Guest Columnist: Richard Dawkins Needs a Hug From My Daughter With Down Syndrome!

Poor Richard Dawkins! He’s a bright lad, but he just can’t help stepping in it, can he?

Now he’s gone and insulted those of us who love our sons and daughters with Down Syndrome by suggesting that we should have aborted our children. When a mother asks him what to do with her unborn baby with Down Syndrome he answered, ‘Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world.’ 

He’s catching it now like a skinny kid in a schoolyard.

I was a bit like him growing up in public school. Bright. Bookish. Lonely.

In sixth grade, I suffered from social awkwardness (getting my head pushed into lockers by a naughty eleven year old boy with a crush on me), and the school psychologist tested me. Not the boy. Apparently, I had the problem.

Dr. Hess called my parents into a conference and announced joyfully, “I have wonderful news, your daughter is a genius.” My parents were nonplussed. Mom had the perfect rejoinder, “That’s great, but tell me something. Will that make her happy?”

Good question Mom! It has made life both easier and harder. But it doesn’t make me more valuable to society unless I use it for the good of others. It’s how we use our gifts from God that makes us who we are.

Sadly in Dawkins’ case, superior intelligence has made him the social misfit I once was. I outgrew it, because God taught me something important; life is not about intelligence or superiority. It’s not about being clever or right. It’s about love.

The kind of love I experience on a daily basis is from a little girl without the high IQ I have. My daughter, Christina, has Downs Syndrome with many intellectual challenges. And you know what?  It has been those very challenges that have built tremendous character in her. She is persistent to a fault, slow to speak, meditative, and highly sensitive to the feelings of others; qualities which Richard Dawkins sorely needs.

Christina doesn’t waste time, or get others upset, by pontificating on Twitter about who should live and die. She spreads joy wherever she goes and has made her mom into a better person. She inspired me to write a blog, publish a book, and go to Washington every year to defend her right to be born. She strips away my foolish pride, helps me unplug from the computer,  and induces me to spend time listening to crickets on a summer evening. She also makes a delicious homemade pizza!

Maybe I’ll just ring up Richard Dawkins and invite him over for a slice.


         This article is reprinted here with permission from author, Leticia Velasquez. To learn more about about guest columnist, Leticia, and her ministry/work, please visit the following:

Cause of Our Joy
A Special Mother is Born by Leticia Velasquez
Catholic Mom, columnist

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest

85 thoughts on “Guest Columnist: Richard Dawkins Needs a Hug From My Daughter With Down Syndrome!”

  1. My friend with Rhesus syndrome is much higher functioning than most with Downs Syndrome. He is now in his late 50s. He was unable to work for most of his life because he lived with aging parents who kept him close. He now buses tables at a Disneyland food court. He doesn’t make a fraction of what it costs to support himself. He is subsidized by the State and has a court appointed guardian. It takes him more than an hour each way to his job that pays him pennies. He has impaired vision, emotional instability, chronic medical conditions, many medications and not infrequent periods of hospitalization. He has a very flat affect because of antidepressants. His family cannot help him. Three of his four brothers also suffer from this condition. With the exception of his parents he has been alone all his adult life. It’s very depressing for him. I think he will suicide one day. He talks about it a lot since his mother died at 96.

  2. Thank you for this brief, intelligent and loving article. I have a 23 yr grandson with Down Syndrome. He is a kind, gentle soul and my daughter loves him to a fault. Dawkins is a fool, an immoralist with a huge narcissistic need to have people look at him and say “Oh there he is isn’t he brave to say these things?”No he is the overgrown bully of the playground throwing his weight around. He is irresponsible and has hurt thousands of people with his ill-informed predujice against life.

    1. Dawkins is a fool, an immoralist with a huge narcissistic need to have people look at him and say “Oh there he is isn’t he brave to say these things?”

      I used to look to Dawkins for guidance in dealing with controversial religious issues. I see now that he is very fallible. I have a 50 yr old cousin with DS. There is no way that it was immoral for my aunt to have her. In what might be seen as providence, my aunt won a million dollars on a scratch ticket and has provided for the care of her daughter in her will.

  3. Birgit Atherton Jones

    What a sweet, life-affirming post! God bless you and Christina – I’ve shared your story with many of my friends.

  4. Well, well…Dawkins is of the very same ilk as Peter Singer and Mary Ann Warren who ascribe to the utilitarian view of humans and their rights of membership in the species. They are all famous for their somewhat pedantic view that there is a distinction between “humans” and “persons.” Thankfully, few ascribe to utilitarian views of humans.

    However this dialogue is very important, especially in this age of genetic testing. My son is more severely disabled than 95 % of the disabled population and my wife and I have lovingly cared for him for the past 16 years and will continue to do so. He lives solely because he is loved; in any institution he would be dead in a weak. So I adamantly opposed abortion based upon disability.

    It amazes me that people would opt to abort a DS child based upon the fact that he/she screens for one additional chromosome….given the fact that DS can be determined by genetic testing but not the degree of impairment which may be extremely mild to not viable. You cannot know from a genetic screen.

    Dawkins et al. aside because they remind me too much of T-4, I am troubled by Stacy not allowing Bill S to comment further because someone will be hurt. We are all big boys and girls and can defend our positions. I am deeply disturbed by the action, Stacy, because this issue, more than many, deserves a very honest and robust interchange of ideas, understanding of positions and a simple realization that 80 to 90% of woman whose fetus is determined to genetically test out for DS will choose to abort.

    This is a great, important social and moral issue because it establishes a sickening trend to breed out children with disability…screens for other disabilities as spina bifida, etc are also appalling high for women choosing to abort. We seek the perfect designer child; whatever that is and we fail to love what is. What I’m saying is that it was wrong to stop comment … understanding does not evolve from censorship, but you are the editor. This is too important an issue not to have a very indepth discussion because the issue is like a plague,,,,or T-4 reincarnated.

    1. We seek the perfect designer child; whatever that is and we fail to love what is.

      First, thank you for pushing for my ability to state my opinions and to defend Dr. Dawkins. What Dawkins suggests is that, before the fetus develops to become a person who would be aware of its own existence and who would become known to and loved by others, one should abort and initiate another life that otherwise would not be initiated if the first is not terminated. In essence, if you choose to give a complete life to a fetus conceived one month, you choose to deny life to one who could be conceived in a following month. Either way, you are choosing one over the other.

  5. Pingback: Does ISIL Want to Kill Pope Francis? -

  6. After 25 years in the field of developmental disabilities I came away with one mantra : never
    underestimate. Dawkins doesn’t understand mental relativity … or much about anything that
    is holy.

    1. Amen, James. Amen! I have always found it pathetically ironic that the people who support and promote abortion were blessed enough to have mothers who allowed them to be born and live.

  7. Thank you, Leticia, for reminding us of God’s purpose in all our lives. Each one of us has so much to offer Him and humanity. Very insightful testimony on the Dawkins’ position. God bless you.

    1. When life gives you a sack of potatoes and you make potato salad, that does not mean that your god had a plan for you to own a deli. You made the most of a bad situation. There is no need for you to blame your god or give it credit for guiding you through seemingly undesirable misfortunes.

      Of course you would love a child with Down Syndrome. But given the choice ahead of time, before you become attached to the child, you should be able to admit that you would want a child without this affliction. Thus, it is better to abort and try again.

    2. JoAnna,

      I don’t know how soon in a pregnancy that an affliction can be detected. If you are against abortion under any circumstances, then I suppose it doesn’t matter to you. But I have to agree with Dr. Dawkins in his opinion.

    3. Hypothetical situation, Bill.

      Scientists come up with a test that can detect the mythical “gay gene” prenatally.

      I tweet to the world that anyone whose kid tests positive for the “gay gene” should abort and try again, because it’s immoral to bring a gay kid into the world.

      Would you find that shocking and hurtful? If you do, perhaps you can understand how Leticia and other parents feel. If you don’t, you might be a sociopath.

      I find it baffling that you can’t understand why some people might be offended when you tell them that their beautiful, amazing children are not worth living. Again, perhaps you are a sociopath. I can’t figure out why else you have to ability to empathize, or understand how words can hurt.

    4. JoAnna. You raise interesting points but they are a bit disjointed. I have a cousin with DS and a gay son. I would never say that either should not have been born. But that is because I have come to know and love them. That being said, suppose at some time in the first trimester, I learn that the child will be born gay or with DS. You can use any stage but I will just say first trimester because I don’t personally feel comfortable aborting in the second or third trimester. No rationale to that, just my own scruples.

      I would abort the gay child if I were living at a time or in a place where I know he would have to deal with all extremist Catholics or Muslims or Mormons or some other group that would not accept him for who he is. That is not the case with my son.

      I personally would abort the DS child if my economic situation were what it was when I had my children. Otherwise, I would go through with it if I were in the financial state I am now in.

      This is all hypothetical. As I said elsewhere, my aunt won a million dollars on a scratch card and my cousin is well cared for. My gay son is doing just fine too. So, in hindsight, it appears that abortion would have been the wrong decision in both cases. What do I know?

    5. I have no inclination to kill homeless people or foster kids. Just unborn babies and old sick people.

      I’m being facetious. You have formed some unfair opinions of me because I don’t share your beliefs. I get that a lot.

    6. We’re not the least bit intimidated by the fact you don’t “share our beliefs.” We believe in following God’s law. You deny God. You have been warned, and stand warned now, that you are violating the First Commandment, Christ’s promotion of life, and the teachings of the Church he founded. The punishment for this is known as eternal damnation. I respect your freedom, however, as does God. He gave it to you. I am quite certain you will keep doing as you please.

    7. The punishment for this is known as eternal damnation

      Don’t be silly. Do you realize how foolish it is to say something like that? If that is the basis for your faith it is pretty pathetic.

    8. Of course you think my solemn warning to you is “silly”. “But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because such things are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) You sir, are a spiritual cliche. I do not find you “pathetic” as you find me, merely blind, as you have something akin to “scales” which really do cover your eyes. You may yet receive the grace necessary to “receive the things of the Spirit of God.” But for a hard case like yourself, you may need to get knocked off your horse and blinded like St. Paul. At that point you will become just as much an advocate for the Kingdom of God as you are now a scoffer. But if not, given your present condition, you will most likely die, wake up in outer darkness, be dragged to the lake of eternal fire by large demons, and spend the rest of eternity with your eyeballs hissing and popping out of your head. Even for someone as spiritually ugly as you now are, I do not wish that upon you. Repent, and come to the fullness of the Truth in Christ, in and through his one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

    9. you will most likely die, wake up in outer darkness, be dragged to the lake of eternal fire by large demons, and spend the rest of eternity with your eyeballs hissing and popping out of your head.

      You are a quack. Only a quack would say such things.

    10. If you go back and read the nonsense that you have spouted off, you should be able to clearly see that you are the one with the problem. I don’t need your prayers.

    11. I used vivid language to break through your blithe intellectual arrogance and thick hellbound skull. Your arrogant mean spirited protestations will mean nothing at your particular judgment. You stand advised sir.

    12. You may admit it is vivid language, but you can’t seem to get yourself to admit the foolishness of your notion that I am in some sort of spiritual danger and that I am hell bound. I know the challenges I face in life and they have nothing to do with your dire warnings, which I find to be somewhat childish. Thanks for your concern but my problems have more to do with staying in shape and losing some weight. Hardly matters of eternal significance.

    13. Bill S, I must apologize for calling you a “fool” in response to your calling me a “quack”. You, being bound by no authority can do as you like, but I must avoid name calling even in the face of one who would come on a thread like this and attack good Catholics.You have my apology.

    14. You have a right to call me a fool because of the saying “the fool says in his heart ‘there is no God'”. It comes with the territory. No offense taken.

    15. Bill S-You’ve got it! Yes- “Let no man deceive himself.
      If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool,
      that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For
      it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. (1
      Corinthians 3:18-19“We are fools for Christ, 1 Corinthians 4:10 . Guy McClung

    16. That is terrible advice that Paul gives. It sets people up to believe the most ridiculous as being the most wise and to see the most wise as being the most ridiculous. It totally messes up people’s heads and they eat it up. Who would figure people could be so gullible?

    17. Actually, no, Bill, you’re not being facetious. That’s exactly what you’re in favor of doing. And it’s exactly where your logic leads. If people who aren’t loved are dispensable, then you’ve just said that you have no problem with going out and killing homeless people and foster kids — as long as it can be proven that no one loves them.

      I believe that human beings have intrinsic value and dignity apart from how others feel about them. It doesn’t matter if no one loves the bag lady living under the bridge, it’s still wrong to kill her because she has intrinsic worth and dignity. Same with kids with Down syndrome. They have intrinsic worth and dignity as human beings and it shouldn’t be legal or moral to kill them just because they have an extra chromosome — contrary to what you and Dawkins believe.

    18. then you’ve just said that you have no problem with going out and killing homeless people and foster kids — as long as it can be proven that no one loves them.

      I hate to disappoint you, JoAnna, but you are building a straw man image of me based on your knowing my stand on abortion and euthanasia. You like to think that those who do not oppose a woman’s right to choose and a patient’s right to death with dignity are also in favor of killing homeless people and foster children. That’s pretty screwed up, don’t you think?

    19. No, Bill. This is the logical progression of your stance. If someone is not loved, they can be killed. That is your position, as you’ve already admitted. Given that is your position, then you cannot logically be opposed to killing anyone who is not loved — including the homeless and kids in foster care.

    20. Killing homeless people and foster children might be a logical progression from abortion and euthanasia to you, JoAnna, but it is not something that I would ever advocate. You are trying to extrapolate what you think I would see as licit based on my acceptance of a woman’s right to choose and a patient’s right to death with dignity. If you try to do that, then you really don’t understand my worldview. And I don’t think you are really all that interested in understanding me or my worldview. You think you’ve got me all figured out but you don’t.

    21. You don’t seem to understand, Bill. I am NOT saying that it’s a logical progression from euthanasia and abortion. It’s a logical progression from your belief that anyone who is not loved can be killed.

    22. It’s a logical progression from your belief that anyone who is not loved can be killed.

      I have no idea where you got that idea. I believe that anyone who is not loved can be killed? That’s insane. Why would I believe that?

    23. Thus, by your own logic, people who aren’t loved have no value whatsoever. Dawkins believes — and you agree — that the valueless should be killed.

      You are projecting your phobia against nonbelievers to a ridiculous extreme. We (Dawkins and I) believe that abortion is appropriate under some circumstances with which you would disagree. We’re not monsters. That is just your projection of us.

    24. What phobia? I’m taking YOUR OWN LOGIC to its natural conclusions. If you don’t like the conclusions, then it is your logic at issue. Dawkins believes that human beings who are valueless should be killed — in fact, he believes it is “immoral” NOT to kill them. You say you agree with Dawkins.

      Yes, I do think your BELIEFS are monstrous, because I think it’s monstrous to claim that the intrinsic worth and value of a human being is solely dependent on how others feel about them. Feelings and emotions are dangerous things upon which to hinge a human being’s right to life.

    25. Dawkins believes that human beings who are valueless should be killed — in fact, he believes it is “immoral” NOT to kill them.

      This is your extrapolation of what Dawkins said. It is not what he said and if it were, I would not agree with him. Aborting a fetus with DS? Yes. I agree with him. That’s all he said. The rest is your fabrication.

    26. Not true, Bill. You need to read more about your idol’s beliefs. Dawkins has been asked if kids with autism should be killed — and his response was that kids with autism contribute value, therefore it is not moral to kill them, but since kids with DS do not allegedly contribute value, they can be killed. (see here:

      Furthermore, Dawkins’ belief that kids with DS should be killed is based on erroneous assumptions about Down Syndrome. He believes all people with DS suffer, he believes all people with DS will need lifelong care from adult caregivers, etc. (see here: He even admits that he might be wrong, which is more than you do.

    27. Dawkins has been asked if kids with autism should be killed — and his response was that kids with autism contribute value, therefore it is not immoral to kill them.

      You mean it is immoral. I’m not going to keep defending Dawkins to you. He’s not a bad person. He has a different worldview than you. One that I find to be more accurate.

    28. Yes, I did mean “it is immoral.” Apologies for the typo.

      I have no idea if Dawkins is a “bad person” or not. He certainly has monstrous views, as do you. You favor killing people who don’t meet your arbitrary criteria of what constitutes a “perfect” person or a “loved” person. Or a person who “contributes value.” I find it troubling that you don’t see how that pattern has been repeated throughout history, and how people today look back on those who exterminated others for not meeting their arbitrary criteria of “contributing value.”

    29. You favor killing people who don’t meet your arbitrary criteria of what constitutes a “perfect” person or a “loved” person.

      The only killing I have stated my acceptance of to you involves abortion and euthanasia. Your generalization of what kind of killing you think I favor is character assassination. I basically favor a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy for her own reasons and the right of a person to die with dignity on his or her own terms. You oppose these rights and you are trying to vilify those who disagree with you.

    30. Unborn children and the terminally ill/elderly are people, Bill. People with intrinsic worth and dignity. You’re saying that you have a certain criteria for which people should be able to live and which should die according to the laws of the land. I understand why you have to keep denying that these are your views, because they are monstrous indeed, and you like to think that you’re being magnanimous and generous instead of barbaric and cruel. But you’re not being generous or magnanimous to those human beings whose lives are not protected by the law, and those of us who believe that ALL human life has intrinsic worth and value (and should be protected accordingly) can see right through you. You and Dawkins are no different from all the other bullies throughout history who have believed similarly, refusing legal protection to those you deem valueless or unworthy of life. The fact that you spend so much time on Catholic sites such as this one, trying to justify your appalling beliefs, shows that deep down you know you’re wrong. You just don’t want to admit it because you’d have to start living according to the truth instead of according to popular opinion.

    31. You’re saying that you have a certain criteria for which people should be able to live and which should die according to the laws of the land.

      And you’re saying that the laws of the land should not allow women to make decisions on what goes on in their own bodies and whether or not they can terminate their pregnancies for children they do not want to carry, give birth to and raise. According to you, also, these laws should interfere with difficult end of life decisions that must be made by the sick and elderly and their families. In your own way, you are more monstrous in your stands than I am in mine.

    32. That is a lie, Bill. I wholeheartedly believe that women should be able to make decisions about what goes on in their own bodies. However, an unborn child has a separate, distinct, unique body of its own. S/he is a separate entity than that of the mother.

      Here is what I believe:

      (1) All human beings have intrinsic worth and dignity from conception to natural death.

      (2) No human being should be murdered.

      Do you honestly think those beliefs are “monstrous”? Really?

    33. I wholeheartedly believe that women should make decisions about what goes on in their own bodies. However, an unborn child has a separate, distinct, unique body of its own

      The first sentence stands on its own. An unborn child’s rights do not supersede that most basic right of the woman. Your thinking that it does makes you more of a monster to a woman seeking an abortion than I could ever be to her.

    34. Human beings should have EQUAL rights, Bill. You do not believe in equal rights for all human beings and you have the gall to call my beliefs monstrous?

      In the case of equal but conflicting rights, given that pregnancy is temporary and death is permanent it seems logical that an unborn human being’s right to be alive would temporarily supersede his or her mother’s right to bodily autonomy – especially given that in over 99% of cases, the mother freely consented to the act that led directly to the child’s creation.

    35. This isn’t even that difficult a call. Between a woman and a fetus in her body, the rights go to the woman. You are a monster if you try to claim otherwise.

    36. A ten week old fetus is a human being but it does not have a right to live if a sixteen year old woman decides that she no longer wants to be pregnant. It’s not even close.

    37. Not your call, JoAnna. You don’t decide that a 16 yr old has to go through another 7 months of pregnancy because you think a 2 month old fetus has more of a right to live than a teenager has to live the life she wants to live.

    38. Why is it your call that a 16 year old can murder her child, but not my call to say that a 16 year old shouldn’t murder her child?

      Do you oppose all laws against murder, since it’s “not my call” (or anyone’s, presumably) when one human being can kill another?

      It’s not 7 months, btw. Babies as young as 21 weeks gestation have survived outside of the womb.

    39. It’s not your call or mine. It is the call of the Supreme Court. What the states are doing now is trying to make abortion more difficult through restrictions aimed at protecting health and safety. Even though they call it pro life legislation.

    40. Has the Supreme Court ever been wrong, Bill?

      Your comment is extremely ironic given that the Roe v Wade decision gives the states express permission to limit abortion in the second and third trimesters when promoting the interest of the health of the mother:

      “(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

      (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.”

      What the states are doing now is wholly in line with the Roe v. Wade decision, as decided by the nine men (at that time) on the Supreme Court.

      Your views seem to be conflicting. On one hand, you say it’s acceptable for a mother to kill her child because the Supreme Court said so. On the other hand, you object to the states promoting health and safety of women seeking abortion even though the Supreme Court has specifically given them permission to do so. Is the Supreme Court right or wrong?

    41. On the other hand, you object to the states promoting health and safety of women seeking abortion even though the Supreme Court has specifically given them permission to do so.

      This is where I get to test your honesty, JoAnna. When a state like Texas passes laws that are claimed to be for the protection of the mothers’ health and safety, is the primary purpose of these laws to a) protect women having abortions OR b) reduce the number of facilities available for providing abortions?

      If you say the PRIMARY purpose is a), then my opinion of you will be one thing (i.e., that you are a liar). If you say b), then my opinion of you will be otherwise (i.e., that you are at least honest in admitting the true motivation of the lawmakers).

      I would much rather think that you are at least honest and that you are just so opposed to abortion that you favor what is being done in states like Texas under the guise of protecting women’s health and safety.

    42. It’s not either/or, Bill. It’s both/and. The law requires all facilities that perform surgery to be held to the exact same safety standards. Abortion facilities are longer allowed to be subpar and unsafe. Isn’t that a good thing? Why do you want women seeking abortion clinics like Kermit Gosnell’s was?
      Also, I notice you have dodged me questions about the Supreme Court. I will have to assume that you concede the point that the Supreme Court can be wrong. So we’re back to the original question. Why do you think some human beings are allowed to kill others?

    43. It’s not either/or, Bill. It’s both/and.

      So you do admit that these state laws are not solely to protect women. To you, they do have the added benefit of depriving woman access to abortion by making them have to travel further to less and less available clinics. Thank you for being honest about that ulterior motive.

      I can’t keep trying to explain to you why I think you pro-life (or anti-choice) zealots are on the wrong side of history. I’m happy I live in a country and state (MA) where people like you have very little say in how people like me get to live our lives. I think you people are still bothersome and sometimes dangerous but your sphere of influence is still shrinking, albeit, not as fast as it should. Vigilance is always required to try to prevent any new insurgencies though as with anti-abortion state laws under the guise of health and safety measures or fuddy duddy judges like in Louisiana turning back the clock on marriage equality. It is a never-ending battle :-).

    44. No, they have the added benefit of saving innocent children from being killed. But primary concern is making sure that there aren’t chop shops like Gosnell’s set up all over Texas and other places, that’s what people like you who oppose sensible and standard safety regulations seem to want. You don’t care how many women are hurt in the process as long as they can kill as many children as possible. Sad really. I don’t know why it’s necessary for you (and others) to be so bloodthirsty. Have so much tragic death the way it is, why are you so gung ho about killing innocent children as well?

    45. This is obviously a cause near and dear to your heart. I probably already told you this but I’ll tell you again. When I was 20, my girlfriend had an abortion. In hindsight, I believe it was the right thing to do at the time.

      I have always felt guilty about the whole affair, but ironically, the abortion itself is the least of my regrets. There are so many more hurtful things that we do to people than aborting fetuses.

      When I weigh the guilt of aborting a ten week old fetus against the guilt of using someone who had nothing but love for me, the abortion isn’t even on my radar. I’m getting déjà vu on this. I think we already had this conversation. Basically, people make mistakes and it’s ok to take steps to minimize the damage and not let a mistake change your whole future.

    46. In what context is killing an innocent human being ever the right thing to do?
      And why do you want women seeking abortion to go to unsafe facilities, just so more children can be killed? I don’t get it.

    47. When you argue about this topic, you form these absolutes in your mind and you don’t try to envision circumstances where your point of view may be out of touch and nonsympathetic. When I look at my case, the termination of a pregnancy at 10 weeks is a nonevent in comparison to the interpersonal dynamics of the whole situation. That is why I think the pro-life movement is out of touch with all of the moving parts of a relationship that have nothing to do with an embryo or fetus.

    48. Bill, you’re just trying to deny the fact that you participated in the killing of an innocent human being. I can understand that. it’s something that many men and women struggle with. If you’re ever interested in seeking healing, I know several resources.

    49. No, Bill, I won’t give you a break. I know you’re desperately trying to alternatively deny and justify the fact that you participated in your son or daughter’s killing when s/he was in a very young stage of development, but denying won’t make it go away, and there is no way to justify it.

      This is my oldest daughter when she was the same age that your child was. Can you honestly look at this picture and deny that she is an innocent human being with the right to life?

    50. Bill S – YESSSSSSSSSSSSS! I agree with you that the child is an “innocent human being.” Or were you not asserting this but simply repeating the prodeath dogma that it is not a human being? The human-being/foetus dichotomy has been only a delaying action by the prodeath folks-they know and everyone knows now, esp anyone who sees a sonogram or studies the research re pre-birth learning and pre-birth communication with an unborn child, yes indeedy each child is a unique human being. I say delaying action because the true RETA proponents have come out and said OK, we cannot deny the science, yes it is a human being BUTTTTTTTTTT the Mama still has the right to kill it up til about 2 yrs old-this based on a tgwisgted “self defense” theory or an extension of the assumed absolute absoluteness of the court-created so-called “right to abortion.” You need to get in lock step with the real course of this argument and the new materiaistic dogmas – that the right to abortion includes the mama-only right to infanticide [strange logic here-once outside Mama why doesnt Daddy then get some rights? or at least half of the baby?]. Have a fullofwonder weekend. Guy McClung, San Antonio ps RETA is Racial Eugenic Targeted Abortion – the Democrat Dogma, but that is another discussion

    51. You people are all crazy. Suppose a teenage get knocked up by her boyfriend who has no desire to be a father. And suppose she has no desire to be a mother. Here we have what is called a “no brainer”. Only people like you want to make it into something it doesn’t have to be. And all this angst is directly related to religious fanaticism. We have too many fanatics in this world, of all religions. They cause more trouble than they’re worth.

    52. The point is no one knows what will bring happiness in life. Many lottery winners end up broke and miserable. Happy your aunt is not one of them.

    53. This is very true. My cousin was a gift to her family. Winning a million dollars assured them that she would be taken care of but wasn’t necessary because she brought joy to my aunt and uncle. Dawkins isn’t big on intangibles.

    54. I was not asked if I wanted to bring Christina into the world. I was told, by Our Lord that she was a “gift from My Hand”. Nothing in my life has proven to be truer. Thank you Lord for knowing better than I what I needed to bring me to holiness.

    55. I am defending Richard Dawkins’ stand on an article that is all about how wrong he is. So, only the opinions of those who agree that Dawkins is wrong are welcome? He has a right to his opinion and others have a right to theirs. How can you sensor someone coming to the defense of someone being criticized for stating his opinion.

    56. I read my comment again and I can see where what I said would be hurtful to someone raising a Down Syndrome child. I have a cousin who has lived a full life with that affliction. She received nothing but love from all of us. As luck would have it, my aunt won a million dollars on a scratch ticket. It is all being left to one brother and his wife who will care for his sister when my aunt dies.

      I don’t begrudge any couple that chooses not to go through what my aunt and uncle went through even though they wouldn’t have it any other way.

    57. I become attached to my children even before I am actually sure I am pregnant with them. Technically, “given the choice ahead of time” would mean that you fix a perfect zygote in a test tube, and then get it implanted. And if this sounds silly, well, then – read your own comment again, Mr Bill.

    58. If you become attached to your children before you even know you are pregnant then you probably would not have an abortion under any circumstances. Not everyone thinks that way. Nor should they have to.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.