Who Bears the Burden of Proof?

[ecofarm]

You haven't proven to me that a ZEF is a person. Or not at least with an argument that passes logical scrutiny.

I don't think it needs to be a person to get some rights. After all, there exists animal rights. Being ecocentric, I don't find the argument necessary. I'd grant the ZEF rights like an animal at least (one can't just arbitrarily kill a pet) out of basic respect for life.

 

[david52875]

Which is completely irrelevant.

It's quite a logical leap to go from "All men are created...therefore a ZEF is a man." I suppose this makes a boy a man too :roll:

This post was about WHO had the BURDEN OF PROOF with respect to proving that a ZEF has rights. READ the EFFING TITLE. I even say specifically, "This is not about whether abortion is right or wrong, or legal or illegal. It is about who has burden of proof" Yet you ignore that completely.

 

[sangha]

There is an ADDITIONAL charge for the unborn child, in many (most?) states. Explain that.

Two words....Compelling interest

It pretty much is (extremely extenuating circumstances notwithstanding). Why?

It pretty much is not

I've read RvW, in HS. These days, I'm busy with real research when not playing on the net so I'm not gonna review it anytime soon if that's ok with you. Anyway, what is the compelling interest.

If you want to ignore the facts, as you obciously seem intent on doing, then I have no reason to explain the facts to you. If you want to know what compelling interest means, Google it

 

[david52875]

A ZEF is not a person, as the word is used in the constitution

First of all, Irrelevant to BURDEN OF PROOF.

Second, you post no argument. Only a conclusion.

 

[david52875]

If you want to ignore the facts, as you obciously seem intent on doing, then I have no reason to explain the facts to you.

Roe v Wade is not a fact. It is a Supreme Court decision. And it is completely irrelevant as to who has burden of proof.

 

[sangha]

I'm getting sick of this. Post an argument proving t < Tp < Tc, or stop posting. This thread is not even supposed to be about the legality of abortion.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons

 

[sangha]

So Jim Crow laws were constitutionally correct?

"Correct" is YOUR wording, not mine. Until they were struck down as as being unconstitutional, they were the law.

 

[david52875]

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

I said Post an argument proving t < Tp < Tc, not make an appeal to authority.

 

[david52875]

"Correct" is YOUR wording, not mine. Until they were struck down as as being unconstitutional, they were the law.

But they were never CONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[sangha]

No, an appeal to authority takes the following form:



The conclusion does not follow from the premises. It is therefore, not valid and fallacious.

But in this case, SCOTUS is not "claimed to be" an authority; SCOTUS *IS* the authority.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between a claim and a fact. You make claims and think they're facts, and think that actual facts are merely claims :lamo

 

[ecofarm]

Two words....Compelling interest

Claiming compelling interest because it's compelling interest is circular logic. What is the compelling interest.

 

[AGENT J]

Roe v Wade is not a fact. It is a Supreme Court decision. And it is completely irrelevant as to who has burden of proof.

WOW now this just further proves you have no idea what you are talking about and do not understand facts or reality LMAO :laughat:

 

[david52875]

But in this case, SCOTUS is not "claimed to be" an authority; SCOTUS *IS* the authority.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between a claim and a fact. You make claims and think they're facts, and think that actual facts are merely claims :lamo

EVEN IF SCOTUS is an Authority, the conclusion STILL does not follow from the premises!

 

[StillBallin75]

This post was about WHO had the BURDEN OF PROOF with respect to proving that a ZEF has rights. READ the EFFING TITLE. I even say specifically, "This is not about whether abortion is right or wrong, or legal or illegal. It is about who has burden of proof" Yet you ignore that completely.

My post said absolutely nothing about abortion being right or wrong. so I don't know what you're whining about. I was pointing out how absolutely idiotic your logical leap from "All men are created equal" means that "A ZEF is a man" was.

If I say "All movies are created differently," does this mean that an idea is George Lucas's head is a movie? Do you see how absolutely stupid your argument is?

As for my answer to your OP - I've told you that there is nothing that can be proven objectively, so no "burden of proof" exists. Only arguments on both sides.

 

[sangha]

And now you're admitting to making an appeal to authority? You just think your's is not fallacious?

Correct. What makes you think all appeals to authority are fallacious when even the link you posted (and by posting it, you made an appeal to authority) notes that only "Fallacious Appeals to Authority" are fallacious

 

[david52875]

WOW now this just further proves you have no idea what you are talking about and do not understand facts or reality LMAO :laughat:

Ad Hominem

 

[sangha]

Really? Congressmen march out in the streets lynching and killing people? What Planet are you living on?

And again you have to mistate what I said in order to pretend that you can refute it

I never said that Congress kills people; I said that the Fed govt does.

Reading is fundamental

 

[david52875]

My post said absolutely nothing about abortion being right or wrong. so I don't know what you're whining about. I was pointing out how absolutely idiotic your logical leap from "All men are created equal" means that "A ZEF is a man" was.

If I say "All movies are created differently," does this mean that an idea is George Lucas's head is a movie? Do you see how absolutely stupid your argument is?

You said "You haven't proven that the ZEF is a person". I never CLAIM TO, and I don't HAVE TO in order to prove you have Burden of Proof.

 

[sangha]

But those laws MUST BE CONSTITUTIONAL!

No they don't, as demonstrated by the number of times congress has passed laws that were unconstitutional

 

[sangha]

That was not the point. Read the title. BURDEN OF PROOF.

david thinks that everyone but him has a "burden of proof" :roll:

 

[AGENT J]

Ad Hominem

100% false

now man up and answer the question kid

HOW will the abortion law change?
HOW will it be struck down?
(ANYBODY can feel free to answer this by the way)

Officially Times Asked Of David and he Dodge it counter: 34

 

[david52875]

And again you have to mistate what I said in order to pretend that you can refute it

I never said that Congress kills people; I said that the Fed govt does.

Reading is fundamental

And Congress is a subset of the Federal Government.

If I say the set of People X like jazz, and Person P is a member of set X, then P likes Jazz.

 

[david52875]

100% false

now man up and answer the question kid

HOW will the abortion law change?
HOW will it be struck down?
(ANYBODY can feel free to answer this by the way)

Officially Times Asked Of David and he Dodge it counter: 34

Officially How Many More Minutes I am Going TO Waste Responding To You: 0

 

[sangha]

Again, you are using semantics. And it doesn't matter if the Constitution does not say men have rights. Federalist 84

Gee, that sure looks like an Appeal to Authority, and I seem to remember you saying that you think that all Appeals to Authority are fallacious

I guess I missed the part where it says that yours are OK. It must be in the same section where it says you never have any burden of proof to support your claims (Hint: still waiting for you to quote where the constitution says that congress can't pass laws based on falsehoods)

 

[AGENT J]

You said "You haven't proven that the ZEF is a person". I never CLAIM TO, and I don't HAVE TO in order to prove you have Burden of Proof.

actually in this thread you have, this is ANOTHER lie