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

[AtheistCrusader]

9. I didn't twist anything.

The article makes a clear case for it. It's not even a dog whistle. It made a clear argument for the 'value' of a potential person, and that is a common anti-abortion trope. I fully stand by that assessment. I have heard it far too many times. I highlighted the exact problem.

"When you have a test that will tell you with 100% accuracy whether a person will be born with a certain abnormality, that does not equate to giving the fetus personhood at all."

I didn't say it gave it personhood. I said that the excerpted arguments in my previous post rely upon the potential personhood of the fetus in question. Because it clearly does.


I tend to agree with your characterization of Dawkins' position that it is immoral also constrains choice. It certainly excludes one choice from the equation. So we agree there.


However. I asked a question in the other thread that went unanswered. What would you think of potential moral implications of a medical study wherein people aborted non-down fetuses, until they had a positive test, and then carried that to term? Would that sort of medical experiment carry any ethical liability? To deliberately create children with down syndrome? (I modified the original proposition of someone just doing it on their own, to a study, because of the incredibly unlikely nature of the hypothetical.)