Between "If your morality is based, as mine is, 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." (emphasis added) and "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

The first says "might be immoral", the second "would be immoral". The two statements are not equivalent.

And for him to claim that he was misunderstood is simply dishonest. His statement was quite clear -- that he cannot say what he meant is not our fault.

He never really apologizes for these things.

He just finds a way to say that he was right, just misunderstood and everyone else is pretty much an idiot.

Then he goes into longwinded explanations that no one ever seems to actually read.

He is becoming trite.

None of us are perfect. And a little humility hurts no one,
I don't think he is a proponent of eugenics, but he does tend to put his foot in his mouth a lot, especially on Twitter. Why he uses it is beyond me.
Hopefully, he has learned something from this experience.

Especially if it restricts one to 140 characters. I don't get the point of it.

Maybe he can appologize for his weak appology and get a third! Hopefully he has a good agent for advice on how much exposure to seek.

He gets tons of publicity and I don't think he cares if it is good or bad.