Abortion and Women's Rights

[John V]

But when you seek to force your opinion on others, whether by legislation or by personal action, the burden of proof *IS* on you to show there is good cause to do so.

I know I only said that about a dozen times on this thread so here it is again.

And I've noted as many times that it's nonsensical to speak of good cause regarding an opinion.

You have not done this.

You have admitted that you can't do this.


Ergo: You lose.

Neither have you done it. A couple paragraphs explaining your opinion and a Star Trek clip do not constitute good cause.

The only difference is that I admit it.

---

For the same purpose as having an abortion. She doesn't want the fetus in her body.

There's a wee bit of a difference in that, in the first case, there's no baby at the end. In the second, there is.

So, again, for what purpose? She wants to keep the baby, but just doesn't want to be pregnant anymore?

[DeistPaladin]

And I've noted as many times that it's nonsensical to speak of good cause regarding an opinion.

You're welcome to your opinion. You just can't force it on others. You want to force it on others through legislation, and so the burden of proof is on you.

Neither have you done it. A couple paragraphs explaining your opinion and a Star Trek clip do not constitute good cause.

Completely irrelevant. This is the "oh yeah, well what about your beliefs, huh?" argument. It does nothing to bolster your position.

The burden of proof is on you if you wish to force your beliefs on others.

[Losty]

For the same purpose as having an abortion. She doesn't want the fetus in her body.

There's a wee bit of a difference in that, in the first case, there's no baby at the end. In the second, there is.

So, again, for what purpose? She wants to keep the baby, but just doesn't want to be pregnant anymore?

I don't know if you noticed, but in most places abortion after viability is illegal. The argument is that once the fetus is viable it has more right to live. Okay that is fine, but just because the fetus is viable and has a right to live does not mean it has the right to live in her body.

This is just me talking though. It's really not relevant. If we made abortion affordable and easy access we wouldn't need to discuss late term abortions outside of medically necesarry cases.

[GrandizerII]

alpha male, would you ever accept to having a fetus in your own body?

[DeistPaladin]

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.

[Snowflake]

It's claimed that the pro-life movement really exists because pro-lifers don't want women to be equals with men. Being anti-abortion in other words is one major way they can bolster traditional patriarchy. If that's the case, then why are so many pro-lifers women? From my experience, the most vocal (and annoying) pro-lifers are women. Are these women wanting to limit their own freedom? Are they wanting to be subservient to men? Why?

Because the group you mentioned with too many control freaks ,these control freaks love to limit others freedom for what they like.(babies)

[John V]

You're welcome to your opinion. You just can't force it on others. You want to force it on others through legislation, and so the burden of proof is on you.

Neither have you done it. A couple paragraphs explaining your opinion and a Star Trek clip do not constitute good cause.

Completely irrelevant. This is the "oh yeah, well what about your beliefs, huh?" argument. It does nothing to bolster your position.

The burden of proof is on you if you wish to force your beliefs on others.

Same with you, just a different opinion as to cutoff point.

And you don't seem to understand the agree to disagree thing.

---

I don't know if you noticed, but in most places abortion after viability is illegal.

Do you support or oppose such laws?

[DeistPaladin]

Same with you, just a different opinion as to cutoff point.

It sounds like we don't even disagree on much. We agree, and you've just admitted, that you're trying to force your arbitrary opinions on others, intrude upon their lives without any justification, and make decisions for them.

"Same with you" is a "yes but" answer. A.k.a. "Yes, I'm guilty as charged, but you do it too".

The difference is, as previously discussed, Losty and I are using ALL the possible criteria: Self-awareness, viability and your arbitrary DNA distinction. So actually we do have justification for our positions on 3rd trimester abortions. You do not on 1st and 2nd. So, actually, no, not same with us.

So can we agree that on the issue of abortion, you're a sanctimonious, busy-body, bully, then?

[Losty]

[quote='Losty' pid='681451' dateline='1401911320']
I don't know if you noticed, but in most places abortion after viability is illegal.

Do you support or oppose such laws?

I don't put a huge amount of thought into it. I will say again for what seems like the millionth time (not with you but you know just over all), I do not understand why people get so caught up on late term abortion. Its such a small percentage of abortions. It could so easily be eliminated without making it illegal.
[Since you asked though. I guess I will say this. I don't think a fetus' right to live should ever trump a woman's right to ownership and control over her own body. That being said, if a fetus is viable and there are no medical issues causing a threat to the woman's life, then that fetus has a right to live. Doesn't mean it has a right to live inside her body but it does have a right to live.]
I put brackets around so I can say, I will not debate the contents of those brackets. That is my personal opinion and it is not up for debate. I will gladly debate what is before the brackets as it is my political opinion.

[John V]

[Since you asked though. I guess I will say this. I don't think a fetus' right to live should ever trump a woman's right to ownership and control over her own body. That being said, if a fetus is viable and there are no medical issues causing a threat to the woman's life, then that fetus has a right to live. Doesn't mean it has a right to live inside her body but it does have a right to live.]
I put brackets around so I can say, I will not debate the contents of those brackets. That is my personal opinion and it is not up for debate. I will gladly debate what is before the brackets as it is my political opinion.

Seems fair enough. I find it strange though that I've said pretty much the same thing, yet you kudo posts by DP saying that I have the burden of proof to prove my opinion (despite that being an oxymoron).

---

"Same with you" is a "yes but" answer. A.k.a. "Yes, I'm guilty as charged, but you do it too".

Yes, I've said all along that you can't prove opinion, and we're both gulity of it.

The difference is, as previously discussed, Losty and I are using ALL the possible criteria: Self-awareness, viability and your arbitrary DNA distinction. So actually we do have justification for our positions on 3rd trimester abortions. You do not on 1st and 2nd. So, actually, no, not same with us.

Ah, so now you further hurt your position with ad hoc shifting of criteria, and try to spin that as justification.

So can we agree that on the issue of abortion, you're a sanctimonious, busy-body, bully, then?

A woman wanting an abortion after 21 weeks might say the same of you.