I agree with you. Its getting where animal rights are more important then human rights in this country.. I am glad there is someone out there who has a brain!
2006-08-23 11:39:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by nsrush83 3
·
5⤊
1⤋
It comes down to fundamental rights. The Supreme Court, whether you agree with the reasoning or not, has seen a women's right to privacy and self-autonomy as a fundamental right in Roe. v Wade. In that case, the Court found that the government cannot interfere with a women's pregnancy in anyway during the first trimester and only in limited circumstances in the second trimester. However, something that that is often overlooked is that the Court ruled it would be fine if a state were to try to ban abortions in the third trimester--as long as they had a rational basis and they provided an exception for the life of the mother. In the 1989 case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the Court did away with the trimester analysis and instead said that once the fetus is "viable" the state has an interest in protecting that potential life. The found that if a woman waited until her fetus was viable, she had "sat" on her rights and waived her right to an abortion--unless her life was in danger. So, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, a state could pass a law that said something like, "All abortions are prohibited once a fetus has reached the point of viability, unless the mother's life is at risk." That would completely Constitutional. The problem is that abortion has become so accepted and seen as a "right" that few states would pass such a large restriction on abortions. As for the bald eagle. In general, the government can pass laws so long as they have a rational basis and don't interfere with fundamental rights. There is no fundamental right to crush a bald eagle egg, so it is okay for the state to interfere. The difference is that with a woman's pregnancy, they see her privacy is a fundamental right, and thus generally the government cannot interfer.
2016-03-27 02:55:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because eagles are an endangered species, people are not. If someone chooses to have an abortion, it is their body & their right. The eagles are not breaking their own eggs, so if you want to look at it like that, breaking an eagle's egg is the same as forcing someone to have an abortion!
2006-08-23 12:10:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Because, like it or not, abortion is legal, and should remain so. Don't like abortion---then don't have one. The reason there are laws protecting animals which are endangered is because we, yes us humans, are the reason they are in peril. Animals don't have any means of protecting themselves from us. We have to protect them from those who would do them harm. That doesn't mean that I don't care for humans just as much. I work in social services, and I see the worst humanity has to offer every day. I love children. I have two of my own. But I still support a woman's right to choose. Why should anybody have the right to say what I can do with my own body?
Before you say abortion is wrong, ask yourself how many drug addicted babies with hydroencephalitis or mitochondrial myopathy are you willing to adopt!!!!!!
2006-08-23 12:21:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by Don't shop, adopt! 3
·
4⤊
1⤋
Good question I say go bust an eagle egg then when they arrest you take em to court and make them prove that its an eagle from conception or from birth y'know. There are plenty of stupid *** cases in our legal system one more aint gonna matter!
2006-08-23 11:45:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because humans aren't endangered and eagles take care of their young without taking money from the gov't.
2006-08-23 14:08:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Eagles were endangered and their numbers were dwindling. As our nation's symbol it had to be protected.
Abortion is legal because a woman has the right to choose if she wants her baby or not. As long as it's killed before it's feet come out then she's ok. Simply put...abortion is legal because people are selfish.
Rape, incest, and medical necessity are excuses.
So, yes...people care about animals more than humans.
2006-08-23 11:44:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by Jasmine 5
·
0⤊
3⤋
Because an eagle parent doesn't have the right to consent. So an eagle parent cannot give you the right to break the egg.
The human parent has the right to give that consent.
Humans have more rights than animals. But the rights of humans are given to adults and parents and not to fetuses and children.
2006-08-23 11:48:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by dugfromthearth 2
·
2⤊
3⤋
Human aren't near extinction-----has nothing whatsoever to do with being More concerned with animal than human rights, 2 very separate issues.That statement irritates me when ever I hear it for am animal rights advocate and do not consider nor do any other i know for animals to be more important. Am also pro-life. Why should one take precedence over the other-both important .I do and act according to the opportunity or necessary action need put before me.
2006-08-23 11:45:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
While it makes a great emotional argument, it's utterly meaningless as an attempt to actually discuss the law.
Also, you should check your facts. It's not illegal to break bald eagles' eggs, because the eagles are not longer endangered species. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has simply refused to remove them from the actual list, despite admitting that they no longer meet the criteria to be on the list.
2006-08-23 11:50:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
1⤊
4⤋