Richard Dawkins: ‘Immoral’ not to abort Down’s foetuses

BBC News

Kathleen Hawkins

The Oxford professor posted the message on Twitter in response to a user who wrote she would be faced with “a real ethical dilemma” if she became pregnant and learned that the baby would be born with Down’s syndrome.

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

His comments have caused anger online and have been dismissed by charities, but he insists his views are “very civilised”, tweeting: “These are fetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings.” . . . [Full Text]

One thought on “Richard Dawkins: ‘Immoral’ not to abort Down’s foetuses”

  1. Dawkins’ assertion that it is immoral to give birth to a disabled child implies that there is a moral duty (a) to detect the disability if possible, (b) to have an abortion if a disability is detected, and (c) on the part of a physician or health care worker, to provide an abortion. Each of these is a contestable moral claim, but Dawkins does not appear to be willing to admit that any other moral viewpoint can be considered reasonable. This kind of attitude encourages intolerance and bigotry directed at health care workers and others who reject Dawkins’ premises and moral reasoning.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.