It is being
reported that
Richard Dawkins has created quite a stir on social media with his view that parents have an ethical obligation to abort a feotus if it is found to have
Down Syndrome.
The Herald article reports that: "The professor posted a message on Twitter saying would-be parents who learn their child has the condition have an ethical responsibility to "abort it and try again".
He claimed that the important question in the abortion debate is not "is it 'human'?" but "can it suffer?" and insisted that people have no right to object to abortion if they eat meat.
Anti-abortion campaigners describe the practice of aborting foetuses on physical grounds as a form of "eugenics".
The row erupted during a debate on Twitter about calls for further changes to Ireland's abortion laws in the wake of the case of a rape victim who was forced to carry the child until she could deliver by caesarean section.
One participant said they would suffer a real ethical dilemma if they were carrying a child with the condition.
Prof Dawkins replied: "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."
Another pointed to recent figures asking: "994 human beings with Down's Syndrome deliberately killed before birth in England and Wales in 2012 - is that civilised?"
He responded: "Yes, it is very civilised. These are foetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings."
He insisted he was not questioning the right of people with Down's syndrome who have already been born to live - just those who have not yet been born.
"There's a profound moral difference between 'This foetus should now be aborted' and 'This person should have been aborted years ago'," he wrote.
And in response to a thread discussing whether animals feel fear, he said: "Precisely my point. Unless you are a vegan (most Pro-"Lifers" are not) you are in no position to object to abortion."
Carol Boys Chief Executive of the Down's syndrome Association dismissed rejected Prof Dawkins's remarks.
"People with Down's syndrome can and do live full and rewarding lives, they also make a valuable contribution to our society," she said.
"At the Down's syndrome Association, we do not believe Down's syndrome in itself should be a reason for termination, however, we realise that families must make their own choice."
---------------
Dawkins stresses that he is not making judgement on people who have Down Syndrome, but rather on the morality of bringing someone into the world knowing they have Down Syndrome. Is this a separate issue? Is it possible to debate his proposal without making judgements on people with Down Syndrome?
He is not alone in thinking that we have an obligation to embrace advancing technologies. Oxford ethics professor
Julian Savulescu argues: "Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?"
If technology exists that can detect chromosomal irregularities do parents have an obligation to make use of that technology - and then be prepared to abort?
Is aborting an unborn child with Down Syndrome 'good parenting' or 'eugenics'?
Should would-be parents even undergo screening for Down Syndrome if they are not prepared to abort the child?
Or if we are to value all life should ante natal screening for Down syndrome be reassessed? In an inclusive world is screening for Down Syndrome even needed?
A controversial, sensitive topic - where do you stand?
Image:
www.bbc.co.uk