The eagle is a protected species, the govenment/courts protect the eagle's egg as it is to become a eagle. However the courts permit the killing of unborn human babies by saying they are just tissue with no rights or human potential.
It strikes me as strange that a unborn eagle has more rights then a unborn human.
2006-10-03 08:49:48 · 47 answers · asked by Eldude 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Eagles are NO LONGER endangered they are now Protected.
It is apparent that most people did not read the question or lack reading compehension.
2006-10-03 10:23:38 · update #1
HI thanks for your great question!
I dug up this little gem for you :)
The Early Christian View
In sharp contrast, early Christians took a firm stand against abortions. Durant adds: “Abortion and infanticide, which were decimating pagan society, were forbidden to Christians as the equivalents of murder.” So while family limitation became an outstanding social phenomenon of both the Greek and the Roman eras, the Christian community stood firmly on a strict moral code that built respect for the sanctity of life. As in ancient Israel, children were a mark of the Creator’s blessing. The psalmist states: “Look! Sons are an inheritance from Jehovah; the fruitage of the belly is a reward.”—Psalm 127:3.
It is evident from God’s Word, the Bible, that Jehovah, “the source of life,” recognizes the right to life of the unborn child. How? First, the Bible shows that he deems the unborn to be more than just a glob of tissue. God’s interest in his marvelous creative arrangement is described by the psalmist this way: “You [Jehovah] kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. . . . Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.”—Psalm 36:9; 139:13-16.
Further, God calls to account the individual who accidentally interferes with the natural course of events involving an unborn child. Notice that the Mosaic Law put a heavy responsibility on such ones, stating: “If men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life.”—Exodus 21:22, 23, American Standard Version.
Now if Jehovah views an accidental interference with the unborn child to be a matter of such serious consequence, how much greater accountability would there be with deliberate interference, as in the case of abortion! Also, since God gave no limitations as to the age of the unborn in his law expressed at Exodus chapter 21, arguments based on age become moot..
You will find those same quoted scriptures in any Christian bible ...
In court we are required to take an oath on the bible ...
It may be lawful to destroy an unborn child in the Court of man
but we must hold Gods view on this matter as stated in the bible.
-- I hope this makes sense :)
David
2006-10-03 09:49:27 · answer #1 · answered by David 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
LOL!!
It's easier to control dumb eagles than Humans.
A child can only be recognised after birth. A government making laws against unborn humans may be going aginst the human rights of the mother. Tough case.
Abortion should be a very personal issue.
2006-10-03 08:59:02 · answer #2 · answered by Roxton P 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
You re tryiung to draw a parallel where there isn't one. The government didn't sit down one day and decide, "Hey, let's protect eagles but not people!"
The laws have completely different resoning behind them. The reason it's illegal to destroy an eagle egg is because tehre are so few eagles left thatt heya re in danger of becoming extinct, so every single egg is needed for the species to survive.
The reason it is legal to kill an unborn child is because the law supports a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to become a mother.
Whether you agree with it or not, it's a completely separate source of logic than the eagle egg law.
2006-10-03 08:54:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
our government protects our right to decide for ourselves when we believe a person becomes a person. I wouldnt get an abortion myself, but I respect others opinions on this very controversial and personal issue. Its not like anyone knows any better then anyone else, its all just opinions. People should be free to have their own opinions about these things.
And to address your eagle parallel... it cant be argued that a birds egg is part of a birds body.
2006-10-04 04:48:04 · answer #4 · answered by sssnole 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Although you present a decent idea, I still disagree with the point that you are trying to make. Eagles are an endangered species, and if we want to continue to see them around they must be protected. Human life is important, but I don't think that the egg can be considered a fetus until the eighth week of gestation and up until then I don't see anything wrong with abortion. We do not have a shortage of humans on this earth.
2006-10-03 09:04:34 · answer #5 · answered by ~ Sara ~ 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Eagles don;t grow up go into schools and murder innocent people!
Eagles don't get elected ake teenage boys for sex nd then make up a story about being abused by members of the church to save thier *** from going to jail
Eagles are not prejudice nor do they blow up schools with little girls in them on Sunday mornings
Eagles have never started wars or lied about starting wars.
I say lets save the eagles
2006-10-04 07:50:36 · answer #6 · answered by Cherry Berry 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I agree that human life should be held in greater value than an eagle, even if the eagle is an endangered species. But, the question is, does the mother have any rights over what is in her womb. Is it part of her body, to do with as she chooses. And, should a person be forced into motherhood if they are unfit, or if the baby is severely defected and will have no quality of life.
2006-10-03 08:53:34 · answer #7 · answered by martin h 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Will you just stop! Where are your brains to compare and eagle with a human anyway? And to go about 10 steps further, the abortion laws were not designed to "kill" a fetus, the laws were enacted to abort a pregnancy that would jeopardize the life of the mother and/or child. It's lunatics that don't have a clue what birth control may be that have wreaked such havoc with the word abortion.
2006-10-03 08:54:25 · answer #8 · answered by Decoy Duck 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because Bald Eagles are an endangered species.. unlike humans, who are over populating the world.
2006-10-03 08:51:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
Its simple, According to simple economics, value is determined by "Supply and Demand". We have lots of unborn children and very very few eagle eggs.
But really here you are talking about apples and oranges. You have no right to kill a fetus without the permission of the mother. In the case of the eagle the mother is unable to provide that permission.
2006-10-03 08:58:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋