Richard Dawkins caused uproar today for tweeting that it is immoral NOT to abort a foetus with Down's syndrome. Oh Richard, how I disagree.

Let's take his first point: it is immoral because the child "will suffer."

I wonder if Richard has ever met anyone with Down's syndrome before, or knows much about the condition, because this seems like a very misinformed comment to me. My brother has Down's, so I think I'm a bit more of an expert on the subject.

Do I think he has suffered in his life? Well, if suffering is growing up in a loving family, attending school, college, making friends who he has since moved in with, being independent when it comes to travel, shopping and holding down a job - then he's suffering just as much as you or me.

Who is Dawkins to place all people with Down's syndrome under one bracket? The spectrum is huge. Yes, some have medical problems and might suffer without a strong and supportive upbringing, but some can take A-Levels, work jobs, pass driving tests and have serious and long-lasting relationships.

The fact is, you can't KNOW whether your unborn child with Down's syndrome is going to suffer any less, or more, than your unborn child without it. Everyone has problems, can develop conditions, addictions, diseases - you just can't know at the point of pregnancy.

Chloe Bridge

When the storm errupted on Twitter Dawkins defended himself by saying: "I OBVSIOUSLY wouldn't TELL a woman what to do. Up to her."

No Richard Dawkins, but what you have done is TELL women who have brought up children with Down's syndrome that their choice was immoral.

You have told my mum, who made the choice because she wanted to give her son a right to life, to bring him up and love him just as she would any child, that she was wrong to do so. Because apparently, my brother is suffering.

Jess Edwards

To top it off, Dawkins then contradicted himself by saying that it was different for people with autism because "People on that spectrum have a great deal to contribute, maybe even an enhanced ability in some respects".

But I thought this was about suffering, Richard? Do some people with autism not suffer? Or is their suffering justified because of what they 'contribute' to society. And of course, let's not ignore the fact that this is asserting people with Down's Syndrome have nothing to contribute to the world. Which, in my opinion, is both a false, naive and really, really terrifying assertion.

My feelings on the matter can be summed up in this statement by Carol Boy at the Down's Syndrome Association:

"People with Down's syndrome can and do live full and rewarding lives, they also make a valuable contribution to our society," she said. "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."

Scaring people into assuming their unborn child with Down's syndrome will suffer so much that it's kinder not to go through with the pregnancy is not the solution, educating people on both the benefits and difficulties that come with raising a child with the condition IS.

Jess Edwards Digital Editor Jess Edwards is the Editor of Cosmopolitan.com/UK, overseeing all things digital.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io