Having spotted something about prayer which I wanted to comment on at the Richard Dawkins Foundation, I registered and made a post, which in due course received a caustic reply from an RDF member.
Coincidentally this author raised the issue of cancer, which I replied at length about. I was later surprised to find my post deleted and my account locked up – “marked as a spammer”.
Since the only thing I know about making spam I learned from Monty Python, I queried this and was given a new account, posted a reply to Mr Caustic – which a day later was deleted and me again locked out as a spammer.
Recently in the news: surrogate mother Pattharamon Chanbua’s son Gammy, now seven months old, was at the centre of an international outcry after his adoptive parents, David and Wendy Farnell, left him in Thailand after finding out he had Down’s syndrome, taking Gammy’s twin sister Pipah home with them.They apparently asked her to abort both children when she was seven months pregnant; the agents and doctors caring for were aware that Gammy had Down Syndrome early into her pregnancy.
‘It was the agent… she said that the Farnells wanted to abort both of the children’, adding she broke down in tears when she received this news. ‘She said that the parents had been very shocked and frightened… they were insisting on the abortion. I said I couldn’t.. I was seven months into the pregnancy already.’
Ms Pattharamon said she was then given the option to abort just one of the children – the one with a disability – though she refused as she was too far into the pregnancy. ‘They told me the child would be injected with some poison to take his life and then be taken out by surgical process. Then the girl would go into the incubator right away ..these words have stayed in my head’.
I persisted and began a third account, re-posting my cancer reply, also happening to see what I thought to be a factual inaccuracy in Richard Dawkins’ statement defending his recent highly controversial Tweet regarding Down syndrome babies, which I present here:
His explanation didn’t actually change the sense of what he’d tweeted – it just put many more words before and after, which made me wonder – why bother? But as part of his essay he said there was little point any nutter on social media tying his stance to eugenics and Hitler, because:
“Down Syndrome has almost zero heritability. That means that, although it is a congenital condition – a chromosomal abnormality that babies are born with – there is very little tendency for susceptibility to trisomy to be inherited genetically.
If you were eugenically inclined, you’d be wasting your time screening for Down syndrome. You’d screen for genuinely heritable conditions where your screening would make a difference to future generations.”
This struck me as odd so I double checked, and posted the following reply:
After a query, the RDF systems people sent me the following reply:
Are you having trouble logging in still?
Please let me know.
Just talked with our moderator and she has informed me that she marked your account as spam. I am sorry but I cannot overturn that decision.