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.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#935 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible, including citations I provided, prohibits destruction of innocent human life, over and over.
You are an abortion zealot and a liberal.
"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)

"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." (Exodus 12:29-30)

"The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." (Hosea 13:16 NLT)

Enjoy your god parolee.

You are a woman hating wingnut.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#936 May 15, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha,Ha,Ha,....lawyers.
Ha Ha Ha.......religious freaks.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#937 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If I am asked what I want, what I want is a factor.
Only when you become the one pregnant by a rapist. Until then, what you want for someone else, is meaningless

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#938 May 15, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Only when you become the one pregnant by a rapist. Until then, what you want for someone else, is meaningless
Do you feel the same way about the SCOTUS when they ruled on RvW?
Lincoln

United States

#939 May 15, 2013
"The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Richard Dawkins hail from the same intellectual birthplace, and so let's start by looking at how the OED defines racism. According to the OED's rather long entry, racism is:

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions.

As a follower of Dawkins' work on atheism, and an admirer of his rhetorical flair, I think I can say with certainty that he finds the notion of white supremacy abhorrent, and calling him a racist as defined by his home institution's dictionary is inaccurate. However, some of his recent tweets, brought to my attention by a recent article in the London-based Independent, suggest that it's not racism we should be worried about, but xenophobia. The OED defines xenophobia rather laconically as "a deep antipathy to foreigners," which doesn't quite fit the bill either; but the entry in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary does, it seems. It defines xenophobia as the "fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign."

How does Dawkins fit into all of this, you may ask. Well, on March 1st, he tweeted the following: "Haven't read Koran so couldn't quote chapter & verse like I can for Bible. But often say Islam greatest force for evil today." In a wildly popular tweet from a few weeks later, he added: "Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read Qur'an. You don't have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about Nazism."

This is a shocking assertion which appears to have become intuitive to a lot of people--the tweet has been favorited by 466 people and retweeted by a whopping 809. But it is an assertion that outside the Islamophobic universe appears entirely unwarranted, not to mention gratuitously offensive. It is akin to suggesting that one may fairly make generalizations about the West on the basis of the horrific atrocities committed by the likes of Hitler and Stalin, who have collectively killed far greater numbers than al-Qaeda and its lackeys. Very few people would describe Nazis as Western terrorists, although that's where they originated. Why then do we so readily use the label Islamic/Muslim terrorist simply because they originate from Muslim-majority lands? Shouldn't we take the time to develop a similarly nuanced understanding of terrorism that originates in Muslim countries as we appropriately do with Hitler's terrorism that originated in a Western one with an ideology that is also of distinctly Western origin? As it happens, in mainstream Western discourse, we are far more discriminating when it comes to ourselves--we would never conflate the likes of Stalin with the mainstream of Western thought--but when it comes to others, we remain much less charitable."

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#940 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG.
Myelination begins in the embryo stage. You are off by several months.
You say you were not wrong?
I asked you to explain ANATOMICAL changes that occur with exiting the birth canal.
You gave a whole laundry list.
They were all WRONG.
You FAILED to name one anatomical change, now you see that you can't, so you DEFLECT to generalities, and even got a major one of those WRONG.
You might think before you talk down your nose to me next time, liberal lady.
LOL, nonsense. I did name those changes. Your denials mean nothing.

Still not a liberal. You're confused.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#941 May 15, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)
"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." (Exodus 12:29-30)
"The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." (Hosea 13:16 NLT)
Enjoy your god parolee.
You are a woman hating wingnut.
Your citations are irrelevant to the question posed to me.

The charge to me was that nothing in the bible proscribes abortion, and to provide proof that it does.

I provided that proof.

Even if you can show a separate passage that praises abortion, my charge was nevertheless fulfilled.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#942 May 15, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
USC § 8 -“Person”,“human being”,“child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”,“human being”,“child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
So what?

In section (c), your citation of U.S. code states that nothing in there "shall be construed to... deny ...any legal status or LEGAL RIGHT TO ANY HOMO SAPIENS AT ANY POINT PRIOR TO BEING BORN ALIVE".

That suits me fine, and is consistent with state laws that confer legal rights to an unborn child, as in the right to not be murdered.

"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."

State Court of Appeals upheld a double murder conviction obtained using this statute against the appeal that it was unconstitutional.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#943 May 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, nonsense. I did name those changes. Your denials mean nothing.
Still not a liberal. You're confused.
The word "anatomical" is mysteriously missing from your post now.

You claimed you were listing anatomical changes.

You provided not one.

You don't know the difference in "anatomical" and "physiological".

Our issues are settled, Bitner.

And the settling of them did not work out well for you.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#944 May 15, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you feel the same way about the SCOTUS when they ruled on RvW?
Nice point.

Extending the logic, the poster would have no adult able to ratify laws concerning child abuse.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#945 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The word "anatomical" is mysteriously missing from your post now.
You claimed you were listing anatomical changes.
You provided not one.
You don't know the difference in "anatomical" and "physiological".
Our issues are settled, Bitner.
And the settling of them did not work out well for you.
Any intelligent person would have understood that the word "those" indicated the changes you were speaking of.

I guess that leaves you out.

My proof worked out just fine, thanks. But you seem to want to pretend otherwise. That's not my problem. Others can decide for themselves. They don't need you to tell them.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#946 May 15, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
A modern day Joesph Mengele, yet the only difference between his illegal acts and a legal one was the distance the baby traveled down the birth canal. A distinction only a lawyer would understand or defend
Exactly right, Bo.

There is no moral difference in clipping the spine in the womb, or a few seconds later on a nearby table.

Having it different under the law renders the law incoherent.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#947 May 15, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Only when you become the one pregnant by a rapist. Until then, what you want for someone else, is meaningless
You have all the phony pro-abort lines down pat.

Congratulations.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#948 May 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Any intelligent person would have understood that the word "those" indicated the changes you were speaking of.
I guess that leaves you out.
My proof worked out just fine, thanks. But you seem to want to pretend otherwise. That's not my problem. Others can decide for themselves. They don't need you to tell them.
OK, let's belabor your loss.

Explain how the circulatory changes you cited as an anatomical change is anatomical.

And that's totally letting you off the hook with the fact that it DOES NOT occur with exiting the birth canal, which was stipulated in the question.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#949 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, let's belabor your loss.
Explain how the circulatory changes you cited as an anatomical change is anatomical.
And that's totally letting you off the hook with the fact that it DOES NOT occur with exiting the birth canal, which was stipulated in the question.
Again, Foramen Ovale, an anatomical structure.

And if you want to pretend that the few seconds between a full exit of the body from the birth canal (and I note you say nothing about C-sections), and that first breath means it's not happening at birth, that's fine. No one is being fooled, however.

By the way, MY original point said nothing about anatomical. I SAID physical. I later spoke of human anatomy AND physiology. YOU are the one who tried to make it JUST about anatomy. And I know why, more deflection, because you couldn't counter my argument as it was actually stated. Tough.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#950 May 15, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
USC § 8 -“Person”,“human being”,“child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”,“human being”,“child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package - how effecient of you
If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, the meal was cooked a long time ago.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#951 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
In section (c), your citation of U.S. code states that nothing in there "shall be construed to... deny ...any legal status or LEGAL RIGHT TO ANY HOMO SAPIENS AT ANY POINT PRIOR TO BEING BORN ALIVE".
That suits me fine, and is consistent with state laws that confer legal rights to an unborn child, as in the right to not be murdered.
"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."
State Court of Appeals upheld a double murder conviction obtained using this statute against the appeal that it was unconstitutional.
OK, I'll play.

You are wrong, n section (c), the citation of U.S. code states that nothing in there "shall be construed to... affirm ...any legal status or LEGAL RIGHT TO ANY HOMO SAPIENS AT ANY POINT PRIOR TO BEING BORN ALIVE".

Guess you missed that "affirm" word huh?

Treat yourself to another round:

USC § 8 -“Person”,“human being”,“child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”,“human being”,“child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

Gee...then there is that "expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart"......beating heart...hmmmmm...that certainly blows the moment of conception theory right to hell doesn't it?

Too bad for you anti choice wingnut.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#952 May 15, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I'll play.
You are wrong, n section (c), the citation of U.S. code states that nothing in there "shall be construed to... affirm ...any legal status or LEGAL RIGHT TO ANY HOMO SAPIENS AT ANY POINT PRIOR TO BEING BORN ALIVE".
Guess you missed that "affirm" word huh?
Treat yourself to another round:
USC § 8 -“Person”,“human being”,“child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”,“human being”,“child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
Gee...then there is that "expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart"......beating heart...hmmmmm...that certainly blows the moment of conception theory right to hell doesn't it?
Too bad for you anti choice wingnut.
Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package - how effecient of you.
If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, the meal was cooked a long time ago.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#953 May 15, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, Foramen Ovale, an anatomical structure.
And if you want to pretend that the few seconds between a full exit of the body from the birth canal (and I note you say nothing about C-sections), and that first breath means it's not happening at birth, that's fine. No one is being fooled, however.
By the way, MY original point said nothing about anatomical. I SAID physical. I later spoke of human anatomy AND physiology. YOU are the one who tried to make it JUST about anatomy. And I know why, more deflection, because you couldn't counter my argument as it was actually stated. Tough.
Wrong.

The foramen ovale is "anatomical", yes.

The question referred specifically to "change in anatomy".

That means "change in anatomy".

And you answered that question directly, and you called the changes "anatomical changes". They are not.

Now you are lying.

Here is your post #878:

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.

Bitner wrote:
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.
----------

Notice your second sentence. "anatomical changes".

Compare your assertion in #878 to your post above:

"MY original point said nothing about anatomical. I SAID physical. I later spoke of human anatomy AND physiology. YOU are the one who tried to make it JUST about anatomy."

Bitner now: "said nothing about anatomy"

Bitner then: "I know the anatomical changes because of my education"

You are boxed in. I was willing to let it drop, as I am satisfied with proving you wrong 5 or 6 times.

But you just can't stop talking down.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#954 May 15, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I'll play.
You are wrong, n section (c), the citation of U.S. code states that nothing in there "shall be construed to... affirm ...any legal status or LEGAL RIGHT TO ANY HOMO SAPIENS AT ANY POINT PRIOR TO BEING BORN ALIVE".
Guess you missed that "affirm" word huh?
Treat yourself to another round:
USC § 8 -“Person”,“human being”,“child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”,“human being”,“child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
Gee...then there is that "expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart"......beating heart...hmmmmm...that certainly blows the moment of conception theory right to hell doesn't it?
Too bad for you anti choice wingnut.
No, idiot.

I intentionally included only "deny", bordered by dots to indicate editing, to make the point that the code does not prevent the law from conferring legal rights to the unborn, as you seemed to be using it to say that the citation prevented such.

The entire section was included in my post under "Morgan 9 wrote:"

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 Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 8 min Baffled 1,159
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 12 hr Regolith Based Li... 32,461
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 16 hr Science 1,412
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 hr Dogen 78,757
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web