Richard Dawkins takes to Twitter-says dumb shit AGAIN

At this point, I really wish Richard Dawkins would STFU.  In July he said:

Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.

I find this deplorable.  Rape is a vile act whereby one or more people exert power over another person-usually a woman-in an act (or acts) of a sexual nature.  It is non consensual and violates the autonomy of the victim.  That is what all rapes are.  The addition of another crime on top of that doesn’t change the horrible nature of the rape.  It’s still horrible.  Any form of rape is horrific.  Additionally, one should not generalize the effects of rape.  Such an act has a different effect on different people and for some, date rape might well be far worse than stranger rape at knifepoint.  That is a determination to be made  by the victim of a rape-not by anyone else.

Recently, Dawkins opened his mouth and said something stupid-again:

The scientist Richard Dawkins has become embroiled in another Twitter row, claiming it would be “immoral” to carry on with a pregnancy if the mother knew the foetus had Down’s syndrome.

The British author made the comment in response to another user who said she would be faced with “a real ethical dilemma” if she became pregnant and learned that the baby would be born with the disorder.

Dawkins tweeted: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

There is nothing moral or immoral about bringing a child with Down’s Syndrome into the world.  Such a child has the chance to live a fulfilling life, no matter what Richard Dawkins thinks.  I imagine he is thinking of some particular hardships that a child with DS might face in life, but honestly, there are all manner of hardships that people can face in life.  Should that be the basis for deciding whether to bring someone into the world or not?  It can be.  On an individual basis.  If a woman decides for herself that she doesn’t want to bring a child into the world that has DS because she doesn’t feel she could adequately care for such a child, that’s her choice to make. If she decides *to* bring a child with DS into the world, that should be her choice to make.  Either way, there is no question of morality.  There’s no right or wrong in this equation.   Dawkins’ problem again, is making a blanket statement about an act that is very much up to the individual woman in question.  Women do not need anyone telling them that their decision to carry a pregnancy to term or abort a fetus is an immoral one (nor do they need anyone telling them it’s a moral one).  No one needs to pronounce judgement on the choices a woman makes with her body.  

Now he’s said something thoughtless-AGAIN (I’m sensing a pattern):

Blogger said woman’s rights over own body extend to abortion even if fetus conscious & writing poetry in womb. I profoundly disagree.

The ‘blogger’ in question is PZ Myers.  In a post he wrote back in 2012 (Dawkins is just now reading this?), PZ wrote:

We can make all the philosophical and scientific arguments that anyone might want, but ultimately what it all reduces to is a simple question: do women have autonomous control of their bodies or not? Even if I thought embryos were conscious, aware beings writing poetry in the womb (I don’t, and they’re not), I’d have to bow out of any say in the decision the woman bearing responsibility has to make.

Women have the right to bodily autonomy by virtue of being humans. That right provides the foundation for their right to an abortion. They don’t lose that right to a fetus, even one that writes poetry. No one has the right to make use of anothers’ body without their permission.



p class=”lead”>(anyone uncertain of why bodily autonomy provides the foundation for the right to an abortion ought to read this)

Richard Dawkins takes to Twitter-says dumb shit AGAIN