To be absolutely shocked at this story?

Not saying I agree with him. Just that we are all entitled to our opinions. He's not the pope or the prime minister, so its just his opinion. No reason for outrage.
And that faced with a decision, should your DS or DD tell you their foetus has an abnormality, and asked for your opinion as to whether you should abort, where would you draw the line? It's a continuum from a non-viable foetus, with, say, no brain at all at one end to a foetus that has an increased risk of a mild impairment at the other.
It's an ethical debate.
In those shoes, should the foetus be Downs, my advice would be to abort the foetus. There will always be some children who need extra care from their parents, and who will never be able to live a full life as an independent adult. But not fair to knowingly bring one into the world.

He may not be the Pope Jess but he certainly has his fans, followers.
He has a platform and knows he will be guaranteed more publicity the more outrageous his opinions. What if an amnio test only reveals Downs at 20 weeks, 22 weeks? Dominic Lawson and his wife Rosa Monckton have written moving articles of their Downs daughter growing up, embracing life. And ill thought out comments on a Twitter account do nothing to help those with Downs. Dawkins is entitled to his opinion but he should accept the attention given to his theories should come with a sense of responsibility. Prejudice is all around and no-one with Downs or their parents should feel it was immoral for them to be allowed to be born.

There are a number of conditions I would possibly terminate a pregnancy for if it could be identified in utero.

Epidermis bullosa would be one, It's a severely painful skin condition where the skin layers can easily blister and peel.

Major malformations of the body or brain not just a missing limb. Some of the serious genetic diseases perhaps.

If these conditions were likely to cause a child severe health problems but whether or not I could ever do it is another matter.

In answer to the question of a DD or DS asking advice on whether to abort a Downs baby, foetus, I would only offer unqualified support at whatever difficult decision the parents made but I would not advise abortion.

He probably holds this view as part of his atheistic beliefs.
If you deny that there's a God, and deny the existence of a human spirit or soul, then it follows logically that we're valued only according to our usefulness.
He's entitled to his view, but I think it's probably distorted because of his own problems.

It's his use of the word 'immoral' that I find objectionable. If he'd said it was 'unfair' his opinion would seem more reasonable to me (as per the gist of Jess's post earlier).

Tricia - you do not have to have a belief in God to care about every human being and to see their lives as precious. I am an agnostic, but I spent the bulk of my working life making sure that my clients, however disabled in whatever way, had the best of lives possible for them; I spent a lot of time convincing people that they did not have to be useful to be valuable and to lead worthwhile and fulfilling lives.

I think generalisations that make assumptions about people on the basis of their beliefs are usually inaccurate.

However, Dawkins is at the extreme end of unbelief (or absence of belief) and he lacks subtlety - but not everyone who questions the existence of God is so crass.

I agree with ana that his use of the word immoral is what makes his statements particularly unacceptable. Parents faced with such a situation need time and support to make the right decision - they do not need these sorts of judgmental statements.

I understand the logic of saying that if you know a foetus is going to develop into a person who will suffer, then the moral option is to prevent that suffering. That is what RD was saying. Nothing more.

The problem arises because emotions are involved too and because, unless the issue is really clear cut, such as jess's example of a foetus not developing a brain, it won't be an easy matter to make a decision to abort even for someone who is not opposed to abortions in some circumstances (such as to prevent suffering).

So, as I say, I understand the logic so I am not shocked. I don't know how I would feel about it if it were my pregnancy though and I don't think there is a single right or wrong answer to the question the woman asked RD. He gave his opinion when he was asked for it. Big deal? Nope.

bagsyou might say that as an option, he didn't say moral option he said "abort it and try again".

"The problem arises because emotions are involved". Exactly, because we are emotional beings (for the most part).

I think most of us understand the logic, I'm not shocked either, I just think he's a fool.

But Bags, we all suffer. Some from physical pain, some from mental pain, some from from life events that cannot be predicted.

Dawkins didn't say abort it because it might suffer. He said it would be immoral not to abort it. That is an entirely different statement.

He assumes that a person with Downs is less than a person with other abilities. He was specifically referring to Downs. As some have said here, many Downs people have as happy and fulfilled a life as many who don't.

The whole matter of abortion is filled with moral dilemmas and there are many shades of opinion but it seems to me that that particular statement is arrogant at best and chillingly cruel at worst.

I have a little problem here. I do not have Down's Syndrome, but I have indeed 'suffered' in my life. I actually know many, many other people who have endured extreme suffering for a variety of reasons; indeed I think that most (if not all) foetuses go on to become people who will suffer in some way. Should we have been aborted in order to avoid this suffering?

She said it was a real dilemma for her which suggests to me that the possibility of aborting the pregnancy had occurred to her and she wasn't outright rejecting the idea. If she had been rejecting the idea she'd never have asked the question. She was looking for a straightforward answer. She got one. He said "Abort it and try again". That is giving his opinion, not ordering her to do it, just as the doc who told me to forget all about it and start again straight after a miscarriage was not giving an order but advice based on how he saw my situation. Tactless maybe but logically right.

At least, that's how I interpret the story. RD does explain what he meant and, as I said, I understand the logic. There is nothing illogical about his viewpoint.

If logic didn't "do it" (help her make a decision in the circumstances described) for the woman, then she'd have to resort to something else, such as her feelings and whether she thought logic could actually deal with this sort of problem.

Yes, I know, mice. The thought that we all suffer occurred to me. I don't know what RD's thinking on the subject was. I can only assume he thinks Down's Syndrome inevitably involves the sort of suffering that we really should be trying to prevent and to protect potential human beings from.

gknot, I think he's a fool to say such things publicly too, but he's actually quite a useful fool because such "twitter storms" get people to think about and talk about the issues, as we are doing here.

He was asked for his opinion. Fair enough. But it it seems to me that the decision to abort is one which can only be made by the parent(s) and not a decision that can or should be made by anyone else.

Whilst we can all have our view on when and if abortion is justified, those opinions should be informed by fact and expressed as opinions not as an assertion that it is immoral not to abort a Downs foetus.

As a scientist, and a clever one at that, I think it's very sad and indeed very remiss of him, not to acquaint himself with the reality of life for people with Downs. Presuming that their lives are worthless is in itself unworthy.

I see RD has apologised.

www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-apologises-downs-syndrome-tweet

Apparently the furore is all due to a wanton eagerness to misunderstand, the fact that tweets have to be brief (who knew?) and his expectation that only a select few people would see his utterance. Not a desire for publicity at all then.

I'd like to see some people with Down's Syndrome interviewed about this. Apparently some of them do actually have voices and opinions.

I do think RD has the right to express his opinions. I'm not sure I would agree with his right to judge others as "immoral" - in effect denying them their opinion.

As you say Jess, there is a vast difference between someone who has a moderate learning disability and someone who has catastrophic physical abnormalities.

I would not have wanted to bring into the world a child who had abnormalities detected that were so profound that he/she would never be able to communicate in any way and whose survival would depend on frequent surgery and continuous medical assistance to enable him/her to move, eat, swallow, breathe, etc.

I don't think Down's syndrome falls into that category or that being dependent on others for practical support is sufficient grounds to suppose that their lives are not full or meaningful to them. But I still believe that those who will have the major and lifelong responsibility of protecting their welfare must be the ones to make the decision.

Surely the whole point of having tests for congenital abnormalities during pregnancy is to give the mother the earliest opportunity to abort the foetus if such an abnormality is found. Plenty of pregnant women, knowing that they would not abort the foetus under any circumstances, simply don't bother with the tests.

While I don't agree with Richard Dawkins's assessment that abortion is the only moral action in the circumstances, I think he is perfectly entitled to express such a viewpoint. There are many other instances of behaviours (all legal) that I would have no qualms about describing as immoral. There are lots of gransnetters who never cease to remind us that they are entitled to express their opinions, even when they are ill-informed, bigoted or just plain stupid, so why should other people be censored?

We all understand he subtleties of these sorts of decisions - and can imagine the emotions and feelings that go along with having to make these decisions.

I think that RD thrives on publicity. He enjoys being the centre of attention and kicking up a storm. He seems an intelligent guy, and it defies belief that he has no concept at all of how his comments might be received - and then he can apologise and get a bit more publicity.

People with learning disabilities had the best of services in our county when I was at work - better then those with physical disabilities. Parents were supported, day centres were there and they had opportunities for relationships, learning work skills etc.

It is sometimes hard to put ourselves in someone else's situation - we look at life and what makes it worthwhile from our own viewpoint as fit people. But someone with Downs is coming from a different place and a different life experience - which these days is mainly good as far as I can see.

Clearly there is a huge difference in a decision about a foetus with Downs and one that has a grim and painful genetic legacy - but RD was talking about Downs.

He's very good at getting publicity to sell his books it seems.
There is a world of difference though between the moral decisions we make about how those with Downs are treated, and whether it is ethical (to use a more neutral word) to encourage people to choose to give birth to them.
Some of the comments on this thread sound like the kind of supportive things that you might say to people who had already given birth to a Down's child. And that is fine. But the reality is that they will never be able to fully participate in life as an adult. They are condemned to a perpetual childhood. Yes they can lead a nice life if they are living somewhere like a Camphill community, of course and sometimes they can bring cheer into the lives of others. But can anyone put their hand on their heart and say that in thirty or fifty years time those options will exist or that the state will be willing or able to fund them to live OK lives?

I find myself agreeing with absent. As I understood the article he was responding to the pro-lifers who think that aborting any foetus, even one with potentially devastating abnormalities, is wrong.
Yes, there are some wonderful people with Downs Syndrome in this world, but let's not look at this through rose tinted spectacles.
I used to help out at a Saturday morning 'play group' for children with disabilities, many if whom were Downs. The idea was to give mums a couple of hours respite so they could shop or meet up with a friend. Many were single mothers as the stresses of coping with their children had broken up their marriages. Originally we accepted children up to 16 years of age, but we had to cut that to 12.
This was because we didn't have enough trained male helpers to physically restrain the older children if they became aggressive or amorous towards female helpers.
Not all such children are as loveable and biddable as fondly depicted. Most are b****y hard work and it's a life sentence for parents, with the added worry of what will happen to their children when they can no longer look after them.
Continuing with a pregnancy when you know your child will have a genetic disorder is a gambol. You have no idea what lies ahead.
Those who choose to have an abortion and then go on to have a 'normal' child will have joy again in their lives. RD has the right to suggest that is the way forward so long as it's the parent's choice.

My DH drew this to my attention when we were discussing Dawkins. www.spectator.co.uk/features/9286682/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/ .

Well well well. Who'd a thought it. Got a spare $80000 anyone?

We are all, of course, entitled to express a viewpoint. No one has suggested otherwise.

Equally we all entitled to disagree with that viewpoint.

I see RD has apologised today. He said it was because he was restricted to the Tweet limit of characters. Methinks the professor doth protest too much.

And finally, this debate isn't about the ethics of abortion, or when or when it is not justified. It is about the exact wording of RD's Tweet.

Which I quoted upthread.