Richard Dawkins - On Abortion, Tadpoles, Rape, Cows, Murder and Sheep

Richard Dawkins deals with the issue of abortion in a manner that is sadly indicative of the way in which he deals with every subject. He does not tackle the issue in and of itself but merely dispatches his straw man version of the issue. Rather than covering this sensitive and complicated issue he narrowly concocts his own particular, and peculiar, definitions and then discredits what are merely his own caricatures. In fact, he does not define what an abortion is-what it means to "get an abortion" and what the various procedures actually are.

Richard Dawkins also makes so may references to "Christians" who murder doctors who perform abortions that if one did not know the fact of the matter, which we elucidate below, one would be tempted to believe him i.e., that these occurrences are legion.

We now come to the common everyday phenomena of American Christians murdering "doctors" who perform abortions. At least that seemed to be what Richard Dawkins was implying but it is difficult to discern since he did not bother providing any statistics. One can barely keep track of how many times Richard Dawkins equates the murder of abortionists with Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, the perpetrators of the London bombings and all Islamic terrorism. Here is one such example follow:

"In illustration of the dark side of absolutism, I mentioned the Christians in America who blow up abortion clinics, and the Taliban of Afghanistan, whose list of cruelties, especially to women, I find too painful to recount."1

It is fascinating that he cannot bring himself to name Talibani atrocities but he can drown on for page after page after page naming alleged atrocities by Jews and Christians.

Let us consider some statistics that will demonstrate whether such comparisons are valid:
Some atrocities that have made the "Guinness Book of World Records" are as follows:

Bloodiest Modern Battle: 1,109,000 killed in the Battle of Stalingrad, USSR 1942-1943 (with 650,800 wounded soldiers).
Bloodiest War: World War II, 56.4 million deaths including 17.2% of Poland's population, or 6,028,000 people and 26.6 million in the Soviet Union.
Largest Death Toll From Chemical Weapons Attack: 4,000 killed by Saddam Hussein's attack on the Kurdish minority at Halabja, Iraq.
Most Individuals Killed In A Terrorist Act: 2,823 killed on Sep. 11th, 2001 (9-11) at the World Trade Center, New York, USA.

Next, let us consider statistics regarding terrorist bombings in particular: Between January 1968 and July 2007 there were circa 19,683 incidents which resulted in 29,704 deaths.
According to the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) there were circa 14,000 terrorist attacks in 2006, which resulted in more than 20,000 deaths.

More than 42,000,000 (legal) abortions have taken place worldwide from 1973-2002.
In Canada some 2,792,355 (legal) abortions have taken place from 1970-2004.

In the past 30 years in both the USA and Canada there have been a grand total of 7 murders of abortion providers, 41 bombings, 174 arsons.2

To recap:
4,000 lives were taken in a matter of hours in one in Halabja.
2,823 lives were taken in a matter of hours in the USA.
29,704 lives were taken in four decades due to terrorist bombings.
20,000 plus lives were taken in one single year due to terrorism in general.
42,000,000 abortions have taken place in three decades.
7 lives were taken in the past 30 years in separate incidents in both the USA and Canada.

There has not been one single murder of an abortion provider in nearly a decade (9 years at the time of this writing). That makes 0.2 deaths per year, 1.37 bombings per year and 5.8 arsons per year - in two countries in 30 years.

It is interesting to note that Christians who would be first in line to denounce the murder of abortionists, the bombings and arsons. Moreover, Christians would denounce them based on absolute moral standards and not on Richard Dawkins' beloved zeitgeist ("spirit of the age" - a cleaver chap's term for moral relativism).

It is strikingly obvious that Richard Dawkins' many, many mentions of this issue are simply out of proportion by orders of magnitude. This emotionally charged issue ought to be carefully considered, weighed according to statistics and only then criticized according to that with which it is relevant. A careful scholar or fair-minded researcher whose purpose is ascertaining facts and informing his audience of the truth in clear and evenhanded language would present-sadly this is not a description of Richard Dawkins.

Yet, surely Richard Dawkins would point out that his comparisons between the extremely common militant Islamic terrorism and the Christian abortion clinic bombers, or doctor murderers, is not relative to number rates (the statistics that he did not bother providing). Richard Dawkins' stated reason for his voluptuously unbalanced comparison between Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, the perpetrators of the London bombings and all Islamic terrorism is as follows:

"However misguided we may think them, like the Christian murderers of abortion doctors, by what they perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what their religion tells them."3

Yet, even if we grant his simplistic point of view we would be logically forced to ask: why it is that, considering that 42,000,000 abortions have taken place in 30 years worldwide there have only been 7 "doctors" murdered (in both the USA and Canada) in that same span of time? It is very difficult to interpret Richard Dawkins here because he does not come to us with the reputation of being an erudite scholar and elucidator of facts.

On the one hand, one is tempted to give him credit for his qualifying term "perceive", which for one brief moment of clarity would be a valid one. Functioning off of this assumption, we would understand his words as follows: we are clearly not dealing with what Christianity teaches or has ever justly, logically, and biblically taught but are rather dealing with "what they perceive to be righteousness"-their perceptions that were clearly misperceptions.
On the other hand, considering what we can so readily know about Richard Dawkins' lazy scholarship and activism for his worldview it is very likely that what he means by "what they perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what their religion tells them" is "what they perceive to be righteousness" which is precisely and "faithfully pursuing what their religion tells them." In other words, it is likely that Richard Dawkins is claiming that Christianity tells Christians to murder, bomb and arson and therefore this is what those perpetrators perceived to be righteous-merely perceived because all, each, any and every religion is false on the Dawkinsian worldview.

Richard Dawkins appears to have a habit of making ludicrous comparison that are so out of proportion that they do more harm to his reputation as an intellectual than it does to the subject of his comparisons. In my essay Thank God for The Da Vinci Code!!! we comment on the following statement by Richard Dawkins in greater detail:

"In Britain recently our newspapers have shown crowds of fundamentalists (they happen to be Muslim rather than Christian, but in this context the distinction is of no importance) baying for the death of the distinguished novelist Salman Rushdie, displaying his effigy with its eyes put out and publicly burning his books. The truly appalling thing all such people have in common, whether they are incited to murder by ayatollahs or to less violent observances by television evangelists, is that they know, for certain, that their particular brand of revealed truth is absolute and needs no reasoned defense."4

For now let us note how he attempts to lead his readers around so as to make his inflammatory and fallacious points and then quickly retreat only to launch to another point: (1) Never mind thinking logically but rather disregard the distinction between particular Muslim and Christian actions. (2) Muslims had bayed for Rushdie's death and mutilated his effigy and burned his books. (3) Christians are surely the same since "all such people" (to be read as an expression of pure prejudice) are the same whether they commit murder or other observances. (4) Now that you are emotionally charged here is the point, none of them have reasoned defense. What a fallaciously circuitous way to argue.

Let us compare likewise historical scenarios: Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" and Raymond Brown's novel "The Da Vinci Code." In Rushdie's case a death warrant was issued, a reward offered, riots ensued, books stores were bombed, people were murdered, and Rushdie had to live in seclusion. In Brown's case some Christians picketed his book, he become a millionaire and an instant celebrity.

Yet, surely anyone with biblical knowledge that goes beyond Richard Dawkins' various distortions of it knows that murder, bombings and arson are not part of the Christian message or lifestyle. Should we not then consider the perpetrators to actually have psychotically inspired perceptions of "righteousness" and "what their religion tells them"? Of course, a rational person would quickly come to the conclusion that they are psychotic. But since admitting their psychosis would not allow Richard Dawkins another opportunity for anti-religious belligerence he, in sadly typical form, denies the logical outcome of valid observation and turns again to his favorite subject-besmirching religion:

"They are not psychotic; they are religious idealists who, by their own lights, are rational. They perceive their acts to be good, not because of some warped personal idiosyncrasy, and not because they have been possessed by Satan, but because they have been brought up, from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning faith."5

Apparently, American "Christian" abortion clinic "doctor" murderers are the only ones who actually understand what the New Testament is teaching. The only real problem is that they did not question the accurately taught biblical Christianity. But again, if Richard Dawkins would have bothered providing statistics, and one can only wonder if he has even researched them, he and his audience (some of whom have unquestioning faith in him) would have been forced, by logical conclusion, to conclude that 7 murders in 30 years in two countries is proof enough that the perpetrators are not in any way orthodox Christians.

Incidentally, we ought to note that Richard Dawkins, other New Atheists activists and their adherents utilize a caricature of what it is to have faith in claiming that it is not only blind but unquestionable. Let us offer a handful of examples against Richard Dawkins' and his ilk's particular, and peculiar, personal interpretation of the Bible.
The Bereans are praised because they not only heard the message but conducted research after every teaching:

"the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded [or more noble] than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:10-11).

The Biblical model is precisely how we are to test and judge:

"Test all things; hold fast what is good" (1st Thessalonians 5:19-22).

"Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge" (1st Corinthians 14:29).

"you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars" (Revelation 2:3).

Let us now begin our survey of his comments regarding abortion:

"Human embryos are examples of human life. Therefore, by absolutist religious lights, abortion is simply wrong: full-fledged murder. I am not sure what to make of my admittedly anecdotal observation that many of those who most ardently oppose the taking of embryonic life also seem to be more than usually enthusiastic about taking adult life."6

It should perhaps be noted that if all of Richard Dawkins' anecdotes were removed from his book there would not be enough verbiage left over to compose even a leaflet. It is also noteworthy that Richard Dawkins' acquaintances are an oddly imbalanced bunch. It strikes one as statistically improbable yet, according to the anecdotal examples that he offers: every atheist that Richard Dawkins has met is the very example of erudition while every Christian is a backwards country bumpkin.

From the onset we see that Richard Dawkins is unsure how to define the pro-life movement. That is to say that he is: either ignorant of how pro-lifers define their own position, which is what a critic ought to deal with or he is simply setting up his straw man. The pro-life position is one that specifically involves supporting the life of a human being from conception until birth. It is true that some pro-life groups venture beyond this and provide adoption services or oppose the death penalty but strictly speaking the pro-life movement is about the prevention of abortions. One specific exception would be if the mother's life is in jeopardy in which case not acting but rather watching mother and baby die would be immoral.

Richard Dawkins appears to be of the school of thought that claims that it is hypocritical or contradictory to hold both the pro-life and pro-capital punishment positions (as some pro-lifers hold and some do not). Yet, there is nothing hypocritical or contradictory with this position if, and only if, we employ logic and practice intellectual honesty in defining terminology.

In the cases of abortion and capital punishment we are dealing with vast extremes. One is the execution of adults who have made conscience decisions to carry our criminal acts for which they knew the consequences. These people were assumed innocent until proven guilty, were given their day in court, and were found guilty by a jury of their own peers. The other is the brutal and painful murder of a beautiful, innocent and defenseless human baby (the "painful" issue will be dealt with below).

Now, consider the irrational nature of Richard Dawkins' position: pro-abortionists claim that (some) pro-lifers are hypocritical or contradictory for supporting the death penalty while opposing abortion. But, (some) pro-abortionists oppose the death penalty while they support abortion. While we must allow for certain qualifiers for each individual pro-lifer and pro-abortionist let us lay out the case in this manner: (some) pro-lifers oppose the murder of an innocent baby and support the execution of a guilty adult criminal but (some) pro-abortionists oppose executing a guilty adult criminal but support executing an innocent baby.

Note that we used the term "babies" which is Richard Dawkins' next target:

"There are people who, because of their religious convictions, think abortion is murder and are prepared to kill in defense of embryos, which they choose to call 'babies.'"

Let us, for the moment, set aside his remark about "people who…are prepared to kill." For now let us note that Richard Dawkins bases all of his comments regarding abortion on the extremely narrow definition of abortion as dealing only with a small group of cells. Moreover, he virtually ignores that abortions occur at various stages including "partial birth" which is nothing more than, as we have defined it, the brutal and painful murder of a beautiful, innocent and defenseless human baby. We will see that he compares a human embryo to a tadpole and that the one reference he does make to "late-aborted embryos" is made in order to compare them with "cow or sheep embryos" (perhaps he has been studying Haeckel's drawings). Interestingly enough, according to Dawkinsian-Darwinism even human adults are merely a group of cells, just a larger grouping.

Richard Dawkins draws the following distinction between murdering a baby (a tadpole like embryo) and a "doctor" who makes a living by tearing apart cells, zygotes, embryos, fetuses and yes, fully formed and healthy human babies:

"An early embryo has the sentience, as well as the semblance, of a tadpole. A doctor is a grown-up conscious being with hopes, loves, aspirations, fears, a massive store of humane knowledge, the capacity for deep emotion, very probably a devastated widow and orphaned children, perhaps elderly parents who dote on him."7

As we shall see, the human embryo - tadpole comparison will come back to haunt him.
The reason that an embryo will never have the chance to have a grown-up conscious being with hopes, loves, aspirations, fears, a massive store of humane knowledge and the capacity for deep emotion is that someone has decided to stop the natural process that would bring it to such a state of being. This may be described as an aspect of the "human potential" argument of which Richard Dawkins has quite a bit to state.

Notice his roaring approval of the following "entirely right" conclusion:

"As the Medawars [Paul and Jean] were entirely right to point out, the logical conclusion to the 'human potential' argument is that we potentially deprive a human soul of the gift of existence every time we fail to seize any opportunity for sexual intercourse. Every refusal of any offer of copulation by a fertile individual is, by this dopey 'pro-life' logic, tantamount to the murder of a potential child! Even resisting rape could be represented as murdering a potential baby."8

It would be all too simple to launch into a Richard Dawkins-like emotionally driven rant about how shockingly ignorant and preposterous these statements are. But we would rather continue a logical criticism. It is not merely bothersome that the Medawars could imaging such a thing but we get quite a view into Richard Dawkins' intellectual abilities in his approval.

A "human potential" argument is about the fact that pro-abortion activists dehumanize the cells, zygote, embryo, fetus or baby in the womb in order to create a psychological and emotional band-aid for themselves. Human potential responds to the argument about what pro-abortion proponents say that the cells, zygote, embryo is not: not a human, not a person, not even a baby. The response would be as above; if we grant you that it is not those things yet, it is only because you have acted to prevent the natural process that would have brought them to such a state of being.

But the human potential argument only becomes valid at the moment of conception and not before. Another logically fallacious straw man argument of pro-abortionists is that pro-lifers should also seek to protect sperms and eggs. Yet, pro-life denotes the protection of babies in the womb and a baby is made when the sperm and egg come together and the sperm fertilizes the egg. This is the moment of conception and the moment that marks the beginning of a new life. A sperm left to live out the course of its life on its own will come to nought and likewise with an egg. However, a new human life results when the two come together. Of the millions of sperm within the male only one single one will fertilize the egg and the rest are discarded (each ejaculation expels some 300 to 400 million sperm). The female produces an egg every month so as to be prepared for fertilization. If the egg is not fertilized within a month it is washed away by her menstrual cycle.

French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune has stated:

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence."9

Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and Mayo Clinic physician stated:

"I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life-when life begins-is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception."10

Dr. Micheline Matthew-Roth, a principal research associate at Harvard Medical School's Department of Medicine states:

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of life."11

Therefore, it is none but his sadly common lack of scholarship and logic that could possibly cause Richard Dawkins to claim that we potentially deprive a human soul of the gift of existence every time we fail to seize any and every opportunity for sexual intercourse so that even resisting rape is tantamount to murdering a potential child (exclamation point, mind you). At least we hope that lack of scholarship and logic are the reasons and not malicious attempts to mislead.

With regards to the issue of the pain and suffering of the aborted human being Richard Dawkins makes the following statements:

"Does the embryo suffer? (Presumably not if it is aborted before it has a nervous system; and even if it is old enough to have a nervous system it surely suffers less than, say, an adult cow in a slaughterhouse.)"12
"if late-aborted embryos with nervous systems suffer - though all suffering is deplorable - it is not because they are human that they suffer. There is no general reason to suppose that human embryos at any stage suffer more than cow or sheep embryos at the same developmental stage."13

Note that ultimately the argument for painless abortion is irrelevant. If we were to anesthetize a person's entire body would it then be perfectly acceptable to brutally murder them? Why not? After all, they can feel no pain.

Could any critic better elucidate the inhuman and inhumane nature of Richard Dawkins' worldview? According to his absolutist materialistic Darwinian worldview there is no difference between a human, a tadpole, a cow or a sheep. If human beings complain about the pain and suffering of a human baby they are merely being anthropocentric. Perhaps late-aborted embryos, or undeniably human babies whose skulls are impaled in partial birth abortion, suffer pain and suffering. But so what? So do cows and sheep. It is an exercise in pure irrationality, immorality, delusion and insanity to even begin to attempt to conceive how a person who somehow manages to function in the day to day world could possibly formulate such barbarism. It is still more frightening that a person who is so inhumane can be praised and make a living by putting forth such ideas. We may recommend viewing the ultrasound video of an abortion 11 weeks after conception, a video known as the Silent Scream.

Granted, Richard Dawkins, in his typical narrow and lazy style, does not bother commenting on the physical and emotional damage suffered by women who abort their babies. Can you imagine if a woman who had an abortion was grieving her decision, perhaps even regretting her decisions? What would Richard Dawkins say to her? "Look babe, cows and sheep feel pain and are killed all the time so get over it." Or perhaps more accurate to his worldview and belligerent style he may say, "My poor little ignoramus it is only a byproduct of your religious upbringing and or cultural overtones that make you mourn your tadpole like bunch of cells. Darwin has freed us from such emotional ties to our own flesh and blood. Cows and sheep suffer too you know, stop being so selfish."

Richard Dawkins' inhumanity does not stop here. In referring to a "bizarre story" he actually takes the time to ridicule Christians who have such a high view and love of humanity that they got involved in an organization called "Snowflakes." This organization "seeks to 'rescue' surplus embryos left over at IVF [in vitro fertilization] clinics." Richard Dawkins mocks them thusly, "I wonder what these people would say if they know that the majority of conceived embryos spontaneously abort anyway."14 Note that he simply assumes that they must be ignorant and if they only knew what he knows they, like him, would not waste one single pence nor one single second bothering about human embryos. According to Richard Dawkins and his allegedly enlightened, scientifically advanced worldview human embryos are nothing but refuse, mere bio-trash, nothing but byproducts of copulation fit to be sucked into a sink or thrown into a dumpster like so much garbage. He appears incapable of even imagining what it is like to hold to a worldview in which life is so precious. This is, after all the same man who believes that altruism such as his specific reference to adopting children "misfirings, Darwinian mistakes."15 Is it really so difficult to understand? Spontaneously aborted embryos are dead while cryogenically frozen embryos are in suspended animation and, given the chance, can grow into beautiful children.

Richard Dawkins most certainly demonstrated more concern for animals than for human embryos, in this case because it gives him a reason to, yet again, besmirch religion:

"there is every reason to suppose that all embryos, whether human or not, suffer far less than adult cows of sheep in a slaughterhouse, especially a ritual slaughterhouse where, for religious reasons, they must be fully conscious when their throats are ceremonially cut."16

Is Richard Dawkins a vegan vegetarian and animal activist? Does he even understand why their throats are cut? Following strict kosher laws Rabbis have always slaughtered animals by a quick slice across the neck with a very sharp knife. This is a very quick and painless practice. Richard Dawkins would first besmirch the Rabbis for being religious and he would then besmirch them for their religious rules for slaughtering animals. Yet, these Rabbis believe that it would be an offense to God, yes, to God Himself, if they caused the animals any pain at all. Yet, surely, Richard Dawkins would besmirch them for believing that as well. One simply cannot win when arguing against a person who is not interested in fact and logic but is, along with the other New Atheists, engaged in some sort of twisted contest to see who can be the most voluptuously belligerent.

Richard Dawkins further discredits himself, and reveals astonishing levels of caricaturing, in the following statement:

"Notice now that 'pro-life' doesn't exactly mean pro-life at all. It means pro-human-life. The granting of uniquely special right to cells of the species Homo sapiens is hard to reconcile with the fact of evolution. Admittedly, this will not worry those many anti-abortions who don't understand that evolution is a fact! But let me briefly spell out the argument for the benefit of anti-abortion activists who may be less ignorant of science."17

With regards to the issue of those who simply do not understand that evolution is a fact please see our essay Do You Believe in Evolution?. Richard Dawkins finds a new reason to besmirch his pro-life straw man. Recall that the pro-life movement's self definition is to protect human life in the womb. But Richard Dawkins considers this definition too myopic or rather too anthropocentric. Now is when the human embryo - tadpole comparison come back to haunt him.

He had previously argued that abortion is perfectly acceptable but murdering the "doctors" who perform them is not. His reasons were that an early human embryo has the sentience, as well as the semblance, of a tadpole but a "doctor" has his cognitive and emotional faculties about him, has a family, etc. Yet, now we learn that granting uniquely special right to cells of the species Homo sapiens is hard to reconcile with the fact of evolution. Elsewhere, Richard Dawkins wrote:

"Should we value human life above all other life? Is there a rigid wall to be built around the species Homo sapiens…When, in our evolutionary descent from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, did the fence suddenly rear itself up?"18

Therefore, murdering a human embryo, a human adult or a tadpole is on an equal moral footing. Yes, when indeed was such a moral fence erected? As we pointed out in my essay Morality's Reality Charles Darwin wrote, "In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term 'man' ought to be used" and Richard Dawkins has written, "We are not, then, merely like apes or descended from apes; we are apes."

Note the following question from "Skeptic" magazine's Frank Miele and Richard Dawkins' answer:

"Skeptic: But couldn't the Pope (or Evangelical Protestants for that matter), reply, 'Look, we just have a terrific meme. It's winning what you would describe as a Darwinian battle and you're angry because you just don't like it.'
Dawkins: Religion is a terrific meme. That's right. But that doesn't make it true and I care about what's true. Smallpox virus is a terrific virus. It does its job magnificently well. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see it stamped out."19

Richard Dawkins' answer is anthropocentric. Just who is he to decide between human life and the life of the smallpox virus?

Richard Dawkins' distinction between murdering a human embryo and a "doctor" is discredited by his own worldview. Is it any wonder that elsewhere Richard Dawkins wrote:

"As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs."20

He has moreover stated:

"how do I react to the idea of being a vehicle for DNA? It doesn't sound very romantic, does it? It doesn't sound the sort of vision of life that a poet would have; and I'm quite happy, quite ready to admit that when I'm not thinking about science I'm thinking in a very different way."21

What clearer proof could there be of a faulty worldview than one that fails when it is plugged into real life situation. This is, of course, what a worldview is supposed to do, it is meant to give us a modis operandi that guides us through every aspect of life.

1. 1. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), pp. 301-302
2. 2. The National Abortion Federation Violence and Disruption Statistics - Incidents of Violence & Disruption Against Abortion Providers in the U.S. & Canada through August 31, 2007
3. 3. Dawkins, p. 304
4. 4. Richard Dawkins, "In Short: Nonfiction," The New York Times, April 9, 1989, Sunday, Late City Final Edition Section 7; Page 34, Column 2; Book Review Desk
5. 5. Dawkins, p. 304
6. 6. Dawkins, p. 291
7. 7. Dawkins, p. 297
8. 8. Dawkins, p. 300
9. 9. The Human Life Bill: Hearings on S. 158 Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981) see Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), p. 149 also Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42
10. 10. The Human Life Bill-S. 158, Report 9, see Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42
11. 11. The Human Life Bill-S. 158, Report together with Additional and Minority Views to the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, made by its Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981) see Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 43
12. 12. Dawkins, p. 293
13. 13. Dawkins, p. 297
14. 14. Dawkins, p. 294
15. 15. Dawkins, p. 221
16. 16. Dawkins, p. 297
17. 17. Dawkins, p. 300
18. 18. Richard Dawkins, "Is Science a Religion?," The Humanist, January/February 1997
19. 19. Frank Miele, Darwin's Dangerous Disciple - An Interview With Richard Dawkins
20. 20. Richard Dawkins, A Devil's Chaplain - Selected Essays (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003), p. 10-11
21. 21. Sheena McDonald's, Interview with Richard Dawkins (1994 U.K. Channel 4)