Scientist Richard Dawkins has apologised for the "feeding frenzy" which was triggered by his tweet claiming it would be "immoral" to carry on with a pregnancy if the mother knew the foetus had Down's syndrome.
His latest Twitter row erupted after he responded to another site user who said they would be faced with "a real ethical dilemma" if they became pregnant with a Down's syndrome baby.
Professor Dawkins tweeted: "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice." In a fuller explanation on his website - entitled Abortion & Down's syndrome: Apology for Letting Slip the Dogs of Twitterwar - the author tried to set the record straight.
He wrote: "To conclude, what I was saying simply follows logically from the ordinary pro-choice stance that most of us, I presume, espouse. My phraseology may have been vulnerable to misunderstanding, but I can't help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand."
The backlash for his comment had included one mother, who has a child with the genetic condition, saying: "I would fight until my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma"
Professor Dawkins said accusations of "Nazism, vile, monstrous fascistic callousness" and "fireballs of hatred" had been hurled his way. He wrote "if your morality is based on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down's baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare."
He had hoped his million-plus followers would not see his comments, and that they would only be sent out to the people who follow both himself and the woman who posed the question.
He added: "My true intention was simply to say what I personally would do, based upon my own assessment of the pragmatics of the case, and my own moral philosophy which is based on a desire to increase happiness and reduce suffering."
He also argued: "Those who took offence because they know and love a person with Down Syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right to exist. I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one. It is one of a common family of errors, one that frequently arises in the abortion debate."
Some Twitter users had supported the God Delusion author, agreeing with his assertion that there is a difference in deciding on a termination before a child is born, and suggesting after the child is born that it should have been aborted.
The Down's Syndrome Association (DSA) issued a response to Prof Dawkin's initial comment.
They said: "People with Down's Syndrome can and do live full and rewarding lives, they also make a valuable contribution to our society.
"At the Down's Syndrome Association, we do not believe Down's Syndrome in itself should be a reason for termination, however, we realise that families must make their own choice.
"The DSA strives to ensure that all prospective parents are given accurate and up to date information about the condition and what life might be like today for someone with Down's syndrome."
Previously Prof Dawkins caused controversy on Twitter when he said the world's Muslims had won fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College Cambridge.
ends
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article