Here is a link to an alleged incident of Richard Dawkins saying that children with down syndrome should be aborted, and that to not abort them is actually the immoral thing.
Before I get into this, since I know many people never read links, let me establish what the link claims he said:
“Richard Dawkins, the atheist writer, has claimed it is ‘immoral’ to allow unborn babies with Down’s syndrome to live“
“…he insisted his stance was ‘very civilised’ because foetuses do not have ‘human feelings’ and said ‘Yes, it is very civilised. These are foetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings‘“.
“He claimed that the important question in the abortion debate is not ‘is it ‘human’? but ‘can it suffer?’ and insisted that people have no right to object to abortion if they eat meat“
“The row erupted during a debate on Twitter about calls for further changes to Ireland’s abortion laws in the wake of the case of a rape victim who was forced to carry the child until she could deliver by caesarean section.One participant said they would suffer a real ethical dilemma if they were carrying a child with the condition. Prof Dawkins replied: ‘Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice'”
“He insisted he was not questioning the right of people with Down’s syndrome who have already been born to live – just those who have not yet been born.
‘There’s a profound moral difference between ‘This foetus should now be aborted’ and ‘This person should have been aborted years ago’,”
Many of these quotes were from his Twitter page with a picture of the tweet shown. Therefore, I think it’s safe to trust these as being actual quotations from Richard Dawkins and not taken out of context in an inappropriate way.
Richard Dawkins is not being consistent with his worldview with these statements
Before I engage with the comments, I want to correct something many of my Christian brothers said when they linked me to this story. Many, (Ray Comfort for example) have said things along the lines of “Richard Dawkins being consistent with his worldview” or “It’s wicked but at least he is trying to be consistent”.
Let’s us make note that Richard Dawkins is still
borrowing stealing from the Christian worldview with these statements. His blatant disregard for human dignity and value and his desire to slaughter fellow man for physical attributes he doesn’t like is consistent with his worldview. However, the second Richard Dawkins uses the word “immoral” he has stopped being consistent and started stealing again (which is consistent with his worldview).
A consistent Atheist would recognize that he lacks the moral foundation one needs to call any behavior immoral. Richard Dawkins imposed universal morality on the world with his statements, and that is very inconsistent with a worldview that cannot account for universal morality. Therefore, Richard Dawkins is being very inconsistent with his worldview by pretending like he has any right to call anything immoral. Since he is already stealing objective morality from the Christian worldview he ought to just go all the way and steal human dignity from us as well so that he can repent of this horrible, wicked opinion and bigoted attack on human beings with down-syndrome.
Here are basically his two main points on the issue that we have been exposed to.
“…he insisted his stance was ‘very civilised’ because foetuses do not have ‘human feelings’ and said ‘Yes, it is very civilised. These are foetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings‘“.“He claimed that the important question in the abortion debate is not ‘is it ‘human’? but ‘can it suffer?’
Does Dawkins understand the level of absurdity he has just introduced? He actually just stated that our definition of murder should not be defined by humanity or guilt, but by feelings? I’m not even sure if I accept the claim that babies in the womb can’t feel pain, but that’s actually irrelevant. He has just opened the door to kill anyone for any reason! A sleeping person can’t suffer. If I shoot a sleeping person in the head they will not suffer. There we go. Murder just became acceptable.
Someone in a coma can’t suffer. Let’s kill them. They are just sitting there taking up our tax money, time and resources right?
Murder has always been defined on humanity and innocence. The funny thing is how many liberals and non-Christians vehemently oppose capital punishment. To most liberals, even your guilt or innocence doesn’t play any role in your right to life. How could anyone, Christian or not, take this man seriously? It’s no wonder he refuses to debate anymore. He claims it’s because it gives credit to people who don’t deserve it, but it’s clear he has demonstrated he could never withstand it with the kind of logic he consistently appeals to.
P.S. Why does he get to decide that a beings right to life has nothing to do with it’s humanity but only with it’s feelings?
P.P.S. There is no reason to be civil according to his worldview. There he goes stealing again.
” [He] insisted that people have no right to object to abortion if they eat meat“
This is one of the greatest examples of the logical fallacy “begging the question” that I have ever seen. This comment purely presupposes that a person’s humanity is completely irrelevant to their right to life and that humans are animals. He has never demonstrated either of those. He has asserted them, he has begged them, but he has never demonstrated this. We as Christians can absolutely defend consistently why animals are for eating and why people are not. We can absolutely give a defense as to why humans are significant and special and that innocent humans don’t deserve death even if they can’t feel the death or fear it. He assumes those aren’t true. I can eat a burger and call killing a down syndrome baby wrong, consistently within my worldview. I can treat a human baby differently than a bug, consistently within my worldview, and I can demonstrate how my worldview is the necessary presupposition to his ability to reject it. And if Dawkins was ever willing to debate, a capable Christian could demonstrate this to him too. But he would rather camp-out in his close-minded bubble. Aborting people he doesn’t like. And then call it civil.