I read Richard Dawkins’ Selfish Gene back in the day. At the time I thought the book to be overrated, and now find it pretty much outdated, proven wrong by later research. But that proof hasn’t stopped Dawkins from parlaying his initial fame into a long career that recently has evolved into becoming the bete noire of Christians. He and his supporters like to portray themselves as standing against ignorance and don the mantel of the scientific greats who suffered under the Inquisition, but these days are quite different than the time Galileo lived. In fact given the tendency for some followers of a particular “religion of peace” to saw off the heads of non-believers, I’ll start taking Dawkins seriously when he dons a Mohammed mask and pees on the Koran. It’s easy to rile up Jews and Christians; they won’t stick a dagger through your heart (as one member of the religion of peace did to Theo Van Gogh) or issue a fatwa against you the way the Ayatollah Khomeini did to Salman Rushdie. Islam is another matter, and I’m always amazed how the Left censors itself in regards to that religion, focusing their ire instead on Christianity, as if the Pope will send a suicide bombing altar boy to silence them.
So Dawkins’ latest rant calling for the abortion of babies with Down’s Syndrome is just so much more greenhouse gas emissions by the former scientist. As the uncle of no less than TWO kids with Down’s, I could expound on how these children are endless fountains of Love in this despairing world we live in, but instead I’ll take another tack.
Dawkins’ argument is that those with Down’s suffer a poor quality of life and it is our duty to kill them to prevent their suffering. “I personally would go further and say that, 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 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.”
So if the standard to judge is quality of life,that a Down’s child has less quality of life than a non-Down’s child, then shouldn’t we apply this logic to other conditions? Perhaps we could take it a step further down this slippery slope Dawkins has plopped his atheistic butt on. Current thinking is that people are born gay, and if true then it should be possible to eventually determine whether someone is gay while they are in utero. Since gay people are more prone to drug abuse, alcoholism and suicide than straight people, then should Dawkins morality apply to those as well? After all if gays suffer a lower quality of life than straights, shouldn’t the parents abort the gay baby and try again? Ditto children with autism, left-handedness (lower quality of life than right handers), brunettes (lower quality of life than blondes), and those born in Britain (lower quality of life than Americans).
My opinion? Anyone who bases their reproductive success on the opinions of that bloviator shouldn’t reproduce in the first place.