Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
29. You might ask the author why he thought it necessary to write it.
Sun Aug 24, 2014, 04:58 PM
Aug 2014

I'll give you two suggestions why.

I have to confess that this one’s a little personal for me. My next (adopted) daughter, with whom we’ve been officially matched and who will join the family in about six months (pending a mountain of cross-national red tape we still have to work through), comes from a group of young kids with handicaps. Those handicaps run the gamut: from albinism to spina bifida, from strabismus to missing or deformed limbs. And yes, some have Down Syndrome.


With Dawkins, it’s gone from quirk to pathology. He apparently can’t see his words as they will be read and interpreted by others. That being the case, he’s doing serious (and serial) damage to his reputation, which frankly doesn’t help the image of atheists everywhere.

Recommendations

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

A really silly remark. okasha Aug 2014 #1
Isn't your remark insulting to those who have gone into conservatorship? Brettongarcia Aug 2014 #12
I don't see what is wrong with Dawkins remark, I would have used unethical or irresponsible... Humanist_Activist Aug 2014 #2
What I see that is "wrong" with his remark d_r Aug 2014 #26
Some of them aren't able to become independent or live fulfilling lives... Humanist_Activist Aug 2014 #27
Would we tolerate a privileged male advising women to have the child? bluestateguy Aug 2014 #3
The word he doesn't get is "choice." okasha Aug 2014 #5
Dawkins explicitly uses the word "Choice." And he gets it right Brettongarcia Aug 2014 #11
So, the Pope, you're talking about the Pope, right? MellowDem Aug 2014 #8
Love Dawkins... longship Aug 2014 #4
Talk about a major WTF moment! hrmjustin Aug 2014 #6
"That’s not a factually wrong point of view." AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #7
Why a second thread edhopper Aug 2014 #9
That's funny! Do you object to that in general or just when rug does it? cbayer Aug 2014 #10
People can post what they want edhopper Aug 2014 #13
Yes they can and I just wondered if you objected when it was done in general cbayer Aug 2014 #14
Sometimes people post the same subject edhopper Aug 2014 #15
Well, I guess I don't think there was really any reason to say anything about it cbayer Aug 2014 #16
Do you think edhopper Aug 2014 #17
Yes, it certainly was. It's a big story. cbayer Aug 2014 #18
What follow up? edhopper Aug 2014 #19
Since you bropught up the Pope, edhopper Aug 2014 #20
Pope!!!!!! cbayer Aug 2014 #21
Hey, I just thought of a possible explanation! cbayer Aug 2014 #22
That could be I guess edhopper Aug 2014 #24
I can see why your would not use it. There is really no need for it where cbayer Aug 2014 #25
Why did Rug post the same topic twice in rapid succession? To evade linking the Church to all this? Brettongarcia Aug 2014 #23
You might ask the author why he thought it necessary to write it. rug Aug 2014 #29
It is not immoral to give birth to a downs syndrome person. mmonk Aug 2014 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»With a Tweet Advocating t...»Reply #29