Federal judge temporarily blocks TX abortion law

[Whyayeman]

Congress, the CDC, WebMD, and 38 States, clearly disagree with your assessment.

I am not persuaded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Burden of Proof


A fallacy is when someone makes an argument based on unsound reasoning. Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side. For example, a person makes a claim. Another person refutes the claim, and the first person asks them to prove that the claim is not true. In a logical argument, if someone states a claim, it is up to that person to prove the truth of his or her claim.

Burden of Proof Examples

re·fute | \ ri-ˈfyüt \
refuted; refuting
Definition of refute
transitive verb

1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2 : to deny the truth or accuracy of
refuted the allegations

Definition of REFUTE

Your move.

LOL! Yes, and you could have left the burden of proof upon me. You adopted it when you said "Nonsense" and refused to support that claim when I asked you to do so. I understand the burden of proof. You do not . I would have at least attempted to have supported my claim if you had debated properly and politely. All you had was denial. I asked for evidence of your denial and you hand waved an argument in.

Just remember in the future that one has to be careful how one debates because a person can take on the burden of proof with improper and in this case rude arguments.

 

[HARK!]

LOL! Yes, and you could have left the burden of proof upon me. You adopted it when you said "Nonsense" and refused to support that claim when I asked you to do so. I understand the burden of proof. You do not . I would have at least attempted to have supported my claim if you had debated properly and politely. All you had was denial. I asked for evidence of your denial and you hand waved an argument in.

Just remember in the future that one has to be careful how one debates because a person can take on the burden of proof with improper and in this case rude arguments.

I took you to school. I provided you with a dictionary; yet we are still debating basic logic.

I backed up my assertions with scholarly sources. You provided your unsupported opinion.

Who knows? Maybe you're right. Maybe it's the world that is all wrong.

 

[Desk trauma]

What a lovely game of pigeon chess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I took you to school. I provided you with a dictionary; yet we are still debating basic logic.

I backed up my assertions with scholarly sources. You provided your unsupported opinion.

Who knows? Maybe you're right. Maybe it's the world that is all wrong.

No, you seriously screwed up. You keep citing the burden of proof without understanding it. You took on the burden of proof when you used your one sentence denial of my post and then refusing to support that denial. You do not understand the burden of proof.

One more time:

You should have demanded evidence when I made my post. Not after you took on the burden of proof. It was too late then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What a lovely game of pigeon chess.

I would have gladly attempted to support my claim against a polite or even curt demand for evidence to support it. I knew when I wrote it that I had the burden of proof. If I failed I would even have admitted my failure. But now there really is no point. By the attitude given, even if I was right I would only be met with denial.

 

[HARK!]

No, you seriously screwed up. You keep citing the burden of proof without understanding it. You took on the burden of proof when you used your one sentence denial of my post and then refusing to support that denial. You do not understand the burden of proof.

One more time:

You should have demanded evidence when I made my post. Not after you took on the burden of proof. It was too late then.

Repeating your bare assertion fallacies, ad nauseam, doesn't help your debunked fallacious argument.

Have you considered working on a new shtick?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Repeating your bare assertion fallacies, ad nauseam, doesn't help your debunked fallacious argument.

Have you considered working on a new shtick?

Massive projection. You do not appear to understand any of the arguments that you try to use. Once again, I had the burden of proof until you kindly adopted it for your own.

One last time, though it is far too late now, you could have simple said "Citation needed".

 

[Goonie]

Massive projection. You do not appear to understand any of the arguments that you try to use. Once again, I had the burden of proof until you kindly adopted it for your own.

One last time, though it is far too late now, you could have simple said "Citation needed".

You appear to be under the clearly mistaken belief that this is a discussion forum....

 

[HARK!]

By the attitude given, even if I was right I would only be met with denial.

Oh goody! Another bare assertion fallacy, with an ad hominem twist! Who could have predicted that?

We can't deny the facts (well at least most of us). It would be refreshing if you were to present some (you know...the kind with verifiable sources other than ipse dixit?).

 

[Desk trauma]

You appear to be under the clearly mistaken belief that this is a discussion forum....

Hope springs eternal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh goody! Another bare assertion fallacy, with an ad hominem twist! Who could have predicted that?

We can't deny the facts (well at least most of us). It would be refreshing if you were to present some (you know...the kind with verifiable sources other than ipse dixit?).

Oh my. Still failing at those logical fallacies I see.

Observations are not "bare assertions". Once again you could have demanded evidence, and I could have quoted all of your posts and explained once again the errors that you made. You do not seem to realize that by your "logic" all you have is "bare assertions" as well.

If you could only learn how to enter into a polite discussion or even debate properly we might get somewhere.

 

[HARK!]

Massive projection.

Oh my. Still failing at those logical fallacies I see.

 

[Whyayeman]

Play nicely!

 

[NotreDame]

Good, It's non of our business. What women do with clumps of cells.

If medically and factually that was accurate, then you’d have an argument excellent point. But medically and factually this isn’t a mere “clumps of cells.”

 

[NotreDame]

On top of that, your inability and/or unwillingness to comprehend the actual argument being made in allowing virtually unrestricted choice with regard to women's health makes this topic almost impossible to discuss. The personhood or "humanness" of the fetus is not even relevant because even if we were talking about a fully grown adult with all the rights and privileges granted thereto a person cannot be compelled to provide their own body or any parts thereof to keep that person alive. It's about bodily autonomy, not personhood.

If you had a child for whom you were the only match on the planet for a blood transfusion or organ transplant and that child would certainly die without your blood or organs you cannot be legally compelled to provide your organs or blood to keep them alive under any circumstance. Nor can you be charged with their death when they die because you did not provide your blood or organs to them. This right to bodily autonomy even extends to after a person's death. Even after they are dead their organs cannot be harvested without their prior-to-death consent having been obtained. That's the argument for keeping abortion legal. You can not like it and think whatever you want about people who are involved, but you do not have a right to force them to lend their body to keep anything else alive whether a person or a fetus.

What hollow platitudes in the face of 700,000+ actual formerly living, breathing, beating heart, undebatably "person" persons. It makes no sense whatsoever to rail about "babies" but completely dismiss endangering and causing the deaths of people by also railing against sensible community health measures as is done by you pro-lifers on this forum.

Of course, there’s the threshold question of whether what you’re discussing above is analogous to the pro-life position. A pro-life POV is premised upon the abortion is the knowing and intentional termination of a human life. This pro-life position doesn’t fit within what you’ve said above. This isn’t to say this pro-life cannot be or isn’t parallel to what you’ve said, only that what you have presently said doesn’t not establish the two as parallel such that hypocrisy is present.

The personhood or "humanness" of the fetus is not even relevant because even if we were talking about a fully grown adult with all the rights and privileges granted thereto a person cannot be compelled to provide their own body or any parts thereof to keep that person alive.

Oh for heaven sakes, pregnancy doesn’t involve and isn’t analogous to a person “providing” their own organs/body parts to another person, where “provide” here is organ donation. The pregnant woman typically isn’t losing her bodily organ(s) and she isn’t required to do so, neither is she required to risk doing so where there is more than a risk or remote risk of losing an organ.

Pregnancy isn’t comparable to organ donation.

 

[NotreDame]

I’d be surprised if they didn’t. The 5th Circuit is the most ideologically conservative of all the appeals courts.

But no matter what the courts say—even if SCOTUS eventually upholds the TX law—Congress has the authority to codify legal abortion in federal law. Federal law overrides any state law to the contrary. Just like the Civil Rights Act voided state laws protecting racial segregation. And—absent an amendment—there’s nothing in the Constitution stating that the unborn are persons with 14th Amendment rights. But the Democrats would have to show some intestinal fortitude, suspend the filibuster in the Senate, and keep their majority together to pass a Right To Choose Act. But OTOH, federal laws aren’t so durable. If conservative Republicans win back the Presidency and majorities in House and Senate, the law can be repealed.

But no matter what the courts say—even if SCOTUS eventually upholds the TX law—Congress has the authority to codify legal abortion in federal law.

Do they? Which enumerated power in Article 1, section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress this power?

Just like the Civil Rights Act voided state laws protecting racial segregation.

The above is missing an important qualification. Congress invoked the commerce clause for the 64 Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination/segregation for public accommodations, whether the discrimination and segregation was a decision by establishment that is a public accommodation or enforced pursuant to a state law, local ordinance, or to adhere to some state authority. The 64 CRA applied to public accommodations.

CRA 64 didn’t require any specific public accommodation exist. CRA didn’t and does not mandate inns, hotels, restaurants to exist. CRA 64 did not and does not require the States to provide any specific service. Rather, the law applies to services and employment that have been offered to the public by a private or government entity and forbids discrimination where it has been decided some service/employment exists.

Your suggestion, however, possibly exceeds anything comparable to the 64 CRA, as you propose. “Congress has the authority to codify legal abortion in federal law.” What would that look like? A requirement states offer abortion services? That cannot happen because neither Congress or the federal government can order/mandate the states to offer abortion services under the no commandeering the States jurisprudence of SCOTUS.

So what does “Congress has the authority to codify legal abortion in federal law” substantively look like and operate?

 

[NotreDame]

.

If you had a child for whom you were the only match on the planet for a blood transfusion or organ transplant and that child would certainly die without your blood or organs you cannot be legally compelled to provide your organs or blood to keep them alive under any circumstance. Nor can you be charged with their death when they die because you did not provide your blood or organs to them. This right to bodily autonomy even extends to after a person's death. Even after they are dead their organs cannot be harvested without their prior-to-death consent having been obtained. That's the argument for keeping abortion legal. You can not like it and think whatever you want about people who are involved, but you do not have a right to force them to lend their body to keep anything else alive whether a person or a fetus.

First, pregnancy doesn’t require organ loss or loss of blood from the body. Neither does the law require a pregnant person risk what is more than a generalized or remote risk of organ loss or loss of blood that jeopardizes the health and life of the person. So, your analogy falls flat.

Of course, this analogy begins to diminish for abortions where the fetus can survive outside the womb, just like the rest of the human race that is born. For your analogy to be parallel to this kind of fetus then not only is the biological parent not required to donate blood or loss of a bodily organ to save their child but in addition the child is to be terminated. (Not advocating either, both are morally reprehensible to me.)

 

[jayem]

Do they? Which enumerated power in Article 1, section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress this power?

It's based on Sec. 1 and 5 of the 14th Amendment:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

State laws prohibiting abortion deprive a woman of her liberty--without due process--to make a medical decision regarding her health and well being. I think an argument can be made that the 9th Amendment is also violated by such laws. But in any case, Sec. 5 of the 14th Amendment clearly gives Congress enforcement power. I'm sure you know that.

"Congress has the authority to codify legal abortion in federal law.” What would that look like? A requirement states offer abortion services? That cannot happen because neither Congress or the federal government can order/mandate the states to offer abortion services under the no commandeering the States jurisprudence of SCOTUS.

So what does “Congress has the authority to codify legal abortion in federal law” substantively look like and operate?

You can see for yourself. Such a law has already passed the House. HR3755. The Woman's Health Protection Act of 2021. It doesn't require states to provider abortion services. It just prevents states from interfering. (It also invokes Congress's interstate commerce power. Which I'd agree is a real stretch.)

Text - H.R.3755 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Women's Health Protection Act of 2021

 

[rjs330]

Massive projection. You do not appear to understand any of the arguments that you try to use. Once again, I had the burden of proof until you kindly adopted it for your own.

One last time, though it is far too late now, you could have simple said "Citation needed".

What, we are now on a debate team with some sort of debate rules? I don't think so. At any time we can ask for proof. You of course can refuse to provide it, as we all can. This isn't some sort of highschool or collegiate debate with rules and trophies. It's a forum.

So it's never too late. We are free to point out you refuse to provide the proof. That's on you.