Richard Dawkins Is A Dick
I'm amazed that someone so smart can be so goddamn stupid.
People sometimes think I hate Richard Dawkins because he is a militant Atheist. That's bullshit. He can believe what he wants in that regard. My objection is his heartlessness and discrimination. I've already covered Dawkins and his belief that women are inherently inferior and the dominant male culture should pity and humor them. Now, here he goes again.
And this time, I can destroy his arguments with his own logic.
Dickie Dorkins decided to open his fool mouth on the subject of Down's Syndrome. On Twitter Thursday, a poster said they would face a "real ethical dilemma" if they discovered they were expecting a baby with Down's Syndrome, as to whether to have the baby or abort it.
Dickie Dorkins tweeted back, "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."
Well, THAT didn't go over very well. Dickie Dorkins went to his blog to say his comment was "tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding." No, I don't think there was any misunderstanding, but let's hear what he has to say.
"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."
By this logic, any family with hereditary risks for disease should abort their babies. There is evidence cancer risks are hereditary. My family has a history of diabetes and Alzheimer's. That sure ain't gonna make anyone happy, so maybe we should close the bloodline down. What about diseases that can't be detected in utero, like birth defects? Whack 'em. In fact, why limit it to diseases? People in the inner city, parents below the poverty line? Your kids will be struggling to survive and will never have the good things. Abort them. You're black and having a baby in a majority white neighborhood? Don't want them to experience all that discrimination, better get rid of them.
Maybe Dawkins would be happy if we established biological and socioeconomic baselines for who should be allowed to have kids and who shouldn't. There have been plenty of attempts to sterilize people with below average IQ's to improve the gene pool. It's eugenics. It's the future.
It's inhuman.
Among the books Dorkins has written is "The God Delusion" and "The Selfish Gene." I'm starting to wonder if those are autobiographies.
People sometimes think I hate Richard Dawkins because he is a militant Atheist. That's bullshit. He can believe what he wants in that regard. My objection is his heartlessness and discrimination. I've already covered Dawkins and his belief that women are inherently inferior and the dominant male culture should pity and humor them. Now, here he goes again.
And this time, I can destroy his arguments with his own logic.
Dickie Dorkins decided to open his fool mouth on the subject of Down's Syndrome. On Twitter Thursday, a poster said they would face a "real ethical dilemma" if they discovered they were expecting a baby with Down's Syndrome, as to whether to have the baby or abort it.
Dickie Dorkins tweeted back, "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."
Well, THAT didn't go over very well. Dickie Dorkins went to his blog to say his comment was "tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding." No, I don't think there was any misunderstanding, but let's hear what he has to say.
"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."
By this logic, any family with hereditary risks for disease should abort their babies. There is evidence cancer risks are hereditary. My family has a history of diabetes and Alzheimer's. That sure ain't gonna make anyone happy, so maybe we should close the bloodline down. What about diseases that can't be detected in utero, like birth defects? Whack 'em. In fact, why limit it to diseases? People in the inner city, parents below the poverty line? Your kids will be struggling to survive and will never have the good things. Abort them. You're black and having a baby in a majority white neighborhood? Don't want them to experience all that discrimination, better get rid of them.
Maybe Dawkins would be happy if we established biological and socioeconomic baselines for who should be allowed to have kids and who shouldn't. There have been plenty of attempts to sterilize people with below average IQ's to improve the gene pool. It's eugenics. It's the future.
It's inhuman.
Among the books Dorkins has written is "The God Delusion" and "The Selfish Gene." I'm starting to wonder if those are autobiographies.