Richard Dawkins tweets on abortion: ‘any fetus is less human than an adult pig’

Mar 16, 2013 Full story: freerepublic.com 1,829

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.

Full Story

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#955 May 15, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you feel the same way about the SCOTUS when they ruled on RvW?
As individual men, yes. As the collective entity "The Supreme Court", no I think not. At that point their jobs were much bigger than they themselves were.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#956 May 15, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>

Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package - how effecient of you.

Well said, Z.

You will find the liberals here very efficient that way.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#957 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You have all the phony pro-abort lines down pat.
Congratulations.
That you understand when you are wrong, is not surprising at all, that you acknowledge it ..... astounding.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#958 May 15, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>As individual men, yes. As the collective entity "The Supreme Court", no I think not. At that point their jobs were much bigger than they themselves were.
The individual justices each voted.

Their jobs didn't vote.

That's why they have to count them.

Otherwise, you would not know which party prevailed.

Sometimes the individuals vote differently than another individual.

Were you thinking the Supreme Court had an electoral college or something?



Since: May 10

Location hidden

#959 May 15, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>That you understand when you are wrong, is not surprising at all, that you acknowledge it ..... astounding.
Can you re-state that so it can be read?

On second thought, never mind.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#960 May 15, 2013
Have you watched any Jeff Chase movies lately? Want me to find you some more Jeff Chase pictures to steal and pretend it's you?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>The individual justices each voted.

Their jobs didn't vote.

That's why they have to count them.

Otherwise, you would not know which party prevailed.

Sometimes the individuals vote differently than another individual.

Were you thinking the Supreme Court had an electoral college or something?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#961 May 15, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>As individual men, yes. As the collective entity "The Supreme Court", no I think not. At that point their jobs were much bigger than they themselves were.
What if they had ruled the other way?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#963 May 16, 2013
liberals lie wrote:
<quoted text>"Thou shalt not kill"
So then according to your scripture we should have no military, and should never start wars. So that leads to the question of why did your god command us to attack Iraq?
Thinking

London, UK

#964 May 16, 2013
GFY, anti choicer.
kaylayossi wrote:
Dawkins is scum, nothing more. End of story.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#965 May 16, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well that made absolutely no sense, maybe you should repeat it endlessly. Just think how many times you might be asked ....... "How long did it take until you began to understand that the candle's flame was actual fire?". LOL!

Considering it was the point you thought you could make, we will all just know it took you a great while.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#966 May 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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:"
No, parolee/idiot.

I INTENTIONALLY included 'affirm" only in my last post to indicate that the law does not affirm your position that the fetus has rights. You insisting that the unborn has rights that negate the rights of women is just your misogynistic fantasy.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#967 May 16, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So, how long did it take, until you began to understand that the candle's flame was actual fire? LOL!

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#968 May 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The individual justices each voted.
Their jobs didn't vote.
That's why they have to count them.
Otherwise, you would not know which party prevailed.
Sometimes the individuals vote differently than another individual.
Were you thinking the Supreme Court had an electoral college or something?
While they may vote differently than the other judges, they are all charged with the task, to set aside their own feelings and vote from another perspective. Do they do that? Not always, but if you were in that position, I can be sure that only your very limited viewpoint would be considered.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#969 May 16, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
What if they had ruled the other way?
How would the past have changed, should the Roe V wade, outcome been different? Got a time machine, and a fertile imagination?

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#970 May 16, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Ah, yes let us discuss arrogance shall we?

It is good for a man not to touch a woman, so that he is not tempted to "immorality" and does not "defile" himself. Men are the "heads" of their wives and the "glory of God," whereas the woman is merely the "glory of man." Man was not created from woman, but woman from man. Women must be submissive in everything and subject to their husbands, who, again, are their "heads." Women should not speak in church but must remain subordinate and learn in submissiveness. No woman can teach or have authority over men. Girls and women must be "trained" to love and to be sensible, chaste, domestic and submissive to their husbands.

women = slave

Those pesky male christian control issues.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#971 May 16, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Ah, yes let us discuss arrogance shall we?

It is good for a man not to touch a woman, so that he is not tempted to "immorality" and does not "defile" himself. Men are the "heads" of their wives and the "glory of God," whereas the woman is merely the "glory of man." Man was not created from woman, but woman from man. Women must be submissive in everything and subject to their husbands, who, again, are their "heads." Women should not speak in church but must remain subordinate and learn in submissiveness. No woman can teach or have authority over men. Girls and women must be "trained" to love and to be sensible, chaste, domestic and submissive to their husbands.

women = slave

Those pesky male christian control issues.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#972 May 16, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No, you're just twising, that's all.

The closing of the Foramen Ovale is an anatomical change.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that my point was there are many changes that occur with the birth, physical, mental, legal and spiritual. You can't address that fact, and so you nitpick. That's not my problem.

You have not proven me wrong at all, but whatever you have to tell yourself in order to soothe your bruised male ego.
Lincoln

United States

#973 May 16, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Good thing abortion is legal and will continue to be so eh Buck?:)
<quoted text>
PHILADELPHIA — Dr. Kermit Gosnell was sentenced on Wednesday to life in prison without parole for the murder of a baby born alive in a botched abortion, who prosecutors said would have survived if the doctor had not “snipped” its neck with scissors.
Lincoln

United States

#974 May 16, 2013
Have you heard about the New New Atheism? The old New Atheism is finished, as Ed West pointed out in these pages last month. It was a Noughties fad, like Emo or MySpace.
Richard Dawkins’s crusade against the religion “virus” excited lots of people in the aftermath of 9/11 and the global panic about Islamic extremism. Today it just sounds tired and silly – and the whole angry atheist vogue seems little more than a brilliant publishing stunt to sell big books to small minds.
Dawkins himself has turned into a sad figure, an attention-seeking old man who insults Muslims on Twitter. The other atheist stars have faded, too. Christopher Hitchens is dead, poor man. And can you remember anything Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett have said? Nope, nor can I.
In their place, another breed of nuanced atheists has emerged – with books of their own to flog. They disdain Dawkins for his fundamentalism and his rudeness. They are quick to recognise the strengths of religion and admit the shortcomings of unbelief. Their high priest is not a scientist, but Alain de Botton, the pop philosopher and author of Religion for Atheists (just £8.99 on Amazon, thanks very much). De Botton says that religions are “too intermittently useful, effective and intelligent to be abandoned to the religious alone”.
He intends to “steal”– he puts the word in inverted commas – some of the most useful parts of religion and deploy them in the service of secular Humanism. Instead of priests, he wants better therapists. Instead of Scripture, he wants high-brow literature. Instead of churches, he wants museums to be places of “consolation, meaning and redemption”. In short, he wants to re-invent culture as religion. Well, good luck with that, Alain.
A number of other prominent atheists are talking about the need for a less strident secularism. Douglas Murray, the conservative intellectual, admits that life without religion can be hollow and that secularism is “faint on human suffering”.“Just because something is not literally true does not mean that there is no truth, or worth, in it,” he says. Murray is inspired by Richard Holloway, the former Anglican Bishop of Edinburgh who these days prides himself on being post-faith. Holloway says he doesn’t believe in Christianity any more, but he still “wants to have it around”.
The New Atheism of the 2000s was caused in part by a secular exasperation at organised religion’s stubborn refusal to disappear from public life. But the newer atheism sees that anger is not an attractive position in the long run – especially not if it’s coming from people who say they cherish rationality above all else. The New New Atheists are nothing if not reasonable. Attacking religion for its own sake just seems petty to them. Fashionable feminist writers such as Tanya Gold and Zoe Williams are not interesting in picking on the devout old ladies who set up soup kitchens. That would be self-defeating. They would much rather keep their powder dry for the bigger fight against the dreaded Religious Right – which means any Christian who doesn’t fully support them on gay marriage, gay adoption, abortion, condoms, hating Tories, the whole Left-liberal shebang.
Lincoln

United States

#975 May 16, 2013
In one sense, then, the newer atheism is just a more targeted sneering – at those whose faith is uncompromising, like Catholics, for instance, or Evangelicals, or indeed Richard Dawkins. But something deeper is happening here, too. We might even be witnessing the beginnings of a reformation in the post-Christian world. Dawkins and co are the puritanical iconoclasts. The newcomers are more agnostic, even if many of them would be loath to admit it. They are moving away from unbelief and grasping through the medium of doubt for something more profound.
In this respect, the New New Atheism bears more than a passing resemblance to a certain sort of liberal Anglicanism. Both place a very English stress on good manners and fair-mindedness. Both accept the limits of human understanding. Both emphasise the social importance of shared values and ritual. Both appreciate The Selfish Gene and like to cast doubts on the literal veracity of the gospels. Both are deeply suspicious of firm beliefs and religious zeal. Just as the Church of England has been described as “the religion at the end of religion”, the Church of de Botton might be called “the atheism at the end of atheism”. Between them, there is plenty of room or what we might call inter-belief system dialogue.
And for certain type of godless metropolitan trendy, genteel Anglicanism, with its tea drinking and nice vicars, has a certain ironic retro appeal.
At first, Catholics and Evangelicals will welcome the shift away from outright antagonism and towards nuance. It makes for a more polite conversation. It restores our faith in human decency. But at least with Richard Dawkins, we knew where we stood.
There’s something quite patronising about the newer atheists’ attitude to faith:“Of course we are not so stupid as to believe any of it, but that doesn’t meant it isn’t jolly interesting and even handy in the fight against Right-wing individualism.” That’s not just patronising, it might be more destructive. Dawkins and Hitchens may have set out to finish off religion, but actually they saved several Christian publishers as religiously inclined readers ran to bookshops to arm their minds with good arguments. Still today there seems to be a cottage industry for anti-Dawkins literature.
But the New New Atheists are encroaching on the same intellectual territory, and by adopting the philosophical centre ground – the moderate middle between belief and unbelief – they may well prove more successful than their predecessors at pushing authentic religion towards the margins. Give me old-fashioned bile any day. Come back, Professor Dawkins, all is forgiven.
Freddy Gray is assistant editor of The Spectator
This article first appeared in the print edition of The Catholic Herald dated 26/4/13

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 12 min Eagle 12 230,089
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Chiclets 1,058
Islam for peace, or violence? 2 hr JIN 51
Man center of the universe. 4 hr hpcaban 88
Does Being 'Spiritual But Not Religious' Really... 4 hr hpcaban 4
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr Chiclets 22,996
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 5 hr Pahu 1,402

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE