Atheism apologist Dawkins: Down Syndrome abortions are moral

Post Reply New Topic

It's very hard for me to separate atheism from the concept of a cause.

Perhaps you are confusing it with so-called New Atheism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/

but there are atheists who are not New Atheists.

What do you think of "New Atheism" as an atheist?

Me? I have no opinion.

What you need to understand is that to most atheists, their lack of believe in a deity isn't a prominent part of their life that they think about constantly. The majority of atheists don't spend a lot of time thinking about about the flaws of religion, nor do the majority have anything to do with subcultures based upon the rejection of religious teachings.

Assuming you're a Christian, imagine your own life, albeit without the religious aspects. This is what life is like for most atheists. The people you're likely to see on YouTube and elsewhere online are antitheistic activists who are dedicated to their cause and thus have no choice but to be vocal and assertive.

I'm an atheist and I'd never heard the term "New Atheism" so I looked it up and I agree with much of it. Here in western Europe religion is largely irrelevant to people's lives. Only a handful of old people attend church and most churches are falling into ruin and are being demolished or converted into markets or flats. Religion or gods never crop up in conversations with people. It wouldn't even be correct to describe people as atheist or agnostic as most simply don't care about religion, it isn't something they think about and it is irrelevant to them and their lives. They never attend church except maybe for the occasional white wedding or funeral but those are increasingly rare as most opt for secular services.

Okay, I'll bite. If these "secular services" are attended by "[o]nly a handful of old people" for whom "[r]eligion or gods never crop up in [their] conversations" because they "simply don't care about religion, it isn't something they think about and it is irrelevant to them and their lives," then why do they attend any services, secular or otherwise? Clearly, they wouldn't understand or appreciate the socio-historical significance of such services if they fail to understand or appreciate the religio-historical significance. It all must seem like so much "pretend play."

Moreover, what do we do with those people (old and otherwise) who keep physical churches financed and operating? Western Europe aside, most churches in other nations, especially the United States, are doing quite well and include all ages. The non-LDS church that I can see from my window right now hosts three or more congregations with apparently differing doctrines. It sponsors and operates a day-care center for children. Its leaders and members couldn't be better neighbors; quiet, clean (graffiti doesn't last a day or two), and, aside from occasionally large meetings which cause some overflow parking in the neighborhood, keep to themselves. It offers secular and semi-secular community workshops and concerts for all. I like it and them, even though I amn't a member of any of its congregations. Without them, our suburban neighborhood would have likely been filled with high-density apartments and all the associated problems that come with them.

However, BACK ONTO THE TOPIC of Dawkins' endorsement of aborting fetuses known or believed to have Down Syndrome, do atheists ("New" or otherwise) agree with him? Do they do so because he is an atheism apologist (and New Atheism icon) or despite it? I would like to learn from the atheists here at Wrong Planet. Is it "immoral" to them, as Dawkins said, NOT to abort the fetuses because of their perceived disabilities? Instead of attacking theism, Christianity or other religions, explain the claims of one of your own.

I don't believe in aborting Down Syndrome babies. These children do have the potential to lead a happy and productive life. Many people with Down Syndrome lead semi-independent, or even independent, lives.

Tay-Sachs, on the other hand, is something where it would make sense to abort, if known. There is normal development in these babies for the first six months or so, then a sudden decline, to the point where the person is basically unconscious. Death occurs, usually, at about 4 years of age.

Regarding weddings, most are performed in civil places, registry offices or historical buildings and there is no mention of religion during the usually short service; they serve two purposes (1) make the legal contract of marriage and (2) serve as a formal ceremony to celebrate their union, though this usually followed by a reception afterwards where everyone eats too much, drinks too much and dances until the early hours of the morning. Religion never comes into it at any stage.

The few remaining white weddings in a church are typically done because the couple (or parents) want to put on a show of wealth or have a traditional wedding and typically the religious part of the service is of no importance to them; merely part of the old tradition, the couple could just as much be listening to stuff from Greek mythology about Zeus for what importance it has to them. Such couples will often not set foot in a church again until they attend someone else's wedding or for their own funeral!


Speaking from experience, the remaining churches in the UK and in France do hold some social functions for their own congregations or do small charity works such as jumble sales or bingo nights so the old believers have somewhere to go. Most people arrange their own social lives around whatever interests them and that often means things like pubs, clubs, nightclubs, sports centres, restaurants etc. Here in France they are also very keen on community centres, which thrive and are often packed with the local community and hold everything from parties to dances to cabaret nights, kids clubs and so on. All these are secular activities.

I see zero correlation between a secular society and suburban unrest. Cram enough people together in tower blocks with poor education and employment prospects and there is going to be trouble whether the inhabitants profess to be religious or not; religion doesn't come into it.



It isn't possible to say whether atheists or so called new atheists agree with him or not; we are all individuals and make up our own mind on such issues; we don't buy into dogma or follow the dictates of anyone. The implication that I or any other atheist can speak for another person is ludicrous. If you are a religious person I couldn't ask you to explain the opinions of the Pope or an Imman or a African witch doctor could I? Just because Dawkins is an atheist doesn't mean there is some set dogma regarding abortion that other atheists follow. Similarly there is no correlation between atheism and what pizza topping atheists like, or the type of car we drive or a myriad of other opinions.

I believe that theists, Christians and other religious people also have their own independent ideas and opinions. Those who don't respect those differences quietly and tactfully get the most attention (the Fred Phelps family's Westboro Baptist Church, for example), but taint the others who do. So, atheists are much the same in having the more outspoken set the example unfairly for all the rest. I agree with your sentiment, but I disagree slightly with your application. There are indeed many atheists who choose to follow the example of those like Dawkins; though I admit that doing so might actually be their own choices.

There is a reason that Dawkins has a kind of rock-star status among New Atheism followers. He is their Fred Phelps. He actively provokes, as does the Phelps family. He blames, as do they. And, he is the example of all atheists in the minds of non-atheists who know no better examples. In other words, both extremes of the equation damage the reputations of their less-extreme followers. That practice will ultimately harm the good each have to share, and reduce the number of their followers in short order.

Finally, as intelligent humans, it is possible for atheists ("New" and otherwise) to hold ideas and opinions about their atheism and about Dawkins' claim of morality of aborting fetuses for no reason other than they have disabilities. These ideas and opinions can be expressed simultaneously. I am surprised that, when asked, none are offered. Is it because Dawkins has finally stepped in it with regard to his status among atheists who believe probably that he has simply gone too far in his opinion?

Dawkin's opinions on abortion are his own. When you know one atheist you know one atheist. His comments possibly won't help the atheist cause though as some will associate that opinion with atheism itself, as you appear to have done. Atheism simply means a disbelief that there are any gods; it does not necessarily imply anything beyond that.

Atheism doesn't really have any "followers". The majority of atheists are people who simply don't believe there are any gods. We don't try to emulate someone else who professes the same disbelief. I agree with many of Dawkins opinions regarding religion, but that is simply coincidence rather than him being some sort of "rock-star atheist" as you put it. Unlike organised religions, atheism has no hierarchy to respect or dogma to follow. If anything atheists, especially outspoken atheists tend to rebut any sort of authority and to seek out knowledge and understanding for ourselves, rather than blindly following the doctrine of any so called authority figures.

Cool! What are the links of those atheists who have rebutted Dawkins' in this matter?

I've no idea if there are any or not; it isn't something I'm sufficiently interested in to research and to be honest I don't hold an opinion on the issue myself, I haven't thought about it. I'm sure there are lots of people who disagree with Dawkins opinion as you do, as to whether they bring religion into the matter and declare themselves to be atheist or religious believers I've no idea. Religion or the lack thereof isn't relevant to the issue (in my opinion), neither is shoe size or preference for pizza topping.

Spending a moment to ponder my own opinion on the subject, my first inclination would be that it should be a matter for the parents themselves to decide on and part of that decision should be whether they have the patience, time and resources to raise the child in a loving environment and also continue looking after said child for the duration of his/her life, failing that the parents should consider if the state would be willing and able to raise and look after the child appropriately. This is just my gut opinion, without giving the issue deeper thought. Whether my opinion agrees or disagrees with anyone else's opinion is pure coincidence.

Found one! Yeah, just one. New Atheist P.Z. Myers who blogged last week that he was "fully in agreement with Dawkins that abortion is not an unethical choice. The woman can choose whether to keep a child or not, and it is perfectly reasonable, and even responsible, for her to include any information about genetic disorders in making her decision. However, singling out children with Down Syndrome is seriously problematic ? it is not immoral to have a child with Downs. It is immoral to insist that a fetus with Down Syndrome should be aborted. [...] We should not judge a person?s humanity by the number of chromosomes they have, or how intelligent they are, or by how close their appearance fits a particular standard."

A reasoned response, in my opinion, and no angst in arguing the necessity to publish such a statement. Too bad that Myers apparently has fewer outspoken supporters than Dawkins apparently does.

^ I still don't see why you are associating the issue of abortion with religion or lack theirof. Why not shoe size there is just as much correlation. Atheists aren't constrained by any dogma to hold any opinions on the issue of abortion. No pre-packed "this is what you must believe" as is customary for religious people. I've just had a skim through posts in Dawkins own forum and there is a mix of responses, some for, some against and many calling him an idiot for trying to express his opinion in an 140 character tweet. None of the many posts I saw stated whether the poster was an atheist or not; but as I'm tired of repeating, it is irrelevant anyway (as is the poster's shoe size).