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.

Lincoln

United States

#875 May 15, 2013
nteresting on Dawkins By Rabbi David Wolpe

History is Not Dawkins field and it shows !!

First on the list was Richard Dawkins, known for his work in biology and for his polemics against religion. Dawkins on biology is an elegant, lucid and even enchanting explicator of science. Dawkins on religion is historically uninformed, outrageously partisan and morally obtuse. If Dawkins is indeed our best, the life of the mind is in a precarious state.
Historical Ignorance
Anyone who could write "Hitler's ideas and intentions were not self-evidently more evil than those of Caligula" is egregiously ill-informed at best. Not only are Caligula's intentions and actions a subject of historical speculation and even revision, but he did not plot to wipe out an entire people simply because they existed, or mobilize a vast military machinery to enmesh the entire world in war. I trust this is merely a misjudgment and not -- given Dawkins statement that "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" and that "Jews" are "notoriously one of the most effective political lobbies in the United States" -- indicative of any deeper prejudice.(Note to the many credentialed Prof. Dawkins, "Jews" are not a political lobby.)
Of course, this historical misfire comes from the same book, "The God Delusion," that insists, "I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca -- or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame." As Alistair McGrath points out, that would surprise anyone who is aware of the fact that the explicitly atheistic Soviet regime destroyed the vast majority of churches (and priests) between 1918-1941. The Tamil Tigers (again, atheistic, and the inventors of suicide vests) leveled countless Buddhist sites of worship. While it is true to say that atheists would not have built Notre Dame, it is not true to say none would ever destroy it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#876 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps that lack of focus is why you get everything you say wrong.
But I don't. You do.

By the way, it's called multitasking, not lack of focus. I'm not surprised you don't know this, as women tend to be better at it than men.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#877 May 15, 2013
Leonine wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen to that! I can't believe that thing is still rattling on! Has he gone on one of his colon restriction rampages lately, or flipped out over the sight of men's bare feet?
What a complete wack job! I wouldn't want him on our side...the pro-rape camp can keep him. He belongs with them.
As my grandma would have said...nuttier than a fruit cake!

The anti women side is welcome to him....keepem there!!

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#878 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. Your anatomy and physiology acumen and your legal acumen are equally solid.
Explain the changes in "anatomy" of the human resulting from expulsion from the birth canal.
Feel free to google. I know the anatomical changes because of my education, and the rest from further research, but there is nothing stopping you from learning them. IF you really want to. Here's a hint, though, you will not find an education on an anti-choice site, which will just tell you what you want to hear, true or not. Try an actual MEDICAL site. Plenty of real ones will show up if you search.

With the first breath, the circulatory system begins to fully function, when the Foramen Ovale closes, and respiration begins the perform the gas exchange for the body, rather than having it done by the woman's circulatory system, via the umbilical cord.

The gastrointestinal tract begins to function, and the liver takes over filtering the blood, something else that was previously done by the woman's body via the umbillical.

It isn't until after birth that the kidneys become able to maintain the body's fluid and electrolyte balance.

The immune system cannot begin to fully function until after birth, with exposure to infections, because the uterine environment is sterile.

Myelination of the neurons does not begin until after birth.

That's just the physical.

Psychologically.

Consciousness. Whole integration of the neural network does not happen until around 36-40 weeks gestation. Also, the fetus spends it's time transitioning between two different stages of sleep, called active sleep (with all it's reflexive movement), and quiet sleep, because the fetus is naturally sedated by the low oxygen pressure in the uterus. Sort of like a sensory deprivation chamber. It is not conscious, and unaware it exists. After birth with more stimulus, it will begin to be both conscious, and increasingly aware of itself, and it's surroundings.

Legally, a fetus has no civil rights. Personhood and civil rights begin at birth.

Spiritually, there are at least two religions I know of that don't believe ensoulment occurs until after birth. There may be more than I am unaware of.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#879 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't answer, huh?
I don't enable deflectors. If you could prove it, you'd have done so already.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#880 May 15, 2013
You are indeed a fat idiot Jeff Chase fan, do you plan in stealing anymore of his pictures?

Your whole argument is one stating abortions should be illegal because the fetus has rights and aborting it is tantamount to murder right?

Your stupidity, much like your fat is on display for all to laugh at.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>I am a fat idiot.
Where did I say all abortions should be illegal?
That doesn't mean I think those acts should be legal, nor illegal.
To repeat - I am a fat idiot.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#881 May 15, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Schizophrenia is considered a chronic condition that can cause severe disruptions in a person’s health, happiness and peace of mind. The condition can appear at almost any age, but it typically appears during adolescence, when people are just learning how to function within the adult world. With therapy, people who have schizophrenia can keep their symptoms under control, but the condition can never truly be cured.
Living with a chronic condition like this can be difficult, and some people rebel against the schizophrenia label, refusing to participate in therapy for short periods of time, and relapsing back into poor habits as a result. Addictive drugs can make this process so much worse, exacerbating schizophrenia symptoms and counteracting the effect of medications that can be used to control the disease. While schizophrenia and addiction can go hand in hand, as this article will make clear, recovery from both conditions is possible.
A disease is an abnormal condition that affects the body of an organism. Mental illness is a broad, generic label for a category of illnesses that may include affective or emotional instability, behavioral dysregulation, and/or cognitive dysfunction or impairment. Specific illnesses known as mental illnesses include major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, to name a few. Mental illness can be of biological (e.g., anatomical, chemical, or genetic) or psychological (e.g., trauma or conflict) origin. It can impair the affected person's ability to work or school and harm interpersonal relationships. A medical condition is a broad term that includes all diseases and disorders. While the term medical condition generally includes mental illnesses, in some contexts the term is used specifically to denote any illness, injury, or disease except for mental illnesses. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the widely used psychiatric manual that defines all mental disorders, uses the term general medical condition to refer to all diseases, illnesses, and injuries except for mental disorders.
Schizophrenia is a disease that involves changes in brain structure and brain chemicals. And while we can see many of the differences between a schizophrenic brain and a non-schizophrenic brain, we are a long way from fully understanding the complexities of this illness to the point where schizophrenia can be cured. At this time, the best doctors can do is treat the symptoms of schizophrenia.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#882 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liberal, and a liar, and I have dealt with it.
----------
Bitner wrote:(Post #733) "No, you did not show where a fetus has any civil rights. And you can't, because it does not."
Bitner wrote:(Post #712) "There is only one human being in each case."
Bitner wrote:(Post #729) "By the way, there is NOTHING in our Constitution that would make a murderer out of anyone who kills a fetus."
Buck Crick wrote; Bitner responded:(Post #708)
Crick: "You need to address, if you can, how an entity you claim has no rights and is not a human being, being killed, subjects the perpetrator to a murder conviction under our Constitution.
What is your answer?"
Bitner: "It does not."
**********
*COURT UPHOLDS CAPITAL MURDER CONVICTION OF LUFKIN MAN
"Ninth Court of Appeals denies man's claim that law protecting unborn babies from the moment of conception is unconstitutional.
By Ashley Cook - The Lufkin Daily News
Friday, January 26, 2007
In what may be the first decision of its kind, a Beaumont appeals court Wednesday upheld the 2005 double capital murder conviction of a former Lufkin High School student who killed his unborn twin sons.
The Ninth Court of Appeals denied 21-year-old Gerardo Flores' claim that the law protecting unborn babies from the moment of conception is unconstitutional.
The case tested a Texas law that makes it a capital offense to kill an unborn child. The law redefined a person as having full rights to legal protection from the moment of conception."
This is what is referred to in debate as "a knockdown argument".
Again, only a fool assumes that a person's entire politics from a position on one issue. I'm neither a liberal, nor a liar.

I don't know what you think you've proven here, but you're just rehashing the same thing we've already gone over. The law does not grant a fetus civil rights, and even THIS you quoted does say it does. The protection is ONLY for the purposes of fetal homicide, no more.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#883 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar.
You state that whether a human being is a fetus is a matter of opinion, NOW.
But you earlier stated - AS FACT - that it IS NOT:
Bitner wrote:(Post #712) "There is only one human being in each case."
That was my opinion.

I don't lie. THAT is a fact.

Your desperation is pathetic.
Libertarian

London, UK

#884 May 15, 2013
Anyone who knows any basic biology know that our 'design' is certainly not intelligent.

Evolution has to adapt what came before, it cannot start again, so we are left with many old problems from our past.

In fact most problems are because of a genetic problem we inherit or something the human species has not had time yet to adapt to.

We've mapped the genome. We proved evolution. Speak to your doctor.

If you've ever had a vaccination you've benefitted from our evolutionary knowledge. Vaccines are made by injecting the disease into an egg. Most of it dies because its used to the enviroment of the human body.
One part may just live and grows in the egg. We take it out, inject another egg. Again only the mutations live.
After repeating the process we then inject it back in the human. Because it has now EVOLVED to be used to the egg enviroment it is weak the your immune system can kill it and learn to recognise and prevent the dangerous pre-egg version of the DNA.

Why did you god give us genetic mutations? Surely he doesn't make mistakes .....

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#885 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are quite wrong and stupid. It is chock full of thematic condemnation of such, as it deals with the sanctity of human life.
But I'll be even more specific, and prove the wrongness, biblically, of the act itself:
1.“These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue,Hands that shed innocent blood…”(Prov. 6:16-17, NKJV).
(At day 22 of gestation, the heart begins to beat with the child's own blood, often a different type than the mothers)
2.“…and Rebekah, Isaac's wife, conceived. And the children struggled together within her…”(Genesis 25:21-22).
Note the Hebrew word used to refer to Rebekah’s unborn twins, Jacob and Esau, is "banim". This is the exact word used to refer to chidren after birth. Obviously, dozens of scriptures prohibit the killing of "banim".
3. Exodus deals with what is to happen when an intentional injury causes a pregnant woman to miscarry. If the baby is born premature but alive, the perpetrator is punished, but less severely. If the injury results in miscarriage and death of the baby, punishment is the death penalty.
Exodus did not differentiate with regard to whether the perpetrator was a physician.
(Exodus 21:22-25, NKJV).
LOL, and I can find different interpretations of all of them, but actually biblical, Jewish, scholars. Which you are not. ESPECIALLY that last, which is interpreted in Judaism as meaning that if the penalty is dependent on whether or not the WOMAN dies as a result. And even YOU must admit that since this originally comes from the Tanakh, then Jews have first dibs on authoritatively interpreting it.

In a book that was SO specific, it mentions the "abomination" of wearing clothes made of two different fibers, one would think that something like killing a fetus would be actually spelled out, rather than having to desperately interpret something so vague.

Nice try. To bad it fails.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#886 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are quite wrong and stupid. It is chock full of thematic condemnation of such, as it deals with the sanctity of human life.
But I'll be even more specific, and prove the wrongness, biblically, of the act itself:
1.“These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue,Hands that shed innocent blood…”(Prov. 6:16-17, NKJV).
(At day 22 of gestation, the heart begins to beat with the child's own blood, often a different type than the mothers)
2.“…and Rebekah, Isaac's wife, conceived. And the children struggled together within her…”(Genesis 25:21-22).
Note the Hebrew word used to refer to Rebekah’s unborn twins, Jacob and Esau, is "banim". This is the exact word used to refer to chidren after birth. Obviously, dozens of scriptures prohibit the killing of "banim".
3. Exodus deals with what is to happen when an intentional injury causes a pregnant woman to miscarry. If the baby is born premature but alive, the perpetrator is punished, but less severely. If the injury results in miscarriage and death of the baby, punishment is the death penalty.
Exodus did not differentiate with regard to whether the perpetrator was a physician.
(Exodus 21:22-25, NKJV).
Sorry, one more thing I should have added before.

That verse speaks of someone ELSE forcing an miscarriage, not the woman choosing to end her own pregnancy, which is what I actually asked to you offer proof of that the bible condemns.

So I take it back....that wasn't even a "nice try".
Lincoln

United States

#887 May 15, 2013
Libertarian wrote:
Anyone who knows any basic biology know that our 'design' is certainly not intelligent.
Evolution has to adapt what came before, it cannot start again, so we are left with many old problems from our past.
In fact most problems are because of a genetic problem we inherit or something the human species has not had time yet to adapt to.
We've mapped the genome. We proved evolution. Speak to your doctor.
If you've ever had a vaccination you've benefitted from our evolutionary knowledge. Vaccines are made by injecting the disease into an egg. Most of it dies because its used to the enviroment of the human body.
One part may just live and grows in the egg. We take it out, inject another egg. Again only the mutations live.
After repeating the process we then inject it back in the human. Because it has now EVOLVED to be used to the egg enviroment it is weak the your immune system can kill it and learn to recognise and prevent the dangerous pre-egg version of the DNA.
Why did you god give us genetic mutations? Surely he doesn't make mistakes .....
Straw-man but amusing that you typed do long for denial

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#888 May 15, 2013
At least he can type his own responses instead of stealing from others as you were caught doing. I understand why you rely on stealing because you are unable to write even simple responses that make sense in English... Do long for denial??? What language is that Borat?
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>Straw-man but amusing that you typed do long for denial

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#889 May 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Straw-man but amusing that you typed do long for denial
Look up strawman, that was certainly not one.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#890 May 15, 2013
Kitten, I think his problem is a lack of English comprehension. I would say he is a devout believer whom is not fluent in English but rather struggling as English is his second language. He wants to debate atheists out of Christian pride but is unable to do so properly in English.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Look up strawman, that was certainly not one.
Lincoln

United States

#891 May 15, 2013
Atheist zealots and Christians zealots seem similar

Both like mythology, seem intolerant of criticism and lack a sense of humor.

"Scratch an atheist and out pops an agnostic" seems a valid adage of old.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#892 May 15, 2013
See this is where your lack of English proficiency fails you and makes you look very ignorant.

Your lack of English comprehension skills blocks you from seeing our humor and fun that we are having here. You think we're angry when really we are having a blast mocking you and your fellow Christians. We are fine with criticism as long as it is based on proper observable facts.

For example, many of us are no doubt laughing at you for saying that your made up line about scratching an atheist is an adage of old. Lol!

Google it up and the only hits you get are you posts here. Obviously you do not comprehend properly what an adage is yes?

What city are you in? Perhaps I can assist you in finding an English as a second language program that you could attend for free?

Wouldn't you like to be able to speak and even read and write English better?

You wouldn't look so ignorant on here if you improved your English proficiency.

Just something for you to seriously consider.
Lincoln wrote:
Atheist zealots and Christians zealots seem similar

Both like mythology, seem intolerant of criticism and lack a sense of humor.

"Scratch an atheist and out pops an agnostic" seems a valid adage of old.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#893 May 15, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a right wing conservative and a parolee, no surprise there.
She whooped your azz into the ground. Take it like a man...a difficult task for you indeed.
Sure.

There has never been a more clear, decisive beating on Topix than the one I gave her.

It was a thing of beauty, if I do say so myself.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#894 May 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel free to google. I know the anatomical changes because of my education, and the rest from further research, but there is nothing stopping you from learning them. IF you really want to. Here's a hint, though, you will not find an education on an anti-choice site, which will just tell you what you want to hear, true or not. Try an actual MEDICAL site. Plenty of real ones will show up if you search.
With the first breath, the circulatory system begins to fully function, when the Foramen Ovale closes, and respiration begins the perform the gas exchange for the body, rather than having it done by the woman's circulatory system, via the umbilical cord.
The gastrointestinal tract begins to function, and the liver takes over filtering the blood, something else that was previously done by the woman's body via the umbillical.
It isn't until after birth that the kidneys become able to maintain the body's fluid and electrolyte balance.
The immune system cannot begin to fully function until after birth, with exposure to infections, because the uterine environment is sterile.
Myelination of the neurons does not begin until after birth.
That's just the physical.
Psychologically.
Consciousness. Whole integration of the neural network does not happen until around 36-40 weeks gestation. Also, the fetus spends it's time transitioning between two different stages of sleep, called active sleep (with all it's reflexive movement), and quiet sleep, because the fetus is naturally sedated by the low oxygen pressure in the uterus. Sort of like a sensory deprivation chamber. It is not conscious, and unaware it exists. After birth with more stimulus, it will begin to be both conscious, and increasingly aware of itself, and it's surroundings.
Legally, a fetus has no civil rights. Personhood and civil rights begin at birth.
Spiritually, there are at least two religions I know of that don't believe ensoulment occurs until after birth. There may be more than I am unaware of.
Those are not anatomical changes.

Do you not understand the difference in anatomical changes and physiological changes?

I asked you to explain the anatomical changes.

Thanks for cluing us in on the quality of your education and research.

Here's a hint for you: If you don't know the difference between anatomy and physiology, it will be very hard for you to answer my question.

You're a funny little lib.

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) 33 min Dogen 61,390
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Aura Mytha 28,322
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 14 hr Dogen 2,687
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Fri IB DaMann 5,970
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Mar 22 Eagle 12 452
Deconversion Mar 20 Eagle 12 138
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) Mar 18 Eagle 12 2,043
More from around the web