Nobody is better at being human, Professor Dawkins, least of all you

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Interesting.

"To be absolutely clear: Down’s syndrome is not hereditary. So it cannot be bred out. So the belief that it is immoral to keep a Down’s syndrome child is not strictly a eugenic position. But the moral revulsion that we have at eugenics has little to do with genetics and everything to do with the way it treats the most vulnerable. For the problem with eugenics, like Dawkins’s belief that it is immoral to keep a baby with Down’s syndrome, is that it contains an implicit idea of what a better sort of human being might look like."

This article simultaneously acknowledges this isn't a eugenics issue at all, and yet, still tries to cast this as a eugenics issue. That last line is the key. 'Better' isn't the issue at all. The average (obviously not universal, some are very high-functioning) lifespan and quality of life for the people caught by this condition is not the baseline human norm, against which we measure 'better' people without the condition. That's completely the wrong-end way of looking at it.

"everything to do with the way it treats the most vulnerable"

Implies personhood for a fetus. A common anti-abortion position. This article leaves a worse taste in my mouth than the purported subject at hand.