titution. In a slightly different way, one law professor contended that the government had the right to protect the interests of the fetus (even if it were not constitutionally considered a person) because it had the right to protect the interests of creatures who were not persons, such as animals (Ely, 1973).
In a second argument, which relies at least partially upon the first, opponents of abortion contend that the state has compelling reason to regulate abortion for several reasons, including the fact that it is murder. Thus, they assert that society should regulate abortion and make it difficult to obtain or the worth of life may be devalued. Some conservative theologians and religious leaders have contended that the question is not really whether or not the fetus is a person, but the dignity and intrinsic value of human life, of which the fetus is a potential member (See Ramsey in Baird and Rosenbaum, 1989). Opponents contend that abortion devalues human life and that individuals may be aborted for trivial reasons and for eugenic reasons, with those who are considered less desirable, such as the developmentally delayed at highest risk. While this latter has been shown to be accurate when abortion is available upon demand in the United Sates, constitutional scholars have generally not seen this as a compelling enough argument to warrant state interference in the individua
...