Richard Dawkins on Down syndrome: Immoral that such a person should live

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 20, 2014

Culture, Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From world’s smartest man and biggest Darwin advocate Richard Dawkins: on baby with Down Syndrome: ‘Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world’.

Look, we can’t afford to pay Dawkins to say this stuff (it costs a ton to even talk to him) so don’t blame us.

Incidentally, my closest childhood friend was a boy with Down syndrome (Johnny, 1948-1957).

He died at a time when there was no pediatric open heart surgery for children where we lived. I dedicated one of my popular science books to him.

It is really hard for me to talk about this because I don’t understand the hatred some people have for people who have Down syndrome. If Johnny had lived …

O’Leary for News

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Eugenic racism in 1925 was consensus science in the field of human evolution. By 1928 there were 376 university-level courses on eugenics, and there was widespread support from scientists and other academics at leading universities -- Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins, to name a few -- as well as enthusiastic support from media and government. Eugenic science was funded lavishly by the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Harriman Railroad foundation, and the wealthy businessman J.H. Kellogg. Many national and international conferences on eugenics and human evolution were hosted at leading research institutions, including the American Museum of Natural History, and eugenic science gained the imprimatur of leading scientific organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. Wealthy donors created the Eugenic Records Office on Long Island, later to become the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. By the 1930s, thirty-one states in the U.S. would pass compulsory sterilization laws based on mainstream eugenic science and human evolution, and eugenics would receive the explicit endorsement of the Supreme Court in 1926. By the end of the first half of the 20th century, sixty thousand Americans had been sterilized involuntarily on the basis of consensus eugenic science. …Racism and eugenics were the hallmarks of the theory of human evolution in the early 20th century, representing a clear consensus of evolutionary biologists as well as other scientists and leaders in higher education and government. There were a few dissenters, but such skeptics were disdained in mainstream scientific circles. - Michael Egnor
To say these people were not inspired by Darwin or naturalism would be a lie. What objective morality could be used to say they are wrong? BTW, this was not a group of 20 people like fringe Westboro group - and I these people were taken seriously, unlike this small group of people you hold up as a norm for Christians.
Heartlander_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

Mung: "There’s no such thing as a reprehensible human being." Really? Of course there is. I am not saying that anyone is ever born this way, but there are plenty that evolve to this state. I just used the Westboro freaks to be provocative, but to say that they aren't trying to represent the Christian perspective is just a lie. I agree that they are a fringe but group, but they are inspired by religion.Acartia_bogart_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Dr JDD
Westboro is an oddity ~~of Christianity~~
Fixed it fer ya!Mung_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Arcatia_bogart:
Just because one opponent of Creationism is a reprehensible human being...
There's no such thing as a reprehensible human being. Arcatia_bogart:
... can someone please defend the behaviour of the creationists at the Westboro Babtist church? Somehow, I don’t think anyone will.
What's your point? That we are being consistent?Mung_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

Even Dawkins admits to the reality of persons. There's hope after all.Mung_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

Acartia Bogart at 5, and generally: You won't have seen much of that ("very hateful, homophobic and bigoted") at UD because it is not only reprehensible but irrelevant to the purposes of the site. And YOU brought it up. The only reason for interest in Dawkins's opinions on eugenics questions is that he is probably the best known defender of Darwin in the pop culture. No one would care if he were just teaching school in Idaho. Fine, but he isn't.News_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

"Though I see so much difficulty, the object seems a grand one; and you have pointed out the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race." Charles Darwin in a letter to his half-cousin Francis Galton, developer of Eugenics.Jehu_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Arcatia
But if you wish to follow the morality dictated by the bible, please stay away from me because I really don’t believe in killing homosexuals, adulterers or women who have sex before marriage.
Of course the Bible teaches no such thing. Read John chapter 8.Jehu_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Dawkins has been a closeted eugenicsist for a long time. I guess in his dotage he is just coming out with it. Eugenics, by the way, was originally conceived of by Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin, who credited Darwin as the inspiration for his work.Jehu_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

[Peter] Singer is a radical utilitarian who denies that human lives necessarily have greater value than those of animals. Indeed, along the lines of the recent “after-birth abortion” pro-infanticide conflagration, Singer believes that some human beings aren’t “persons” and thus have no right to life. He even believes that these human beings can be used instrumentally — in medical experiments, for example. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/21/peter-singer-has-no-right-to-judge-anyones-ethics/#ixzz3AyBT7CVt
DARWIN HATES BIRTH DEFECTS!Heartlander_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

A-B, I must say that your comparison of Dawkins and his ilk to the Westboro Babtist church is on point. I can just imagine protesters outside a pediatric center holding up signs that read: DARWIN HATES BIRTH DEFECTS! Good job!Heartlander_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart said:
DavidD, morality is a personal decision ...

Just because one opponent of Creationism is a reprehensible human being...
If whether or not it is morally wrong to abort fetuses that have Down Syndrome is a matter of "personal choice", why would you refer to Dawkins as a "reprehensible human being"? For what, having a personal, subjective feeling in the matter? If all morality is a matter of personal choice, why would you point out the specific example of Westboro Baptist church, as if you expected others to hold the same view of their behavior and find it immoral? As if there is something objectively wrong about their behavior?William J Murray_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

DrJDD: "Westboro is an oddity of Christianity." Really? Have you ever read the articles and comments in LifeSiteNews about homosexuality, abortion, etc? This is a very popular site for Catholics and, in my opinion, very hateful, homophobic and bigoted. Before anyone jumps on me, I can honestly say that I have seen very little of this on UD, which is commendable.Acartia_bogart_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

DavidD, morality is a personal decision based on whether or not the individual wishes to live within society. It is not dictated by any god. But if you wish to follow the morality dictated by the bible, please stay away from me because I really don't believe in killing homosexuals, adulterers or women who have sex before marriage. Do I believe in abortion? I guess a better question is, does any one believe in abortion? The answer is, no. But do I believe that removing a fertilized egg, or a mass of cells, is murder? Again, the answer is no. Personally, I think that there should be a time past which an abortion should not be allowed unless the woman's life is threatened. I am not qualified to determine what this time is, but it should not be dictated by a church that believes that using the birth control pill is a sin equivalent to murder. I don't know of anyone who thinks that abortion is the preferred option. But I also don't want to go back to the days where a teenagers only choices were to seek a back alley abortion or to "go live with her aunt" for six to eight months.Acartia_bogart_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

No one would take anything Westboro baptist church as a leading authority in creation though now would they. Yet for years Dawkins has been considered the height of intelligence in the scientific community in particular a leading authority on evolutionary biology given his several popular and influential books and publications. So of course it matters when he says things like this as it shows the true extension of living out in practice the preaching of true naturalism. Westboro is an oddity of Christianity. Dawkins forms part of the holy trinity of Darwinism: the father being Darwin himself, Dawkins the Messiah and eons of time the holy spirit.Dr JDD_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

A-B "Just because one opponent of Creationism is a reprehensible human being doesn’t mean that JD is right, or that current evolutionary theory is wrong. But UD seems to think that discrediting the behaviour of an evolutionary biologist casts doubt on the theory." Interesting, so Richard Dawkins saying that having the Downs Syndrome child is immoral and you disagree with that, are you saying the Abortion is immoral ? And before we get to definition shell games, let me ask first, what is the definition of immoral and on what authority do you base such a definition ? -DavidD_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Just because one opponent of Creationism is a reprehensible human being doesn't mean that JD is right, or that current evolutionary theory is wrong. But UD seems to think that discrediting the behaviour of an evolutionary biologist casts doubt on the theory. Well, using the same logic, can someone please defend the behaviour of the creationists at the Westboro Babtist church? Somehow, I don't think anyone will.Acartia_bogart_{August 20, 2014
August
08
Aug
20
20
2014
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply