torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (09/25/85)
In article <690@ihu1m.UUCP> jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes: >[ROSENBLATT] got it right. The abortion issue is a clash between two sets >of moral values. However, I think the positions of the pro-lifers and >pro-choicers are asymmetrical. Whereas the anti-abortionist are trying >to impose their moral code on the pro-choice side, the pro-choice side >does not attempt to coerce the other side to conform to its moral code. This reminds me of the hokum a few months back about the "burden of proof" being on those who would deviate from a pure pro-choice Party Line. Since I missed my chance to dump on it then, allow me the satisfaction now... There is no such thing as a "burden of proof" in the usual sense. There is only the "practical burden of proof" that everyone bears who tries to convince anyone else to change her mind. In other words: the burden of proof is always on the speaker, never on the listener; it shifts from side to side depending on who is on the defensive. And if -- as some netters seem to be hinting lately -- either or both sides declare that attempts to convince will be ineffective -- THEY HAVE DECLARED THAT THE ISSUE SHALL BE RESOLVED BY FORCE! And if they express shock at the other side's responding with political/legislative muscle, they're either liars or fools. Revenge of the Iconoclast, Paul V Torek torek@umich