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: May 10

Location hidden

#611 May 12, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh wow you have to stop watching Fox News eh fatass?
Does the fat constrict the blood flow to your brain so much that you cannot tell the difference between a woman going to a doctor and electing to have a safe medical abortion of her choice VS a woman being tied to a bed repeatedly raped and then when pregnant by her rapist, is cruelly starved, repeatedly beaten nearly to death to force a miscarriage?
Your church may not be able to tell the difference Buck but others can.
<quoted text>
You sidestepped the salient point, GiveMeLiverwurst.

The point raised is this:

How can the same organism be a human being for a murder charge if one person kills it, and not a human being if another person kills it?

The murder charge for Castro is not a crime against the mother - she is still alive, so she was not murdered.

Who was murdered?

( Law.com ) "murder - n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought"

Now resume your stupid evasions.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#612 May 12, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>

Abortion is a difficult decision and not to be left up to retarded republican legislators.
Who legislated the laws that permit abortion?

Let me guess...legislators?

Pro-abortion people like you love legislators, and Court Justices to legislate on it if they go in your favor.

If they might go the other way, you honk like a goose.

There are 2 words for that - "lying hypocrite".

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#613 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a piss-faced idiot.
A wart does not have a unique DNA fingerprint of all humans in the universe, or all the organ systems.
That is how an individual human being is determined, not by a piece of another human being's skin.
You are a parasite - a boil on the ass of humanity.
"Human being" is not a scientific designation at all. It's philosophical/religious.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#614 May 12, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>As a Christain, you would be the first to say that there is no innocence. Biblicaly speaking, no child is born innocent, all carry the taint of all previous generations misdeeds. There is no soundness to a Christain arguement, that would claim innocence in the newborn human
Innocence under the law does not consider any concept of original sin. The discretion on taking of a human life revolves around innocence under the law, as in the Constitution, not to be deprived of "life" without due process.

Furthermore, the christian religion, of which I am not a member, considers newborns innocent, and remaining innocent until they reach the age of recognizing moral rights and wrongs.

Even the Catholics phased out "limbo".

So, in summary, you are stupid as hell on this, as you are on every subject on which you flap your lip.

I am flattering you by giving your opinion more analysis than it deserves.

You don't have to thank me.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#615 May 12, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>I see you have no actual response to my post. No problem, carry on with your farcical agenda.
My response was directly to your post, and on point.

Sorry it befuddles you.

You moron.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#616 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You sidestepped the salient point, GiveMeLiverwurst.
The point raised is this:
How can the same organism be a human being for a murder charge if one person kills it, and not a human being if another person kills it?
The murder charge for Castro is not a crime against the mother - she is still alive, so she was not murdered.
Who was murdered?
( Law.com ) "murder - n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought"
Now resume your stupid evasions.
I doubt he will be convicted on murder charges. How will they produce evidence? There is enough charges to bring him to the death penalty or life imprisonment. Further I am sure if given the choice to abort these pregnancies forced upon these women they would have chose abortion. I know I would have.

Castro is a perfect example of anti choice, he offered no choice to these girls while imprisoning them, rapists are certainly anti choice, don't you think?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#617 May 12, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"Human being" is not a scientific designation at all. It's philosophical/religious.
So statutes prohibiting murder are "religious"?

Is "rape" a scientific designation or a religious one?

Theft?

We do not have to rely on the approval of science, more precisely, idiots like you who worship science, in writing statutes or our Constitution. As a self-governing society, we rely on the consent of the people.

Coincidentally, the people never consented to a right to abortion.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#618 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So statutes prohibiting murder are "religious"?
Is "rape" a scientific designation or a religious one?
Theft?
We do not have to rely on the approval of science, more precisely, idiots like you who worship science, in writing statutes or our Constitution. As a self-governing society, we rely on the consent of the people.
Coincidentally, the people never consented to a right to abortion.
You're a proven lying creationist that believes jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs - this negates any worthwhile opinions you may have.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#619 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So statutes prohibiting murder are "religious"?
Is "rape" a scientific designation or a religious one?
Theft?
We do not have to rely on the approval of science, more precisely, idiots like you who worship science, in writing statutes or our Constitution. As a self-governing society, we rely on the consent of the people.
Coincidentally, the people never consented to a right to abortion.
I said nothing about murder, or rape. I was addressing your use of human being in your discussion about DNA.

"murder" and "rape" are neither scientific designations, or religious. They are legal terms for acts committed in an illegal way.

Not all killing is "murder", nor is all sex "rape".

Your misunderstanding of fetal homicide laws is not what I was addressing.

No, our laws rely on the Constitution, from which our right to privacy, implicit or not, comes. And it is our right to privacy which means we have the right to make our own medical decisions.

"The people" don't have to consent to something about my medical decisions. It's no one's business by mine.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#620 May 12, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt he will be convicted on murder charges. How will they produce evidence? There is enough charges to bring him to the death penalty or life imprisonment. Further I am sure if given the choice to abort these pregnancies forced upon these women they would have chose abortion. I know I would have.
Castro is a perfect example of anti choice, he offered no choice to these girls while imprisoning them, rapists are certainly anti choice, don't you think?
That's stupid, Morbid 69.

We have no death penalty except for murder.

You are "anti-choice". You favor a "choice" for one party involved, but not the other.

You are anti-choice, but pro-abortion.

When you have to resort to euphemisms like "choice" to support you position, it is a tell-tale sign of deception.

You are anti-choice and deceptive.

I hope that is helpful for you to understand your own position, Morbid 69.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#621 May 12, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I said nothing about murder, or rape. I was addressing your use of human being in your discussion about DNA.
"murder" and "rape" are neither scientific designations, or religious. They are legal terms for acts committed in an illegal way.
Not all killing is "murder", nor is all sex "rape".
Your misunderstanding of fetal homicide laws is not what I was addressing.
No, our laws rely on the Constitution, from which our right to privacy, implicit or not, comes. And it is our right to privacy which means we have the right to make our own medical decisions.
"The people" don't have to consent to something about my medical decisions. It's no one's business by mine.
Wrong, Shitner.

You attempted evasion by suggesting "human being" is not a scientific determination, even though "murder" is defined in terms of human beings.

So when you discuss murder, you ARE discussing human beings.

Secondly, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution. It is an invention of a court. "The people" never consented to such a right. If such a constitutional right is to exist, its only legitimate formation is through an amendment process by the people.

Thirdly, nobody cares about your right to medical decisions. That is another evasion.

What some care about is when your so-called medical decisions impact the life of another, and the question is whether the "other" is a human being.

If you have evidence that it is not a human being, or that such a decision does not impact it, then present it.

I'm not interested in your adolescent evasions.

Except to prove they are adolescent evasions, Shitner.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#622 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"You attempted evasion by suggesting "human being" is not a scientific determination, even though "murder" is defined in terms of human beings."

Nonsense. Murder is not scientific. I was addressing your use of the phrase human being in your discussion about DNA. It had nothing to do with murder.

"So when you discuss murder, you ARE discussing human beings."

I wasn't discussing murder. You were.

"Secondly, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution."

Yes, there is. It is implied, just like our right to a fair trial, and our Miranda rights. Deal with it.

"It is an invention of a court."

I'm sorry you don't understand how this works, but the Supreme Court's job IS to interpret the Constitution, and apply that interpretation, as well as precedent, to any laws brought before them.

"The people" never consented to such a right."

The people don't need to.

"If such a constitutional right is to exist, its only legitimate formation is through an amendment process by the people."

You are wrong.

"Thirdly, nobody cares about your right to medical decisions. That is another evasion."

The right to choose whether or not to remain pregnant IS a medical decision. So yes, that is what you are talking about when you discuss abortion.

"What some care about is when your so-called medical decisions impact the life of another, and the question is whether the "other" is a human being."

You just contradicted your earlier statement.

Again, the phrase "human being" is a philosophical/religious concept. Thus, a matter of opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but not one other person is obligated to live their lives by it.

"If you have evidence that it is not a human being, or that such a decision does not impact it, then present it."

For an opinion? LOL, don't be absurd.

"I'm not interested in your adolescent evasions.
Except to prove they are adolescent evasions, Shitner."

LOL, well then, you've failed. Because my post was neither "adolescent", nor an "evasion".

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#623 May 12, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"You attempted evasion by suggesting "human being" is not a scientific determination, even though "murder" is defined in terms of human beings."
Nonsense. Murder is not scientific. I was addressing your use of the phrase human being in your discussion about DNA. It had nothing to do with murder.
"So when you discuss murder, you ARE discussing human beings."
I wasn't discussing murder. You were.
"Secondly, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution."
Yes, there is. It is implied, just like our right to a fair trial, and our Miranda rights. Deal with it.
"It is an invention of a court."
I'm sorry you don't understand how this works, but the Supreme Court's job IS to interpret the Constitution, and apply that interpretation, as well as precedent, to any laws brought before them.
"The people" never consented to such a right."
The people don't need to.
"If such a constitutional right is to exist, its only legitimate formation is through an amendment process by the people."
You are wrong.
"Thirdly, nobody cares about your right to medical decisions. That is another evasion."
The right to choose whether or not to remain pregnant IS a medical decision. So yes, that is what you are talking about when you discuss abortion.
"What some care about is when your so-called medical decisions impact the life of another, and the question is whether the "other" is a human being."
Again, the phrase "human being" is a philosophical/religious concept. Thus, a matter of opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but not one other person is obligated to live their lives by it.
"If you have evidence that it is not a human being, or that such a decision does not impact it, then present it."
For an opinion? LOL, don't be absurd.
"I'm not interested in your adolescent evasions.
Except to prove they are adolescent evasions, Shitner."
LOL, well then, you've failed. Because my post was neither "adolescent", nor an "evasion".
Whether "murder" or "human being" is scientific is irrelevant. It is perfectly legitimate and necessary to discuss DNA in context with these terms, and it is used every day in making determinations regarding "murder" and "human beings".

So you have no point there.

Next, you were discussing "human beings", in response to my discussion of "murder" and "human beings". So you were discussing murder.

Next, you are wrong, a "right to privacy" is nowhere in the Constitution. If it is, point it out.

Next, your comparison of a right to privacy and a right to a fair trial is bullshit. Fair treatment during legal prosecution is guaranteed in the 5th and 14th amendments, and its history draws on tradition going back to the Magna Carta in the 13th century. The so-called "right to privacy" was invented by modern courts from what they called a "penumbra" of various different amendments. If you can show where the right to a fair trial had to be conjured from multiple other amendments, and had not existed before the decision to do that, then you have a case. Presently, your case is absurd.

Next, it disposes of no important point to say abortion is a "medical decision". The decision to end the life of a person who is gravely ill is a "medical decision". The decision of a doctor to deviate widely from acceptable medical standards, say, taking out both kidneys of a patient, is a "medical decision".

"Again, the phrase "human being" is a philosophical/religious concept. Thus, a matter of opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but not one other person is obligated to live their lives by it."

Are you and I obligated to live our lives by this opinion when the subject in question is a toddler? An infant? An adult?

Yes, we are certainly obligated.

If it is a human being, your position is some people can kill it in certain cases, due to no fault or act of the human being being killed.

Twist and defend that any way you like.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#624 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether "murder" or "human being" is scientific is irrelevant. It is perfectly legitimate and necessary to discuss DNA in context with these terms, and it is used every day in making determinations regarding "murder" and "human beings".
So you have no point there.
Next, you were discussing "human beings", in response to my discussion of "murder" and "human beings". So you were discussing murder.
Next, you are wrong, a "right to privacy" is nowhere in the Constitution. If it is, point it out.
Next, your comparison of a right to privacy and a right to a fair trial is bullshit. Fair treatment during legal prosecution is guaranteed in the 5th and 14th amendments, and its history draws on tradition going back to the Magna Carta in the 13th century. The so-called "right to privacy" was invented by modern courts from what they called a "penumbra" of various different amendments. If you can show where the right to a fair trial had to be conjured from multiple other amendments, and had not existed before the decision to do that, then you have a case. Presently, your case is absurd.
Next, it disposes of no important point to say abortion is a "medical decision". The decision to end the life of a person who is gravely ill is a "medical decision". The decision of a doctor to deviate widely from acceptable medical standards, say, taking out both kidneys of a patient, is a "medical decision".
"Again, the phrase "human being" is a philosophical/religious concept. Thus, a matter of opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but not one other person is obligated to live their lives by it."
Are you and I obligated to live our lives by this opinion when the subject in question is a toddler? An infant? An adult?
Yes, we are certainly obligated.
If it is a human being, your position is some people can kill it in certain cases, due to no fault or act of the human being being killed.
Twist and defend that any way you like.
An infant, a toddler and an adult have civil rights. An embryo or fetus does not. However, the woman gestating it does. The right to "life, liberty and property" means that woman has the right to make her own medical decisions. Deal with it.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

#625 May 12, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
The right to "life, liberty and property" means that woman has the right to make her own medical decisions. Deal with it.
Only to a certain point. Then the state can take that right away.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#626 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's stupid, Morbid 69.
We have no death penalty except for murder.
You are "anti-choice". You favor a "choice" for one party involved, but not the other.
You are anti-choice, but pro-abortion.
When you have to resort to euphemisms like "choice" to support you position, it is a tell-tale sign of deception.
You are anti-choice and deceptive.
I hope that is helpful for you to understand your own position, Morbid 69.
Wrong again Buck Teeth. Anti choice is what YOU are, you offer ONE choice which is NO choice.

A fetus has no choice idiot. It is entirely reliant on the body and resources of another. If the mother wants to skydive. does the fetus get a choice?? Of course not dumbazz!

You are not ONLY anti choice you are anti women as you consider them nothing more than brood mares and somehow believe that a non-thinking fetus has a right to over rule her decisions. What complete nonsense!

Again, if I would have been one of the unfortunate victims of Castro and made pregnant....I would run like the wind to the nearest clinic and out it would go as fast as possible. Don't you just hate choice?? The likes of you would tell the woman/girl "tough shit you have no choice ".

Hope that clears things up for your anti choice position Buck Teeth.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#627 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, Shitner.
You attempted evasion by suggesting "human being" is not a scientific determination, even though "murder" is defined in terms of human beings.
So when you discuss murder, you ARE discussing human beings.
Secondly, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution. It is an invention of a court. "The people" never consented to such a right. If such a constitutional right is to exist, its only legitimate formation is through an amendment process by the people.
Thirdly, nobody cares about your right to medical decisions. That is another evasion.
What some care about is when your so-called medical decisions impact the life of another, and the question is whether the "other" is a human being.
If you have evidence that it is not a human being, or that such a decision does not impact it, then present it.
I'm not interested in your adolescent evasions.
Except to prove they are adolescent evasions, Shitner.
The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials...

You Buck Teeth should be the first to give up your right to privacy, go ahead...step up to the plate. OR do you simply wish to overturn the right to privacy pertaining BC and a womans RIGHT to abortion?? Thought so.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#628 May 12, 2013
Your question was answered fatass but between your Fox News rage and fat impeding blood flow to your brain you were unable to understand.

It's obvious you are against women having pro choice rights because your church and Fox News are against them.

Perhaps you should eat a salad and realize that Castro does not have murder charges against him.

All the prosecutor said when it was brought up about all of the forced miscarriages by him starving and beating the woman that he may consider seeking murder charges....

This was more for the media than what he will actually do.

So sorry fatass but until those charges have been filed and approved by the judge you have nothing anyways.

I am still laughing at you having to change your profile picture Jeff Chase fan! Hey instead of an old 1980s football player why not use a more recent one?

:))
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>You sidestepped the salient point, GiveMeLiverwurst.

The point raised is this:

How can the same organism be a human being for a murder charge if one person kills it, and not a human being if another person kills it?

The murder charge for Castro is not a crime against the mother - she is still alive, so she was not murdered.

Who was murdered?

( Law.com ) "murder - n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought"

Now resume your stupid evasions.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#629 May 12, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
An infant, a toddler and an adult have civil rights. An embryo or fetus does not. However, the woman gestating it does. The right to "life, liberty and property" means that woman has the right to make her own medical decisions. Deal with it.
If it has no civil rights, how can a citizen be charged with murder for killing it?

Who says it has no civil rights? Where did you find that?

Even the Supreme Court ruled that a woman DOES NOT have a right to her own medical decisions concerning a fetus:

Gonzales v. Carhart, 2007; from the New England Journal of Medicine:

"This is the first time the Court has ever held that physicians can be prohibited from using a medical procedure deemed necessary by the physician to benefit the patient's health."

41 states, at last count, prohibit some abortions at certain stages of pregnancy.

So, Shitner, NO. A woman does not have a right to make her own medical decisions concerning a fetus.

So you are wrong.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#630 May 12, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again Buck Teeth. Anti choice is what YOU are, you offer ONE choice which is NO choice.
A fetus has no choice idiot. It is entirely reliant on the body and resources of another. If the mother wants to skydive. does the fetus get a choice?? Of course not dumbazz!
You are not ONLY anti choice you are anti women as you consider them nothing more than brood mares and somehow believe that a non-thinking fetus has a right to over rule her decisions. What complete nonsense!
Again, if I would have been one of the unfortunate victims of Castro and made pregnant....I would run like the wind to the nearest clinic and out it would go as fast as possible. Don't you just hate choice?? The likes of you would tell the woman/girl "tough shit you have no choice ".
Hope that clears things up for your anti choice position Buck Teeth.
You are an idiot, Morbid 69.

Murder statutes do not exempt the perpetrator if the victim is not capable of making a conscious choice in the matter.

You can't legally murder an infant, a retarded person, for instance. Or a person who cannot hear, see, or speak.

A fetus is entirely reliant on the mother?

So is an infant. The Constitution makes the choice for it - you can't kill it.

And for the record, I would not have you as a brood mare. I have raised horses, and I would prefer a mare that would not kill her foal.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 27 min Science 32,192
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Science 76,976
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr Rose_NoHo 804
Religion sux ? 6 hr believers R vermin 1
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... (Dec '16) 9 hr Eagle 12 - 290
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 15 hr John 258,478
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... Sun Eagle 12 - 12
More from around the web