Response on BBC AQ tonight to Dawkins fuckwittery

[Amethyst24]

I'm a new poster on FWR, but I've been reading the board for a few months and have found so much food for thought. I'm nowhere near as informed as many of the posters here, so please be gentle with me.

One of the questions on Any Questions tonight was about Dawkins' horrible tweet about aborting babies with Down's Syndrome. The question itself was very emotive - it was read out my the husband of the woman who'd asked it, because she was blind and not able to read it herself. And it was basically phrased as, "Should we abort all DS babies?"

The first panelist to respond, Professor Hugh Pennington, basically said yes, on the basis that he's seen very poor outcomes for people with DS in his years working in medicine. His answer was greeted with a deathly silence.

The next three all said no, citing right to life, the feelings a pregnant woman has for her child, the real value people with DS bring to society, and so on. They were all cheered enthusiastically.

Not one of them mentioned choice. I'm trying to unpick this. Is it because a DS pregnancy is assumed to be the result of a couple who want a baby, and therefore about "them" not about "her"? Is it because when the foetus had disabilities, suddenly it is about the foetus more than about the woman carrying it and her choices?

Or were they all just after cheap, populist points, because it's so much easier to say, "A disabled foetus is as valuable as one that isn't," than, "A woman/family has the right to decide whether they want to have a baby, regardless of its viability in the short or longer term"?

I was pretty clear about my reaction to Dawkins' original tweet - "Who the fuck are you to tell women what to do?" But I think I would, if I'd ever been in that position, have done what he thinks women ought to do, because for me, I agree with him.

But I'm so enraged that the debate tonight was all about the foetus/unborn baby, not about the woman's choice.

And I've had lots of wine so I'm probably being incoherent and/or offensive. But I'd be very grateful for feedback from those who can see this more clearly than I can.

True, I'm thinking especially of Duchenne MD and Freedrick's (sp) ataxia, things that often totally disable older teens and young adults just as they see their friends spread their wings.

DD and I have long debates about CF because treatments have improved so much in her DFs life time.

"This is not solely about a women's choice. It's about a couples choice."

This is not true though is it, really. The bottom line is for the woman to decide, no-one else can or should have an equal "say" in whether she should have an abortion or continue with a pregnancy.

I agree with you OP and have noticed on the other thread about RD's latest proclamation and with a lot of pro-life people that various abortion conversations are entirely centred around the "rights" or otherwise of a foetus and the rights of the woman housing it barely get a look in.

RD has also said a load of other stuff around abortion that I won't get into here but he doesn't sound like a pro-choice person really.

Cut a long story short he seems to enjoy putting his "moral questions" and "logical" solutions out there by using highly emotive scenarios which predominantly affect women. He is a man. I think it stinks.

I suppose the other thing that troubles me is that the rights of people (as opposed to foetuses) with disabilities is often used as a reason to curtail choice for women. I've seen it argued on here that that is a reason to extend rather than limit women's rights to terminate (if any pregnancy can be terminated up to term, there's no discrimination), and I agree with that, but unfortunately most people don't see it that way.

Thanks for explaining the meaning of NT. I find such a term confusing. How is it measured? Where are the boundaries between typical and atypical? What conditions fall outside the boundaries? Does the presence of such conditions mean there is a moral obligation to abort according to RD? Is there ever such a thing as typical in the human condition? What happens when such conditions develop after birth and into adulthood, are these individuals more valuable?

Sometimes it seems that to RD everything is so black and white, rooted in 'scientific fact' and it is this feeling of certainty that gives him the right to pontificate and preach to others.

I have seen in my own family the pressures that arise when caring for a special needs child but would not dream of telling another family what they should or should not do.

The trouble is the public generally just see one face of Downs Syndrome - the bone portrayed on TV, happy, smiling and friendly.

They dont see the ones with severe behaviour difficulties, language and communication difficulties, ASD, hearing problems, heart problems, defects of the digestive system. They don't see the families in and out of hospitals for years, desperate for respite/support, worrying about education.

Unfortunately the media is appalling at presenting disability whether in fact or fiction, so unless someone is directly involved, its hard to know what you would do. I know someone who worked with adults with DS, and when she found out the baby she was carrying had it, she went ahead, with full knowledge of what might come. He hasn't been the easiest child, but his family have been realistic and coped very well. Not everybody does, and there isn't always enough support - this goes for children and young people with any disability.

I don't believe it is up to Richard Dawkins to make a pronouncement and not expect to get flamed, any more than I would want to hear someone say no-one should abort a child they know to be disabled. It is a personal decision for that mother to make, with advice and support from professionals and family members if she wants it.

I haven't actually heard RD speak on the subject - is he advocating a form of eugenics, trying to prevent families from suffering, or just anti-choice?

Fusby. I'm not sure what RD is advocating either but it does look like a form of eugenics albeit dressed up (when pressed) in concern for families.

I would really like to know what other conditions detectable in the foetus RD considers warrant a moral obligation to abort.

Agree with so many posters that it is a personal decision for the mother to make.