Another friendly question for pro-choice advocates?

Question

This is a follow up question to one posted by whitehorse456 earlier. I am addressing this SPECIFICALLY to pro choice individuals who DO NOT support late stage abortion because the fetus is viable but DO support early stage abortion because the fetus would not be viable outside the womb at that stage therefore not life. Question at the end.

US federal courts recently convicted a man for removing eggs from a sea turtle nest. His defense was that because the baby sea turtles had not hatched (been born) and were not capable of life outside the egg, that based upon legal precedence all he had done is abort a fetus in early stage which is not illegal to do under federal law with HUMANS. The court did not accept his argument.

So hear is the question. Why is it ok to abort the life energy of an early stage human fetus but not a sea turtle fetus? Is the life energy of a potential sea turtle more valuable than the life energy of a potential human?

What are your thoughts here?

Thank you for your responses. I think I have a better understanding of your position. Don't agree with it but better understand it.

Answer 1

My thought is that it just shows that society is more concerned about protecting animals than they are about protecting humans.

Answer 2

First of all, that was the belief of the court, not particularly the belief you described above.

The reason is simple: the choice in pro-choice. I have no problem with a woman getting an abortion if she feels unable to raise a child. The turtle did not consent to the destruction of the eggs. Forced "abortions" are unnacceptable because they go against the principle of choice.

Another factor, though somewhat less important is that turtle eggs are outside the mother. Therefore, they are viable when removed from the mother.

The bigger question is why did the man take turtle eggs in the first place? I can't think of any use for turtle eggs.

Answer 3

It is simply a point of law - not ethics.

The law on abortion only applies to humans - ergo - it cannot be used in relation to animals.

The law relating to animals largely relates to animals in being - thus - turtle eggs are most likely not covered as they are not an animal in being.

Birds eggs however are covered by specific regulations in many countries.

Human abortion laws have been debated in many countries many times and continue to be debated. Which ever side of the divide people fall this topic is so important that it should continue to be debated for years to come.

Laws relating to animals are somewhat lacklustre and bitty and need to be debated in the same way to strengthen existing laws and introduce new ones.

Sadly humans always get first consideration and animals bring up the rear.

Answer 4

It's not really up to me, but if I was the one creating the law.... 1. It would depend on the mother if she wanted to have it. 2. The mother should've aborted much earlier. No. 3. Yes, but this would be a rare case. Most rapes, reported or not, are followed by the morning after pill automatically. 4. The mother should've aborted earlier. No. 5. It's for a woman to decide during the window of opportunity. The law doesn't extend for irresponsibility. Late term abortion is illegal except under certain circumstances. 6. Yes, but the mother should decide whether she wants herself or the child to live if she's able to speak for herself. For my answer on number five, many can argue that getting pregnant is irresponsible so why should abortion be allowed at all? How many women do you know would spend $250 to have an abortion every time she got pregnant as a form of birth control when birth control pills and the morning after pill are much less expensive? Most abortions are due to rape and primary birth control failing. That's not irresponsibility. That's misfortune.

Answer 5

Protecting and endangered species is not the same as abortion. The sea turtle mother had no choice. It would be no different than if that man had taken a fetus from and unwilling human.

Answer 6

I suppose that if the sea turtles mother decided to kick the unhatched egg out of her nest, the courts would not have a huge problem with her.....i really do not think you can compare sea turtles eggs to human fetuses....and from the sounds of it, neither could the supreme court. I have to agree that for the sea turtle egg removing convict to use human abortion law to justify his actions was weak. Am I correct that sea turtles are on the endangered species list?

Answer 7

Sea Turtles are an endangered species for one thing and egg hunting threatens total extinction of a once plentiful resource. Second his argument is false because the eggs hatch after they have been released from the turtle, thus they are viable on their own. OK it is really about poaching. Nobody gathers foetuses to eat.

Answer 8

Because the sea turtle wasn't the one making the choice to terminate the gestation?

For the record, I'm against someone else forcing a woman to have an abortion, based on the same argument.

It is a choice for the WOMAN to make. Not anyone else, unless the woman chooses to include them in the decision.

Answer 9

Apples and oranges.

He didn't perform an abortion, he ended a potential turtle life, and it's possible that these turtles are endangered (but don't quote me on that).

If the turtle had done it, it could arguably have been considered an abortion.

Answer 10

The Sea turtle mom didn't make that decision to abort, a man made it for her.

I'm pro choice for everything and that turtle didn't get a choice.

Man should not get to forcibly mess around with reproductive issues of women

Answer 11

sea turtles are no overpopulated, can survive on their own, without having to worry about their young being neglected by the state, and the sea turtle's mother was not the one aborting her fetus, it was done against her will or without her knowledge