Who Bears the Burden of Proof?

[AGENT J]

Why must you end every sentence with an "LOL" or "LMAO"?


Tim-

not every sentence only when Im responding to something funny or its obnoxiously wrong thats when I tend to do so. Typically it happens when people argue against fact or make things up. :shrug:

 

[AGENT J]

Not only do I dispute it, but I disprove it. You just ignored it.

LMAO not using reality you didnt

you have TRIED to dispute it but you havent disproved the fact that the intial burden is on those that want the law defeated at all. And thats because its a fact that cant be changed, thats why you dodges my questions so many times.

 

[Hicup]

but it hasnt because the law still exists LOL :laughat:

He's arguing whether the law should exist, and he's arguing this concept with you, specifically. What relevance does your argument have that the law still exists, have? He's arguing with you, not the Supreme Court at the moment. Your whole premise is that the law is the law, and that's that? Really? Isn't this a debate forum, where we have the free exchange of ideas? Last time I checked, no one was ever defeated by the idea that a law is a law, and that's the last word on the subject. In fact, our entire human history is based on challenging such dogma, and the status quo, is it not? We first make the challenge in public forums, and we test the strength of our arguments and convictions. We "vet" the ideas among common people, and we decide if our ideas have merit enough to challenge more formally the existing and prevailing wisdom.


Tim-

 

[AGENT J]

He's arguing whether the law should exist, and he's arguing this concept with you, specifically. What relevance does your argument have that the law still exists, have? He's arguing with you, not the Supreme Court at the moment. Your whole premise is that the law is the law, and that's that? Really? Isn't this a debate forum, where we have the free exchange of ideas? Last time I checked, no one was ever defeated by the idea that a law is a law, and that's the last word on the subject. In fact, our entire human history is based on challenging such dogma, and the status quo, is it not? We first make the challenge in public forums, and we test the strength of our arguments and convictions. We "vet" the ideas among common people, and we decide if our ideas have merit enough to challenge more formally the existing and prevailing wisdom.


Tim-

thats a nice story but not true

If you read the thread what he told me is that the burden of proof is on those that want to keep the law this is 100% FALSE

the intial burden of proof is on those that want the law changed

I NEVER said the law is the law and that's that EVER. My opinion on laws or abortion plays ZERO role in the facts I have stated.

nobody is saying his opinion on abortion is wrong or the law CANT be changed LOL

The law exists so the initial burden is on those that want to change it, this is a fact he tries to deny and I simply wont let him LMAO

let me know when this fact changes :shrug: LOL

 

[david52875]

The law exists so the initial burden is on those that want to change it, this is a fact he tries to deny and I simply wont let him LMAO

The lack of proof supporting the law is proof enough.

 

[AGENT J]

The lack of proof supporting the law is proof enough.

but you have to prove there is a lack, thats the point you keep missing and the only thing reality cares about LOL

hence initial burden is yours. FACT

 

[david52875]

LMAO not using reality you didnt

you have TRIED to dispute it but you havent disproved the fact that the intial burden is on those that want the law defeated at all. And thats because its a fact that cant be changed, thats why you dodges my questions so many times.

Yes I have. A lack of proof supporting the law is enough proof against the law to have it struck down.

 

[Hicup]

thats a nice story but not true

If you read the thread what he told me is that the burden of proof is on those that want to keep the law this is 100% FALSE

the intial burden of proof is on those that want the law changed

I NEVER said the law is the law and that's that EVER. My opinion on laws or abortion plays ZERO role in the facts I have stated.

nobody is saying his opinion on abortion is wrong or the law CANT be changed LOL

The law exists so the initial burden is on those that want to change it, this is a fact he tries to deny and I simply wont let him LMAO

let me know when this fact changes :shrug: LOL

Ok.. So, now that we've dispensed with the unpleasantries, then why not answer his original argument? Has he not met his burden of proof to you, specifically? Have not I?


Tim-

 

[david52875]

but you have to prove there is a lack..

I do not have to prove there is a lack of proof anymore than I have to prove that there is no proof of elephants on the moon.

 

[AGENT J]

Well its time for bed, ill be back sometime later to see more made up ways for you to deny the fact that the initial burden of proof is yours:2wave:

 

[david52875]

Well its time for bed, ill be back sometime later to see more made up ways for you to deny the fact that the initial burden of proof is yours:2wave:

It takes quite a while for facts to change, so don't count on it.

 

[Hicup]

I would add that legally, the burden of proof is met when and only when the facts alleged are supported by the evidence. It is a fact that all things being equal a clump of human cells will become a fully functioning human being. It is also true that it is one of America's fundamental rights that we all have th right to life. It is further established that one of our most treasured American values is to protect those that cannot, or are unable to protect themselves.

Your turn..


Tim-

 

[david52875]

but you have to prove there is a lack, thats the point you keep missing and the only thing reality cares about LOL

hence initial burden is yours. FACT

What you are saying is equivalent to saying "You say there's no elephants on the moon? PROVE IT!"

 

[molten_dragon]

If I pass a law that says it's legal to kill black people, does somebody who wants that law stricken down need proof? No, the supporters of the law have the burden of proof.

If you pass a law saying that it's legal to kill black people, then yes, someone who wants that law changed would have the burden of proof. Just like the people who wanted to get rid of slavery had the burden of proof. People who already have what they want don't have any reason to try to prove they are right.

Let's look at it another way. Let's say that the burden of proof is on me (since I am pro-choice). And then let's say I don't bother to prove that my views are correct. What will happen? Absolutely nothing is what. Things will continue on the way they have for the last 40 years, and abortion will remain legal. If I do prove my views are correct, the exact same thing happens.

On the other hand, let's say the burden of proof is on you (I'm just assuming you're pro-life here, if not apologies). If you don't prove that your views are correct, then things will continue on as they have since Roe vs. Wade. But if you do prove that you're correct, that's the only situation in which things will change.

And that's why the burden of proof is on you. Because you're the one who wants things to change. It may not be fair, it may not be logical, but that's the world we live in. It's always been that way.

 

[joko104]

I would add that legally, the burden of proof is met when and only when the facts alleged are supported by the evidence. It is a fact that all things being equal a clump of human cells will become a fully functioning human being. It is also true that it is one of America's fundamental rights that we all have th right to life. It is further established that one of our most treasured American values is to protect those that cannot, or are unable to protect themselves.

Your turn..


Tim-

The presumption you make of "a right to life" is a false one in that then you extend this to mean a right to life at the expense or burden of someone else. That is not American. That is socialism. You have your right to life but as your own burden and duty. You have no right to life at my expense or obligation.

 

[prometeus]

It is a fact that all things being equal a clump of human cells will become a fully functioning human being.

It is also a fact that all thing are NOT equal, so what is your point?

It is also true that it is one of America's fundamental rights that we all have th right to life.

Really? Where is that established?

It is further established that one of our most treasured American values is to protect those that cannot, or are unable to protect themselves.

Is that why so many conservatives oppose universal health care and is that why collateral damage is acceptable in war?

 

[choiceone]

David52875 -

You keep saying that the law is destructive and therefore needs to be destroyed, as if there were a law that did something. Currently, if anyone makes laws to prevent abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy or laws to prevent or restrict it in the second trimester save to protect the woman's health, they will simply be challenged by the fact that the Supreme Court said such laws were unconstitutional. You do not want to destroy a law but to make a law. That is why you have to show proof. The pro-choice people already showed some proofs to the SC, in more than just one case, and the SC liked some of their proof. Pro-choice people do not have to prove anything: they did it a long time ago. Note, however, that they have more and more proof from science each year that embryos/fetuses are seriously violating people's rights if the pregnant women do not consent to pregnancy. No born person has the right to put/keep a body part inside another person's sex organs, to touch the tissue inside another person's body boundaries, to penetrate the tissue inside that person's body. No born person has the right to use some of that body's internal tissue to make an organ through which to take nutrients and oxygen away from that body and in which to dispose of waste, or to cause that organ to produce a chemical to destroy a necessary amino acid for life in that body in order to prevent that body's immune system from being able to function adequately against invasive viruses and infections, or to leak your own cells into someone's bloodstream. These are all things that an embryo/fetus does to a woman which would be illegal if any born person did them. And by the way, medical (chemical) and early-term surgical abortion do not kill the embryo: they just remove the embryo from the woman's tissue,, disimplant it. The embryo dies because it has no capacity to survive without doing these things. The embryo has to violate someone else's rights to survive. Give it up!

 

[Cephus]

So you have the authority to initiate unwarranted force against me? Where do you get this authority? Regardless, the United States Government was instituted to stop the use of force against another, in other words, to secure the people's rights. It is not a means by which you impose your morality onto others. That's why the US is not a democracy.

If society says I have that authority, then I do. There's no magical, ethereal set of rules out there that says otherwise.

 

[Hicup]

The presumption you make of "a right to life" is a false one in that then you extend this to mean a right to life at the expense or burden of someone else. That is not American. That is socialism. You have your right to life but as your own burden and duty. You have no right to life at my expense or obligation.

Define expense and obligation? I see no contradiction with anything I've stated.

Tim-

 

[Hicup]

It is also a fact that all thing are NOT equal, so what is your point?

Really? Where is that established?

Is that why so many conservatives oppose universal health care and is that why collateral damage is acceptable in war?

All things being equal meaning, that statistically a woman will carry a clump of cells to term.

It is established in the bill of rights, and our Declaration of Independance.

Conservatives have never been against providing for the truly needy. As far as collateral damage is concerned, I'm not sure how applicable your analogue is? Can you expand on your idea?


Tim-

 

[Tucker Case]

No where in my premises do I state that P has rights. I said it is uncontroversial that P has rights after P was born.

Teh entire statement of "After P was born" is pointless. There was no P before birth. A better phrasing would be it is uncontroversial that P has rights. Adding "after P was born" is redundant and misleading because it implies that P could have existed before birth, which is impossible given the description of P.

 

[Tucker Case]

Because if we agree that P has rights at time A, and you make the additional claim that P does not have rights at time B, you are making a positive claim.

I'm not making a positive claim at all because I'm not saying P didn't have rights at time B, I'm saying P didn't exist at time B.

Your premises exclude P from being able to exist prior to birth.

 

[Tucker Case]

Seriously, WTF?

There lies the problem. You are assuming that a fetus is P, when your premises distinctly exclude a fetus from being P. Therefore a fetus is Not P.

When you attempt to claim that a fetus is P, you are saying Not P is P.

 

[Tucker Case]

Yes you are. You are making the claim that there is A time where it is permissible to kill the fetus. In other words:

For some time t, it is permissible to kill the fetus at any time before t.

You are changing your terms. I'm discussing P, not fetuses. Fetuses are not P, as per the descriptions of P from the OP.

If I make a claim about P, I am not saying a damned thing about the fetus except that it is not P.

P cannot exist before birth, by your own definition of P. Therefore P cannot be a fetus.

What is true about P has no bearing on that which is not P.

Unless you can show that Not P (fetus) = P (any generic person who has been born).

Therefore the burden of proof remain on you.

 

[joko104]

Define expense and obligation? I see no contradiction with anything I've stated.

Tim-

Any expense or obligation of any kind.
A baby carriage could be rolling towards a cliff and merely by moving my foot one inch I could stop it. I have no obligation to do so in the American system. In fact, that premise is also well founded law. There is NO duty to sacrifice for others or to help others. The ONLY way I could have any liability would be if I did move my foot to try to stop it and that went wrong somehow. Then I could be liable or my action.
Your "right to life" is singularly your right. It places no duty on anyone else whatsoever. You can not force me to give you blood if blood necessary to save your life. I could deny you a free drink of water from my garden hose even if it mean you died of thirst. I could refuse you half a hamburger to stop you from starving and throw it in the trash in the next block. I could just continue sitting in my boat fishing watching you drown as you begged I throw you a lifeline. I could pour water over my head to cool off or even just down a drain as you begged for a drink. I have no obligations whatsoever towards your "right to life" in the American system.

That is how "right to life" works. All obligations and duties of it are yours. I have none towards you. That is the "American system."

This is response to what you seem to want to imply is your claim - that a ZEF has a right to life - and therefore the host female as a duty to feed it through her body to protect the ZEF's right to life as "the American system." But that is 100% contrary to the "American system." To claim she has a duty to provide for others is the system of socialism - born with sacrificial duties and obligations to others for the good of the whole.