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.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#713 May 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not.
Is that so?

Who were the two human beings Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering?

You have lost.

Join KittenScalder watching your argument swirl in the toilet.

I suspect you are a lawyer.

That makes it even more gratifying to watch.
Lincoln

United States

#714 May 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, however, you cannot make decisions for other people, doing that absolves everyone of any blame.
Killing the baby born alive
Capital Murder.

No prancing about as an atheist
Lincoln

United States

#715 May 13, 2013
Florida Planned Parenthood spokeswoman did not help
The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, reports what happened:
“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd.“If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#716 May 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I have. IIRC, the ME couldn't tell whether or not death occurred inside, or outside Laci's body.
Nothing is proven by providing a story without a link.
You don't need a link to the Scott Peterson story.

You are pretending again.

The woman who ate rat poison did so with the baby inside.

She committed no offense against it on the outside.

You are even funnier when you try to claim location determines murder.

Obviously, in the Peterson case, it was not necessary to know whether it was inside or outside to convict him of murdering it.

"A jury on Friday convicted a Moorpark man [Fransisco Xavier Martinez] of second-degree murder for causing a traffic accident while he was drunk, injuring a pregnant woman and killing her unborn baby."

Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2013/feb/22/moorpa...
- vcstar.com

See if you can figure how to twist out of that one.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#717 May 13, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Killing the baby born alive
Capital Murder.
No prancing about as an atheist
Atheist = lack of belief in god.

Elementary question 1: In the above sentence, underline the words "murder" and "children"

What's the matter? couldn't find them in the definition of atheism?

Shouldn't have lied like a stupid creationist troll then...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#718 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't need a link to the Scott Peterson story.
You are pretending again.
The woman who ate rat poison did so with the baby inside.
She committed no offense against it on the outside.
You are even funnier when you try to claim location determines murder.
Obviously, in the Peterson case, it was not necessary to know whether it was inside or outside to convict him of murdering it.
"A jury on Friday convicted a Moorpark man [Fransisco Xavier Martinez] of second-degree murder for causing a traffic accident while he was drunk, injuring a pregnant woman and killing her unborn baby."
Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2013/feb/22/moorpa...
- vcstar.com
See if you can figure how to twist out of that one.
Known idiot who believes that jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs and that fossils aren't "real".

Yes that's the person who is sharing his opinion in the forum today.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#719 May 13, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Florida Planned Parenthood spokeswoman did not help
The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, reports what happened:
“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd.“If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.
F*ck your stupid anti-woman cult.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#720 May 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You've shown no such thing.
It's already been established that no civil right is absolute. Having a time limit, in some states, that can be rescinded under certain circumstances does nothing to remove the right. It's her choice.
There's no evasion. You just don't like what I'm saying. Tough.
No, I love what you are saying.

It makes you an easy opponent, because you are pinned down easily by your own words.

If states can say that abortions of certain individuals cannot be performed, and they do, then the woman does not have the choice in that case.

In other cases - yes.

So what of this "Constitutional Right to Privacy" you claim?

Does the Constitution and the "Right to Privacy" not apply to women past 27 weeks pregnant?

That doesn't seem fair.

Come to think of it, there is no such Constitutional right.

The court created a facsimile of one, but they didn't do a very good job, huh?

Not when you have people being convicted of murder for killing non-humans.

Scalia; Dissent in Casey:

"The issue is whether [abortion] is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure that it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the "concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected-because of two simple facts:(1) the Constitution says nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed."

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#721 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I love what you are saying.
It makes you an easy opponent, because you are pinned down easily by your own words.
If states can say that abortions of certain individuals cannot be performed, and they do, then the woman does not have the choice in that case.
In other cases - yes.
So what of this "Constitutional Right to Privacy" you claim?
Does the Constitution and the "Right to Privacy" not apply to women past 27 weeks pregnant?
That doesn't seem fair.
Come to think of it, there is no such Constitutional right.
The court created a facsimile of one, but they didn't do a very good job, huh?
Not when you have people being convicted of murder for killing non-humans.
Scalia; Dissent in Casey:
"The issue is whether [abortion] is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure that it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the "concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected-because of two simple facts:(1) the Constitution says nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed."
All creationists are women-hating womb nazis.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#722 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I love what you are saying.
It makes you an easy opponent, because you are pinned down easily by your own words.
If states can say that abortions of certain individuals cannot be performed, and they do, then the woman does not have the choice in that case.
In other cases - yes.
So what of this "Constitutional Right to Privacy" you claim?
Does the Constitution and the "Right to Privacy" not apply to women past 27 weeks pregnant?
That doesn't seem fair.
Come to think of it, there is no such Constitutional right.
The court created a facsimile of one, but they didn't do a very good job, huh?
Not when you have people being convicted of murder for killing non-humans.
Scalia; Dissent in Casey:
"The issue is whether [abortion] is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure that it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the "concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected-because of two simple facts:(1) the Constitution says nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed."
Can't even prove your f*cking god and here you are trying to decide the fate of women you don't even care to know.

Stupid arrogant f*cks - glad you wont be around when I'm 60.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#723 May 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You have yet to show where a fetus has civil rights. And no, the fetal homicide laws don't give it rights, merely a status, and only for the purpose of that particular law. Given that there are states without such laws, and that where they have them those laws vary in particulars, one cannot claim they do.
I showed that a fetus has a right to live, which is the primary question, don't you think?

If it has no right to live, no person could be prosecuted for murder for killing it.

I never set out or promised to show that it had a right to college admission.

What "status" are you alluding to, which you say is "given" to a fetus?

I don't recall being given a "status" by the government that prevented someone from legally killing me.

Do you recall being given that status? When did it happen? How old were you?

Oh, one more thing...do you labor under the misapprehension that rights are given to you by the government?

You must have gone to law school.

I'm guessing it was in the northeast.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#724 May 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
There is only one human being in each case.
Tell that to Scott Peterson.

You can find him on death row.

You might also tell that to the jurors and the judge, as he was convicted of killing his unborn son, Connor Peterson.

The defense counsel for Francisco Xavier Martinez would be happy to hear that, too, I would bet.

You know, Bitchner, there are just so many uninformed jurists out there who could benefit from your mysterious legal armaments on these issues.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#725 May 13, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheist = lack of belief in god.
Elementary question 1: In the above sentence, underline the words "murder" and "children"
What's the matter? couldn't find them in the definition of atheism?
Shouldn't have lied like a stupid creationist troll then...
That's not the definition of atheism, Septic.

Get a clue.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#726 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I showed that a fetus has a right to live, which is the primary question, don't you think?
If it has no right to live, no person could be prosecuted for murder for killing it.
I never set out or promised to show that it had a right to college admission.
What "status" are you alluding to, which you say is "given" to a fetus?
I don't recall being given a "status" by the government that prevented someone from legally killing me.
Do you recall being given that status? When did it happen? How old were you?
Oh, one more thing...do you labor under the misapprehension that rights are given to you by the government?
You must have gone to law school.
I'm guessing it was in the northeast.
You are an Anti-women creationist liar who doesn't understand science enough to believe in evolution.

And here you are - a scientifically illiterate unmarried oaf, trying to tell women what to do with their wombs.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#727 May 13, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't even prove your f*cking god and here you are trying to decide the fate of women you don't even care to know.
Stupid arrogant f*cks - glad you wont be around when I'm 60.
Probably not, since you are now 8.

And you'll be lucky if someone doesn't stomp a mudhole in your ass before you're 9.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#728 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that so?
Who were the two human beings Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering?
You have lost.
Join KittenScalder watching your argument swirl in the toilet.
I suspect you are a lawyer.
That makes it even more gratifying to watch.
Yes, that is so.

Again, there was some question as to whether the death occurred inside, or outside Laci. They assumed the latter to get the most out of the case.

I have lost nothing.

There is nothing wrong with my argument.

Your "suspicion" is wrong.

Your imagination has run away with you. Enjoy your delusion.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#729 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that so?
Who were the two human beings Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering?
You have lost.
Join KittenScalder watching your argument swirl in the toilet.
I suspect you are a lawyer.
That makes it even more gratifying to watch.
By the way, there is NOTHING in our Constitution that would make a murderer out of anyone who kills a fetus.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#730 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the definition of atheism, Septic.
Get a clue.
Creationist liar with no proof of god, who believes that jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs and that fossils "aren't real" trying to tell and atheist what the definition of atheist is.

Atheist = lack of belief, NOT denial (since denial implies existence for which there is no proof <-------Stupid assumption made by buck crick for which no evidence exists.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#731 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"You don't need a link to the Scott Peterson story."

Nor did I ask for a link to that case.

"You are pretending again."

No, you are confused.

"The woman who ate rat poison did so with the baby inside.
She committed no offense against it on the outside."

Hence the charge of attempted feticide. It was murder because the death occurred after birth.

"You are even funnier when you try to claim location determines murder."

I'm sorry you don't understand.

"Obviously, in the Peterson case, it was not necessary to know whether it was inside or outside to convict him of murdering it."

So they erred on the side of caution. And?

"A jury on Friday convicted a Moorpark man [Fransisco Xavier Martinez] of second-degree murder for causing a traffic accident while he was drunk, injuring a pregnant woman and killing her unborn baby."
Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2013/feb/22/moorpa...
- vcstar.com
See if you can figure how to twist out of that one"

No need to twist. By the way, THAT was what I wanted a link for.

Now, explain to us all WHY the CA statutes say that murder is the unlawful killing of a human being OR a fetus, if a fetus is a human being.

The fact is, it's not. And fetal homicide laws do not say it is, they don't exist in all states, in those they do, they kick in at different times and the charges differ, they don't grant the fetus any civil rights, and they don't apply to legal voluntary abortion.

You are the one who has lost the argument. Sorry.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#732 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I love what you are saying.
It makes you an easy opponent, because you are pinned down easily by your own words.
If states can say that abortions of certain individuals cannot be performed, and they do, then the woman does not have the choice in that case.
In other cases - yes.
So what of this "Constitutional Right to Privacy" you claim?
Does the Constitution and the "Right to Privacy" not apply to women past 27 weeks pregnant?
That doesn't seem fair.
Come to think of it, there is no such Constitutional right.
The court created a facsimile of one, but they didn't do a very good job, huh?
Not when you have people being convicted of murder for killing non-humans.
Scalia; Dissent in Casey:
"The issue is whether [abortion] is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure that it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the "concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected-because of two simple facts:(1) the Constitution says nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed."
LOL, your imagination is runny away with you again.

Her rights remain, they just have limits. Limits that can be rescinded if her health or life are in danger, or if there is something wrong with the fetus.

You know, maybe you should actually read the Roe v Wade decision. If you had, you wouldn't have asked that question about privacy.

We do have the right to privacy. We've already covered this. I believe someone else even posted links.

Who said the fetus isn't human? Obviously, if it's being gestated inside a human, then it is a human fetus. My objection was to the term human being. That is a philosophical/religious question, and thus a matter of opinion.

Interesting, you bringing up Scalia....here he is on 60 Minutes....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-4040290...

"My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons,"

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr Regolith Based Li... 93,375
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... Fri blacklagoon 3 78
News American Atheists terminates its president over... Fri Eagle 12 - 19
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Apr 14 blacklagoon 3 4,141
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Apr 14 Into The Night 258,515
News The Anti-Christian Movement Apr 10 blacklagoon 3 11
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Apr 9 Wisdom of Ages 6,048