Posted on 03/16/2013 3:59:36 AM PDT by IbJensen
March 15, 2013 (LiveActionNews.org) - 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.
Now, when Dawkins typed “any fetus,” he did not mean it. He was not thinking of dolphin fetuses or dog fetuses. What he really meant to say was this:
With respect to those meanings of “human” that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any human fetus is less human than an adult pig.
Of course, this is manifest nonsense. A human fetus is a human. A pig is not a human.
In the English language, the word “human” is a scientific term designating the species Homo sapiens. A human fetus is a member of the species Homo sapiens. A pig is not. Perhaps Dawkins has some private definition for the word “human,” but I am not privy to such information. Therefore, unless he reveals his secret dialect, I will have to assume he is merely speaking English – and thus speaking nonsense.
In further tweets, he tried to explain what he really meant:
“Human” features relevant to the morality of abortion include ability to feel pain…
The most important moral question in abortion debate is “Can it feel pain?”
Now, why would Dawkins identify the ability to feel pain as a “human” feature? The ability to feel pain is hardly unique to the species Homo sapiens.
Nevertheless, his view is clear: the morality of abortion is dependent upon the ability of the fetus to feel pain. This really is a strange argument. Is Dawkins suggesting that if one were to give a newborn baby anesthetics, thus removing her ability to feel pain, infanticide would be morally acceptable?
Ironically, Dawkins goes on to complain:
In the tweets following my pig / abortion opener, I’m depressed by how many people jump clean over logic straight to gut emotion.
But this is precisely what Dawkins has done in identifying pain as the “most important question in the abortion debate”! The pain experienced by the victim rightly tugs at our heartstrings, but surely on any logical analysis, the murder of a conscious pig is less problematic than the murder of a sleeping human.
Furthermore, in many late-term abortions, the fetus does of course feel tremendous pain! Dawkins recognizes this:
Woman’s rights over her own body are extremely important. So is pain.
Unlike many pro-choice friends, I think fetal pain could outweigh woman’s right to control her own body.
So there you have it. The great champion of pop atheism is now publicly against late-term abortions. This puts him at odds with the pro-choice movement in general and the Obama administration in particular.
Unfortunately, Dr. Dawkins does not yet seem to realize his own pro-life leanings. He concluded his series of tweets with this confused message:
Bizarre responses to my tweets today. I clearly expressed my strong pro-abortion views & many people decided that I must be anti-abortion!
So it would seem that Dawkins is still rather deluded when it comes to the issue of abortion.
He sides with the flawed and phony philosopher, Peter Singer. Singer, an animal lover, claims that because human reason doesn't begin until about the age 6 or 7, that a child is not a human person. He made this argument to protect animals from slaughter, as they had no reasoning intellect. He believed that if we can kill pigs, then we can kill children before the age of 6.
The atheists have become tired of being ignored and are becoming more militant and they see the trouble that the militant homosexuals and their sycophants (chief sycophant being the phony, unqualified marxist president) are causing.
Amazing, rejecting science for a moral argument, when he claims to have based all on science. Same twisting of logic for homosexual marriage supporters.
Had Dawkins mother know her childs disabiliteys she would have aborted him.
How human is Dawkins vis-a-vis an adult pig and of what greater utility is he, in his own estimation?
I guess Dawkins is the practitioner of some weird, Eastern religion? One that doesn’t believe in concepts like DNA?
The religion of Darwinism teaches the belief that pigs and humans are relatives which share a common ancestor.
There is no religion of Darwinism. Your statement is ludicrous.
Darwinism is a religious belief that cannot be proved scientifically. Dawkins thinks that because human fetuses look kind of like pig fetuses, that proves that humans are related to pigs. It’s a primitive and fanatical belief system which does not tolerate any criticism of its dogma.
Is an adult dog or an adult pig more human?
Obvious to me that folks like Dawkins don’t feel pain ~
Alexander Tsiaras vs. Richard Dawkins. Who's the dumb one?
Dawkins aside, your Darwin statement is absolute balderdash. Drivelous nonsense
So a baby being carried by a black woman is less human than a pig, Richard?
That was so cool!
A basic course in Aristotelian logic wouldn't hurt.
I am not familiar with Dawkins, or what he is alledged to be a doctor of.
I have a problem with so many people actually listening to the ramblings of a fool.
This man obviously has the intelligence of a Oragutan, and probably the good looks.
Dawkins is evil. It is not enough for him to believe what he wants to believe, he has to be a rude, mean, bully to everyone else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.