in one year, @richarddawkins won’t condemn pedophilia but suggests aborting babies with downs

He goes on to say autistic babies may be “enhanced” so keep them…

dawkins is an ass

He’s like an atheistic version of Pat Robertson.

You Might Also Like

6 Replies to “in one year, @richarddawkins won’t condemn pedophilia but suggests aborting babies with downs”

  1. Oh, I don’t know. I’m not sure Dawkins is sufficiently corrupt to concoct a scheme rivaling Robertson’s African Development Corporation. Nor, figuratively speaking of course, does Dawkins seem to have that peculiar Robertsonian propensity for hopping into bed with unsavory dictators when there is a buck to be made.

    Funny thing is, abortion really never was a hot potato political issue until Robertson discovered fetus worship to be a politically expedient means of creating a neo-theocratic voting bloc composed of traditionally antagonistic orthodox Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants.

    Oh, by the way: Do you know a litmus test for differentiating between conservatives and liberals? Conservatives think children have more rights than their parents before they’re born while liberals think children have more rights than their parents after they’re born!

  2. I am assuming that this well circulated document is in fact true (please correct me if it is not). I am pasting in a portion of it for consideration:

    CASE 1: There’s a traveling preacher and his wife who are living in poverty. They already have fourteen children. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th child. They are very poor and probably will be unable to afford a doctor’s attention. Considering their poverty, the excessive world population, and the number of children they already have, would you
    recommend she get an abortion?

    CASE 2: Then, there’s the grandmother who is an alcoholic and the father spends his evenings out drinking in the taverns. His mother has tuberculosis. She has already given birth to four children. The first child is blind, the second child died, the third
    child is deaf, and the fourth child has tuberculosis. Now the mother is pregnant again. Given the extreme situation, would you recommend an abortion?

    Following Dawkins’ approach to the value of life, it appears that he would think that abortion is the direction to go for both these cases. Unfortunately, that decision would remove the blessings and eternal impact for good that John Wesley (Case 1) and Ludwig von Beethoven (Case 2) have shared with our world. I wonder if Richard has talked with Stephen Hawking to see if, based on Dawkins’ view of one’s “quality of life,” Stephen should have just gone ahead and committed suicide to avoid all the after-effects of his progressively worsening motor neurone disease, robbing the world of his contributions to science.

    More personally, I had a brother born without feeling in his body from his chest down (nerves severed during breech birth); scoliosis, brittle diabetes, who had numerous surgeries throughout his 31 years of life. He eventually became a quadriplegic, spending long hours in an iron lung, totally dependent on health care workers. Perhaps Dawkins would have decided that kind of life isn’t worth living either. That would be in direct conflict with my brother’s response when my father asked him if he would have preferred never to have been born. My brother responded with indignation, “Absolutely not! Why would you ask me that?” Might I add that my little physically challenged brother served on the team that helped develop the lunar rover before he died.

    My purpose is not to point fingers…Dawkins, Robertson, and I all have a ways to go to become the person envisioned by the One who gave each of us life. My point is that (1) such matters of life and death are more sacred in nature and deserve a better response than what I just read from “Know More Than I Should.” And (2) faith in a God who modeled sacrificial, suffering love offers the opportunity for a different world view (including what constitutes “quality of life”) than a non-faith outlook.

  3. The more we say that only {insert group here} should speak about {insert topic here} we further divide ourselves when the goal should be uniting under Christ. This is not to say it is an easy or a simple topic, but it is good and perhaps necessary to have many voices involved in a conversation of little importance for it to be complete. That need is magnified when the topic is as serious as life itself.

Leave a Reply, Please!

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