Kudos to Dawkins for his apology.

[Starboard Tack]

Richard Dawkins Apologizes for Saying Couples Should Abort Down Syndrome Babies, Try Again
Atheist intellectual and author Richard Dawkins has issued an apology following the controversy over his recent remarks claiming that Down syndrome children should be aborted.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-apologizes-for-saying-couples-should-abort-down-syndrome-babies-try-again-125226/

Quite understandable that he apologized, considering some of the reaction he caused. It may well be time he reconsidered Twitter as a medium for expressing his thoughts.

Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'
Jessica Skelton, 16, achieved six passes in the week that biologist Richard Dawkins caused fury by insisting it is right to abort Down's foetuses.

Atheist author Dawkins provoked fury when he suggested it would be "immoral" to bring a Down's child into the world "if you have a choice" during a Twitter debate.


Today Jessica's father Tim, 47, said: "Dawkins is an ignorant idiot sitting in an ivory tower.

"Jessica's success is proof people with Down's Syndrome can live successful lives and I have no doubt she will work in the future and have a happy, independent and full life.

"When she was born, doctors painted a rather bleak and negative picture. They said Jessica would never be able to achieve what other children did.

"At the time, I remember saying if our daughter got one GSCE in the future it would be the equivalent to having a child who went to Oxford - now she has six."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031#ixzz3BJK12ZfZ

[MADem]

1. Aside from the odious "eugenics" aspect of his dumbass remark...

I think he blundered into the whole "woman's right to choose" debate in a ham-handed way.

After all, choice means actual CHOICE--not "Do as Dawkins directs."

The guy is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I guess he's clever enough to understand push-back when he feels it. Putz.

[intaglio]

2. I'll take 60 - 66 hours in the sweep

you know, the one on how long he goes before making another odious remark

[Starboard Tack]

3. Yep! He really needs to lose the Twitter account

He should probably stick to writing books. At least he gets the benefit of having an editor.

[hrmjustin]

4. Apologizing is the right thing.

[Starboard Tack]

5. Yes, it is.

And it is refreshing to see him show some humility, for a change. My respect for him just went back up a notch.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

6. He changed his statement.

There is a significant difference between "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's 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." (emphasis added) and "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

The first says "might be immoral", the second "would be immoral". The two statements are not equivalent.

Saying "I can't help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand." is being dishonest. His statement was quite clear.

[Starboard Tack]

7. This is what I took from his original and I accept his apology.

Those who thought I was bossily telling a woman what to do rather than let her choose. Of course this was absolutely not my intention and I apologise if brevity made it look that way. My true intention was, as stated at length above, simply to say what I personally would do, based upon my own assessment of the pragmatics of the case, and my own moral philosophy which in turn is based on a desire to increase happiness and reduce suffering.

My advice to him is to not use Twitter to give advice on anything beyond the most banal and innocuous.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

8. Except that his original statement says

"Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

That is quite clear, and is not the same as "the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down's baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral". There is a vast difference between "would be immoral" and "might be immoral".

I will admit that I have no love whatsoever for Dawkins. For a man who rejects dogma, he is remarkably dogmatic. Moreover, his statement that is unambiguous statement was "willfully misinterpreted" is dishonest. Why doesn't he have the honesty and the grace to say, "I should not have said 'would be immoral', I should have said 'might be immoral'"? That would have made me think better of him, not his attempting to blame others for his misstatement.

[Starboard Tack]

9. I understand where you're coming from

but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on this.
His apology is good. I don't need any pound of flesh to go with it.

Let's see how and what he learns from this experience.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

10. Why are you giving him the benefit of any doubt?

He said something which was both unambiguous and really stupid. He refused to admit any real fault on his part, but is pretending that other people were "misinterpreting" his quite clear statement.

His "apology" is dishonest.

It's like when he said that pedophilia wasn't necessarily so bad. Any number of people here came to his defense, and, as I recall, he made a similar non-apology for a stupid statement.

[Starboard Tack]

11. Because, if he is being dishonest, it will happen again.

I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt until they prove me wrong. It's like parole. It's up to him to violate it. Meanwhile, I'm moving on to other things. Can't dwell on shit like this. Points were made, discussions were had and he apologized. Let us see how sincere he is.