Self-important atheism evangelist (and noted douchebag) Richard Dawkins believes he’s come up with a brilliant argument in favor of abortion: Morally speaking, human fetuses are actually less human than pigs.
"Human" features relevant to the morality of abortion include ability to feel pain, fear etc & to be mourned by others
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
"I dare you to say that to a broken hearted woman who has miscarried." She would not have an abortion anyway, so irrelevant.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
Yes, anything can be mourned. If you are going to mourn your fetus, you are free to not have an abortion
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
Of course potential to be human is among fetus' qualities. But my pig comparison was careful to specify "relevant to morality of abortion."
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
"Genetically a fetus is more human." Yes. Another reason my pig comparison was careful to specify "relevant to morality of abortion."
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
My criterion for "relevant to morality of abortion" is standard consequentialist morality. Opponents follow absolutist morality. Simple.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
"Parent might mourn daughter's fetus, even if she herself doesn't — relevant to the morality?" Yes, but daughter paramount. It's her body.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
Recommended
"Right but that doesnt mean fetus gets zero weight." I never said it did. I said less weight than a pig. I hope that is not zero?
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
C’mon, pay attention. Dawkins isn’t saying the life of a human fetus is totally disposable. Just less worthy than a pig.
The most important moral question in abortion debate is "Can it feel pain?" Late abortuses may, but you don't have to be human to feel pain
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
Unlike many pro-choice friends, I think fetal pain could outweigh woman's right to control her own body. But pig pain matters too.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
Over 55 million human lives have been ended by abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. But, asks Dawkins, won’t somebody think of the pigs?
Everything I've said in this argument assumes consequentialist moral philosophy. If you're an absolutist you obviously won't agree. Simple.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
Woman's rights over her own body are extremely important. So is pain. At what age can fetus feel pain? Can pig feel more?
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
@siriainjohnson It would make all the difference.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
2 kinds of absolutist: abortion is just wrong; woman has absolute right over own body. I think woman's right important, but pain matters too
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
How noble, while comparing human life to swine.
Pig doesn't have human DNA, human potential or human IQ. It probably does have human capacity to feel pain. Aborted fetus probably doesn't
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
Always the sign of an honest debate? Suggesting pigs have the human capacity to feel pain.
My hair and fingernails are human but don't feel pain when I cut them. Embryo before brain develops doesn't feel pain. Late fetus? Pig?
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
In the tweets following my pig / abortion opener, I'm depressed by how many people jump clean over logic straight to gut emotion.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 13, 2013
Poor baby. We’d liken Dawkins to “an adult pig” (metaphorically, natch), but that really wouldn’t be fair to the pig.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member