

what do you make of the first Dawkins post getting well over a hundred replies.
But the post about the Vatican not turning over evidence about child rape only getting twelve.
Do you think the responses are in proportion to the different stories.

[cbayer]

21. Pope!!!!!!

I'm not aware of any thread about the vatican giving over evidence about child rape, so I have no opinion on the response to said article.

But I would guess that the response means something about something.

What do you make of it?

[cbayer]

22. Hey, I just thought of a possible explanation!

Perhaps it is a reflection of how many people have the member who posted it on ignore.


Possible, wouldn't you say? I bring this up because it is the reason that I didn't respond to it, so it makes sense to me.

[edhopper]

24. That could be I guess

I forget about that since I don't use "ignore".

[cbayer]

25. I can see why your would not use it. There is really no need for it where

you are concerned, as far as I can see.

[Brettongarcia]

23. Why did Rug post the same topic twice in rapid succession? To evade linking the Church to all this?

Possibly Rug is desperately twisting this way and that, shifting from place to place, like a contortionist. Because he is trying to evade some earlier critiques of his own position. Like for example, my noting the role that religion, the Catholic Church and the pope have, in opposition to pro-abortion positions like Dawkins.

In Rug's earlier posting of this topic, my response # 106 noted the Church's role in the criticism of Dawkins, in effect:

Dawkins speaks of abortion, and specifically "choice." Catholicism is the major anti-choice voice.

The subject is 1) Choice. 2) In the matter of abortion; a major issue with the Church.

The Church's 3) argument furthermore by the way, has often (if not consistently) been that essentially any fetus is a full human being. Including implicitly, a DS fetus.

[The argument against Dawkins therefore], is an argument developed in large part, by the Church

Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope, seem relevant here.

Normally by the way, good Catholics, Christians, will insist that their religion is always relevant, in everything.

So why is the Church suddenly irrelevant ... just in this particular case? For Church-defending Rug?



We need to note where some of this criticism of Dawkins is coming from in effect: The Church. And then we need to ask whether the Church and the Pope's moral record is good enough, that we should value its dogmatic opinions on such subjects.

Why is the Church, through Rug, attacking Dawkins? We need to know the above points of Church doctrine to date.

[rug]

29. You might ask the author why he thought it necessary to write it.

I'll give you two suggestions why.

I have to confess that this one’s a little personal for me. My next (adopted) daughter, with whom we’ve been officially matched and who will join the family in about six months (pending a mountain of cross-national red tape we still have to work through), comes from a group of young kids with handicaps. Those handicaps run the gamut: from albinism to spina bifida, from strabismus to missing or deformed limbs. And yes, some have Down Syndrome.

With Dawkins, it’s gone from quirk to pathology. He apparently can’t see his words as they will be read and interpreted by others. That being the case, he’s doing serious (and serial) damage to his reputation, which frankly doesn’t help the image of atheists everywhere.

[mmonk]

28. It is not immoral to give birth to a downs syndrome person.

The statement devalues them as being unworthy of living, their happiness predetermined by opinion.