Richard Dawkins caused
controversy last week for an offensive tweet about Down syndrome, prenatal
screening and selective abortion. In what is becoming somewhat of a predictable
pattern, Dawkins said something offensive, tried to argue his opinion was based
on logic, then after facing significant backlash offered a sort of
sorry-not-sorry ‘apology.’
In this ‘apology’ he
framed his position as one of science and ‘ours’ as one of ‘emotion.’ While he
suggested his position defended women’s rights, subtle reminders throughout his
‘apology’ that linked disability, a mother’s choices and actions, and notions
of morality contradicted this. His ‘apology’ was problematic in too many ways
to count.
In this ‘apology’ he
argued his position on selective abortion follows the logic of being
pro-choice, as if the rights of women and persons with disabilities are
necessarily separate. To follow this logic being a feminist, having a
disability, and being a mother are all separate and distinct identities. This
is of course not true.
He also argued he likely
holds the moral high ground, as his position would reduce the suffering of
others. At the same time he suggested knowingly bringing a child with Down
syndrome into this world naturally perpetuates ‘suffering.’ This is also untrue
and upholds ableist notions that link disability and suffering.
Furthermore, ‘proof’
of his logic rested on stereotypes of adults with Down syndrome as perpetual
children, and the false assumption that having a child with Down syndrome means
a lifetime of care for parents. This ignores a growing body of research that
that rejects notions of care based on the separation of independent and
dependent bodies. This also ignores the reality that persons with Down syndrome
are contributing in real and meaningful ways that don’t fit this limited
understanding.
Finally, he suggested
that while he is sympathetic those of us that oppose his position, our
arguments are based on ‘emotions’, and his are based on logic. In stating this
he makes the assumption that what he knows of Down syndrome is based on
‘logical’ unbiased scientific evidence. Yet John Langdon Down, often
uncritically referred to as the ‘father’ of Down syndrome, grounded his
understanding of Down syndrome on racist ideas that argued Down syndrome was a genetic
throwback to less evolved races. It’s a conveniently ignored fact that the ‘father’
of Down syndrome based his opinion of Down syndrome on notions of white
supremacy.
The reality is that
the ‘logic’ of science Dawkins is so keen to draw from has consistently been
wrong where Down syndrome is concerned. It was wrong when people with Down
syndrome were euthanized, it was wrong when it called for and achieved their
mass incarceration, and it was wrong when it forcibly sterilized young adults.
While a discussion about the ethics of prenatal screening and selective
abortion needs to take place, to assume this discussion can take place without
serious and critical reflection around the ‘logic’ shaping these discourses is
illogical.
