Professional atheist Richard Dawkins says adult pigs are more human that human fetuses

Richard Dawkins

Sometimes it seems that the primary requirement for being a professional atheist is stupidity. How else can one explain why professional atheist (and evolutionary biologist) Richard Dawkins decided to announce on twitter that a human fetus is less “human” than a grown pig. Even if he believes this bit of foolishness, does he really think it will advance his crusade to destroy religion?

On Wednesday, Dawkins decided to insert himself into the abortion debate typically incendiary comment:

Richard Dawkins pig fetus tweet 1

With respect to those meanings of ‘human’ that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig,

As was to be expected, his tweet drew praise from those who support abortion and condemnation from those who believe in the sanctity of human life.

Excited by the attention he was receiving, Dawkins hurried to put out another offensive tweet:

Dawkins pig fetus tweet 2

”Human” features relevant to the morality of abortion include ability to feel pain, fear etc & to be mourned by others.

Showing that, to him, physical pain is the only determinative factor in weighing life, Dawkins appeared to try next to placate pro-Choice people:

Unlike many pro-choice friends, I think fetal pain could outweigh woman’s right to control her own body. But pig pain matters too.

Proving that he’s not as smart as he thinks he is, Dawkins later admitted that he meant to write “pro-abortion friends.” Unaware that he had made this mistake in his tweet, he was mystified by the venomous responses he received from the pro-choice crowd:

Bizarre responses to my tweets today. I clearly expressed my strong pro-abortion views & many people decided that I must be anti-abortion!

By reducing the value of life to mere physical sensation, Dawkins revealed his fundamental misunderstanding of what makes humans special. To throw a fancy word in the debate (one that he may or may not understand) the issue is “existentialism.” Humans are more than just a collection of feelings and instincts. We are aware of our existence.

Even the smartest cow does not stand in the field while chewing its cud and ask itself “Why am I here? What is my purpose in life? What do I want to accomplish before I die?” And contrary to Charlotte’s Web, the pig, rolling and rooting in the mud, is not concerned with the quality of its life, the meaning of its friendships, and the imminence of its death. Each animal, instead, responds to the emotions a specific situation arouses in it (comfort, fear, anger, happiness), and to its driving instinctive behaviors.


So far as we know, only humans are capable of asking existential questions, questions that try to place the meaning of life, not in mere physical sensation, but within a larger, abstract context. While it’s true that the fetus is not thinking these deep thoughts, it already has all of the genetic equipment in place to be capable of thinking that way. Nothing in a pig’s development, whether it is a fetal pig or Dawkin’s robust adult pig, will ever bring it to that level of intellectual and philosophical development.

There are many credible arguments that can be made on the subject of abortion, both pro and con. When it comes to the question of intelligent debate about a thorny issue, though, professional atheist Richard Dawkins has proven that he’s not in that league.

(Written by Bookworm; first published at Mr. Conservative.)

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Freddie Sykes

    The late, great Ricardo Montalban was once asked his thoughts on abortion. He said that if his mother has aborted him, he would never have existed. Ricardo evolved a great deal from when he was less than a pig in his mother’s womb. Pigs, if they could talk, could not make the same claim.

  • Ron19

    Obviously, the biologist Dr. Richard Dawkins does not beleive in DNA, except when abortion is not under discussion.
    File this under “A pig’s right to choose.”

  • Oldflyer

    Every time I hear something like this I think of my twin grandchildren who were born two months early.  At one moment they were simply lumps of fetal matter, the next they were living human beings. Really?  Now sixteen years afterward they both are scholar athletes and the joy of all  who know them.  How can this be?  Were they really candidates for abortion in the moments before their birth simply, because the calendar had not turned over?  At what point in those last two months might they have migrated from a choice to a viable human?
    The girl just donated bone marrow to her older sister with leukemia, the boy was the back up donor.  What if someone had decided that they might not be viable at seven months,  or that the two months they would spend in post-natal ICU was too expensive?
    If Dawkins can explain all of this in terms of that make sense to a thinking human being, I am listening.

  • Earl

    When was the last time you mourned a pig, Mr. Dawkins?

  • Charles Martel

    I was incensed when I first learned that Warner Brothers had decided to name the pig it had under contract for cartoon appearances “Porky.” It was an insulting, demeaning name.
    However, I later learned that the studio had given the pig a speech therapist and had called in a short-order tailor to fashion pants for him. Only humans would think to do such things for an ambulatory chop.

  • Mike Devx

    Such a strange comment, coming from a so-called scientist such as Mr. Dawkins.  I’ve read a Dawkins book, several years ago.  The man knows about DNA.  I bet if pressed for an explanation, he would say that he meant a blastula or undeveloped fetus, and the differentiation of cells into organs such that eyes, ears, mouth, digestive tract, etc, etc, are all present.
    But what his statement represents to me is a profound hostility toward the value of human life itself.  The manner in which you discuss an issue reveals a lot about you.  Dr. Dawkins has revealed a lot about himself with his choice of analogy.  It ain’t pretty at all.

  • raymondjelli

    An utterly insensible idea by Dawkins who is not stupid (at least in the academic sense).  The mother truly cares about that mass of cells and abortions can be quite emotionally traumatic. By Dawkins own logic the fact that the mother takes care of herself during pregnancy and identifies with the baby to come (for more so than she identifies with a pig on a farm) should tell Dawkins there is something more there than a collection of cells.  We all do know his reply would be that is either instinct or illogical. “Logic” being the fallback position for atheists.

  • Ymarsakar

    Dawkins wouldn’t be in the situation he is if his profit/science didn’t come from abortion sources.
    Dawkins has reached the same conclusion as Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret genocide Sanger. The professor’s “evolutionary biology” leads to his intellectual conclusions.
    When people come to believe that this is so, his views will be received in a very different light than it is today. Currently, all too many are busy considering Dawkins’ personal credentials and intellect as if it mattered.
    So long as people believe someone has authority, power, or resources of an intellectual nature, they will continue to be led to oblivion as lemmings by the Pied Pipers of the world. Until they realize the true source of things, people will continue to be mystified why such authorities and intellectual giants think so.