I for one agree with Live Action President Lila Rose who said:
"It's sick and twisted for anyone to advocate for the killing of children with disabilities...Dawkins's ignorant comments serve only to further stigmatize people with Down syndrome...while many people with Down syndrome, their families, and advocacy groups are fighting discrimination on a daily basis, Dawkins calls for their murder before they are even born...those with Down syndrome are human beings, with innate human dignity, and they, along with the whole human family, deserve our respect and protection." [2]
Dawkins goes on to claim he is "morally based." However, as argued here, his atheism leaves him with no moral foundation. In the end, if God does not exist and atheism is true, it is just as Dawkins says:
"If the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies . . . are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention . . . . The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." [3]
Thankfully, we have many good reasons to believe otherwise and that is what this blog is all about.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Footnotes:1. Just what is "mild" pedophilia? All pedophilia is deplorable. Anyone who thinks otherwise has something wrong with them.2. Dustin Siggins, ‘Sick and twisted’: Down’s advocates, pro-life leaders slam Richard Dawkins’ abortion remarks, August 2014.3. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 133.
Comments
Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort.
The portion I put in bold is key. From this it seems Dawkins does not think the unborn are human. To him a child has not yet come into existence. I am not aware of him defending this position. Chad, are you aware of this?
Regardless, in light of his experience in biology I am sure he his aware of the science of embryology so I do not see how he can defend it if he does.
From this follow up article Dawkins wrote one can surmise that Dawkins is indeed ignorant of what modern biology tells us about the unborn. See point #1.
He seems to think that those who have an "early abortion" are not snuffing out an unborn child. However, science tells us otherwise as shown here and as attested to here.
I think the best thing atheists can do at this point is to distance themselves from Dawkins because as I've said before, even as a theist, I believe atheism deserves better!
Godspeed