# The Unborn vs. The Bald Eagle, Round 1 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 4, 2002, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214 "2002-05-04T04:28:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2002, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/21 "2002-05-05T17:18:25Z")
1. The fetus vs. bald eagle death match is cracking me up. 2. There’s a joke I rarely tell, because it’s too obscure, but it goes something like this: **Q. How did the prolifers serve the chicken at their dinner fundraiser? A. Sunny side up.** The point isn’t that egg-eating is MORALLY equivalent to an abortion; rather, the point is that prolifers often seem unable to distinguish between potentiality and actuality. A fetus is no more a person than an egg is a chicken. 3. If you want a political Supreme Court ruling, look to late 2000. Roe v. Wade was exactly the sort of issue that the Supreme Court ought to be deciding. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2002, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/22 "2002-05-05T17:29:52Z")
**BlackKnight** wrote: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by tracer_ > > **The bald eagle would win, hands down. It’s got that wicked curved sharp beak and those talons. What’s an unborn got? A bunch of half-developed skin and bones. It can’t even breathe without outside help, let alone hold its own in a fight.** > > I think it depends. If the unborn can manage to lasso the bird around it’s neck with the umbilical cord, it might stand a chance. True … the bald eagle wouldn’t have very much maneuvering room inside a woman’s womb. And, even worse, if the bald eagle **were** inside a womb: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Drastic_ > **If a woman has a bald eagle in her womb, I think she has the right to abort it.** Maybe we have to move the fight to some neutral territory – say, one of those life-support incubators for premature births. (No, wait … if we did that, then the kid wouldn’t be “unborn” anymore! Hmmm, setting up this fight is going to be more difficult than I thought.) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2002, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/23 "2002-05-05T17:33:19Z")
All right, why not move the fetus into the bald eagle’s egg? We got two options: 1. The bald eagle is also a fetus 2. The bald eagle is the mom. Fair enough? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![ajb293](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/71c47a/32.png) [@ajb293](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ajb293)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/24 "2002-05-06T13:27:17Z")
I don’t see a big difference between the death penalty and abortion (they both end life just for different reasons). While I don’t think aborting to avoid pain and discomfort (which I don’t think is the reason most people have abortions but I could be wrong) is right. I do believe its ok in such situations where say the girl is in her teens, and is raped. If the child is born and she’s in poor economic status chances are both lives will go down the drain. Or if she’s again raped, and if she has the baby it will kill her. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/25 "2002-05-06T13:43:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* > \*\* > The point isn’t that egg-eating is MORALLY equivalent to an abortion; rather, the point is that prolifers often seem unable to distinguish between potentiality and actuality. A fetus is no more a person than an egg is a chicken. > \*\* Oh please. “Personhood” is a philosophical, not a biological concept. (There have been **plenty** of threads here about what constitutes “personhood”.) The difference between an egg and a chicken is a biological difference. Even many “pro choice” folks would apparently fail your test, especially if they oppose abortion at “some” point in a pregnancy. Is the “egg” right before it hatches, a chicken? (Of course you have still ignored the fact that we typically eat **unfertilized** eggs…so your analogy seems even more specious) ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/26 "2002-05-06T16:52:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by beagledave \* > \*\*(Of course you have still ignored the fact that we typically eat **unfertilized** eggs…so your analogy seems even more specious) \*\* Correct. Not to mention that this specious argument assumes that the potentiality and actuality of a chicken is somehow comparable to that of a human being. As I said, if one is to criticize pro-lifers for eating eggs based on that rationale, then what of pro-choicers who eat chicken? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/27 "2002-05-06T16:56:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ajb293 \* > \*\*I don’t see a big difference between the death penalty and abortion (they both end life just for different reasons). \*\* Well by that logic, there’s not much difference between first-degree murder and killing in self-defense. After all, both acts end life, just for different reasons. As any ethicist can tell you, the _reason_ behind an act can make a world of difference. That’s why professional boxers aren’t prosecuted the way wife-beaters would be. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/28 "2002-05-06T17:11:57Z")
My right to swing my arm ends at your nose, unless you are a woman, in which case it continues up through your vagina, and into your uterus. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/29 "2002-05-06T18:21:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by beagledave \* > \*\*Oh please. “Personhood” is a philosophical, not a biological concept. \*\* You’re correct, but you forgot to mention that chickens are avian, whereas humans are mammalian. Another flaw in my analogy? Thing is, I’m pointing out that some folks confuse a potential state with an actual state. You can plug in different states there (chickenhood, personhood, etc.), and the statement still makes sense. That’s how analogies work. The fact that one potentiality involves a philosophical state, and the other involves a biological state, is not germane. As for the fact that we usually don’t eat fertilized eggs, c’mon. So change the punchline: **A. Sunny side up (but see, they’re fertilized eggs! Get it? Get it?)** Daniel ---
**Author:** ![SisterCoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@SisterCoyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SisterCoyote)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/30 "2002-05-06T18:36:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Triskadecamus \* > **My right to swing my arm ends at your nose, unless you are a woman, in which case it continues up through your vagina, and into your uterus.** No, Tris, your right to swing your arm is still terminated where any portion of my body exists. And, I believe if you strike me in such a way as to cause a miscarriage I can charge you with…well, assault, at the very least. Presumably I’d get emotional damages also, but I dunno, the law being an area I generally avoid. However, if I _invite_ you to continue up through my vagina & so forth, then there’s a difference. Particularly where a pregnancy is involved, or the termination thereof. SisterC [/endpost] [sub] Two things. 1. I don’t know how you get “up” into the vagina through the nose, unless I’m sitting on my own head. 2. I’ve never tried fisting, and don’t know if the cervix will open for a hand. [/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/31 "2002-05-06T18:44:35Z")
Oh. Thanks for the correction. Tris ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/32 "2002-05-06T18:54:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* > \*\* > Thing is, I’m pointing out that some folks confuse a potential state with an actual state. You can plug in different states there (chickenhood, personhood, etc.), and the statement still makes sense. That’s how analogies work. The fact that one potentiality involves a philosophical state, and the other involves a biological state, is not germane. > \*\* Sure it’s germane. You’re **assuming** that there is a state of personhood that occurs in fetal development. You have not backed that assumption up with any kind of evidence. You have not proven potentiality of personhood (or that it is a seperate “thing” from being human), and yet you accuse pro lifers of not understanding that there **is** such a thing as potentiality of personhood. I **can** demonstrate “potentiality” of a myriad of biological processes (puberty, for example). ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/33 "2002-05-06T18:57:52Z")
Memo to **Sister Coyote** : I suspect **Tris** was attempting to engage in irony. You know that strange sound like wind you heard a few minutes ago? … ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/34 "2002-05-06T19:01:43Z")
Okay, beagle, if you thought my joke was intended as a carefully-formulated argument, then you’re right: it’s lacking. It was intended to illustrate a point with humor, though. It doesn’t prove anything. Sorry I misunderstood the nature of your objection. To reiterate: joke != comprehensive argument. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/35 "2002-05-06T19:07:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* > \*\*Okay, beagle, if you thought my joke was intended as a carefully-formulated argument, then you’re right: it’s lacking. > > It was intended to illustrate a point with humor, though. It doesn’t prove anything. Sorry I misunderstood the nature of your objection. > > To reiterate: joke != comprehensive argument. > > Daniel \*\* Heh. It seems like this > [@](#): > > The point isn’t that egg-eating is MORALLY equivalent to an abortion; rather, the point is that prolifers often seem unable to distinguish between potentiality and actuality. A fetus is no more a person than an egg is a chicken. is more of a point that you were trying to make about the intelligence of pro lifers. You were using the joke, I guess, to buttress your argument. My response is to your assumption about pro lifers “not getting it” when it comes to the notion of potentiality. Or was your description of pro life intelliegence a “joke” as well? ---
**Author:** ![SisterCoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@SisterCoyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SisterCoyote)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/36 "2002-05-06T19:10:09Z")
**Poly** - Although I confess to being partially whooshed, as I realized upon seeing **Tris** ’s reply, I also wanted to head off at the pass someone taking him seriously and dragging the discussion off in that direction. Really. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/37 "2002-05-06T22:25:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by shagadelicmysteryman \* > \*\* > > The Constitution doesn’t say a lot of things, that’s why we have the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, and to rule things Constitutional or Un-Constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that, in Roe V. Wade, that abortion had to do with the CONSTITUTIONAL right to privacy of the mother. So, yes, it was a Constitutional ruling. > \*\* First of all, calling a pregnant woman a mother without an explative behind it is assuming she has the responsibility wich Roe vs Wade cites she does not. But I won’t quible over semantics. Second, what “CONSTITUTIONAL right to privacy” are you talking about? The [4th Amendment](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv) and [14th Amendment](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html) (wich many people point to) Says nothing about the right to privacy. As Justice Rehnquist presents in his opinion, “Nor is the ‘privacy’ that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy.” The **privileges** wich the 14th Amendment points to seem to be granted by the SCOTUS, wich as the judicial branch has no legal right to make laws(or privileges), but only enterpret them as I am sure you well know. Ok then lets assume that they _interpret_ those as a right to privacy, they then go so far as to dictate that the right to privacy begets the right to an abortion based upon principles that a fetus does not have any rights. And at the same time the Court says it ‘need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins’. So therefore it takes away the 14th Amendment rights of the unborn. Yet they make laws when the potential is evident with things like Affirmative Action. This is also in reply to **tracer** The Constitution does not give the judicial branch the right to make laws, but leaves that duty to the legislature. So why did they create three trimesters of pregnancy and **then** dictate that each state can set laws against abortion, when by their _interpretation_ abortion is a right to privacy protected by the Constitution. That is blatant abortion legislation. Wich I remind you again is illegal. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by shagadelicmysteryman \* > \*\* > > Not only was I refering to abortion, but other matters also, such as Prayer in school, the Ten Commandments in Govt. Buildings, etc. The point I was trying to make is that Christians aren’t the only ones living in this country, or this world. I think it’s time that they meet in the middle with some people on the issues, and actually work on improving society, rather than sitting around and telling people that they’re going to hell for believing differently. Sorry if I’ve confused you in any way > \*\* And maybe the anti-slavery people should have minded their own business and left matters to people that knew better. And maybe the liberal left wing of “whatever” should know their place and read the laws and shut up about gun control. As far as your last two examples that also is proof of political interpretation but I will not hijack this thread with a debate on the seperation of church and state issue. All I will say is that NOWHERE in the constitution does even the hint of SOCS exhist. As a matter of fact the banning of any religious expression is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. No you have not confused me, but set me straight on your biase towards the “conservative christian wing of whatever”. If my head is in the pooper it would seem the “pooper” has much better reading material than wherever your head is. And one last thing. If potential is not a reason then why is it illegal to mess with the eggs of your sacred birds? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/38 "2002-05-06T22:32:09Z")
Hmm – beagledave, I’m not sure I wanna get dragged into this, but I guess I have only myself to blame if I do. Fair warning, though – I may back out suddenly. I’ve spent far too many hours of my life arguing abortion online, and the discussions usually end badly. That said, drive-by mocking isn’t fair. So I’ll give a little bit of elaboration on my position: -Often when I’m arguing with prolifers, it comes down to their agreeing that while a blastocyte doesn’t qualify as a person by relevant secular and philosophical measurements, a blastocyte will, if not stopped, become a person. And that killing it is killing a potential person, which is unethical. I’m pretty sure that’s a fair representation of the position of many prolifers. Whereas I believe that potential beings and actual beings have entirely different rights. Potential beings aren’t completely rightsless, the way I see it: if a potential being is really likely to become a real being, then actions which would harm it as a real being are, all things being equal, unethical. If it’s not going to be a real being, however, then it doesn’t have rights. Thus, a pregnant woman who takes thalidomide all during her pregnancy would, IMO, be more ethical to abort the fetus than to carry it to term. If she aborts it, there’s no actual being (read “person” in this case) whose rights are violated. If she carries it to term, however, then there’s a baby who’s likely to start off with serious health problems; the mother caused those health problems by using thalidomide. (FWIW, I started the example with a cracksmoking mother, but dropped it for obvious reasons. The thalidomide example is taken from the human rights protocol of a thalidomide study that I shuffled paperwork for one summer). Now, I’m guessing that this concept of potentiality vs. actuality has been discussed to death here, and that the question of when a fetus attains personhood has also been discussed ad infinitum here. And I’ve discussed both issues until my nose bled. Is my position anything you haven’t heard before? If so, I can elaborate; but I’m guessing I’m nothing new to you in this matter. I just wanted to explain my background for the joke. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/39 "2002-05-06T22:47:52Z")
The ultimate irony of irony is the inevitablility that it will approximate another persons sincerity. Ah, well, out of such differences, a world is made. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214/40 "2002-05-06T22:57:44Z")
> [@](#): > > And one last thing. If potential is not a reason then why is it illegal to mess with the eggs of your sacred birds? I’ll field this one. The ESA does not work with individual rights: we don’t presume that an endangered Eastern Wood Duck\* has more intrinsic worth than a Rhode Island Red. Rather, the ESA protects ecosystems, on the belief that humanity is better served by solid ecosystems. Protecting the eggs of an endangered species helps to preserve an ecosystem. It has nothing to do with protecting the individual rights of the bird that the egg might hatch into. That, assuredly, is a canard. heh heh heh Daniel \*I just made up the Endangered Eastern Wood duck, because I wanted to work in the final pun. If it bothers you, use a real endangered bird here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unborn-vs-the-bald-eagle-round-1/107214.md?page=3)