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

#895 May 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The various laws protect a right to live, as in, killing it exposes one to criminal prosecution.

That is a civil right.

They also classify it as a human being and/or person.

"Persons" have civil rights.

And these classifications have withstood appeal.

It's funny to watch you double down on your loss.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#896 May 15, 2013
Good thing abortion is legal and will continue to be so eh Buck?:)
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>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.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#897 May 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
That was my opinion.
I don't lie. THAT is a fact.
Your desperation is pathetic.
You repeatedly stated your conclusion as fact.

You state the contrary view as opinion sometimes, a false fact other times.

Are there other classes of human beings, as decided by the courts, whom you maintain have no rights?

Jim Crow proponents used your arguments against blacks having rights.

Do you think blacks have rights?

Are blacks human beings? Is that your opinion, or do you know it for a fact?

What "facts" prove blacks are human beings?
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#898 May 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No laws grant rights. Rights cannot be granted to anyone. Human rights are inherent, and human fetus are just as human as any other human at any other age. The purpose of our government and its laws is to protect our inherent human rights. Your crass ageist bigotry is boring and obtuse.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#899 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 .....
That's not evolution, Librarian.

It's natural selection, more precisely, artificial selection.

You don't know what evolution is.

Yet you are a cheerleader.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#900 May 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I didn't expect you to be honest.

Leaning on varied interpretations - that's really lame, Bitchner.

You made a preposterous claim.

You got thumped.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#901 May 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
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".
Most abortions occur from "forcing a miscarriage".

Somebody has to commit the act.

This scripture condemns it.

Someone who is willing to lie as you do will never admit being wrong.

“ABORTION KILLS A HUMAN BEING”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#902 May 15, 2013
Dawkins is scum, nothing more. End of story.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#903 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Those are both anatomical AND physiological changes. The anatomy changes in order for the physiology to begin. Like I said, feel free to google. Start with Foramen Ovale.

I'm not a liberal.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#904 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The various laws protect a right to live, as in, killing it exposes one to criminal prosecution.
That is a civil right.
They also classify it as a human being and/or person.
"Persons" have civil rights.
And these classifications have withstood appeal.
It's funny to watch you double down on your loss.
No, sorry, the protect the woman's right to continue a wanted pregnancy, and provide justice for her if that right is taken from her.

No, only persons "born or naturalized" in our country, foreign nationals, corporation and some associations have civil rights. All born, or full of, born persons.

Some laws say human being, some do not. Proving my original point that whether or not a fetus is a human being, is a matter of opinion.

I have lost nothing.

Your desperation is pathetic.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#905 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You repeatedly stated your conclusion as fact.
You state the contrary view as opinion sometimes, a false fact other times.
Are there other classes of human beings, as decided by the courts, whom you maintain have no rights?
Jim Crow proponents used your arguments against blacks having rights.
Do you think blacks have rights?
Are blacks human beings? Is that your opinion, or do you know it for a fact?
What "facts" prove blacks are human beings?
Jim Crow laws were struck down, as they should have been. Just like laws making abortion entirely illegal.

Nope, sorry, I was giving my opinion.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#906 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't expect you to be honest.
Leaning on varied interpretations - that's really lame, Bitchner.
You made a preposterous claim.
You got thumped.
Nope, the preposterous claim is the one you made.

The various interpretations are the point.

I note your fear of addressing the fact that your verses said nothing about a woman choosing to end her own pregnancy, or that the Jewish interpretation of the one has more authority than your own.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#907 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Most abortions occur from "forcing a miscarriage".
Somebody has to commit the act.
This scripture condemns it.
Someone who is willing to lie as you do will never admit being wrong.
LOL, oh now, WHO is twisting? Yes, that would be you. Thank you, for illustrating your basic dishonesty for us.

I don't lie.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#908 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The various laws protect a right to live, as in, killing it exposes one to criminal prosecution.
That is a civil right.
They also classify it as a human being and/or person.
"Persons" have civil rights.
And these classifications have withstood appeal.
It's funny to watch you double down on your loss.
You have the civil right to shut the f*ck up about the god your are lying about.

Got a problem? see you in court and lets see how far your "faith" gets you in the real world justice system.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#909 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not evolution, Librarian.
It's natural selection, more precisely, artificial selection.
You don't know what evolution is.
Yet you are a cheerleader.
You believe that jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs and that fossils aren't real.

Your opinion about the fact of evolution is of no consequence.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#910 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't expect you to be honest.
Leaning on varied interpretations - that's really lame, Bitchner.
You made a preposterous claim.
You got thumped.
The only preposterous claim is the one where you claim god is real but provide 0 evidence.

Run coward buck, run away like the unmarried creationist turd-bucket you are.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#911 May 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Homicide, n.-the killing of one human being by another human being.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

"Homicide is the killing of a human being due to the act or failure to act of another."
http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/homicide/

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#912 May 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, the preposterous claim is the one you made.
The various interpretations are the point.
I note your fear of addressing the fact that your verses said nothing about a woman choosing to end her own pregnancy, or that the Jewish interpretation of the one has more authority than your own.
You're using weasel words.

The tactic doesn't work with me. It might soothe your conscience, but it fails as an argument.

You are utilizing "pregnancy" as a restrictive concept, and doing so in bad faith.

"Pregnancy" involves a human life.

The Bible, including citations I provided, prohibits destruction of innocent human life, over and over.

So if it can be shown, as it has been, that the Bible proscribes such destructinon of life, particularly when self-serving, then it proscribes such a "choice".

Even as dumb as you are, you can follow that.

Now retract your assertion, and lose with some dignity this time.

And you never did bother to lie your way out of the "shedding of innocent blood" passage.

I'm sure you can. I have high regard for your ability to lie.

You are an abortion zealot and a liberal.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#913 May 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are both anatomical AND physiological changes. The anatomy changes in order for the physiology to begin. Like I said, feel free to google. Start with Foramen Ovale.
I'm not a liberal.
None of those are anatomical changes.

The foramen ovale DOES NOT close at birth.

3 more events outside the womb are required.

It closes when the umbilical cord is cut, and the child takes its first breaths, and the pressure gradient changes in the lungs. In around 20% of neonates, it doesn't even close then.

If you recall, my question to you was to explain the anatomical changes occurring when the baby exits the birth canal.

Further, it's closing is NOT AN ANATOMICAL CHANGE. IT IS A PHYSIOLOGICAL CHANGE initially. An anatomical trap door that was already there simply swings shut due to pressure.

You didn't cite one anatomical change.

Now you are O for 3.

How long do you want me to keep kicking your liberal ass?

I would not proceed with anatomy and physiology arguments if I were you.

I taught it at the university level.

But if you insist, Bitchner, plow ahead.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#914 May 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, sorry, the protect the woman's right to continue a wanted pregnancy, and provide justice for her if that right is taken from her.
No, only persons "born or naturalized" in our country, foreign nationals, corporation and some associations have civil rights. All born, or full of, born persons.
Some laws say human being, some do not. Proving my original point that whether or not a fetus is a human being, is a matter of opinion.
I have lost nothing.
Your desperation is pathetic.
I agree a "pregnancy" has no rights.

You can't be convicted of murder, or homicide, for killing a "pregnancy".

So we must be talking about something else, huh?

Oh, "a human being"! That's what the courts have called it.

Now, we have something with rights. That's why a murder conviction can ensue.

Weasel words.

Why can't you say what you mean?

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 Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... 4 hr superwilly 121
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 5 hr Rose_NoHo 6,080
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr Endofdays 93,435
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) 15 hr Eagle 12 - 235
News American Atheists terminates its president over... Apr 20 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