Of Earth and Eagles

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.

What overpopulation problem?

One tactic used by pro-choicers in their defense of abortion is the argument that if abortion were banned there would be so many people on the Earth that we could not feed, much less, house everybody. The planet would be overpopulated. Although this reasoning fails to defend abortion on it's own merit, allow me the liberty of further denigrating the argument to oblivion.



There are currnetly 6,706,993,152 (July 2008 est.) people in the entire world.

Rhode Island has the Surface area of 1,214 square miles.

This means that the entire world population could fit in the U.S. state of Rhode Island leaving 4.5 sq, ft. per person. Now look at a globe and see if you can pick out Rhode Island. As you scan the rest of the globe in search for this tiny speck, you will certainly notice how much land that leaves available for livestock, agriculture, fresh water, and especially elbow room. Africa has the potential to supply enough agriculture to feed the whole world by itself.

Now this isn't meant to be a real world scenario, by all means go find a ranch and a few acres to retire on and stretch your legs. It does show how little use we are making of the land available to us though.

You may ask why is there famine, especially in Africa? The problem is with the government, not the resources. The Dictatorial governments squander the food supplies as well as the relief supplies for themselves and allow their own people to starve.

So maybe there isn't a problem right now, but what about future generations?

That is a fair question. It is estimated that by 2050 we will have a population of nearly 9 billion. In response I offer the nearby state of Maryland. Feel free to expand. There is still much land available. But what about 50 years after that? Or 100, or 1000 years down the road? The movie "Logan's Run" comes to mind. Their solution to population control was to demand the suicide of everyone at the age of 30. Turns out there was a huge world available right outside their little bubble.