Darwinism Intelligent Design News

Why should Richard Dawkins even live?

Spread the love

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG Okay, seriously. Further to Richard Dawkins on Down syndrome: Immoral that such a person should live: Here’s the part that strikes me as oddest of all:

People who have Down syndrome do very little harm in the world. If someone made a list of the 100 most dangerous people in the world, no one with Down syndrome is likely to be on it. See the vid below for why.

Every pregnant woman is now co-opted for the relentless search and destroy mission for people with Down syndrome.

Yet some of the women live with people who pose genuine risk. Violent abusers, drug dealers, would-be terrorists, apocalyptic crackpots …

So lemme get this straight:

That’s no problem. But the guy who can’t really be much of a threat to anyone, that’s a big problem. And he is condemned to death?

Just makes so much sense, I should sign up tomorrow for a course in a completely new way of thinking about risk and threat.

Reality check: The typical person with Down syndrome is a special needs child who grows up to be an adult who lives in a group home and works in a sheltered workshop. A society that works should be able to deal with that.

A society that cannot deal with it probably has way bigger problems than that person’s needs.

So could we call off the hate campaign? Could we at least listen to what the people who have Down syndrome have to say?

17 Replies to “Why should Richard Dawkins even live?

  1. 1
    Dionisio says:

    News,

    Thank you for bringing this subject up and for alerting us about what’s going on. Your compassionate concern reminded me of the following important lesson I must learn:

    As He [Jesus] passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.
    And His disciples asked Him,
    “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
    Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.
    We must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.
    As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
    John 9:1-5 (ESV)

    Commentary from the Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries

    9:2 who sinned.
    Many Jews, like Job’s friends, believed that every temporal misfortune was God’s punishment for some specific sin. With a congenital affliction the explanation could be that the sin had been committed in the womb, or by the parents whose sinful act victimized their child. Jesus dismisses these as improper explanations (v. 3), but this is not to say that certain trials are not the God-ordained punishment for certain sins (e.g., the life of David after His adultery and murder, 2 Sam. 12–21). Neither does Jesus here dismiss the biblical doctrine of original sin (Rom. 5:12–21), which teaches that all suffering is the consequence of our corporate sin and rebellion in Adam. But it is unwise and uncharitable to judge that the sufferings of others are specifically punitive (Matt. 7:1). The question put to Jesus presents a false dilemma. Only two possibilities were given as reasons for the man’s affliction, his own sin or the sin of his parents. Jesus offers a third option (v. 3).

    9:3 that the works of God might be displayed.
    Some of our sufferings, like the trials of Job, are for God’s glory, either through our resulting refinement or through a spectacular healing as in the present case. God’s purpose is not always presently known to us, but we have God’s assurance that His purpose is good (Rom. 8:28).

  2. 2
    aqeels says:

    Sobering video.

    Thanks for sharing.

  3. 3
    StuartHarris says:

    “If someone made a list of the 100 most dangerous people in the world, no one with Down syndrome is likely to be on it.”

    Indeed. If someone were to make a list of the 100 most dangerous people in history I believe their average IQ would be above 140. It’s the smartest people that have caused most of human misery.

  4. 4
    Sirius says:

    If it is immoral that people with Down Syndrome should live, (according to Dawkins), why should they continue to live after they are born? Surely the pro-abortion argument persists after birth.

    Was this discussed in the lengthy debate two days ago?

  5. 5
    Mung says:

    Richard Dawkins should live so that God may receive all the glory and honor and praise.

    But no unborn child should be allowed to live because it is more probable that they will become infected with some ‘religion meme’ than not.

    One is left to wonder why natural selection has not managed to stamp out this pernicious idea of God.

  6. 6
    Mark Frank says:

    Every pregnant woman is now co-opted for the relentless search and destroy mission for people with Down syndrome.

    Who do you think is doing the coopting? And why would they want to destroy people with Down syndrome (they are most unlikely to come into contact with the child should it be born)? 

    I know, love and respect people with Down syndrome. I also know that to have a child with Down syndrome means looking after that person for life and finding  some way of having someone care for it after you die.  This can be immensely rewarding but also extremely hard. It is an immense commitment and we should not preach at those who decline it.  All that doctors are doing is giving parents the option. Abortion gives potential parents a chance to think again.

    You may believe abortion is wrong – but that is a different issue.

  7. 7
    Mung says:

    You amateur theologians out there are free to correct me, but doesn’t Christianity hold that no human is worthy of life?

    From this a number of things would seem to follow.

    It takes an incredible amount of hubris for one human to say that another human is not worthy of life.

    That life is a gift from God.

    That for any human to decide who should live and who is not worthy of life is to play God.

    Doctors are not mere instruments of their patient’s choice, Mark. They have a moral responsibility and thus a moral culpability. Say it isn’t so.

  8. 8
    TimT says:

    I am constantly astounded at the hate that comes from atheists and those of the far left. If you are a Christian on Twitter it doesn’t take long before you start to realize that atheists, greenists, and far leftists don’t just dislike things you say, but they actually hate you for not agreeing with them and try to bully you and punish you.

    Dawkins is just one of this group that drips hatred. Not only toward Down syndrome kids, but towards Christians and anyone who doesn’t share his intolerance and hateful views of the world.

    When people have no true relationship with God, it seems that many fill the gap with hatred, mockery, cynicism and anything that doesn’t involve having a joyous life. It doesn’t matter that the object of their hate does nothing to harm anyone, like Down syndrome kids, they have to ooze hatred and intolerance because that’s just what their chosen group does.

  9. 9
    anthropic says:

    Faith is for people who are afraid of the dark.
    Stephen Hawking

    Atheism is for people who are afraid of the light.
    John Lennox

  10. 10
    Mung says:

    When does a hater pass beyond hope of redemption, and how have those of us who claim to not be haters been gifted to judge?

  11. 11
    Mark Frank says:

    #7 Mung

    Doctors are not mere instruments of their patient’s choice, Mark. They have a moral responsibility and thus a moral culpability. Say it isn’t so.

    Yes doctors have responsibility. As I said above this is about the morality of abortion not attitudes to Down syndrome people. If a doctor doesn’t believe that early abortion is a sin against the foetus then offering the parents the option is the moral thing to do.

    Imagine it were possible to know if your child was going to be Down syndrome before conception. Would it be wrong to give parents the choice? WOuld it be wrong to recommend they don’t have it? If you don’t think early abortion is morally wrong then offering an abortion is essentially the same thing.

    Of course if a doctor believes early abortion is tantamount to murder then clearly he or she would not do it. However, it is a ridiculous and very unpleasant insinuation that doctors who offer or even recommend abortions to parents who have tested positive are motivated by some hatred of Down syndrome children.

  12. 12
    Mark Frank says:

    #8 Timt

    I am constantly astounded at the hate that comes from atheists and those of the far left.

    Here is what Humble wrote in response to one my comments just a day or two ago:

    Mark, you are an ignorant sod and your thinking is downright evil.

    …..

    Anyone, outside of extreme circumstances, who performs abortion, and those who defend / promote it, are absolute disgraceful, heartless human trash.

    I think there is plenty of hatred on both sides – as with almost every major dispute.

  13. 13
    humbled says:

    Mark Frank, I have a huge problem with abortion. It is a topic very close to my heart having been involved in the protection / defense of the vulnerable for many years. This includes the unborn, born, children, adults and the elderly.

    The “ignorant sod” comment was in response to your two, IMO, ignorant comments that 1. unborn babies aren’t human and 2. that they don’t feel. The links I provided show both your claims were wrong.

    As for my “human trash” comment, that still stands. Anyone that promotes or defends the slaughter, and that is EXACTLY what abortion is, of innocent / vulnerable babies, or anyone for the matter, as far as I’m concerned are human trash.

    For the record, I don’t hate you or those involved in abortion, at any level, but the actions, the justifications and the ignorance are responsible for the largest mass slaughter the world has ever known. This is what I hate, that is what revolts me.

    😉

  14. 14
    Mark Frank says:

    #13 Humbled

    I don’t doubt the strength of your feeling.

    To say that anyone who performs an abortion is “absolute disgraceful, heartless human trash” and at the same time you don’t hate them at any level is strange to say the least. If TimT read a comment by an atheist describing a theist as absolute disgraceful, heartless human trash I am pretty sure he would count that as an example of hate.

  15. 15
    humbled says:

    Mark, I hate the act of abortion. I hate the loss of human life and the inhumane callous manner in which defensless unborn babies are discarded.

    It is the act and attitude that disgusts me. Murder is murder and abortion should be treated as such. Murder carries a stiff jail sentence, abortion should do as well.

  16. 16
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Humbled, I don’t know anybody who “likes” the idea of abortion. Even the most pro-choice advocate is not an advocate for abortion.

    But I have a question. Do you believe that preventing a fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus is an abortion? And are you equally opposed to it? If so, this is a religious opinion, not based on any evidence. Which is fine for you to hold for yourself. But not right to impose on others.

  17. 17
    StephenA says:

    But I have a question. Do you believe that preventing a fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus is an abortion? And are you equally opposed to it? If so, this is a religious opinion, not based on any evidence.

    Incorrect. Scientifically speaking, the life of any animal begins at conception. Any claims that a human embryo is not a new living human being are based in (highly flawed) philosophy, not science. It is your position that lacks evidence.

Leave a Reply