Stanely Mushava Christian Entertainment
The keynote proponent of atheism, Richard Dawkins, last week provoked a backlash when he said that it is “immoral” to allow unborn babies with Down’s syndrome to live.
“The God Delusion” author told a would-be mother querying a possible Down’s syndrome pregnancy on Twitter: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

Dawkins’s pro-choice dogma elicited shock, with fitting interpretations of “Nazism, Darwinism, monstrosity, fascism and callousness” hurled his way by readers and social media users.

Down’s Syndrome Association chief executive officer Carol Boy shot down the Oxford professor’s suggestion that babies with the disability should not be allowed to live.
“People with Down’s syndrome can and do live full and rewarding lives, they also make a valuable contribution to our society,” she said.

Our twin crooners Roy and Royce concur with the “Tenda,” their Power FM song of the year for 2003, which urges gratitude to God for every fruit of the womb.
Dawkins, who is styled the pope of atheism for his pseudo-intellectual train of vitriol qualified not so much by reason and observable evidence but amplification of his micro-biology credentials into omniscience, is not new to ridiculous pro-choice claims.

Early last year, Dawkins ignited a firestorm for a tweet justifying abortion on the claim that an adult pig is less human than a human foetus. With reasoning like this, no one needs detractors.

The absurdity of Dawkins unqualified claims is such that he does not deserve the shortest shrift if it was not for legions of atheists who reject the authority of God’s word and cleave to a fallible mortal’s flawed reasoning with fervour bordering on cultism.

He is offside again with the savage suggestion that detection of disability is reason enough to terminate life.
But Dawkins is not alone. Abortion is big bucks in the West with more than 50 million babies murdered in the US between the Roe vs. Wade decision and 2010, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

According to an independent register cited by “The Telegraph,” almost 1 000 abortions are carried out on foetuses with Down’s in the UK every year, with almost half of them were missing from official Department of Health records.

As at 2005, Unicef estimated that 70, 000 illegal abortions take place in Zimbabwe every year, a figure which might have since increased.
Lame justifications have been furnished for the murder of unborn babies but suffice to say, “Abortion can never be made safe because it always ends in someone dying.”

In an effort to mitigate his scandalous remarks, Dawkins took to his website with an ambivalent apology “Abortion and Down Syndrome: Apology for Letting Slip the Dogs of Twitter War.”

Even as he “apologised,” Dawkins took a painstaking effort to deflect blame and cling own to his presumed infallibility.
“My phraseology may have been tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding, but I can’t help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand,” Dawkins wrote.

“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’s baby when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy might actually be immoral from the point of view of the welfare of the child’s own welfare.

“Those who thought I was bossily telling a woman what to do rather than let her choose, of course this was not my intention and I apologise if brevity made it look that way.

“My true intention was, as stated above, simply to say what I would personally do, based on my own assessment of the pragmatics of the case, and my own moral philosophy which in turn is based on a desire to increase happiness and reduce suffering.

“Those who took offense because they know and love a person with Down’s syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right to exist, I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional point not a logical one,” Dawkins said.

Pro-life film-maker Ray Comfort gave short shrift to Dawkins’ comments assertion that his moral philosophy is primarily based on the pursuit of enhanced happiness whose apology he said only served to dig his grave a little deeper.

“And therein is the difference between the godly and this godless world. Their chief end is happiness, while the chief end of those who love God is righteousness.
“Dawkins wants to ‘increase the sum of happiness’ through murder of the helpless unborn. That’s the usual motive of murder. The killer is made happy once the victim he wanted to kill is dead.

“Nazi Germany made Hitler happy. The attack on New York made terrorists happy. Rape makes the rapist happy.
“Human happiness should always be subservient to righteousness. The slaughter of the unborn is a violation of the Sixth Commandment and those who violate its perfect precepts will answer to God, whether they believe in Him or not,” Comfort wrote in his dissent.

 

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey