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

#1057 May 17, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Was this teaching position before, after, or during his prison term?
I'd say none of the above. Don't believe it really existed.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1058 May 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You still did not answer.
You simply made the assertion "he pays".
Your argument is further incoherent. On one hand, you claim the decision is the woman's, and she can relieve herself of such a burden, and it is her right.
On the other hand, you claim the man is obligated because she has to bear that burden.
Which is it?
Is it HER choice? Or, is she required to bear it?
No? Then why is the man?
Child support is the statutory right of a child. Note that BOTH parents pay it, as dictated by the state (which supposed to relieve the state from having to do so, and would, if it weren't for so many dead beat parents), and it doesn't begin until there IS a child to support, after birth.

No man has any legal obligation to pay for prenatal care or delivery. Nor does one run the risk of possible damage to their health or life. Only the woman does. Since that is the case, the woman is the only one who can decide if she will continue to do so.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1059 May 17, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is her choice....and he pays.
But don't worry MANY of your brothers don't pay....even when they leave a marriage and leave the kids behind. Apparently these men decide later they don't want children.
Now what?
You obviously can't answer.

Any man that left you would be willing to pay, and he would think it was damn well worth it.
Lincoln

United States

#1060 May 17, 2013
“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1061 May 17, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never heard one say that, and I've had three pregnancies, three different OBs. I also work with OBs and midwives. Believe it or not, unless they can tell they have someone who will freak out over the proper terms, they tend to use them.
Yes, a pregnancy is a condition. Feel free to look it up in this wonderful new invention called a dictionary.
"no fuss, no muss", huh? Obviously you've never spoken to a woman who has given birth.
"Tell me. Is there anything else, anything else at all, that "ends" when a "pregnancy" is ended?"
What are you babbling about?
I have only had one pregnancy.

My pregnancy is 17 and being recruited by every NCAA division I school in the south. He's 7'1, 270, and has a 4.0 average. My mom and dad had 2 pregnancies. My little brother is no longer with us. That pregnancy was terminated due to an unfortunate event.

Buck: "Tell me. Is there anything else, anything else at all, that "ends" when a "pregnancy" is ended?"

Bitchner: "What are you babbling about?"

...That says it all.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#1062 May 17, 2013
So you jump from the fetus should have the right to force her to carry the pregnancy out to the man should be able to force her to abort it?

Wow fatass you are all over the place here.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>You still did not answer.

You simply made the assertion "he pays".

Your argument is further incoherent. On one hand, you claim the decision is the woman's, and she can relieve herself of such a burden, and it is her right.

On the other hand, you claim the man is obligated because she has to bear that burden.

Which is it?

Is it HER choice? Or, is she required to bear it?

No? Then why is the man?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1063 May 17, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Child support is the statutory right of a child. Note that BOTH parents pay it, as dictated by the state (which supposed to relieve the state from having to do so, and would, if it weren't for so many dead beat parents), and it doesn't begin until there IS a child to support, after birth.
No man has any legal obligation to pay for prenatal care or delivery. Nor does one run the risk of possible damage to their health or life. Only the woman does. Since that is the case, the woman is the only one who can decide if she will continue to do so.
That doesn't answer the question.

The woman is the only one who can decide whether to incur the expenses related to carrying a "pregnancy" to term.

Why is a man obligated financially for the result of a decision only she is allowed to make?

The woman is not obligated by the act of becoming pregnant, as she still has "choice" in whether to incur the later expenses.

Why, then, is the man obligated by the act, when she is not?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#1064 May 17, 2013
Bwahahahahahahahahhahahaha!!!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahaha!!!

Lmfao!

Lol!

Hahahhaha!

Oh fatass you and your tall tales!
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>I have only had one pregnancy.

My pregnancy is 17 and being recruited by every NCAA division I school in the south. He's 7'1, 270, and has a 4.0 average. My mom and dad had 2 pregnancies. My little brother is no longer with us. That pregnancy was terminated due to an unfortunate event.

Buck: "Tell me. Is there anything else, anything else at all, that "ends" when a "pregnancy" is ended?"

Bitchner: "What are you babbling about?"

...That says it all.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1065 May 17, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never heard one say that, and I've had three pregnancies, three different OBs. I also work with OBs and midwives. Believe it or not, unless they can tell they have someone who will freak out over the proper terms, they tend to use them.
Yes, a pregnancy is a condition. Feel free to look it up in this wonderful new invention called a dictionary.
"no fuss, no muss", huh? Obviously you've never spoken to a woman who has given birth.
"Tell me. Is there anything else, anything else at all, that "ends" when a "pregnancy" is ended?"
What are you babbling about?
You have never heard an OB refer to what a woman is carrying in her womb as a baby?

I don't believe you.

"American Hospital Association's "Patient's Bill of Rights," the Pregnant Patient, because she represents TWO patients rather than one, should be recognized as having the additional rights listed below:"

"3. The Pregnant Patient has the right, prior to the administration of any drug, to be informed by the health professional who is prescribing or administering the drug to her that any drug which she receives during pregnancy, labor and birth, no matter how or when the drug is taken or administered, may adversely affect her unborn baby, directly or indirectly, and that there is no drug or chemical which has been proven safe for the unborn child."

The American Hospital Association says there are 2 patients.

Their Bill of Rights says "unborn baby".

And they say that because of this, she has to be informed of additional rights, as compared to a woman having, say, an appendectomy.

Tell me, Bitchner...

How can a "pregnancy" be a "patient"?

I'm pretty sure a case of mumps cannot be a patient.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1066 May 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I have only had one pregnancy.
My pregnancy is 17 and being recruited by every NCAA division I school in the south. He's 7'1, 270, and has a 4.0 average. My mom and dad had 2 pregnancies. My little brother is no longer with us. That pregnancy was terminated due to an unfortunate event.
Buck: "Tell me. Is there anything else, anything else at all, that "ends" when a "pregnancy" is ended?"
Bitchner: "What are you babbling about?"
...That says it all.
You've never been pregnant, Liar. Only women have pregnancies.

Oh, were you talking about abortion? Why the fnck didn't you say so? Pregnancy ALSO ends at delivery, you Moron, so your question made no sense.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1067 May 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't answer the question.
The woman is the only one who can decide whether to incur the expenses related to carrying a "pregnancy" to term.
Why is a man obligated financially for the result of a decision only she is allowed to make?
The woman is not obligated by the act of becoming pregnant, as she still has "choice" in whether to incur the later expenses.
Why, then, is the man obligated by the act, when she is not?
It did answer the question. You just didn't like the answer. Because the states have determined that the support of both parents is the right of every child, that's why they are BOTH obligated financially. Likely, so that the state doesn't have to pay out as much in welfare. Something you'd be glad for if you actually paid taxes, like I do, instead of living off them institutionally, Felon.

And I do believe that a man can voluntarily give up his parental rights in many areas, and NOT be financially obligated to the child.

If the man doesn't want to be obligated, he can put on a condom. Since the woman is the only one who can gestate, is the only one who faces possible damage to health/life, and who is the only one legally financially obligated FOR the pregnancy and delivery, SHE is the only one who gets to decide if it will continue or not.

What, you want him to be able to FORCE an abortion just because he doesn't want to pay child support?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1068 May 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You have never heard an OB refer to what a woman is carrying in her womb as a baby?
I don't believe you.
"American Hospital Association's "Patient's Bill of Rights," the Pregnant Patient, because she represents TWO patients rather than one, should be recognized as having the additional rights listed below:"
"3. The Pregnant Patient has the right, prior to the administration of any drug, to be informed by the health professional who is prescribing or administering the drug to her that any drug which she receives during pregnancy, labor and birth, no matter how or when the drug is taken or administered, may adversely affect her unborn baby, directly or indirectly, and that there is no drug or chemical which has been proven safe for the unborn child."
The American Hospital Association says there are 2 patients.
Their Bill of Rights says "unborn baby".
And they say that because of this, she has to be informed of additional rights, as compared to a woman having, say, an appendectomy.
Tell me, Bitchner...
How can a "pregnancy" be a "patient"?
I'm pretty sure a case of mumps cannot be a patient.
I couldn't care less that you don't believe me. It's a fact.

More unattributted quotes, huh? Medical CYA is what it is. Thank you, HIIPA.....not.

I never said a pregnancy is a patient, Strawman.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1069 May 17, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You've never been pregnant, Liar. Only women have pregnancies.
Oh, were you talking about abortion? Why the fnck didn't you say so? Pregnancy ALSO ends at delivery, you Moron, so your question made no sense.
But if it's only a pregnancy, then I had one, because he's still out there.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1070 May 17, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You've never been pregnant, Liar. Only women have pregnancies.
Oh, were you talking about abortion? Why the fnck didn't you say so? Pregnancy ALSO ends at delivery, you Moron, so your question made no sense.
No. The question is valid either way.

A pregnancy ends. Is that all that ends?

Whether aborted or born, the question can be answered.

That is, if you were smart.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1071 May 17, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
It did answer the question. You just didn't like the answer. Because the states have determined that the support of both parents is the right of every child, that's why they are BOTH obligated financially. Likely, so that the state doesn't have to pay out as much in welfare. Something you'd be glad for if you actually paid taxes, like I do, instead of living off them institutionally, Felon.
And I do believe that a man can voluntarily give up his parental rights in many areas, and NOT be financially obligated to the child.
If the man doesn't want to be obligated, he can put on a condom. Since the woman is the only one who can gestate, is the only one who faces possible damage to health/life, and who is the only one legally financially obligated FOR the pregnancy and delivery, SHE is the only one who gets to decide if it will continue or not.
What, you want him to be able to FORCE an abortion just because he doesn't want to pay child support?
I know what the law says.

I'm asking you to rationalize it.

You cannot.

The man is no more obligated to wear a condom than the woman is to wear or swallow something. Both knowingly participate in a potential impregnating act.

So the question remains. The woman can choose to carry or not to carry. It is her choice - personally, and the man has no say.

How is it justifiable for him to be obligated by her personal choice?

Both made the initial choice to copulate. Why is he obligated to be encumbered by the result of that copulation, a baby, when she is not?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#1072 May 17, 2013
You know Jeff Chase picture thief before you said in your lies that you had 2 kids remember? Now you just have one?

Did you get hungry and eat the other one or are you just having trouble keeping up with your lies?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>But if it's only a pregnancy, then I had one, because he's still out there.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1073 May 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
But if it's only a pregnancy, then I had one, because he's still out there.
A pregnancy ends with delivery.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1074 May 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The question is valid either way.
A pregnancy ends. Is that all that ends?
Whether aborted or born, the question can be answered.
That is, if you were smart.
I am smart. Smarter than you. You're just wrong. What ends at delivery but the pregnancy?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1075 May 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"I know what the law says."

Then why ask?

"I'm asking you to rationalize it."

I'm not obligated to rationalize it. It's the law. It's not my personal responsibility.

"You cannot."

Ask your state to rationalize it. Again, I have no obligation, or desire, to do so. You asked why, I told you the reason. Deal with it.

"The man is no more obligated to wear a condom than the woman is to wear or swallow something. Both knowingly participate in a potential impregnating act."

Yes, but the woman has one more option than the non-pregnant person does. The woman is the only one who gets pregnant. If you don't like that biological inequity, take it up with the Designer of your choice.

"So the question remains. The woman can choose to carry or not to carry. It is her choice - personally, and the man has no say.
How is it justifiable for him to be obligated by her personal choice?"

I explained why he is obligated already. The state says so. Unless he abrogates his parental rights. You ignoring the answer only to ask the question again and again, is making you look foolish.

"Both made the initial choice to copulate. Why is he obligated to be encumbered by the result of that copulation, a baby, when she is not?"

She is, if she gives birth. Again, since you seem so slow on the uptake, BOTH parents pay child support. Both.

You're really not very bright, Drunk.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1076 May 17, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You know Jeff Chase picture thief before you said in your lies that you had 2 kids remember? Now you just have one?
Did you get hungry and eat the other one or are you just having trouble keeping up with your lies?
<quoted text>
He's obviously a pathological liar.

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) 2 min Eagle 12 15,740
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 34 min DanFromSmithville 40,224
A Universe from Nothing? 35 min Eagle 12 22
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Eagle 12 255,899
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 hr Abe 20,578
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 5 hr IB DaMann 180
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 13 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 4,624
More from around the web