magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
http://m.naturalnews.com/news/046831_abortion_Down_syndrome_Richard_Dawkins.html
By L.J. Devon, Staff Writer
(NaturalNews) Top scientist Richard Dawkins isn't interested in protecting life on Earth. He's only interested in protecting a planet full of people that he approves of. To him, Down syndrome babies have no importance in the world and should be terminated before they take their first breath. With the right prenatal testing, Dawkins believes that Down syndrome can be detected early, and the baby can be discarded as medical waste so they won't waste any space on planet Earth. In a way, Dawkins is like Adolf Hitler, preparing his preferred race with the perfect qualities. He has no patience to care and love people who are slower than him. His brilliance is the model to live by, and babies with Down syndrome are apparently not fit for the world that he wants.
Richard Dawkins recently stated publicly on Twitter that it's the moral thing to abort babies with Down syndrome before they have a chance to be born. The Twitter conversation began with Dawkins displaying a picture of pro-life supporters in Ireland -- a country that does not endorse abortion or subsidize it. Dawkins criticized Ireland for its pro-life stance, writing, "Ireland is a civilised country except in this 1 area."
One woman questioned Dawkins' tweet, asking, "994 human beings with Down's Syndrome deliberately killed before birth in England and Wales in 2012. Is that civilised?"
Dawkins replied, endorsing mass pre-meditated death of children with Down syndrome, "Yes, it is very civilised. These are fetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings."
Another commenter chimed in, confused, "I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma."
Dawkins reassured the man that it was the moral thing to take out children with Down syndrome before they are born. "Abort it and try again," he wrote. "It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."
This brings up the following questions: What if Richard Dawkins was born with a chromosomal disorder? Is it then moral to terminate his life? Where does Dawkins draw the line when pre-engineering a perfect human race? Should all children with deformities or cognitive impairments be discarded?
Taking the gift of life for granted
The most passionate pro-life army would probably be the 54.5 million people and counting who were ripped out of the womb over the past 40 years in the US. What if Dawkins had been one of them? He could have seized to exist. These people, discarded as medical waste, never had a say in the matter of their own life and were never allowed to take their first breath outside their mothers' wombs. They were never given a chance. If they were allowed to speak today, every one of them would say it's the adult's moral responsibility to protect life conceived in the womb.
These people, who were denied their entire life's liberty and every single possible choice, represented a new beginning, a clean slate. They never posed a threat to society and could have changed the world in a positive way, yet they were discarded as fetuses without feelings.
Court rulings like the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision never restored women's privacy and freedom of choice. The ruling only encouraged and subsidized the deaths of millions of future women and men who could have helped build a more compassionate society.
When abortion became federally endorsed, the medical procedure was no longer a last-ditch option; it became encouraged, and death has multiplied since then. The ruling never really protected freedom of choice; it only encouraged the death of millions who will never get a single choice.
By not respecting life and protecting it at all costs, society begins to endorse relative morality. When people are encouraged to harm others and take life, lawlessness abounds, even while it is endorsed by the law itself.
When life is respected first, then liberty can abound. The so-called liberty that the court "granted" is only an illusion of choice.
At the same time, being for life doesn't mean that one should condemn women who've undergone abortions in the past. Women and men are both greatly impacted emotionally and spiritually after going through with an abortion. The last thing that they need is some zealot waving a sign in their face and telling them they should go to jail or hell.
All men and women have an inherent choice to either protect life or discard it. It's just sad to see a leading scientist like Richard Dawkins regard human life so flippantly. Instead of subsidizing abortion and encouraging the genocide of people with chromosomal disorders, we should be empowering men and women with hope, education and resources to raise their families. The world would become a better place if a conscious shift occurred -- a heart change that values life and compassion for all human beings, no matter the cost.
Sources::::
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...moral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/23/54559615-abortions-since-roe-vs-wade-decision-in-1973/
http://science.naturalnews.com/Abortion.html
By L.J. Devon, Staff Writer
(NaturalNews) Top scientist Richard Dawkins isn't interested in protecting life on Earth. He's only interested in protecting a planet full of people that he approves of. To him, Down syndrome babies have no importance in the world and should be terminated before they take their first breath. With the right prenatal testing, Dawkins believes that Down syndrome can be detected early, and the baby can be discarded as medical waste so they won't waste any space on planet Earth. In a way, Dawkins is like Adolf Hitler, preparing his preferred race with the perfect qualities. He has no patience to care and love people who are slower than him. His brilliance is the model to live by, and babies with Down syndrome are apparently not fit for the world that he wants.
Richard Dawkins recently stated publicly on Twitter that it's the moral thing to abort babies with Down syndrome before they have a chance to be born. The Twitter conversation began with Dawkins displaying a picture of pro-life supporters in Ireland -- a country that does not endorse abortion or subsidize it. Dawkins criticized Ireland for its pro-life stance, writing, "Ireland is a civilised country except in this 1 area."
One woman questioned Dawkins' tweet, asking, "994 human beings with Down's Syndrome deliberately killed before birth in England and Wales in 2012. Is that civilised?"
Dawkins replied, endorsing mass pre-meditated death of children with Down syndrome, "Yes, it is very civilised. These are fetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings."
Another commenter chimed in, confused, "I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma."
Dawkins reassured the man that it was the moral thing to take out children with Down syndrome before they are born. "Abort it and try again," he wrote. "It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."
This brings up the following questions: What if Richard Dawkins was born with a chromosomal disorder? Is it then moral to terminate his life? Where does Dawkins draw the line when pre-engineering a perfect human race? Should all children with deformities or cognitive impairments be discarded?
Taking the gift of life for granted
The most passionate pro-life army would probably be the 54.5 million people and counting who were ripped out of the womb over the past 40 years in the US. What if Dawkins had been one of them? He could have seized to exist. These people, discarded as medical waste, never had a say in the matter of their own life and were never allowed to take their first breath outside their mothers' wombs. They were never given a chance. If they were allowed to speak today, every one of them would say it's the adult's moral responsibility to protect life conceived in the womb.
These people, who were denied their entire life's liberty and every single possible choice, represented a new beginning, a clean slate. They never posed a threat to society and could have changed the world in a positive way, yet they were discarded as fetuses without feelings.
Court rulings like the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision never restored women's privacy and freedom of choice. The ruling only encouraged and subsidized the deaths of millions of future women and men who could have helped build a more compassionate society.
When abortion became federally endorsed, the medical procedure was no longer a last-ditch option; it became encouraged, and death has multiplied since then. The ruling never really protected freedom of choice; it only encouraged the death of millions who will never get a single choice.
By not respecting life and protecting it at all costs, society begins to endorse relative morality. When people are encouraged to harm others and take life, lawlessness abounds, even while it is endorsed by the law itself.
When life is respected first, then liberty can abound. The so-called liberty that the court "granted" is only an illusion of choice.
At the same time, being for life doesn't mean that one should condemn women who've undergone abortions in the past. Women and men are both greatly impacted emotionally and spiritually after going through with an abortion. The last thing that they need is some zealot waving a sign in their face and telling them they should go to jail or hell.
All men and women have an inherent choice to either protect life or discard it. It's just sad to see a leading scientist like Richard Dawkins regard human life so flippantly. Instead of subsidizing abortion and encouraging the genocide of people with chromosomal disorders, we should be empowering men and women with hope, education and resources to raise their families. The world would become a better place if a conscious shift occurred -- a heart change that values life and compassion for all human beings, no matter the cost.
Sources::::
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...moral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/23/54559615-abortions-since-roe-vs-wade-decision-in-1973/
http://science.naturalnews.com/Abortion.html
