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.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#631 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 agree that a fetus is not a parasite, but I have to point out an obvious fallacy--you are assuming that legal definitions and biological ones are consistent with each other. They are not.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#632 May 12, 2013
So you approve of forcing women into a potentially deadly situation even on cases of rape and incest?

Keep it in your church christhole abortion is legal and will remain so.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>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: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#633 May 12, 2013
Indeed. Buck wants us to return to a time with women suffering and ending up dead in back alley abortions.

It infuriates Christians like him to no end that women can receive safe, clean, life saving abortions today. Fox News does a great disservice.
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>I agree that a fetus is not a parasite, but I have to point out an obvious fallacy--you are assuming that legal definitions and biological ones are consistent with each other. They are not.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#634 May 12, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Your googling proved my point, Captain Morgan.

There is no constitutional right to privacy. The court made it up.

The reasoning used is that if you can't be forced to quarter military troops in your house, you have a right to kill your babies.

That's just brilliant.

If new rights are to be legitimate, they have to be ratified by the people.

Absent that, the decisions are left to the states. What the court did in Griswald and Roe was to fraudulently usurp the rights of 50 states to decide, and hand it to themselves.

"Nobody ever thought that the American people ever voted to prohibit limitations on abortion. I mean there's nothing in the Constitution that says that. There's no right to privacy in the Constitution, no generalized right to privacy,...the Griswold case was wrong.”

-Justice Antonin Scalia

Lincoln

United States

#635 May 12, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
So you approve of forcing women into a potentially deadly situation even on cases of rape and incest?
Keep it in your church christhole abortion is legal and will remain so.
<quoted text>
Most Christians and Jewish persons would not approve of forcing women into a potentially deadly situation even in cases of rape and incest?

Two republicans nominated for the US Senate lost over this issue.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#636 May 12, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
So you approve of forcing women into a potentially deadly situation even on cases of rape and incest?
Keep it in your church christhole abortion is legal and will remain so.
<quoted text>
That's a tactic of evasion.

Answer the question:

If a fetus has no civil rights and is not a human being, how can a person be charged with murder for killing it?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#637 May 12, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>I agree that a fetus is not a parasite, but I have to point out an obvious fallacy--you are assuming that legal definitions and biological ones are consistent with each other. They are not.
It doesn't matter in this case, as the question is a legal and constitutional one, i.e., the law recognizes the fetus as falling under protection against murder. Murder can only be committed against a human being.

For purposes of that area of law, the fetus is legally a human being.

The obvious problem is for those who claim it is not a human being, and is without any rights.

It's not a problem for me.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#638 May 12, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Most Christians and Jewish persons would not approve of forcing women into a potentially deadly situation even in cases of rape and incest?
Two republicans nominated for the US Senate lost over this issue.
Nobody except the rapist forced the woman into anything.

Every pregnancy is a potentially deadly situation.

Have you ever met a person who was conceived during a rape?

I have.

She seemed happy to be alive. She has as much value as a human being as you do.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#639 May 12, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Indeed. Buck wants us to return to a time with women suffering and ending up dead in back alley abortions.
It infuriates Christians like him to no end that women can receive safe, clean, life saving abortions today. Fox News does a great disservice.
<quoted text>
The "back alley abortions" canard is a myth.

It is a lie used by abortion enthusiasts to extort political gain.

The numbers of such abortions have been proven to be inflated beyond proportion.

Truth matters none in the pro-abortion crusade.

Another case in point - Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade later admitted her feminist lawyers convinced her to lie and say she had been raped. She hadn't.

You got your precious "right" by hook and crook, Liverwurst.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#640 May 12, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Indeed. Buck wants us to return to a time with women suffering and ending up dead...
<quoted text>
Where did I say what I want?

Point to it, you lying stack.

Why do abortion enthusiasts lie so much?

Forgive me if I "want" people to tell the truth.

It's lost on you.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#641 May 12, 2013
What person is being charged fatass? The prosecutor is considering it, once it happens and the judge allows it we can go from there.

Sorry to burst your Fox News church bubble fatty.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>That's a tactic of evasion.

Answer the question:

If a fetus has no civil rights and is not a human being, how can a person be charged with murder for killing it?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#642 May 12, 2013
I bet if it was your fatass on the line facing a potential death sentence after getting raped your story would change.

This is just another reason why the 2016 is all wrapped up for the DNC.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>The "back alley abortions" canard is a myth.

It is a lie used by abortion enthusiasts to extort political gain.

The numbers of such abortions have been proven to be inflated beyond proportion.

Truth matters none in the pro-abortion crusade.

Another case in point - Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade later admitted her feminist lawyers convinced her to lie and say she had been raped. She hadn't.

You got your precious "right" by hook and crook, Liverwurst.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#643 May 12, 2013
You are against pro choice which would lead us back to a dangerous time for women. You think back alley abortions didn't exist?

Time to pull Sean Hannity's [email protected] out of your mouth fatass and go eat a salad once in a while.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Where did I say what I want?

Point to it, you lying stack.

Why do abortion enthusiasts lie so much?

Forgive me if I "want" people to tell the truth.

It's lost on you.
Yahwehz Bitch

Flower Mound, TX

#645 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I say what I want?
Point to it, you lying stack.
Why do abortion enthusiasts lie so much?
Forgive me if I "want" people to tell the truth.
It's lost on you.
The LIE is that Yahweh hates abortion. My LORD, the Father of the Savior I swallow whole on Sundays in a "non-gay" gesture of soggy communion, is NOT pro-life. Yahweh LOVES coerced abortion and the Father of My SAVIOR, invented the first morning after pill.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

In Numbers, 5:11-31, Yahweh commands slutty women who are accused of adultery to go before the priest. They are to drink a potion made with 1/10 of an ephah of barley flour, dust from the tabernacle floor which was full of animal blood and priest urine, and drink holy water from a clay jar filled with a scroll that has curses on it. If the woman is innocent of adultery, nothing happens. If she is guilty, her belly swells and she MISCARRIES. The hairy, Bronze Age, knuckle-dragging, priest opens wide a yammering maw and states, "May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries." The filthy product of adultery is disposable. When David committed adultery with Bathsheba, Yahweh KILLED the infant child as a punishment. Praise Yahweh!

The Bible contains no verses prohibiting voluntary abortion. That, in and of itself, shows that it is a sin. The only references to abortion in the Bible are to coerced abortion as a punishment for nonbelievers, sinners and those who fail to recognize God’s chosen people. In Second Kings, we learn that Menahem, leader of the Israelites, smote all the people who refused to follow him “and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up”(2 Kings 15:16). Later, in Hosea, we learn that because the land of Samaria rejected God,“Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up”(Hosea 13:16). Hosea decided to carry out God’s vengeance on the people by killing the unborn babies carried by the heathen women. He promised to “slay even the beloved fruit of their womb”(Hosea 9:16).

I urge you to reconsider your PRO-LIFE stance because it offends Jesus' DAD, Dr. Yahweh, who will JUDGE YOU for your disobedience. Coerced abortion is a beautiful act of Yahweh. Dr. Yahweh is NOT a licensed gynecologist but He also performed the first IVF insemination when the horny teenager, Mary, opened her hairy legs to His Holy Spirit Jizz, black cosmic goo, so that He could impregnate her with Himself so as to sacrifice Himself to Himself so that premarital sex can be forgiven. Amen. Glory to Yahweh!
Lincoln

United States

#647 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody except the rapist forced the woman into anything.
Every pregnancy is a potentially deadly situation.
Have you ever met a person who was conceived during a rape?
I have.
She seemed happy to be alive. She has as much value as a human being as you do.
Interesting.

I don't want You making decisions for the woman raped or the House Republican Chairmen.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#648 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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".
Now that's just sad. You supposedly live in the US, yet you know less about politics than a fifth grade kid. So you know nothing about the cuntry you were born it or science.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#649 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The "back alley abortions" canard is a myth.
It is a lie used by abortion enthusiasts to extort political gain.
The numbers of such abortions have been proven to be inflated beyond proportion.
Truth matters none in the pro-abortion crusade.
Another case in point - Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade later admitted her feminist lawyers convinced her to lie and say she had been raped. She hadn't.
You got your precious "right" by hook and crook, Liverwurst.
... and what is wrong with feminists?

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#650 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your googling proved my point, Captain Morgan.
There is no constitutional right to privacy. The court made it up.
The reasoning used is that if you can't be forced to quarter military troops in your house, you have a right to kill your babies.
That's just brilliant.
If new rights are to be legitimate, they have to be ratified by the people.
Absent that, the decisions are left to the states. What the court did in Griswald and Roe was to fraudulently usurp the rights of 50 states to decide, and hand it to themselves.
"Nobody ever thought that the American people ever voted to prohibit limitations on abortion. I mean there's nothing in the Constitution that says that. There's no right to privacy in the Constitution, no generalized right to privacy,...the Griswold case was wrong.”
-Justice Antonin Scalia
Read it again dumbazz.

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 ...

The reasoning is used for a number of things...which do YOU wish to surrender??

The privacy of beliefs?
Unreasonable search?
Personal information?

Of course you are not willing to surrender any of those personal rights because they might effect YOU. But the right of women to take BC or obtain a safe legal abortion upsets you. POOR YOU! You are an atypical misogynist and control freak.

Your buddy Scallia is a misogynist too.

It is amazing how many of the names of the kids in this class I remember. The teacher standing in the back-that was a lady named Consuela Goins, and she was a wonderful teacher. Every cloud has a silver lining, and one of the benefits of the exclusion of women from most professions was that we had wonderful teachers, especially the women who today would probably be CEOs.
-Justice Antonin Scalia

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#651 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Every pregnancy is a potentially deadly situation.
Thankfully women have the right to terminate according to THEIR best interests. Bummer for you.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#652 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever met a person who was conceived during a rape?
I have, her mother chose to go forward she had a "choice". I also know a woman who aborted her rape pregnancy, she had a "choice". Both are happy with their choices. Does that bother you?

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) 8 min nanoanomaly 32,612
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 32 min Science 80,105
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) 1 hr Amused 176
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) 2 hr Amused 70
what science will NEVER be able to prove Mon Eagle 12 - 10
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Mon Eagle 12 - 106
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sep 20 The pope 258,485
More from around the web