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: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#653 May 12, 2013
He's as backwards as he is fat.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Mike

United States

#654 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Brain dead people can be murdered as well.
Mike

United States

#655 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.
Richard Murdock was going to lose anyway. When democrats nominate pro-life democrats we win. It happened in conservative Indiana(Donnelly) and Nebraska(Nelson), moderate West Virginia(Manchin), and liberal Pennsylvania(Casey).

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#656 May 12, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Only to a certain point. Then the state can take that right away.
Wrong, it cannot. I may place restrictions on it, under certain circumstances, but not others. They cannot take it away.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#657 May 12, 2013
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.
Only citizens and foreign nationals have rights outlined in, and protected by, our Constitution.....IOW, civil rights. Citizens are defined, BY our Constitution, as persons born or naturalized in this country. And guess what? In order to be a foreign national, one must ALSO be born, and a citizen of another country. Embryos and fetuses are neither citizens, nor foreign nationals.

Your misunderstanding of fetal homicide laws comes as no surprise.

You also apparently are unaware that NO civil right is absolute.

I am not wrong. You are attempting to twist the facts to promote an agenda.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#658 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
An infant, or a mentally handicapped person, is born, and therefore has civil rights. Embryos and fetuses do not.

No, an infant is not reliant on their mother in the same way that a fetus is reliant on the woman gestating it. Your ignorance is astounding.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#659 May 12, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"THE law" does no such thing. Your failure to understand is not our fault. Your attempt to use fetal homicide laws is failing. They specifically exempt legal voluntary abortion, don't exist in all states, and are not consistent in either language OR timing in those states. And I have yet to see one that uses the phrase "human being".

A fetus has no rights. Under those laws, it has a status, but that is not the same thing. Corporations, animals and certain plants ALSO have a status for the purpose of certain laws. Are THEY "human beings" too?

You are wrong.
Mike

Callahan, FL

#660 May 12, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Corporations, animals and certain plants ALSO have a status for the purpose of certain laws. Are THEY "human beings" too?
You are wrong.
You don't get charged with murder when you kill a non-human animal or a plant.
Lincoln

United States

#661 May 12, 2013
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?
"the law is an ass"

was popularized by Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#662 May 12, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
"the law is an ass"
was popularized by Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist
Here are people that don't believe in evolution, trying to talk seriously about biology and the life of a fetus.

Do us a favour and get an education before opening your neanderthal uneducated mouths.

F*cking dishnoest creationists - try proving your god before arguing in a science based discussion.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#663 May 12, 2013
-Skeptic- has a point. If you do not know enough about biology to understand why things evolve, then your opinion on abortion is moot, you are too uneducated to make a good decision.
Lincoln

United States

#664 May 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
-Skeptic- has a point. If you do not know enough about biology to understand why things evolve, then your opinion on abortion is moot, you are too uneducated to make a good decision.
Septic is the moderator :-)
Abortion is a ethical and political issue.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#665 May 13, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Septic is the moderator :-)
Abortion is a ethical and political issue.
Ethics without facts and logic are unguided.

Politics without facts and logic leads to destruction of the nation.

You still need facts and logic, demonstrate you have those, if you cannot then this matter is over your head.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#666 May 13, 2013
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get charged with murder when you kill a non-human animal or a plant.
Who's been charged with murder?
Thinking

Wigton, UK

#667 May 13, 2013
This religitard has, and has been found guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of...
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's been charged with murder?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#668 May 13, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Nice job totally missing the point.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#669 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"Biblically speaking", did you not see these words?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#670 May 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Only citizens and foreign nationals have rights outlined in, and protected by, our Constitution.....IOW, civil rights. Citizens are defined, BY our Constitution, as persons born or naturalized in this country. And guess what? In order to be a foreign national, one must ALSO be born, and a citizen of another country. Embryos and fetuses are neither citizens, nor foreign nationals.
Your misunderstanding of fetal homicide laws comes as no surprise.
You also apparently are unaware that NO civil right is absolute.
I am not wrong. You are attempting to twist the facts to promote an agenda.
Where does the 5th Amendment say anything about a "citizen"?

Please point it out to me.

Pay special attention to this phrase:

"No person..."

And this one:

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Then answer how killing something with no civil rights can result in a conviction for "murder".




5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#671 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
My response was directly to your post, and on point.
Sorry it befuddles you.
You moron.
That was along the same lines as a grunt, but not actual response. Try using a string of words with actual meaning to the post, so far what you have ventured, is nothing more than a somewhat fetid slobber bomb, of non-salient misdirection. You are not competant at insult, either.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#672 May 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"THE law" does no such thing. Your failure to understand is not our fault. Your attempt to use fetal homicide laws is failing. They specifically exempt legal voluntary abortion, don't exist in all states, and are not consistent in either language OR timing in those states. And I have yet to see one that uses the phrase "human being".
A fetus has no rights. Under those laws, it has a status, but that is not the same thing. Corporations, animals and certain plants ALSO have a status for the purpose of certain laws. Are THEY "human beings" too?
You are wrong.
Are you discussing murder now? Just wanted to be sure.

If you are, "murder" is defined legally as RESTRICTIVELY APPLIED TO HUMAN BEINGS!

A selected exemption for legal abortion changes this not in the least. An exemption for self-defense DOES NOT change the definition to something involving other than HUMAN BEINGS.

Murder, n.- the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

murder
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx...

murder, noun:

The intentional and malicious killing of a human being.

http://law.yourdictionary.com/murder

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
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 8 min Eagle 12 - 106
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) 12 min Eagle 12 - 69
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) 1 hr Eagle 12 - 154
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Eagle 12 - 80,048
what science will NEVER be able to prove 2 hr Amused 9
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Amused 32,584
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sep 20 The pope 258,485
More from around the web