Unsurprisingly, many people were furious with Dawkins’ suggestion that it is immoral to bring a child with Down syndrome into the world. And years later, O’Connor was prepared to challenge him on that claim.

O’Connor is a father to two children — Anna and Mary. Mary, born in 2010, has Down syndrome. During his interview, he asked Dawkins pointed questions, making sure to let him know that this issue affects him personally. “Now, you’re speaking to somebody who did bring someone like that into the world, but let’s put that aside,” O’Connor began. “I’m interested in, how do you think it is immoral to bring someone with Down syndrome into the world?”

“I think that once you have a child with Down syndrome, you love it, you cherish it, everybody does, that’s well-known,” Dawkins responded. “I wouldn’t deny that for one single moment. But before it’s born, the vast number of people take an amniocentesis and is diagnosed with Down syndrome, as a matter of fact, do abort it.”

O’Connor acknowledged the sad statistic as a fact, and said he wouldn’t judge anyone for it, but pressed Dawkins, asking, “But why is it immoral not to abort it?”

“Well, that was probably putting it a bit too strongly,” Dawkins conceded. “But given that the amount of suffering in the world probably does not go down — probably does go up — compared to having another child who doesn’t have Down syndrome, then that’s what I meant. I want to stress over and over again, I was of course not suggesting that people who already have a Down syndrome child don’t love it, shouldn’t love it.”

READ: Richard Dawkins: ‘Of course’ eugenics would work for human beings

O’Connor continued to push back, asking, “How do you know that it increases the amount of suffering in the world to bring in a child with Down syndrome into the world?”

This question forced Dawkins to admit that he wasn’t actually certain about that. “It seems to me to be plausible that… if a child has any kind of disability, then you probably would increase the amount of happiness in the world more by having another child instead,” he said.

“But you have no reason for knowing that,” O’Connor responded, which Dawkins again conceded was correct.

Dawkins then admitted to O’Connor that he doesn’t actually know anyone with Down syndrome, and bizarrely swerved back to an attempt to reassure O’Connor that he believes he loves his daughter, an attempt which O’Connor swatted away.

“I’m not having an emotional discussion with you here,” he said. “I’m simply having a logical discussion with you. You said that you would increase the amount of suffering in the world… I was just asking you, in a logical way, how you know that. Listen, what other imperfections would you screen out?”

To that, Dawkins only hesitated briefly before answering. “Well, um, I think deafness, blindness… when you have the choice, when it’s early in pregnancy, and the fetus is hardly started to develop, almost everybody, as a matter of fact, does abort a child if it has an easily diagnosable disability,” he replied. He also continued to fight back against the use of the phrase “immoral,” even though O’Connor pointed out that Dawkins was the one to use it in the first place.

“Okay, well, I take that back,” Dawkins said. “I think it would be wise. I think it would be wise and sensible to abort a child which had a serious disability, which was diagnosed early in pregnancy. And I [suspect that] almost everybody does that in practice.”

O’Connor concluded the debate by pointing out that even supposedly “perfect” children cause suffering in the world.

Many Twitter users responded to the exchange, praising O’Connor for his calm, measured approach to such an offensive outlook.

“For years now as an atheist I’ve been deeply uncomfortable with Richard Dawkins’ voice dominating the debate over what atheism means,” journalist Neil MacKay tweeted. “Now I’m sick to death of him. He makes atheism cruel and intolerant. Being a humanist means loving humanity. Be kind. Be better. Lead by example.”

READ: Richard Dawkins Foundation says ‘every abortion’ is part of God’s plan

Even those who support abortion criticized his take, like A.H. Reaume, a disabled writer and feminist. “Richard Dawkins is an ableist who should have his emeritus status at Oxford revoked as some are calling for,” she tweeted. “He is not just openly calling for mothers to selectively abort only disabled babies, he is saying it’s the moral thing. I am pro-choice. But this rhetoric is eugenics.” In another Twitter thread, she quipped that a gene for eugenicists should be located and removed instead. “We will, of course, let them try to prove their lives have value,” she wrote. “But we will analyze those proofs rigorously. And probably do an economic analysis. And thought experiments. And determine eventually that they just aren’t good judges of their own happiness!”

Eugenicist beliefs like those espoused by Dawkins have led to the targeting of people with Down syndrome for abortion in countries like Iceland, Denmark, Poland, and the Netherlands.

“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!

Unsurprisingly, many people were furious with Dawkins’ suggestion that it is immoral to bring a child with Down syndrome into the world. And years later, O’Connor was prepared to challenge him on that claim.

O’Connor is a father to two children — Anna and Mary. Mary, born in 2010, has Down syndrome. During his interview, he asked Dawkins pointed questions, making sure to let him know that this issue affects him personally. “Now, you’re speaking to somebody who did bring someone like that into the world, but let’s put that aside,” O’Connor began. “I’m interested in, how do you think it is immoral to bring someone with Down syndrome into the world?”

“I think that once you have a child with Down syndrome, you love it, you cherish it, everybody does, that’s well-known,” Dawkins responded. “I wouldn’t deny that for one single moment. But before it’s born, the vast number of people take an amniocentesis and is diagnosed with Down syndrome, as a matter of fact, do abort it.”

O’Connor acknowledged the sad statistic as a fact, and said he wouldn’t judge anyone for it, but pressed Dawkins, asking, “But why is it immoral not to abort it?”

“Well, that was probably putting it a bit too strongly,” Dawkins conceded. “But given that the amount of suffering in the world probably does not go down — probably does go up — compared to having another child who doesn’t have Down syndrome, then that’s what I meant. I want to stress over and over again, I was of course not suggesting that people who already have a Down syndrome child don’t love it, shouldn’t love it.”

READ: Richard Dawkins: ‘Of course’ eugenics would work for human beings

O’Connor continued to push back, asking, “How do you know that it increases the amount of suffering in the world to bring in a child with Down syndrome into the world?”

This question forced Dawkins to admit that he wasn’t actually certain about that. “It seems to me to be plausible that… if a child has any kind of disability, then you probably would increase the amount of happiness in the world more by having another child instead,” he said.

“But you have no reason for knowing that,” O’Connor responded, which Dawkins again conceded was correct.

Dawkins then admitted to O’Connor that he doesn’t actually know anyone with Down syndrome, and bizarrely swerved back to an attempt to reassure O’Connor that he believes he loves his daughter, an attempt which O’Connor swatted away.

“I’m not having an emotional discussion with you here,” he said. “I’m simply having a logical discussion with you. You said that you would increase the amount of suffering in the world… I was just asking you, in a logical way, how you know that. Listen, what other imperfections would you screen out?”

To that, Dawkins only hesitated briefly before answering. “Well, um, I think deafness, blindness… when you have the choice, when it’s early in pregnancy, and the fetus is hardly started to develop, almost everybody, as a matter of fact, does abort a child if it has an easily diagnosable disability,” he replied. He also continued to fight back against the use of the phrase “immoral,” even though O’Connor pointed out that Dawkins was the one to use it in the first place.

“Okay, well, I take that back,” Dawkins said. “I think it would be wise. I think it would be wise and sensible to abort a child which had a serious disability, which was diagnosed early in pregnancy. And I [suspect that] almost everybody does that in practice.”

O’Connor concluded the debate by pointing out that even supposedly “perfect” children cause suffering in the world.

Many Twitter users responded to the exchange, praising O’Connor for his calm, measured approach to such an offensive outlook.

“For years now as an atheist I’ve been deeply uncomfortable with Richard Dawkins’ voice dominating the debate over what atheism means,” journalist Neil MacKay tweeted. “Now I’m sick to death of him. He makes atheism cruel and intolerant. Being a humanist means loving humanity. Be kind. Be better. Lead by example.”

READ: Richard Dawkins Foundation says ‘every abortion’ is part of God’s plan

Even those who support abortion criticized his take, like A.H. Reaume, a disabled writer and feminist. “Richard Dawkins is an ableist who should have his emeritus status at Oxford revoked as some are calling for,” she tweeted. “He is not just openly calling for mothers to selectively abort only disabled babies, he is saying it’s the moral thing. I am pro-choice. But this rhetoric is eugenics.” In another Twitter thread, she quipped that a gene for eugenicists should be located and removed instead. “We will, of course, let them try to prove their lives have value,” she wrote. “But we will analyze those proofs rigorously. And probably do an economic analysis. And thought experiments. And determine eventually that they just aren’t good judges of their own happiness!”

Eugenicist beliefs like those espoused by Dawkins have led to the targeting of people with Down syndrome for abortion in countries like Iceland, Denmark, Poland, and the Netherlands.

“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!