|
The only onus on me -- to prove that there has never been a human group that has treated a z/e/f as if it were a human being -- is to cite a reasonable number of instances that are consistent with my claim and not blatantly avoid any that are inconsistent.
To "prove" that there is a consensus that a z/e/f is not a human being, I simply have to show that it has not ever, in a context remotely like our own, been treated as such.
Rather than regale you with a list (which could simply never be exhaustive, if only because not all history is recorded) of societies in which z/e/fs were NOT regarded as human beings, I'll just refer you to what your Supreme Court said in its review of that issue in Roe v. Wade. It concluded as I do: that abortion had never been regarded as homicide, that a z/e/f had never been regarded as a "person" (basically, the legal term for something with rights, which therefore includes all human beings).
I would then anticipate being presented with instances like Ireland, with its constitution saying something about a "right to life" from conception, or some other formulation of the statement that "a z/e/f is a human being". And then I would reiterate that I require something more than self-serving statements of belief, and in fact require evidence of the genuineness of that belief. Since Ireland does not define and punish abortion as if it were homicide, or do any of the myriad other things that a society would have to do if a z/e/f were a full member of that society, I conclude that there is no consensus in Ireland that a z/e/f is a human being, despite its statements to the contrary. (I won't even have to bother addressing the question of whether an aberrant society's "beliefs" affect the question of the human consensus.)
Having met my burden of "proving" a negative, I then look and see that the ball is back in your court -- to DISPROVE it. That's how it works.
"By claiming a consensus, you are making a claim that a significant number of people hold this view. I'm merely asking you to prove this claim, but you seem to be intent on avoiding an answer."
Well, I do regard the statements on this point made by quite authoritative sources such as your and my Supreme Courts, in interpreting the formal statements of our consensuses -- our constitutions -- to be very useful evidence of the nature of the consensus in our societies. Like I said, "consensus" does not require universal agreement among all members of a group at every point in time.
.
|