Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site homxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!homxa!wine
From: wine@homxa.UUCP (J.GORDON)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Human beings and their Rights
Message-ID: <1069@homxa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 17:46:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: homxa.1069
Posted: Thu Aug  1 17:46:53 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 02:08:42 EDT
References: <392@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1259@pyuxd.UUCP> <113@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1310@pyuxd.UUCP>, <269@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 18


	More justification should be required to pass a
law which restricts an individual's freedom to do whatever he/she
pleases than not to pass such a law.  Thus the onus of justification
should be on the pro-lifers to show it is necessary that abortions
be restricted. 
	There is a similar principle in science which states that
extraordinary proof must be provided for extraordinary claims.  Thus
more evidence must be shown to prove that ESP exists than to prove
that objects will drop when you let them go.
	In the case of abortion rights, the onus is on the one who
wishes to pass a law against abortion to show that it is the right
thing to do, not on the ones who would be adversely affected by such a
law to show that it shouldn't be passed; just as it is up to the
proposer of a scientific law to prove it is correct, not not the
skeptic to prove it false.

                      Jim Gordon, Jr.