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.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#773 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"GUNTERSVILLE, Alabama (AP)— "Marshall County jurors have convicted a man of capital murder in the slaying of his wife and her unborn child at a car wash three years ago.
The trial of Jessie Phillips was believed to be the first test of a state law that allows a person suspected of killing a pregnant woman to be charged with two murders if the fetus also dies."
http://blog.al.com/wire/2012/06/marshall_coun... ;

You're repeating yourself.

"A man in Ohio who tried to force his pregnant girlfriend to have a late-term abortion has pleaded guilty to attempted murder of his unborn child under Ohio’s fetal homicide law. The man even forced his pregnant girlfriend to the abortion clinic at gunpoint."
http://liveaction.org/blog/fetal-homicide-law... ;

And not ONCE does the law call the fetus a human being.

"Dallas man convicted of murder in killing of fetus
Published: Sunday, February 06, 2005
DALLAS (AP)- A Dallas man found guilty in the gang-related shooting death of a pregnant woman became the first Texan convicted under the state's law protecting the unborn."
Emmanuel Rogers, 21, was convicted of capital murder Friday in the December 2003 deaths of Virginia Ramirez and her 9-week-old fetus
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/020605/sta_0...
Texas* Tex. Penal Code Ann.§ 1.07 relates to the death of or injury to an unborn child and provides penalties. The law defines an individual as a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth."

And one that does. Though it THEN goes on to say that corporations and associations are ALSO considered "persons", but I doubt they mean "human being" when they do.
__________
"How many times do you wish to lose?"

I haven't lost at all, because you are doing NOTHING but proving my original point, that the phrase "human being" is a matter of opinion.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#774 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not every day a washed up drunk ballplayer gets to put a bitchy woman lawyer in her place.
Much obliged.
You have yet to do so.

Again, not a lawyer.

You say bitch like it's a bad thing. LOL, just because a woman doesn't kowtow to you, doesn't make her a bitch.

Again, whatever you have to tell yourself to soothe your wounded pride over being bested by an "uppity" woman.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#775 May 13, 2013
Braying like a jackass... A really fat jackass.

Abortion is legal Buck. Sorry but those women will be able to continue to have freedom of choice no matter how much your preacher yells in church.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>It's not every day a washed up drunk ballplayer gets to put a bitchy woman lawyer in her place.

Much obliged.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#776 May 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>

It speaks of citizens, defined IN the Constitution as "persons born or naturalized" in this country.
I'll correct your error on that again, Counselor.

You are referencing the 14th Amendment, which is the second in a series of anti-slavery amendments, ensuring citizenship of freed slaves. You see, after they were freed, some states refused to recognize them as citizens. Hence, the amendment.

And no, that does not mean "only" freed slaves have constitutional rights, because they are provided for previously for everyone in the 5th Amendment.

The 5th alludes to "persons".

So you can't kill someone and get away with it because they are not born or naturalized here, Counselor.

Just a quick tutoring on the Constitution, from Buck to you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#777 May 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"GUNTERSVILLE, Alabama (AP)— "Marshall County jurors have convicted a man of capital murder in the slaying of his wife and her unborn child at a car wash three years ago.
The trial of Jessie Phillips was believed to be the first test of a state law that allows a person suspected of killing a pregnant woman to be charged with two murders if the fetus also dies."
http://blog.al.com/wire/2012/06/marshall_coun... ;
You're repeating yourself.
"A man in Ohio who tried to force his pregnant girlfriend to have a late-term abortion has pleaded guilty to attempted murder of his unborn child under Ohio’s fetal homicide law. The man even forced his pregnant girlfriend to the abortion clinic at gunpoint."
http://liveaction.org/blog/fetal-homicide-law... ;
And not ONCE does the law call the fetus a human being.
"Dallas man convicted of murder in killing of fetus
Published: Sunday, February 06, 2005
DALLAS (AP)- A Dallas man found guilty in the gang-related shooting death of a pregnant woman became the first Texan convicted under the state's law protecting the unborn."
Emmanuel Rogers, 21, was convicted of capital murder Friday in the December 2003 deaths of Virginia Ramirez and her 9-week-old fetus
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/020605/sta_0...
Texas* Tex. Penal Code Ann.§ 1.07 relates to the death of or injury to an unborn child and provides penalties. The law defines an individual as a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth."
And one that does. Though it THEN goes on to say that corporations and associations are ALSO considered "persons", but I doubt they mean "human being" when they do.
__________
"How many times do you wish to lose?"
I haven't lost at all, because you are doing NOTHING but proving my original point, that the phrase "human being" is a matter of opinion.
That wasn't your original point.

Your original point was that a fetus is not a human being under the law, and that "human being" is a philosophical or religious term.

Now, your point is something else.

I suggest you drop your case.

Or your drawers.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#778 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to belabor this ass-kicking you're taking, but you shifted your goalposts again.
You did not originally argue that "human being" was a matter of opinion, Counselor.
What you argued was that a fetus is not a human being, and not considered a human being by law. You argued that "human being" was not even a matter of law, but of philosophy and religion. You argued that a state statute representing murder as against "a human being OR a fetus" means that a fetus is not a human being.
Didn't pan out for you, did it?
Another thing that strikes me as funny - I accuse you of ignoring the 5th Amendment, and your response is that you didn't say anything about it.
Did your Daddy buy your way into law school?
I didn't get to go to law school, but I know more about it than you. My Daddy didn't give me anything but lessons in how to fight. He was a professional boxer and wrestler. Fought Joe Louis.
Besides, I was a felon.
Sorry, but yes, that was my original point. I brought it up in response to someone trying to use the phrase scientifically. What I said was that it was not a scientific designation, but a philosophical/religious one, and thus a matter of opinion. Originally, law was not part of the discussion. The conversation later moved on to laws, that's all.

Yes, I made that argument, about THAT state law. It "panned out" just fine, thanks.

I didn't say anything about it. I'm not trying to pretend it doesn't exist. YOU are deflecting, because you KNOW you can't proved anything from the Constitution that indicates it considers the fetus to be a "person". <Shrug> that's no skin off my nose.

For the third time, I'm not a lawyer.

I don't give a sh*t about you, or your father. Who cares?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#779 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't your original point.
Your original point was that a fetus is not a human being under the law, and that "human being" is a philosophical or religious term.
Now, your point is something else.
I suggest you drop your case.
Or your drawers.
No, you are wrong. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and say you just joined the discussion later. But that was my original point. Deal with it.

Wow, I really DID wound your pride, didn't I? Sorry, I'm a happily married woman with no interest in a Neanderthal such as yourself.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#780 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll correct your error on that again, Counselor.
You are referencing the 14th Amendment, which is the second in a series of anti-slavery amendments, ensuring citizenship of freed slaves. You see, after they were freed, some states refused to recognize them as citizens. Hence, the amendment.
And no, that does not mean "only" freed slaves have constitutional rights, because they are provided for previously for everyone in the 5th Amendment.
The 5th alludes to "persons".
So you can't kill someone and get away with it because they are not born or naturalized here, Counselor.
Just a quick tutoring on the Constitution, from Buck to you.
You're clueless. The definition of citizen does not just apply to freed slaves.

I already addressed foreign nationals (who are ALSO already born), but of course I realized you can't acknowledge that fact.

Still not a lawyer. Just smarter than you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#781 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll correct your error on that again, Counselor.
Foolish creationist who denies evolution, taking about correcting errors.

We don't buy your story that an egocentric ancient bearded homeless man rode on the backs of dinosaurs must be hard work.

That is really why your points don't count - you are mentally ill and have the opinions of a mentally ill person.

Until you prove the god you're lying about, it will always be that way.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#782 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't your original point.
Your original point was that a fetus is not a human being under the law, and that "human being" is a philosophical or religious term.
Now, your point is something else.
I suggest you drop your case.
Or your drawers.
The unmarried oaf and creationist Buck Crick returns to reign his judgemental terror on defenseless women around the world.

What a womb-nazi

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#783 May 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but yes, that was my original point. I brought it up in response to someone trying to use the phrase scientifically. What I said was that it was not a scientific designation, but a philosophical/religious one, and thus a matter of opinion. Originally, law was not part of the discussion. The conversation later moved on to laws, that's all.
Yes, I made that argument, about THAT state law. It "panned out" just fine, thanks.
I didn't say anything about it. I'm not trying to pretend it doesn't exist. YOU are deflecting, because you KNOW you can't proved anything from the Constitution that indicates it considers the fetus to be a "person". <Shrug> that's no skin off my nose.
For the third time, I'm not a lawyer.
I don't give a sh*t about you, or your father. Who cares?
Oh yeah? That's what they all say.

You are not only a bitchy woman lawyer, you are a liar.

You in no way limited your assessment to the CA law, and you maintained, until I proved you wrong, that there was no recognition of a fetus as a human being under the law.

Then, failing on that, you thought I couldn't produce convictions in states that state explicitly that a fetus is a person or a human being.

That didn't pan out either.

So now, you are left to lie. You aren't very good at it, either.

Guess what? My father didn't give a shit about you.


Since: May 10

Location hidden

#784 May 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You're clueless. The definition of citizen does not just apply to freed slaves.
I already addressed foreign nationals (who are ALSO already born), but of course I realized you can't acknowledge that fact.
Still not a lawyer. Just smarter than you.
Oh yeah, really smart.

Smart enough to get your little ass kicked by a washed up ballplayer.

You need to brush up on your constitutional history, little Missy.

The 14th was directed toward the citizenship of freed slaves.

Whether a fetus has constitutional protection relies on the 5th Amendment. The question is whether it is a "person".

Some justices say it isn't, some say it is.

You are not very good at this.

Maybe you should move along and go shopping for some lipstick or feminine products or something.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#785 May 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are wrong. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and say you just joined the discussion later. But that was my original point. Deal with it.
Wow, I really DID wound your pride, didn't I? Sorry, I'm a happily married woman with no interest in a Neanderthal such as yourself.
You're just playing hard to get.

How did you know I was a Neanderthal?

You must have met me somewhere.

Are you that girl I pleasured in Tuscaloosa through a car window while her boyfriend was passed out behind the wheel?

Shit, I hope that's not your husband.

Tell him it wasn't nothin' personal.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#786 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah? That's what they all say.
You are not only a bitchy woman lawyer, you are a liar.
You in no way limited your assessment to the CA law, and you maintained, until I proved you wrong, that there was no recognition of a fetus as a human being under the law.
Then, failing on that, you thought I couldn't produce convictions in states that state explicitly that a fetus is a person or a human being.
That didn't pan out either.
So now, you are left to lie. You aren't very good at it, either.
Guess what? My father didn't give a shit about you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Rq8Z5eL5C7YXX
I'm neither a lawyer, nor a liar.

And yes, since I pointed out that the only two cased you'd presented were from CA, specifically talking ABOUT the CA statute, I DID limit my remarks about it to the CA statute.

And what I ACTUALLY did was challenge you to present other cases. Which you did, some where the laws said "human being", some where it did not. Which did nothing but prove my original point.

Again, who cares about your father? Seems to me you have daddy issues. Not my problem.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#787 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Oh yeah, really smart."

Yes, definitely smarter than one self-proclaimed washed up, drunk felon.

"Smart enough to get your little ass kicked by a washed up ballplayer."

Ah, but I did not. No matter how much your bruised ego wants to pretend otherwise. I do understand, a Neanderthal like you can't take being bested by a woman. Sounds like a personal problem to me.

"You need to brush up on your constitutional history, little Missy.
The 14th was directed toward the citizenship of freed slaves."

I know what the 14th Amendment says, and is. You seem confused, that you don't understand that "Equal Protection" applies to all.

"Whether a fetus has constitutional protection relies on the 5th Amendment. The question is whether it is a "person".
Some justices say it isn't, some say it is."

Again, proving my original point.

"You are not very good at this."

And yet, I'm better than you.

"Maybe you should move along and go shopping for some lipstick or feminine products or something."

Aw, poor little boy, got his feelings hurt. So sad.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#788 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're just playing hard to get.
How did you know I was a Neanderthal?
You must have met me somewhere.
Are you that girl I pleasured in Tuscaloosa through a car window while her boyfriend was passed out behind the wheel?
Shit, I hope that's not your husband.
Tell him it wasn't nothin' personal.
Yep, being bested in debate by a "mere" woman sure did hurt that male ego of yours. Too bad, little boy. Put on your big girl panties, and deal with it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#789 May 13, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, being bested in debate by a "mere" woman sure did hurt that male ego of yours. Too bad, little boy. Put on your big girl panties, and deal with it.
Right.

You really nailed me on that fetus-not-a-human-being thing.

And you so enlightened me on being able to kill people not born here or naturalized.

Quite brilliant.

Tell me, Master, does the guy in Texas convicted of murder for killing a fetus which is regarded as a human being live under the U.S. Constitution, or that of some other country?

You're out of your league, and I over-estimated you.

Stick to debating your ladies bridge club.

Buck plays in the big leagues.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#791 May 14, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Right.
You really nailed me on that fetus-not-a-human-being thing.
Now sh*t the f*ck up creationist troll with no morals who lies about a god he has no proof of.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#792 May 14, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
So you are firmly against a woman's right to chose?
<quoted text>
Hey, at least he supports the man "who is not involved"'s right to choose for her.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#793 May 14, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Killing the baby born alive
Capital Murder.
No prancing about as an atheist
Did you say "born alive", born?

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) 3 min Into The Night 16,255
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min replaytime 40,767
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 8 min Into The Night 274
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 10 min _Susan_ 256,081
A Universe from Nothing? 38 min Eagle 12 81
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr Mikko 3,771
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 5 hr _Susan_ 20,620
More from around the web