How would you make this argument work?

[Big_Dummy]

As you know there is a law against destroying an Eagle’s egg – endangered species or just national bird?

Let’s say we are deep in the woods and a large Eagle attacks you. Should I kill the Eagle to save you or should I kill you to keep the Eagle from being harmed by you? why or why not? give your reasoning.

Yes, this is a question for a prochoice person to answer.

 

[logic_oriented]

Okay, I’ll play.

First of all, I don’t know the details of the law (or how it relates to your hypothetical), but bald eagles are no longer even a threatened species, let alone endangered.

Regardless, I would kill the eagle to save the human, if that was the necessary level of force to stop the attack (since you only gave lethal options in either direction, I assume scaring it off is out of the question). Why? A human is likely to be more useful to the world than a bird (plus whatever emotional connection I might have to the person I’m saving, I assume I don’t know the eagle personally in this situation).

 

[PatriceA]

Okay, I’ll play.

First of all, I don’t know the details of the law (or how it relates to your hypothetical), but bald eagles are no longer even a threatened species, let alone endangered.

Regardless, I would kill the eagle to save the human, if that was the necessary level of force to stop the attack (since you only gave lethal options in either direction, I assume scaring it off is out of the question). Why? A human is likely to be more useful to the world than a bird (plus whatever emotional connection I might have to the person I’m saving, I assume I don’t know the eagle personally in this situation).

They are still protected, the fines are steep, anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000.

If the bird is attacking me or someone in my vicinity and the only way to save a human life is to kill the bird, then you kill the bird. Same as its not murder in cases of self defense.

 

[DexUK]

If one’s life or safety is directly in danger from a protected species of bird or animal, then it’s not wrong to defend oneself by whatever means are necessary. However that should not be taken as meaning that it’s automatically ok to go from nothing to lethal force in one step unless that’s the absolute only option you have - i.e. if you have a gun with only one bullet, you could wave it about a bit in hope of scaring the bird or animal off, but a warning shot isn’t possible because if the animal/bird wasn’t scared away by the noise you’d then have no means of defending yourself, so it’s a kill shot or nothing.

What the law says in this regard may, of course, be different to what objective morals say, eg. morals say that the safety and preservation of human life trumps any other concern in all circumstances, whereas laws might place the human life under something else. That would simply make the law wrong.

 

[logic_oriented]

They are still protected, the fines are steep, anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000.

Thanks for the clarification. You’re absolutely right, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act remains, even though they’ve been de-listed under the Endangered Species Act.

 

[aicirt]

The animal is attacking you. Baby isn’t attacking Mom. I’d kill the bird to save you and maybe myself. I’d kill it if it attacked my dog too. I would not kill the bird if it wasn’t attacking someone.

 

[TheQuestioner]

As you know there is a law against destroying an Eagle’s egg – endangered species or just national bird?

Let’s say we are deep in the woods and a large Eagle attacks you. Should I kill the Eagle to save you or should I kill you to keep the Eagle from being harmed by you? why or why not? give your reasoning.

Yes, this is a question for a prochoice person to answer.

1. A human life is way more important than an eagle’s life.
2. The eagle was the one that did the attacking.

So…poor eagle.

 

[runningdude]

If the law protects only the egg, then if the egg attacks, I guess I’m bound to legally protect the egg

so… poor human

 

[Big_Dummy]

If the law protects only the egg, then if the egg attacks, I guess I’m bound to legally protect the egg

so… poor human

lol, you caught the parallel. To destroy an eagle’s egg is aganist the law and can get you jail time or a heavy fine. But, destroying a human in the womb is leagal and may even get you praise from some in our society. So, the question boils down to which is more important in God’s eyes, and in man’s eyes.

How would you all bring out the parallel or contrast between an eagle’s egg and human in the womb as a question for the pro-choice person to answer?

The woods attack does bring out that value. So, how would you transition from the answer to the attack to the point we are trying to make?