Talk:Abortion controversy

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Protecting birds

"Some have pointed to the incongruity of US federal law which deems that the fertilized eggs of any of over 800 species of native birds warrant federal-government protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 while the fertilized egg of a human being is regarded as a disposable mass of tissue." This is taken from the article. However, this seems to be a very unfair statement. Firstly, most of the migratory birds whose eggs are protected, are protected because they are endangered species. Human beings are not an endangered species - at least not endangered by any others than ourselves - and as such, we do not require such protection. Secondly, many of these birds are protected by legislation due to human influence; that is, the birds would not be protected if there was no reason to protect them, and this reason is usually human beings hunting them. There are very few human beings who intentionally harm an unborn human child without the express permission or request of the mother (as is the case with abortion). Entheogenicorder 15:31, 28 August 2008 (BST)