I'm feeling generous tonight so I'm going to spell it out for "Alpha" (yeah, right) real slow so even he can surely get it.
On this topic of abortion, we're debating when "life" (in the moral sense of the word) begins. The right of a woman to make her own choices and control her own body is (hopefully) not in dispute. So the question is whether or not those rights can be denied due to some larger concern.
Now, on this subject, we've had three different answers as to what guides our moral obligations to our fellow living beings:
1. You have answered "human DNA"
2. I have answered "quality of self-awareness"
3. Losty has answered "viability"
Now I have written extensively on why I feel our moral obligations are toward other self-aware beings but let that go for now. You've summarily dismissed all of my arguments as "just my opinion".
Fine, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. It doesn't matter. Your defense is irrelevant.
Why?
Because I'm not the one trying to force my opinion on others. Losty and I agree to keep abortion safe and legal. My "week 21" is the most conservative estimate, as in how soon self-awareness could possibly develop. I'm perfectly comfortable with her "week 24". Losty and my views on when life begins might make for an interesting discussion but it makes no difference with regard to policy.
Neither she nor I have the burden of proof because we're not the ones who are trying to take away a woman's undisputed right to make choices over her own body and her own life and take away her access to first and second trimester abortions.
You are.
You would seek to ban all abortions. You would seek to deny women their right of choice.
You need to prove you have good cause to do so.
You need to do better than "my personal opinion is..."
You have no right to force your personal opinions on others and make life choices for them based on what you personally think is right for them.
Now you can kick all the dirt in the air you like. You can obfuscate and dodge. You can play semantic games. You can retort, "oh yeah, well what about your beliefs, huh?" all you like. But at the end of the day, you can't justify your desire to pass laws that force your opinions on others and deny their rights to make life choices for themselves.
The burden of proof is on you and you failed to meet it.
And so you've lost.
On this topic of abortion, we're debating when "life" (in the moral sense of the word) begins. The right of a woman to make her own choices and control her own body is (hopefully) not in dispute. So the question is whether or not those rights can be denied due to some larger concern.
Now, on this subject, we've had three different answers as to what guides our moral obligations to our fellow living beings:
1. You have answered "human DNA"
2. I have answered "quality of self-awareness"
3. Losty has answered "viability"
Now I have written extensively on why I feel our moral obligations are toward other self-aware beings but let that go for now. You've summarily dismissed all of my arguments as "just my opinion".
Fine, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. It doesn't matter. Your defense is irrelevant.
Why?
Because I'm not the one trying to force my opinion on others. Losty and I agree to keep abortion safe and legal. My "week 21" is the most conservative estimate, as in how soon self-awareness could possibly develop. I'm perfectly comfortable with her "week 24". Losty and my views on when life begins might make for an interesting discussion but it makes no difference with regard to policy.
Neither she nor I have the burden of proof because we're not the ones who are trying to take away a woman's undisputed right to make choices over her own body and her own life and take away her access to first and second trimester abortions.
You are.
You would seek to ban all abortions. You would seek to deny women their right of choice.
You need to prove you have good cause to do so.
You need to do better than "my personal opinion is..."
You have no right to force your personal opinions on others and make life choices for them based on what you personally think is right for them.
Now you can kick all the dirt in the air you like. You can obfuscate and dodge. You can play semantic games. You can retort, "oh yeah, well what about your beliefs, huh?" all you like. But at the end of the day, you can't justify your desire to pass laws that force your opinions on others and deny their rights to make life choices for themselves.
The burden of proof is on you and you failed to meet it.
And so you've lost.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
