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 abor

Taking each of these arguments, the fundamental stance of pro-life groups and individuals is that government funding of abortions is clearly wrong because: (1) abortion is murder; (2) abortion devalues human life, (3) abortion is not a constitutional right; and (4) abortion destroys family life. In its most basic form, opponents of government funding of abortions claim that they cannot support the government using their tax dollars to support an action they believe is murder, and akin to Hitler's genocide. While this is a strong assertion, it is common. However, as Dworkin (1993) noted, the pro-life movement does frequently make exceptions for killing in terms of war and the death penalty.

The concept of "compelling interest" is fundamental in constitutional law. Because of the rights guaranteed in the constitution, in many instances where the state wishes to regulate some activity, it must first prove that its interests are so compelling as to override individual rights specified, or implied, in the constitution. Much of the early court debate over regulation of health in the workplace, child labor, etc., was fought out within this framework.