marjaerwin

Richard Dawkins has recently said it would be immoral not to abort a fetus with Downs':

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus

I think his comments are ableist, and disrespect Downs people, and disrespect reproductive rights. I just got hit by an incapacitating auditory bombardment, and I haven't recovered, so trust me that this society is ableist.

Someone asked, in the discussion, why eugenics [and eugenicism] are wrong:

http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/39736806

I offered the following partial explanations:

Primarily because much of the difficulty of living with disabilities comes from lack of understanding, discrimination, lack of accommodations, and so on.

Eugenics doesn't help with these things, and it anything will hurt when it comes to these things.

Partly because genetics is more complicated.

I am autistic. I have asthma. I would dread the elimination of future autistic people. I would hope for the prevention of future asthma.

I think, as a general guide, we need strong reproductive rights, we need strong accommodations, and when we have these things, and when people with disabilities would rather have avoided these disabilities, and when the gene interactions won't be an issue, [and when we remove the various racist, neurotypicalist, etc. influences], then I think eugenics wouldn't be wrong any more.

So what do you think?

P.S. One of Dawkin's supporters has stated: