Especially for Mr Dawkins

Attachment: 20130414-214529.jpg (19.04Kb)

My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs

Dawkins isn't an arsehole.

I'd just like to say that because the image is annoying.

He at least doesn't try pushing fairy tales onto children as truth. He can prove the information that he pushes.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Fair enough.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Dawkins is certainly not universally admired in the 'scientific community'; not least because his gift of rational argument has been distorted by his prejudices. He also falls into the trap of believing that all truth = scientific truth, which is a delusion of its own. What he has achieved is to compel Christian academics to review evidence scrupulously, and to avoid sloppy arguments, and for that we should be appreciative.

1) it really hasn't - Of course a best guess scenario, or theory backed by a reasonable argument, is of course more reliable and valid than one that doesn't fit within the existing model and is backed by no evidence other than pointing at holes. Typically people who use the 'evolution can't explain everything' generally don't;
a) Understand evolutionary theory and population genetics.
b) Misunderstand scientific methodology
c) haven't understood the statement and evidence presented.

2) He's not entirely wrong, I disagree with his view in regards to downs syndrome, but its a personal view, and one that isn't entirely without some rational merit. However in relation to many very serious medical and physiological problems he's right. How anyone allows their child to go to term with disorders such as Harlequin-type ichthyosis (for example) is more likely acting out of selfish personal reasons than the well being of their child. Notably in cases of severe downs syndrome, the same applies.

I think its immoral to not consider termination of a pregnancy due to fetal defects, because often people tend to act on a 'there might be a miracle', or otherwise selfish reasons.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I think the context is central. You can't reduce moral or ethical questions to a yes or no answer. I'd say yes, but the important part is the bit following (I think its morally questionable to have children, let alone ones with severe disabilities).

Personally I believe having children is morally wrong, and selfish, given the population of the planet is absurdly out of kilter, it can only add to the misery, both of humans and a death sentence to countless other species.

Ultimately we cull or neuter or otherwise control the populations of other species and yet we have spread like a virus across the planet, destroying species, eco-systems and ultimately ourselves, increasingly as resources run low.

The options ultimately, for humanity will be a cull or population birth control or species collapse. of the three, birth control seem the more humane.

So I don't have children. I wouldn't think twice about aborting a fetus, downes or otherwise, truth be told

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]