Dawkins latest masquerade as a moral commentator
actually raises several issues thaI will attempt to filter through. Most people will get caught up in their own disgust and anger over Dawkins claiming that aborting a fetus that has down syndrome is a good moral choice. They will do feel this righteous anger because they will be accessing that part of their heart and soul that is made in the image of God. The key is to not get stuck just on being angry and to shut down the conversation. Shutting down is exactly what Dawkins wants you to do. But if we do a little critical thinking we can find that not only is Dawkins wrong, but what he is proposing is under the same banner of fascism that he has rallied against.
If aborting a baby with down syndrome is a good moral choice because it prevents the DS gene from remaining in the gene pool, then what could we say about the babies that have great genes who have been aborted or who are being aborted right now? This would then mean that for Dawkins, abortion is on a sliding scale of morality, which means that there are some things about abortion that are more right than others. So if aborting a down syndrome baby is good, then aborting a baby with “perfect” genes would be less good. In fact, you could go so far as to say that if there was a child with a gene that was so beneficial that it could enhance the human race forever, that aborting it would be wrong. (Under Dawkins logic).
So is it then possible for Dawkins to be against abortion if this were the case? If Dawkins is against abortion in any case, it would then go against his previous statement about a woman’s choice being of higher moral value than a child’s right to live. The question we then have to ask is, “is it possible that his has already happened, or is happening?” The law of averages would say that many children have been aborted who would offer some benefit to the human gene pool. So, how would Dawkins know who should live and who should die then? Who gave him this moral superiority?
Backing up a bit, Dawkins claims that abortion is a moral choice. But how can Dawkins be so sure he’s on the right side of this moral conundrum? The hypocrisy (and irony) is clear that Dawkins has become the religious zealot he has despised for so long now. He has entered the domain of claiming who should live and who should die. He has made a statement about who deserves to live, and who should live and has put a moral value on those choices. This is religious fanaticism at it’s best, completely delusional on his own hubris.
I’m reminded of the words that Gandalf spoke to Frodo.
“Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo’s hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.”
As a people, this is our real problem regardless of Dawkins. We have become a people who are horrified by ISIS beheading the born, while the unborn are slaughtered in secret. This inconsistency should lead us to repentance and to become champions for all life.