Religion

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,477 posts)

8. Except that his original statement says

Sun Aug 24, 2014, 03:21 PM

Aug 2014

"Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

That is quite clear, and is not the same as "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". There is a vast difference between "would be immoral" and "might be immoral".

I will admit that I have no love whatsoever for Dawkins. For a man who rejects dogma, he is remarkably dogmatic. Moreover, his statement that is unambiguous statement was "willfully misinterpreted" is dishonest. Why doesn't he have the honesty and the grace to say, "I should not have said 'would be immoral', I should have said 'might be immoral'"? That would have made me think better of him, not his attempting to blame others for his misstatement.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Kudos to Dawkins for his apology. [View all] Starboard Tack Aug 2014 OP

Aside from the odious "eugenics" aspect of his dumbass remark... MADem Aug 2014 #1

I'll take 60 - 66 hours in the sweep intaglio Aug 2014 #2

Yep! He really needs to lose the Twitter account Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #3

Apologizing is the right thing. hrmjustin Aug 2014 #4

Yes, it is. Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #5

He changed his statement. Fortinbras Armstrong Aug 2014 #6

This is what I took from his original and I accept his apology. Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #7

Except that his original statement says Fortinbras Armstrong Aug 2014 #8

I understand where you're coming from Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #9

Why are you giving him the benefit of any doubt? Fortinbras Armstrong Aug 2014 #10

Because, if he is being dishonest, it will happen again. Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #11