Once again, Dawkins has to “apologize”

Tweety Dawk did it again:

Richard Dawkins has apologised for the “feeding frenzy” triggered by his tweet claiming it would be immoral to carry on with a pregnancy if the mother knew the foetus had Down’s syndrome.

The geneticist’s latest Twitter row broke out after he responded to another user who said she would be faced with “a real ethical dilemma” if she became pregnant with a baby with Down’s syndrome.

Dawkins tweeted: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

I see. So a woman who chooses to give birth is being immoral. He wants to blame the mother for the unfortunate situation by classifying her decision as “immoral.”

In a fuller explanation on his website – entitled Abortion & Down Syndrome: Apology for Letting Slip the Dogs of Twitterwar – the author tried to set the record straight.

He wrote: “To conclude, what I was saying simply follows logically from the ordinary pro-choice stance that most of us, I presume, espouse. My phraseology may have been tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding, but I can’t help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand.”

Dawkins again “apologizes” by blaming other people or something else for being misunderstood.

He wrote: “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.”
Sneaky. He did not say it “might” be immoral. He clearly wrote: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

With this logic, I suppose it would be immoral for women in poverty to give birth, as children born into poverty are more likely to suffer than those that are not.

If Dawkins truly desires to to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, then he should shut down his Twitter account. Given the pain and suffering his offensive tweets have constantly caused over the years, it is immoral for him to continue tweeting.

But then again, Dawkins doesn’t practice what he preaches.

This entry was posted in atheism, New Atheism, Richard Dawkins. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Once again, Dawkins has to “apologize”

  1. TFBW says:

    Eugenics is always promoted in the name of the greater good. It’s awfully nice of Dawkins to give us this on-going fast-forward demonstration of a slippery slope, though, isn’t it?

  2. Billy Squibs says:

    “Those who took offence because they know and love a person with Down’s syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right to exist, I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one. It is one of a common family of errors, one that frequently arises in the abortion debate.”

    Eh, how about apologising to *those people with Down’s Syndrome* as well as their loved ones, Richard?

    What a nob.

    What I find disturbing about this whole mess is that at least some of the people who have taken great offence would have been just fine if RD had said something specifically about a woman’s choice. “I’d suggest aborting it* and trying again. But I respect that’s it’s your decision”. Human life isn’t sacrosanct, choice to continue with your pregnancy or kill the unborn is.

    *dehumanising terminology

  3. sumegoinvicte says:

    Yup, Dawkins is an idiot.

    But then in his book the god delusion the man claims to prove that god doesn’t exist but then only criticises religion. Any half decent scientist knows that to get the right answer you need to ask the right question. Even if you can prove that religion is wholesale harmful and completely wrong etc (which I don’t agree with) that has absolutely no bearing on the existence of the divine. It simply tells us humans got it wrong in their understanding of the divine nothing more or less.

    I love the work you are doing here. I wish more people were willing to take a balance view.

  4. Such a narrow definition of “happiness,” and I think that’s the thing that concerns me the most. Unfortunately, he’s just giving voice to a very broadly held opinion that barely scratches the surface of what happiness truly is.

  5. Ilíon says:

    Dick to the Dawk:If your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering …

    Suppose there is a Mad Scientist(tm) who hates all other humans and wishes them gone from his area-of-awareness. Suppose that the mere fact that he must share a planet with other human beings makes him miserable. Suppose that he decided that were all other human beings dead, then he would be supremely happy, for his primary point of suffering would be removed.

    Furher, suppose that this Mad Scientist, after many years of study and preparation, devises a way to effect his desire. He sets the process in motion, and in short order, all other humans on the planet are dead,

    Keep in mind, that from Dawkins’ utilitarian and atheistic perspective, it make no difference whether these deaths are immediate and painless or drawn-out and painful. For, once dead, the dead are *dead* — they do not exist, except as memories of other not-yet-dead persons.

    So, how can Dawkins’ <i?rationally object to the act of our Mad Scientist? After all, he has reduced suffering to 0% and increased happiness to 100%.

  6. Dhay says:

    Those who have access to the British ‘Private Eye’ magazine might like to look at page 26 of issue 1374, which features 28 spoof tweets from Richard Dawkins (and 3 spoof re-tweets by him), filling the best part of a page.

    Satirised and ridiculed.

  7. Dhay says:

    From Jerry Coyne’s blog entry entitled, “Adam Lee has lost it”, dated September 20, 2014:

    It’s time to end this relentless and obsessive hounding of Dawkins and Harris. People actually comb through Richard and Sam’s Twi**er feeds, looking for blog fodder: things they can use to smear these guys. Don’t they have anything better to do?

    This is irony indeed, coming from someone whose blog is a relentless and obsessive hounding of people who are religious, and of people who are friendly towards religion, and even of people who are merely tolerant towards religion. He combs through the internet looking for blog fodder: things he can use to smear Muslims, Christians, and any even slightly off-message “accommodationist”, “enabler”, Communist fellow-traveller look-alike, pinko atheists. Doesn’t he have anything better to do?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s