Why is it illegal to destroy a Condor egg?

”If we give fertilized eggs legal rights,
abortion could be considered murder and
a woman could be sent to jail for making the
difficult life decision to terminate a pregnancy,”
says Crystal Clinkenbeard, spokeswoman for
Protect Families, Protect Choice.
This is the argument coming from proabortionists
in Colorado as a special referendum
nears a state vote. The referendum, the
first of its kind in the nation, will ask Colorado
voters to indicate whether or not the term person
in the state’s constitution should “include
any human being from the moment of fertilization.”
Pro-life groups in Colorado are actually
divided as to whether the amendment under
referendum, the Human Life Amendment, is
the best strategy for fighting abortion in the
state.

(Washington Post, 7/13/08)

Why is it illegal to destroy a condor egg? Because the government has managed to "impose value" on eggs based on their species, putting humans apparently at the absolute lowest end of the chain.

With the exception of chicken eggs perhaps, I do not know of any other animal that state and local governments actually pay to destroy other than humans. If it weren't for the great Henry Hyde, the feds would be doing that as well.

SheikBen wrote:Why is it illegal to destroy a condor egg? Because the government has managed to "impose value" on eggs based on their species, putting humans apparently at the absolute lowest end of the chain.

On the other hand, humans are not threatened with becoming extinct by virtue of their small numbers. The US F&WS has determined that Condors are so threatened.

We can argue about the value of condors. But putting value on condors does not diminish the value of humans.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Why is it illegal to destroy a condor egg? Because the government has managed to "impose value" on eggs based on their species, putting humans apparently at the absolute lowest end of the chain.

On the other hand, humans are not threatened with becoming extinct by virtue of their small numbers. The US F&WS has determined that Condors are so threatened.

We can argue about the value of condors. But putting value on condors does not diminish the value of humans.

How about paying people to shake the eggs of Canadian Geese? The government pays people to destroy those eggs killing the chicks inside and it pays people to kill human embryos and fetuses. Perhaps human life is no more valuable than geese lives.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Why is it illegal to destroy a condor egg? Because the government has managed to "impose value" on eggs based on their species, putting humans apparently at the absolute lowest end of the chain.

On the other hand, humans are not threatened with becoming extinct by virtue of their small numbers. The US F&WS has determined that Condors are so threatened.

We can argue about the value of condors. But putting value on condors does not diminish the value of humans.

Ziggy you raise an interesting question. If we are "silly with humans," but there are only a few condors, does that make an individual condor of greater worth than an individual person? I believe the answer is no, but it's still an interesting question. From where comes the value of the individual human? Maybe we are comparing humans to condors precisely because our society hasn't answered that question.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy you raise an interesting question. If we are "silly with humans," but there are only a few condors, does that make an individual condor of greater worth than an individual person?

Not particularily, I wouldn't think. But if there were zillions of condors then I think that an individual condor would have less worth that if there were only a few dozen or even a few hundred condors.

I believe the answer is no, but it's still an interesting question. From where comes the value of the individual human? Maybe we are comparing humans to condors precisely because our society hasn't answered that question.

From where comes the "value" of anything? From the minds of those who recognize value, of course. You and I value human life. John Wayne Gacy apparently did not put much value on human life.

But in a larger sense, I cannot answer your question. I have thought about it often- about how much is a human life worth? And why? I do not know. But I promise to think about it some more.

ziggy wrote: You and I value human life. John Wayne Gacy apparently did not put much value on human life.

And it is quite apparent that the Courts, Officers of the Courts and all you lefty liberal citizens do not put much value on human life either.

Releasing a pedophile, rapist, murderer, incester, etc. back on the streets to repeat their crimes over n' over again n' again is not putting much value on anyone's life except ........ the life of the criminal.



.

Releasing a pedophile, rapist, murderer, incester, etc. back on the streets to repeat their crimes over n' over again n' again is not putting much value on anyone's life except ........ the life of the criminal.

That is one way of looking at it.

Of course, if you look at the appeals process and how old it is, perhaps even predating "lefty liberals", you might also say that the system, however flawed, is set up to reduce the chances of punishing an innocent person.

You can't be reducing the chances of punishing an innocent person very much ..... until you start punishing the crooked Officers of the Courts for "punishing innocent persons".



.

TerryRC wrote:Releasing a pedophile, rapist, murderer, incester, etc. back on the streets to repeat their crimes over n' over again n' again is not putting much value on anyone's life except ........ the life of the criminal.

That is one way of looking at it.

Of course, if you look at the appeals process and how old it is, perhaps even predating "lefty liberals", you might also say that the system, however flawed, is set up to reduce the chances of punishing an innocent person.

TerryRC,

What is the relevant importance of protecting the innocent (I'd agree that this is of great importance)? Would you trade one innocent person who is punished for 1,000 guilty who otherwise would have gone free. 10,000? 100,000?

What is the relevant importance of protecting the innocent (I'd agree that this is of great importance)? Would you trade one innocent person who is punished for 1,000 guilty who otherwise would have gone free. 10,000? 100,000?

I don't know Sheik. Is the innocent person me or a member of my family or is it, say, Ann Coulter?

The system is what it is. Flawed, yes. You are still more likely to get a fair trial in the US than just about anywhere else.

Of course, what I consider to be a "fair trial" may be a "travesty of justice" to a relative or friend of someone that has been victimized.

Bottom line - you can't make everyone happy, if you are a judge. Better to just uphold the law best you can. Our law is maintained under the philosophy that it is better to let one hundred guilty go free than convict one innocent.

If this was not so, people would have less respect for the law ("...well, if they can grab me for crimes I didn't commit, I might as well make the most of it...").

You can't be reducing the chances of punishing an innocent person very much ..... until you start punishing the crooked Officers of the Courts for "punishing innocent persons".

I quite agree, Sam. Corruption in the system, however, isn't in quite the same class as the laws that allow "incesters" access to lawyers, rules of evidence and appeals.

TerryRC wrote:Our law is maintained under the philosophy that it is better to let one hundred guilty go free than convict one innocent.

If this was not so, people would have less respect for the law ("...well, if they can grab me for crimes I didn't commit, I might as well make the most of it...").

("... well, if there is only one (1) chance in a hundred (100) that I will ever be convicted ...... IF I GET CAUGHT, ......... then I'm sure as hell willing to take that chance ...")

.

("... well, if there is only one (1) chance in a hundred (100) that I will ever be convicted ...... IF I GET CAUGHT, ......... then I'm sure as hell willing to take that chance ...")

Just because I said the system was designed under the philosophy that this was BETTER doesn't mean it is true. We still send people to jail that have been found to be innocent of the crimes they were charged with.

Regardless, if you were charged with a murder because of some damning but misinterpreted circumstantial evidence or if you were set up by a corrupt official, I bet you would sing a different tune about the "system".