Richard Dawkins tweets on abortion: &...

Richard Dawkins tweets on abortion: ‘any fetus is less human than an adult pig’

There are 1829 comments on the freerepublic.com story from Mar 16, 2013, titled Richard Dawkins tweets on abortion: ‘any fetus is less human than an adult pig’. In it, freerepublic.com reports that:

It would seem the pro-life movement has acquired an unlikely supporter. On Wednesday, Richard Dawkins, a vocal proponent of atheism and the author of The God Delusion, posted a provocative tweet about abortion: With respect to those meanings of "human" that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at freerepublic.com.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#531 May 4, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Politically Professor Dawkins views would hurt a candidates chances for election in the United States.
Who gives a flying f*ck you piece of sh*t creationist troll?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#532 May 4, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
seems a bit judgmental but has some valid points.
Are sales down on Dawkins books?
Your problem is not know when to shut the f*ck up.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#533 May 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they are parasites.
The flora that benefit humans are not parasites. Parasitism is a symbiotic relationship in which one organism benefits (the parasite) and the other organism is harmed (the host). Mutualism is a symbiotic relationship from which both organisms derive benefit.
Most animals have a diverse microbial flora within their digestive tracts. Humans, for example, have many mutually beneficial relationships with some of our intestinal microbiota. For instance, several species of Bacterioides and Escherichia are our principle source of vitamin K which is an essential factor involved in blood clotting. Other species have been shown to be important sources of some B vitamins, and recently one species of Bacterioides has been determined to be an essential component in the development of blood vessels of the small intestine.
Among all of the species known to science, none seem to stretch the boundaries of mutualism to the extent of that exhibited by the termites. In some termite species, the microbial flora (bacteria and protists) of their digestive tract amounts to as much as 50% of the individual's weight. Termite bodies are literally crammed full of various symbiotic organisms which are, in many cases, crammed full themselves with their own microbiota.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#534 May 4, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
The flora that benefit humans are not parasites. Parasitism is a symbiotic relationship in which one organism benefits (the parasite) and the other organism is harmed (the host). Mutualism is a symbiotic relationship from which both organisms derive benefit.
Most animals have a diverse microbial flora within their digestive tracts. Humans, for example, have many mutually beneficial relationships with some of our intestinal microbiota. For instance, several species of Bacterioides and Escherichia are our principle source of vitamin K which is an essential factor involved in blood clotting. Other species have been shown to be important sources of some B vitamins, and recently one species of Bacterioides has been determined to be an essential component in the development of blood vessels of the small intestine.
Among all of the species known to science, none seem to stretch the boundaries of mutualism to the extent of that exhibited by the termites. In some termite species, the microbial flora (bacteria and protists) of their digestive tract amounts to as much as 50% of the individual's weight. Termite bodies are literally crammed full of various symbiotic organisms which are, in many cases, crammed full themselves with their own microbiota.
You do not know what a parasite is.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#535 May 4, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
The parasite? There are many species of parasite. And the various species of parasites derive their nutrional requirements in various ways.. Babies are always the same species as their mother. If the baby is a parasite than so must the mother be a parasite. Humans are not a species of parasite. So the mother and her baby cannot be parasites. There are many species of parasites, and none of them receive their nutritional requirements from an organ who's purpose is provide the parasite nutrition.
We are not on the same page here. I'd suggest that you learn the actual meaning of the word "parasite". We will proceed after you have enlightened yourself a bit.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#536 May 5, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>We are not on the same page here. I'd suggest that you learn the actual meaning of the word "parasite". We will proceed after you have enlightened yourself a bit.
Human Life Begins at Fertilization
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#537 May 5, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
Human Life Begins at Fertilization
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
We are not on the same page here. I'd suggest that you learn the actual meaning of the word "parasite". We will proceed after you have enlightened yourself a bit.
Mike

Belleville, IL

#538 May 5, 2013
Dawkins would have to admit based on his own criteria that a 1 month old child is also less human than an adult pig and I doubt he thinks it is ok to kill one month old children. At least I hope not. Peter Singer does.
Mike

Belleville, IL

#539 May 5, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>We are not on the same page here. I'd suggest that you learn the actual meaning of the word "parasite". We will proceed after you have enlightened yourself a bit.
While a fetus is a parasite, that doesn't change the fact that it is a homo sapiens. My pro-life argument is a simple logical syllogism.
P1 It is prima facie wrong to kill homo sapiens.
P2 Abortion kills homo sapiens.
C Abortion is wrong.

It is pretty simple and straight forward. The premises should be considered self evident to any reasonable person.
Mike

Belleville, IL

#540 May 5, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I don't know how it helps to call a baby (I assume you mean foetus, i.e. unborn) a parasite, but your argument is wrong.
Many species are parasitic for only part of their life cycle.
e.g. blowflies.
<quoted text>
This is what you get when you use San Francisco based google to ask what the 'definition of embryo' is. You need to stop playing word police and quit telling people they can't call a fetus a baby because you say they can't.

em·bry·o
/&#712;embr&#275;& #716;&#333;/
Noun
An unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development.
An unborn human baby, esp. in the first eight weeks from conception, after implantation but before all the organs are developed.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#541 May 6, 2013
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
While a fetus is a parasite, that doesn't change the fact that it is a homo sapiens. My pro-life argument is a simple logical syllogism.
P1 It is prima facie wrong to kill homo sapiens.
P2 Abortion kills homo sapiens.
C Abortion is wrong.
It is pretty simple and straight forward. The premises should be considered self evident to any reasonable person.
Your premise, since you actually only posited one, is highly ignorant. Do you disagree with the death penalty as well? You have to in order to even consider killing wrong, and that's just the beginning. Is it wrong to kill someone who is trying to take your life? If you think it's okay to defend yourself, then you must concede that there are instances in which killing another human is valid. What about defending an innocent human or other animal from a torturous death? Would you kill their torturer to defend them? I would hope so, and thus, you destroy your only premise.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#542 May 6, 2013
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
While a fetus is a parasite, that doesn't change the fact that it is a homo sapiens. My pro-life argument is a simple logical syllogism.
P1 It is prima facie wrong to kill homo sapiens.
P2 Abortion kills homo sapiens.
C Abortion is wrong.
It is pretty simple and straight forward. The premises should be considered self evident to any reasonable person.
Except that you proved on the other thread that even YOU don't agree with the first premise. You're fine with some wars, and killing in self-defense if necessary. So it is NOT a given that killing humans is wrong to you.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#543 May 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Your premise, since you actually only posited one, is highly ignorant. Do you disagree with the death penalty as well? You have to in order to even consider killing wrong, and that's just the beginning. Is it wrong to kill someone who is trying to take your life? If you think it's okay to defend yourself, then you must concede that there are instances in which killing another human is valid. What about defending an innocent human or other animal from a torturous death? Would you kill their torturer to defend them? I would hope so, and thus, you destroy your only premise.
He already answered this on another thread. Even HE doesn't agree with that false premise. He just wants others to kill according to what HE finds acceptable. Just another control freak, is all he is.
Mike

Belleville, IL

#544 May 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Your premise, since you actually only posited one, is highly ignorant. Do you disagree with the death penalty as well? You have to in order to even consider killing wrong, and that's just the beginning. Is it wrong to kill someone who is trying to take your life? If you think it's okay to defend yourself, then you must concede that there are instances in which killing another human is valid. What about defending an innocent human or other animal from a torturous death? Would you kill their torturer to defend them? I would hope so, and thus, you destroy your only premise.
I am against the death penalty. I also never said that killing homo sapiens is always wrong. I said it is prima facie wrong. You have made my point for me by saying "what about killing an 'innocent' human. Unborn homo sapiens are innocent humans, they are certainly not cows or chickens. Late term unborn children are tortured to death as well. Your probably going to proceed to say that a fetus is not human. Your argument will be totally arbitrary. Pro-right to kill and or torture innocent homo sapiens (pro-abortion rights people). Like to make up their own criteria as to what makes someone human. My criteria is based in the science of biology. Your criteria is made up and arbitrary based on your own bias. Killing whether in self defense or in a situation to help someone else is only justified unless absolutely necessary. In 99% of cases abortion is never absolutely necessary.
Mike

Belleville, IL

#545 May 6, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that you proved on the other thread that even YOU don't agree with the first premise. You're fine with some wars, and killing in self-defense if necessary. So it is NOT a given that killing humans is wrong to you.
False. I do hold to my premise. I said killing homo sapiens is prima facie wrong not always wrong. You need to look up and see what prima facie means if you want to understand.
Mike

Belleville, IL

#546 May 6, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
He already answered this on another thread. Even HE doesn't agree with that false premise. He just wants others to kill according to what HE finds acceptable. Just another control freak, is all he is.
Also you want to people to only kill in situations that you find acceptable. So given your own criteria you would consider yourself a control freak. I certainly don't. But you believe in controlling behavior when it come to killing homo sapiens as well.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#547 May 6, 2013
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
False. I do hold to my premise. I said killing homo sapiens is prima facie wrong not always wrong. You need to look up and see what prima facie means if you want to understand.
I do understand what it means. Apparently it's YOU who does not.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#548 May 6, 2013
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
Also you want to people to only kill in situations that you find acceptable. So given your own criteria you would consider yourself a control freak. I certainly don't. But you believe in controlling behavior when it come to killing homo sapiens as well.
No, I don't. I never said, or indicated that in any way. Stop trying to project onto others.
Mike

Belleville, IL

#549 May 6, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
He already answered this on another thread. Even HE doesn't agree with that false premise. He just wants others to kill according to what HE finds acceptable. Just another control freak, is all he is.
You support laws against murder right. I certainly hope so. So you want people to kill according to what you find acceptable. So given your own criteria you would have to consider yourself a control freak.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#550 May 6, 2013
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
You support laws against murder right. I certainly hope so. So you want people to kill according to what you find acceptable. So given your own criteria you would have to consider yourself a control freak.
No, I don't "want people to kill according to what" I find acceptable.

You're projecting, trying to take the spotlight off of your own tendency to want to control what others do.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 12 min ChristineM 11,391
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min scientia potentia... 51,228
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 16 min scientia potentia... 24,626
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 42 min ChristineM 22,079
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 1 hr Hedonist Heretic 184
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 1 hr Hedonist Heretic 1,632
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr scientia potentia... 457
More from around the web