Richard Dawkins, Down Syndrome, Abortion, and the Structure of Evil

In this essay, I want to examine Richard Dawkins’s argument for why parents ought to abort unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome. Specifically, I want to pay attention to the structure of his argument and what it reveals about the biblical nature of evil.

Back in 2014, someone on Twitter wrote to Richard Dawkins: “Honestly, I don’t know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down syndrome. Real ethical dilemma.” Dawkins responded bluntly: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you had the choice.”

More recently, on a radio program, Dawkins was interviewed alongside a father who has a child with Down syndrome. The tweet was brought up again, and Dawkins defended his position. Under gentle questioning, he eventually softened his phrasing, suggesting they set aside the word “moral” and frame it instead as “wise” and “sensible.” Consider the exchange:

Interviewer: You got involved in a Twitter interaction with a woman who said she would be faced with a real ethical dilemma if she became pregnant with a baby with Down syndrome. You tweeted: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.” Now, you’re speaking to somebody who did bring someone like that into the world. But let’s put that aside. Why is it immoral not to abort it?

Dawkins: Well, that was probably putting it a bit too strongly. 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…

Interviewer: How do you know that it increases the amount of suffering in the world to bring a child with Down syndrome into the world?

Dawkins: I don’t know it for certain. It seems to me to be plausible. You probably would increase the amount of happiness in the world more by having another child instead.

Interviewer: Would you have no reason for knowing that?

Dawkins: I have no direct evidence, no.

Interviewer: Interesting. You’re such a scientific, logical person that I thought you could possibly have some logical backup to it. Do you know anyone with Down syndrome?

Dawkins: Not intimately, no.

Interviewer: Look, everyone has their own experience of it, and possibly my experience would be that you’re not necessarily right, and I think a lot of people would think you’re not necessarily right.

Dawkins: I’m sure that you love your child.

Interviewer: Oh yeah, nothing to do with that. I’m not having an emotional discussion with you here; I’m simply having a logical discussion with you. Do you think it would be immoral for them not to do it?

Dawkins: Let’s leave out the “immoral.”

Interviewer: No, but you brought “immoral” into it.

Dawkins: Okay, well, I take that back. I think it would be wise. I think it would be wise and sensible.

Interviewer: You know, children who are so-called perfect can cause terrible suffering in the world as well. But I suppose we have no way of checking, have we?

Dawkins: No, of course.

Evil Masquerading as Good

I want you to notice something crucial here. When Dawkins initially communicates what ought to happen, he frames it in overtly moral terms. Notice what he does not say. He does not say, “This is an evil thing, but we should do it anyway.” He is not an actor openly acknowledging an action as evil and urging us to commit evil. Rather, he calls evil good. He insists that aborting the child is the truly moral obligation.

This matches precisely the nature of evil as depicted throughout scripture: evil always masquerades as good. Satan appears as an angel of light. The serpent approaches Eve not as an overt monster, but as a subtle creature God had made. In the book of Revelation, evil presents a twisted parody of the Trinity in the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet. Jesus warns His disciples that they must be wise as serpents precisely because evil is so intelligent and cunning, routinely cloaking itself in the veil of goodness.

Here, Richard Dawkins argues that for the good of the entire world, and in order to reduce suffering, society should eliminate its most vulnerable members. Consider how inverted that logic is. He makes a high-minded claim about reducing suffering and maximizing happiness, but the mechanism proposed to achieve that goal is an act of profound destruction directed against the unborn. It is cloaked in a righteous end—the noble aim of lessening suffering—yet pursued through an egregious evil.

That is the recurring structure evil assumes in scripture, and it is the very dynamic we see playing out before our eyes in the world today.

Watch the original episode.