You know you've gone too far left when Richard Dawkins says you crossed a line.
Atheist blogger Pharyngula wrote about abortion that he wouldn't be pro-life, even if babies were composing poetry in the womb.
We can make all the philosophical and scientific arguments that anyone might want, but ultimately what it all reduces to is a simple question: do women have autonomous control of their bodies or not? Even if I thought embryos were conscious, aware beings writing poetry in the womb (I don’t, and they’re not), I’d have to bow out of any say in the decision the woman bearing responsibility has to make.Even atheist Richard Dawkins balked.
Blogger said woman's rights over own body extend to abortion even if fetus conscious & writing poetry in womb. I profoundly disagree. 1/2— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) August 23, 2014
That really would be murder most foul. I'm pro-choice precisely because (to the extent that) the fetus has no brain to be conscious with.— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) August 23, 2014
In Pharyngula's philosophy, anyone dependent on another is a fine candidate for death. Nice worldview dude. But really, Dawkins is hard to pin down. I see a running conversation on his Twitter page about the argument that there was no "first man" because it was such a gradual thing that it's impossible to pin down when the first human came to be. Well, in the atheistic worldview, it's impossible to know when a human becomes a human being worthy of legal protection because it's a sliding scale of sentience.
The only logical argument to me is to embrace science and accept human beings are actually human beings at conception.
And yet, why should I expect more when Dawkins retweets things like this:
Because aggressively atheist countries in recent history such as China, Vietnam, North Korea, and the USSR treated their citizens soooooo well.