
Because these are two fundamentally different legal doctrines: environmental conservation vs. constitutional human rights Bald eagle protections are rooted in wildlife management and the Endangered Species Act, whereas human legal status is defined by the 14th Amendment, which balances the rights of the fetus with the established bodily autonomy of the pregnant person.
Abortion rights imo should be based in the due process clause, which prohibits the government from depriving any person of “liberty” without due process of law For nearly 50 years under Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS interpreted “liberty” to include a fundamental right to privacy. This privacy encompasses intimate personal decisions, including whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
True liberty is impossible without bodily integrity, the absolute right to control your own physical body and medical decisions without government intrusion. I also think the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause should protect abortion, as restricting abortion targets women and pregnant individuals specifically, denying them the same social, economic, and physical autonomy enjoyed by men.
And yes, morality is central to my argument. It is fundamentally immoral to force a person to undergo the profound physical risks, pain, and life-altering consequences of pregnancy and childbirth against their will. Restricting abortion leads to measurable human suffering, including higher maternal mortality rates, increased poverty, and worse health outcomes for existing children. We should prioritize the health and survival of the living person.