Who Bears the Burden of Proof?

[david52875]

It's generally accepted that the burden of proof lies on the Pro-life side of the argument. After all, the Pro-Life side is making the positive claim that the ZEF has a right to life. Nothing else considered, the Pro-lifer would bear the burden of proof. However, Virtually all Pro-choicers believe they themselves have a right to life. This shifts the burden of proof on to the Pro-Choice side. Consider this:

Let P be any generic person who has been born.
let Tp be the time at which P became a person.
Let Tc be the current time, this very instant.
Also, let T0 be the moment of conception.

The pro-lifer makes the claim that for any time t where t >= T0, Tp <= t (Tp occurs before or at the same instant as t). If they are right, abortion is not permissible.
The pro-choicer makes the claim that there is some time t where t >= T0 and t < Tp. If they are right, abortion is permissible at any time before or at the instant of t.

While both sides are positive claims, the permissibility of abortion does not depend on the Pro-Choicers argument being valid. Unless the Pro-Lifer can make a valid argument against abortion, then there is no reason to say abortion is impermissible. In other words, the Pro-Lifer bears the burden of proof. However, virtually no Pro-Lifer disagrees that once a person is born, he/she is a person. So the Pro-Choice claim now becomes:

There is a time t where t >= T0 and t < Tp < Tc. If they are right, it is permissible to have an abortion any time before t AND it is impermissible to kill P at Tc.

This positive claim they're making is that Tc > Tp. Proving Tc > Tp is necessary for them to claim any rights. Unless the Pro-Choicer believes it is permissible to kill P, even after he was born, then the positive claim is on the Pro-Choicer. Keep in mind, I did NOT prove abortion was right or wrong, or legal or illegal. I proved that abortion is impermissible unless the pro-Choicer can produce a valid argument to support their claim, or believe that someone can be killed even after birth.

On a side note:
I do not like using the terms "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice". I think they are loaded propaganda terms. However, OI found some people feel the same way about "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion". Does anyone know of a non-biased term for "Pro Choice" and "Pro-Life" thats less than five syllables?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

both sides bear the burden of proof in this argument - letting the other side bring facts and information favoring it's views to the table doesn't mean the other side 'lost' -

 

[david52875]

both sides bear the burden of proof in this argument - letting the other side bring facts and information favoring it's views to the table doesn't mean the other side 'lost' -

Both sides can't bear the burden of proof. That is impossible. Say we were debating whether or not a rock had a right to life and none of us could come up with a sound and valid argument. It wouldn't make any sense to say that, since we can't think of any valid arguments, the rock both has and does not have a right to life.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Both sides can't bear the burden of proof. That is impossible. Say we were debating whether or not a rock had a right to life and none of us could come up with a sound and valid argument. It wouldn't make any sense to say that, since we can't think of any valid arguments, the rock both has and does not have a right to life.

Why don't they both bear the burden?

One is presenting one idea - thus must give adequate reasoning and supportive thought.
The other is presenting another idea - thus must give adequate reasoning and supportive thought.

How can anyone expect to discuss or debate if you only discuss ONE aspect of it and present only a one-sided argument?

Seems like a pointless conversation to have, to me. . . if I can't speak.

 

[david52875]

Why don't they both bear the burden?

One is presenting one idea - thus must give adequate reasoning and supportive thought.
The other is presenting another idea - thus must give adequate reasoning and supportive thought.

How can anyone expect to discuss or debate if you only discuss ONE aspect of it and present only a one-sided argument?

Seems like a pointless conversation to have, to me. . . if I can't speak.

I never said neither of them have to give reasoning or thought. But in any debate that is "Either A or not A" There is always going to be a burden of proof. All I've proven was that someone who is pro-choice can't say "Prove abortion is wrong, or abortion is not wrong." Just like how a theist can't say "Prove there is no God or there is a God."

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

While I happen to accept the science behind why a ZEF is not a human being, this is largely irrelevant to my pro-choice position.

I would still be pro-choice even if that weren't true. There are any number of reasons for that.
1. Relative impact and importance. The woman obviously has far, far more of this.
2. Ethical concerns with unfettered childbearing, including but not limited to: consent (of the ZEF/potential person to being brought into being), environmentalism, social burden, etc.
3. Personal agency. The woman has the right to kill a parasite occupying her body. It is no different for a ZEF, because...
a. Humans are not inherently more important than any other living thing. We only believe this because we're humans.
b. Even if they were, it is defensible to kill an actual person who is trying to take your home hostage. An unwanted ZEF is basically doing just that, and they aren't even a person.

If you don't want to accept the science, that's fine. There's still a gigantic mountain of other problems for an anti-choicer to overcome.

 

[david52875]

While I happen to accept the science behind why a ZEF is not a human being, this is largely irrelevant to my pro-choice position.

I would still be pro-choice even if that weren't true. There are any number of reasons for that.
1. Relative impact and importance. The woman obviously has far, far more of this.
2. Ethical concerns with unfettered childbearing, including but not limited to: consent (of the ZEF/potential person to being brought into being), environmentalism, social burden, etc.
3. Personal agency. The woman has the right to kill a parasite occupying her body. It is no different for a ZEF, because...
a. Humans are not inherently more important than any other living thing. We only believe this because we're humans.
b. Even if they were, it is defensible to kill an actual person who is trying to take your home hostage. An unwanted ZEF is basically doing just that, and they aren't even a person.

If you don't want to accept the science, that's fine. There's still a gigantic mountain of other problems for an anti-choicer to overcome.

First of all, ask yourself how many of your arguments could be used to justify killing not only a ZEF, but also full, flesh and blood humans. I counted 2 and 3a.
Also, I just posted this as a new thread, but say there is a mad scientist living in the middle of Antarctica. He successfully clones a human being after several years but doesn't want to feed, house and clothe the clone. Does the Scientist have the right to kick the clone out of the laboratory, into the elements, with no clothes, food or shelter? Certainly the clone will die, but, it is the scientist's laboratory after all. If so how does this differ from an abortion, where the woman kicks the ZEF out of her uterus?

A ZEF is not a parasite. A parasite invades the hosts and uses it's body for nourishment. The ZEF, on the other hand, is kept alive by a woman's body. The woman's body is actively keeping it alive. You could just as well say that your arm or leg is a parasite for taking blood and oxygen from the rest of your body.

 

[david52875]

But before we get carried away, I do not want to debate whether abortion is right or wrong, or illegal or illegal in this thread. This is about who has the burden of proof. You could actually agree with this post %100 and still be pro-choice.

 

[the_recruit]

It's generally accepted that the burden of proof lies on the Pro-life side of the argument. After all, the Pro-Life side is making the positive claim that the ZEF has a right to life. Nothing else considered, the Pro-lifer would bear the burden of proof. However, Virtually all Pro-choicers believe they themselves have a right to life. This shifts the burden of proof on to the Pro-Choice side. Consider this:

Let P be any generic person who has been born.
let Tp be the time at which P became a person.
Let Tc be the current time, this very instant.
Also, let T0 be the moment of conception.

The pro-lifer makes the claim that for any time t where t >= T0, Tp <= t (Tp occurs before or at the same instant as t). If they are right, abortion is not permissible.
The pro-choicer makes the claim that there is some time t where t >= T0 and t < Tp. If they are right, abortion is permissible at any time before or at the instant of t.

While both sides are positive claims, the permissibility of abortion does not depend on the Pro-Choicers argument being valid. Unless the Pro-Lifer can make a valid argument against abortion, then there is no reason to say abortion is impermissible. In other words, the Pro-Lifer bears the burden of proof. However, virtually no Pro-Lifer disagrees that once a person is born, he/she is a person. So the Pro-Choice claim now becomes:

There is a time t where t >= T0 and t < Tp < Tc. If they are right, it is permissible to have an abortion any time before t AND it is impermissible to kill P at Tc.

This positive claim they're making is that Tc > Tp. Proving Tc > Tp is necessary for them to claim any rights. Unless the Pro-Choicer believes it is permissible to kill P, even after he was born, then the positive claim is on the Pro-Choicer. Keep in mind, I did NOT prove abortion was right or wrong, or legal or illegal. I proved that abortion is impermissible unless the pro-Choicer can produce a valid argument to support their claim, or believe that someone can be killed even after birth.

On a side note:
I do not like using the terms "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice". I think they are loaded propaganda terms. However, OI found some people feel the same way about "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion". Does anyone know of a non-biased term for "Pro Choice" and "Pro-Life" thats less than five syllables?

That's a solid argument as far as I'm concerned. But I don't see why burden of proof matters. Neither side can prove anything.

I've never heard a stance on abortion that I don't find completely laughable. I also agree about the pro-abortion and anti-abortion terminology. Those are the most fitting names possible, people's feelings be damned.

 

[david52875]

That's a solid argument as far as I'm concerned. But I don't see why burden of proof matters. Neither side can prove anything.

I've never heard a stance on abortion that I don't find completely laughable. I also agree about the pro-abortion and anti-abortion terminology. Those are the most fitting names possible, people's feelings be damned.

Actually, the fact that neither side can prove anything is exactly why burden of proof is important. Say a theist and an atheist debate, but neither can come up with a valid argument. The logical conclusion would be that there is no god, because the burden of proof is on the theist in this case.

 

[the_recruit]

Actually, the fact that neither side can prove anything is exactly why burden of proof is important. Say a theist and an atheist debate, but neither can come up with a valid argument. The logical conclusion would be that there is no god, because the burden of proof is on the theist in this case.

that doesn't matter though. the theist isn't going to be convinced that he's wrong, just because he has the burden of proof and he can't deliver. it doesn't change anything. it's frivolous.

 

[the_recruit]

Also, I just posted this as a new thread, but say there is a mad scientist living in the middle of Antarctica. He successfully clones a human being after several years but doesn't want to feed, house and clothe the clone. Does the Scientist have the right to kick the clone out of the laboratory, into the elements, with no clothes, food or shelter? Certainly the clone will die, but, it is the scientist's laboratory after all. If so how does this differ from an abortion, where the woman kicks the ZEF out of her uterus?

just to further your point with another example. After the baby is born, we as a society expect the mother to care for the baby, even though it's a burden. A mother with a newborn just can't suddenly stop feeding her baby because she decided she doesn't want it anymore. The baby still depends on the mother for survival. The fact that it's relying on differerent organ systems (the mothers hands and feet, now, rather than directly through her bloodstream via umbilical cord) is an arbitrary distinction. A newborn baby is a ball and chain on the mother (arguably even more so than when it was in the womb), and yet we still obligate the mother to ensure the baby's well being.

 

[david52875]

that doesn't matter though. the theist isn't going to be convinced that he's wrong, just because he has the burden of proof and he can't deliver. it doesn't change anything. it's frivolous.

Ahh, I see your point. But you could argue to make abortion illegal, since laws are supposed to be objective.

 

[choiceone]

david52875 -

Objectively, an embryo/fetus has a biologically parasitic - not mutual, not commensal - relationship to the woman's body. The zygote has a non-parasitic, commensal relationship to that body because it lives its short, independent (max 8-10 days) life in her without detriment to her. It then becomes a blastocyte, "blasts" into the tissue of her body (hopefully the uterine wall) and then uses some of her tissue in developing a placenta through which to draw nutrients and oxygen from her body. Once inside her tissue and engaged in that behavior, the embryo is parasitic on her, meaning it lives on her, draws benefit from her body to the detriment of her body. Her immune system does nothing in response to the commensally related zygote. However, her immune system attacks the embryo three ways - the attack T-cells that attack and expel invasive viruses and infections, complement (blood factor coating) that also attacks infections, and antibodies. If the attack T-cells attack successfully, the embryo is expelled from the tissue and pregnancy ends. The embryo signals the forming placenta to produce indolamine 2, 3 dioxygenase, which catabolizes the amino acid triptophan in her body. Triptophan is an essential amino acid for her body's life and the nutrient for attack T-cells. When it is catabolized, the attack T-cells are starving and cannot function properly or reproduce. They go into latency for survival. The complement and antibodies continue the attack on the embryo, though they are unable to expel it without the attack T-cells. All this does not just happen because the embryo has an alien genetic code. Bacteria in the body which are not harmful to the body are not attacked thus. The woman's body is not actively trying to keep the embryo alive; her immune system is trying to expel it. The embryo takes nutrients and oxygen from her body as host to her detriment; her immune system attacks it by three means the same way it attacks other threats to her health; the zygote disables the front lines of defense of her immune system so that they can no longer protect her from even potentially lethal viruses and infections. That is just one way pregnancy is dangerous.

the_recruit -

Though "society" may want to make a mother with a newborn care for it, she does not have to. She can give it up for adoption. A newborn can live without its mother (though she should feed it for the first three months because only her milk can give it immunities necessary later on). An embryo cannot live if separated from the particular woman it is using parasitically as a host: if uprooted, expelled from her tissue, it cannot continue living because it, unlike the zygote, does not have life on its own. The zygote can live in a petri dish and we can extend its life by feeding it a supernutrient, rather as a premature infant can live in an incubator if we provide oxygen and nutrients. But the embryo/pre-viable fetus cannot live if separated from the particular host body.

 

[Jerry]

It's generally accepted that the burden of proof lies on the Pro-life side of the argument. After all, the Pro-Life side is making the positive claim that the ZEF has a right to life. Nothing else considered, the Pro-lifer would bear the burden of proof. However, Virtually all Pro-choicers believe they themselves have a right to life. This shifts the burden of proof on to the Pro-Choice side. Consider this:

Let P be any generic person who has been born.
let Tp be the time at which P became a person.
Let Tc be the current time, this very instant.
Also, let T0 be the moment of conception.

The pro-lifer makes the claim that for any time t where t >= T0, Tp <= t (Tp occurs before or at the same instant as t). If they are right, abortion is not permissible.
The pro-choicer makes the claim that there is some time t where t >= T0 and t < Tp. If they are right, abortion is permissible at any time before or at the instant of t.

While both sides are positive claims, the permissibility of abortion does not depend on the Pro-Choicers argument being valid. Unless the Pro-Lifer can make a valid argument against abortion, then there is no reason to say abortion is impermissible. In other words, the Pro-Lifer bears the burden of proof. However, virtually no Pro-Lifer disagrees that once a person is born, he/she is a person. So the Pro-Choice claim now becomes:

There is a time t where t >= T0 and t < Tp < Tc. If they are right, it is permissible to have an abortion any time before t AND it is impermissible to kill P at Tc.

This positive claim they're making is that Tc > Tp. Proving Tc > Tp is necessary for them to claim any rights. Unless the Pro-Choicer believes it is permissible to kill P, even after he was born, then the positive claim is on the Pro-Choicer. Keep in mind, I did NOT prove abortion was right or wrong, or legal or illegal. I proved that abortion is impermissible unless the pro-Choicer can produce a valid argument to support their claim, or believe that someone can be killed even after birth.

On a side note:
I do not like using the terms "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice". I think they are loaded propaganda terms. However, OI found some people feel the same way about "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion". Does anyone know of a non-biased term for "Pro Choice" and "Pro-Life" thats less than five syllables?

Since $i$ = $\mathbb{C}$ in $x^{2}= -1$, then 6.67*10[SUP]-11[/SUP]Nm[SUP]2[/SUP]kg[SUP]-2[/SUP]

That should settle the issue.

 

[Removable Mind]

Jerry, glad you finally settled the issue that using logic and reason isn't your strong point.

David is at least interjecting a different perspective to the argument.

 

[joko104]

Your's is a very good question and welcome to the forum.

Who has the burden of proof in debate is either 1.) who wants a change from the status quo or 2.) who is making a claim that is not accepted as a universal truism.

So in a legislative sense, wanting to outlaw abortions other than already prohibited partial birth abortions has the burden of proof.

Debating whether a ZEF should have full civil/human rights as an ideological/philosophical question is not an accepted truism, so each side has the burden to proof their claim if making one.

In addition, there are the arguments over word definitions: "human," "person," "baby," "child." Those are worthless as words mean whatever the person using them claims they mean from that person.

Finally, on the topic of abortion you come to emotional issues. "Proof" doesn't much apply to those, though those are the controlling issues to most people in real terms.

PS: Your claim of mathematical proof is nonsense. You claim identical dna defines a person and thus identical dna means the same status.

Chop off your fingers and thumbs. By your math there are now 11 of you.
Dig up a corpse. Check the dna and compare it to a blood sample when that person a baby. DNA would by your math prove the dead person is a baby.
Give you a blood tranfusion of my blood. Take a DNA sample of your blood immediately thereafter. DNA testing thus might prove you are me and then it could further be proved you are me as a baby.

Going in a different direction, many would claim that what constitutes a unique human - including a human born baby - is self-awareness or knowledge of the world or level of self consciousness or soul etc. Your math asserts humans are animals - only animals. Even most athiests will claim that humans are very unique in terms of self awareness, inner voice, moral codes etc and thus very distinct from other animals for reasons of the mind, not the physical body.

Also, your word "kill" is subjective. If your life was dependent upon perpetual blood transfusions from me and eating my food, if I refused you further taking my blood and my food did I "kill" you? If you refuse a beggar money for food and he starves to death, by your claim you "killed" him. Unless you gave every penny you had to world hunger, in your reasoning you are "killing" people every day.

 

[Jerry]

Your's is a very good question and welcome to the forum.

Who has the burden of proof in debate is either 1.) who wants a change from the status quo or 2.) who is making a claim that is not accepted as a universal truism.

So in a legislative sense, wanting to outlaw abortions other than already prohibited partial birth abortions has the burden of proof.

Debating whether a ZEF should have full civil/human rights as an ideological/philosophical question is not an accepted truism, so each side has the burden to proof their claim if making one.

In addition, there are the arguments over word definitions: "human," "person," "baby," "child." Those are worthless as words mean whatever the person using them claims they mean from that person.

Finally, on the topic of abortion you come to emotional issues. "Proof" doesn't much apply to those, though those are the controlling issues to most people in real terms.

PS: Your claim of mathematical proof is nonsense.

When someone starts supplementing actual words for symbols, I just tune out. Erngwish, do u'z spek it?!

As for proof, idk, SCOTUS already said that if 'personhood' were established in the law that abortion would have to be banned. The 14th didn't apply to the unborn then, but it does now with the laws we've made since. So, idk why someone is even concerned with burdens. It just seems like posturing to me.

 

[joko104]

Another measure of burden of proof concerns "burden to persuade for change."

It is nearly universally agreed (there will always be the odd exception) by all that if a fetus reaches independent living (born, breathing) it has obtained full human, civil and legal rights even if that was not wanted to happen. An extremely rare circumstance might be if a late term C-section was done as a necessary emergency in part due to a believe the fetus was dead, then upon remove it learned it is not and "comes to life." Very, very few people do not agree at that point it is a "baby" and cannot be destroyed.

Since that is the universal agreement between both sides, persuasive burden of proof would lie upon anyone urging a view beyond that. For example, "pro-lifers" successfully persuaded beyond that to "partial birth abortion ban" for a sizeable majority.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I never said neither of them have to give reasoning or thought. But in any debate that is "Either A or not A" There is always going to be a burden of proof. All I've proven was that someone who is pro-choice can't say "Prove abortion is wrong, or abortion is not wrong." Just like how a theist can't say "Prove there is no God or there is a God."

yes - there is always a burden of proof.

Burden of proof for what you are demanding is 'right' or 'just' or 'what everyone else should believe' or 'what others shouldn't be allowed to do'

This isn't court and cases in criminal law where one side and one side alone carries the burden of proof and the other side only needs to dissuade belief in that proof *just enough* to make someone not-quite-so-sure-about-it like a trial ruling.

 

[the_recruit]

Though "society" may want to make a mother with a newborn care for it, she does not have to. She can give it up for adoption.

Putting a newborn up for adoption IS ensuring the babies' well-being. If the mother's right to autonomy truly trumps the baby's right to life, she should just be allowed to ditch the baby wherever she wants whenever she wants for whatever reason. But we don't allow that. The mother can't just leave her baby in the trunk of her car and completely ignore it. We require that the mother ensures the babies' well-being, by either taking care of the baby herself or by going through the steps of putting the baby up for adoption so someone else can take care of it. An obligation is placed on the mother to do this. We view the baby's right to life as being more important than the mother's right to autonomy.

So tell me, what if the mother decides after she gets home from the hospital with her newborn that she doesn't want to deal with the hassle of putting the baby up for adoption? What if she just wants to sit and watch soap operas and completely ignore the baby? Would you say she has a right to do so? Or would you say she has an obligation to make sure the baby gets taken care of?

A newborn can live without its mother (though she should feed it for the first three months because only her milk can give it immunities necessary later on). An embryo cannot live if separated from the particular woman it is using parasitically as a host: if uprooted, expelled from her tissue, it cannot continue living because it, unlike the zygote, does not have life on its own. The zygote can live in a petri dish and we can extend its life by feeding it a supernutrient, rather as a premature infant can live in an incubator if we provide oxygen and nutrients. But the embryo/pre-viable fetus cannot live if separated from the particular host body.

Well, this is the viability argument which has been shown to be extremely flimsy ad nauseum.

 

[the_recruit]

When someone starts supplementing actual words for symbols, I just tune out.

code for "i don't understand it"

 

[ThePlayDrive]

It's generally accepted that the burden of proof lies on the Pro-life side of the argument. After all, the Pro-Life side is making the positive claim that the ZEF has a right to life. Nothing else considered, the Pro-lifer would bear the burden of proof. However, Virtually all Pro-choicers believe they themselves have a right to life. This shifts the burden of proof on to the Pro-Choice side.

[...]

I tend to use the same rules for every debate: the burden of proof is either on the person making the positive claim or on the person who wants to convince others to adopt their point of view - whichever comes first. In the first case, if I say, "Consciousness does not exist in a fetus," then I have the burden of proof (note: this is separate from saying, "I believe consciousness does not exist in a fetus."). In the second case, I tend to think that pro-lifers are usually the ones who want to convince others to adopt their beliefs since pro-choicers have pretty much won at this point with regards to law.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Hrm, a totally academic discussion that has absolutely no bearing on any real discussions going on in this subforum.

But self gratifying for those involved, I am sure.

 

[the_recruit]

Hrm, a totally academic discussion that has absolutely no bearing on any real discussions going on in this subforum.

But self gratifying for those involved, I am sure.

as opposed to all the other very productive abortion threads. :roll:

A fetus has rights at conception! No it doesn't! Yes it does! No it doesn't! Yes it does! No it doesn't!...