Ok. Few things here: I know that "guilty" and "not guilty" are the terms used by a jury. What I am talking about is this
As you said, the burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. But what you're forgetting is the fact that at one point the people making the assertion
that abortion was ok were the people on whom the burden of proof rested. And according to the Presumption of Innocence (rule/premise/whatever), the people who are asserting something must convince the jury/judge beyond a reasonable doubt.
And what did the judges in Roe V. Wade
say? "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer
." Folks, I think that's called reasonable doubt. You seem to be making this a case of "It's legal now, so you're the one who has to provide the evidence" when that is not the case.
Before I begin my response to you SunnyC, I think it would be best for me to state that the word I should have used was, "proportion," not percent. Proportion is what I'm wondering about, not percent.
That is called religious zealotry
. In the context that Profesco is talking about, it comes in the form of gay bashing
, which you may remember was the driving force behind the Cyber Bullying thread earlier this year when a gay man was filmed having sex and it was streamed live over the internet - evidence that yes, it does happen, and abortion clinic shoot-outs and bombings
Do you know what I found when I searched that article on gay bashing for the words "religion", "God", "Christian", and "Jesus"? One use of the word, "godless" and two references to Christianity in the "Further Reading" section. No reference to G
od, no references to Christians being responsible for gay bashing, and no references at all about Jesus. So, on that article, SunnyC...you missed.
I do acknowledge that the article on anti-abortion violence mentions people who are religious and even Christian. But that does not tell me what the percent or even the proportion of the people who committed those crimes are Christian or religious. On that page there are 25 incidents (if you count the ones that are two categories of crimes that happened in the same incident) from the US and Canada. Do you want to know the official total
for anti-abortion violence in the US and Canada since 1977? 7066 incidents. Over 33 years. That comes out to approx. 214 incidents. Per year. In two large countries.(This is counting all the things that this website lists as violence and bomb threats and hoax devices.)
Now take the 25 incidents that the article listed. If we assume that all the incidents mentioned were committed for religious purposes (which is not true because the article shows at least one that was not committed for religious reasons), that comes out 11.79% of the average number of violent anti-abortion instances. Just going on that evidence is not enough to conclude that Christians are the people who primarily commit these acts. More information would be necessary before that could be shown to be the case.
So once again, SunnyC...you missed.
The decision does not stop there. It also comes down to whether or not there are degrees of humanity. See, you seemed to take a singular "it's human, that's it" stance and that already assumed too much. It will not perturb pro-choicers, because while a fetus as defined under what can and should be legally aborted is human, those who observe degrees of humanity will point out that the mother is a more complex being, an example of a conssumate human, farther along in her development and thus has the right of authority over her fetus, which is by comparison not as complete. It goes into women's reproductive rights as well.
I will not comment on this much because, as Profesco said, that is a different topic. But permit me to say this much. Since you indicate that is possible for an entity's degree of human-ness to increase during the entity's life, wouldn't it stand to reason that an entity's human-ness can decrease as well? Be careful, SunnyC because that argument stands on a slippery slope. Those ideas could be very dangerous in the hands of a government. (And before anyone tries to accuse me of a slippery slope fallacy, the fact that using degrees of human-ness to determine rights has already been established as a true slippery slope.)
You only take for granted that the issue is unsettled, because your side is the one that is unsettled by it - and you are the one making the issue unsettled here. A rather circular assumption of authority on your part.
See my response to Sabonea_Masukippa. That sums up why the matter should at least be considered unsettled.
This is almost...non sequitor. First of all, if is conditional, and it is impulsive to make a decision on an "if" without satisfaction of the burden of proof.
Second, we are allowing for the murder of thousands of humans with our tax dollars. In war. Oh, but with the exception of innocent civilians (a lot of them...) these are guilty parties so it okay.
Then we are allowing for the murder of comatose patients.
This is just assuming that we are responsible for wherever our tax dollars are going, because we largely incapable of affecting that. If you don't assume that, then "we" would not even be responsible for abortions, it would just be the mother, and the doctor who are the responsible parties, exactly how liberals intend it to be.
I should have worded my statement better. But the one thing you are forgetting is that we the people can vote on laws that are passesd, we can sign petitions, we can contact our senators and representatives and let our voices be heard. The general populace is not without means of recourse when the government does something that its citizens don't like.
Also, ShinySandshrew, I don't mean to ignore the portion of your post that deals with abortion and fetus status, it's just that such a discussion is a whole debate separate from this one, and I don't want to get into it here.
Bless you. That makes my work that much easier!
Don't even think about it. Stem cell research is essentially do you care more about already living humans vs some dead embryo that's going to rot in the trash can. The debate is half fact and half fiction. It's not done on LIVE embryos for crying out loud.
Really now? According to this
source, embryos that are
viable are donated for use in embryonic stem cell research. Also, I found this page
about what the Connecticut Fertility Associates does with unused embryos. It does not mention anything about the embryos having to be inviable before they can be donated to embryonic stem cell research.
So simply because it doesn't talk about what we've done with it, means they don't exist? That's not evidence of anything. You just went to a general information page. All it takes is more research which you clearly did not do.
Don't you think that if there were any instances of cures that were discovered through embryonic stem cells that they would say it right there, for everyone to hear? Furthermore, this page
of the website goes against your claim about the cures.
I admit that I did not do a lot of research when I made that post, but you might want to be careful how you make accusations, GhostAnime. Why? You'll see in a minute...
The second paragraph of that article was all I needed to read. "In 2008, German doctors reported they had used a selective adult
stem cell transplant to treat a leukemia patient. The treatment had a side effect — that the transplant also removed his HIV infection." [Emphasis added]
GA, in the same post where you told me that I didn't do enough research, you used an article as a piece of evidence that by no means proved your claim. I did a search for the word "embryo" and found nothing! At the very least, you are guilty of the exact thing
you accused me of! GhostAnime, and I say this with confidence, you needed to do more research.
Regardless, stem cell research can obviously be helpful and harms no living person. You ARE holding science back when you willfully say that you don't want to find more cures for the sake for something that would just be tossed away in a trash bin otherwise.
I do not think there is anything wrong with the use of adult stem cells. As long as they are legally obtained, I have no problems with them. But to make the generalization that you made without specifying what kind of stem cells you are talking about unfairly colors the debate. Now, to make my view clear, I find no problem with embryonic stem cell research that is carried out on embryos that were not killed for the purpose of the research. I have not yet seen evidence that the majority of embryos that are used for embryonic stem cell research are dead before they are donated to science.
I am done with discussing the above topics in this thread.