Another day, another ‘shocking’ twitter statement from Richard Dawkins – and ideal blogging fodder for me. There’s a nice tabloid report here:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2730028/Atheist-author-Richard-Dawkins-says-foetuses-Downs-syndrome-aborted.html
I love where it says:
Richard Dawkins risked provoking fury today by claiming foetuses with Down’s syndrome should be aborted – and parents should ‘try again’.
You see, the problem here is not that he’s pro eugenics or whatever, the problem is his justification for that position . That being morality (which is false) and suffering – which is just bizzare.
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.
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.
Well suffering has nothing to do with it, and not questioning the right of people with Down’s syndrome to live is another religious worship that he has. He should be questioning all rights as all ‘rights talk’ is fundamentally flawed.
People have got to take a step back to basic self interest and work out the question of why you would put more resources into a fundamentally flawed human being than one who has much more potential? That’s what you’re doing with a Downs syndrome child.
People have all these religious and liberal ideas that prevent them seeing the reality of the situation. All of this got a boost from the outcome of WWII whereby anything associated with fascist regimes was automatically discounted, but while this liberalism was supposedly in the interest of the Jewish people it was really just as damaging to them as well.
Let me ask you, if you seriously think there is nothing practically wrong with giving resources to keep Downs syndrome beings alive and that they should be loved and cherished like any other person: What if there was a disease whose sole symptom was that it caused you to give birth to Downs syndrome babies and it was highly contagious like the common cold.
Should there be any effort to control such a disease? Or would there be no apparent problem with that since Downs syndrome is not a negative in its self?
What if every child was going to be Downs syndrome? Would that be a problem for society? Maybe we could convert the entire human race to Downs Syndrome and see how that works out.
The fantasy aspect
There’s an interesting thing on Wikipedia that point to a liberal moral fantasy among women about the issue:
When nonpregnant people are asked if they would have a termination if their fetus tested positive, 23–33% said yes, when high-risk pregnant women were asked, 46–86% said yes, and when women who screened positive are asked, 89–97% say yes.
Of course it’s no problem or cost for a woman to claim moral and religious purity and say she wouldn’t abort in the case of Down’s Syndrome if she’s not even pregnant but if she’s actually carrying a child with the condition then that purity carries a huge cost. Only a rich bitch – some Angelena Jolie moral angel could carry that one off. Gee in her case I’m sure, even if she was going to give birth to a clump of hair, some skin cells and a few teeth sticking out of it she would make Brad Pitt suck up to that. It’s amazing what you can do when you’re a hard core Alpha female.
Whatever you do, don’t click here
Finally an apology. We live in a culture. That culture is liberal, religious, whatever.
I have a blog and I can say what I can’t normally say in the moral society.