I have been told by pro-choicers that there is no life worth protecting in the womb until it is born. I have been told that "potential life" is not "life". I have been told that abortion does not take a human life.
Of course I can offer plenty of facts and statistics and logical reasonings that readily disprove all of these assertions but I find it more fun to point out an inconsistancy in the law and watch how rabid pro-choicers will become in their defense.
If we take an eagle egg and compare it to our own gestation in the womb, we should be able to take from the pro-choicers arguments and apply them to the eagle egg. In other words, there is no life worth protecting in the egg. "potential life" is not "life". Making an omellette out of eagle eggs does not take an eagle's life. So why does the law place so much protection over an eagle's unhatched and so little protection over our unborn?
This turning of the tables will bring about a lot of fun interaction. They will bring up extinction, but again, if there is no actual eagle in that egg then there is no danger of extinction by enjoying the egg before it hatches. They will then bring up the fact that we are in no danger ourselves of extinction, in fact this is the point where they wil begin the self-loathing cry of overpopulation. See my earlier blog on this subject.
The truth is that we do protect eagle eggs because there would be no hatched eagles otherwise, and we need to protect the fetus for the same reason.