The logical conclusion to the anti-abortionist’s ‘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. Notice that ‘pro-life’ doesn’t exactly mean pro-life at all. It means pro-human-life. The granting of uniquely special rights to cells of the species Homo sapiens is hard to reconcile with the fact of evolution. Admittedly, this will not worry those many anti-abortionists 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.
Source: p 339,The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins
I'm trying to determine the tone of the writing in the passage above. Is it (b) logical, (c) opinionated, (d) scientific, or (e) sarcastic? I picked (c), but the answer is (e). What are my misunderstandings?
Even after seeing the answer, I still struggle with understanding the nuances between (c) vs (e), which I missed because these words look equivalent. What are the similarities and differences?