Richard Dawkins, the outspoken atheist, has triggered outrage after he announced on Twitter that it would be immoral to bring a baby with Down syndrome into the world. The conversation started when Dawkins slammed Ireland for being a pro-life country, saying it was a civilized country except for “this one area.” England and Wales, on the other hand, are much more civilized. One incredulous follower responded, unleashing Dawkins’ stream of hatred and intolerance for people with disabilities.
Dawkins later retweeted the puzzling argument that just because all babies with Down syndrome should be aborted, it doesn’t mean that he thinks that none of them deserve to live:
Except that’s exactly what he’s saying — if he believes it is immoral to allow your child with Down syndrome a chance at life, that is more than just saying that he would choose personally to have an abortion. His comments about autism vs. Down syndrome also illustrated his disturbing thought process on who is worthy of life: those who can contribute to society by Dawkins’ standards, and those who cannot. While he tries valiantly to claim that this is not an example of eugenics, he fails, because eugenics is exactly what this is. He believes certain people should be aborted because he feels they don’t contribute enough to society — he probably would have gotten along famously with Margaret Sanger, then.
Continuing his pitiful attempt to defend himself, Dawkins also claims that he just wants to prevent the “suffering” of people with Down syndrome. It’s more merciful to kill them before they have a chance to live, since their lives will be so horrible and painful, right? It’s an argument that pro-abortion extremists make quite frequently, and it’s a lie. People with Down syndrome aren’t suffering, and that’s not why people who choose to abort them have abortions. Too often, they do it because they’re selfish and because a baby with special needs is inconvenient, plain and simple. A comment on a previous post of mine illustrated that point rather perfectly:
We terminated after a positive DS diagnosis. I am so glad we did. Our quality of life would have been terrible. We actually have the chance to retire in 9 years at age 54. Had we birthed such a needy child, such dreams would have gone down the drain as would our summers in Spain, Mexico and Israel.
A baby with Down syndrome will ruin your life, didn’t you know that? That’s the steady drumbeat pounded by abortion advocates, despite the reality of raising a child with Down syndrome. They’re dumb, miserable, empty people forced to plod along, living a meaningless, unfulfilling life until they finally do the world a favor and die. The reality, of course, couldn’t be further from the truth. One study found just how much positivity people with Down syndrome bring to the world: over 99% of people with Down syndrome report that they are happy with themselves, their lives, and their appearances. Over 90% of parents report that they love their child with Down syndrome and an overwhelming majority also report having a more positive outlook on life; almost 90% of siblings report that their brother or sister with Down syndrome has made them a better person.
We obviously need to abort those babies with Down syndrome, stat, because if we don’t, we might end up with a world full of happier, more loving people, and that would be just awful. Richard Dawkins surely prefers a world filled with selfish, judgmental, hate-filled people like himself instead.
When I was 15 weeks into my second pregnancy, less than a week after my husband had deployed to Afghanistan, I got the phone call notifying me that my son has Down syndrome. Obviously, since Wyatt is still here, we didn’t choose to have an abortion. I never even considered it. And while Wyatt has some developmental delays, he is still a healthy, happy child who is an integral part of our family.
People with Down syndrome are now living longer, fuller, healthier lives than ever before; they can go to college, work, live on their own, get married, and even have families. My decision to let Wyatt live was hardly immoral. Choosing to rob someone of life simply because they don’t fit into your personal definition of a worthy human being… that is immoral.