Abortion

[columbus]

You are saying:
A person who chooses to kill does not choose to kill if they choose to kill someone who has already chosen to kill, but if the person they chose to kill did not choose to kill but was only believed to have chosen to kill, then it is not a bona-fide self defense case but they still haven't chosen to kill, only who will die.

Before we move on to anything, let us iron out this.

Well, there's a word salad deserving of the compost bin.

So, let me help you understand what I have already said, again and again.

People all die. The deaths we are talking about are the homicides, when someone dies because someone chose to cause death for someone else.

Some of those are justifiable, such as when someone has decided to threaten other humans. If someone else chooses to stop them from killing, the perp has already chosen death for someone. The other human is only deciding who will die, not choosing death for someone.

In the cases of abortion, some are justifiable homicide. Because sometimes the unborn child is a threat, more than could be anticipated when the parents chose parenthood by having sex. But sometimes not, and that's the difference between abortion as a justifiable homicide and when abortion is not justifiable homicide.

Now do you understand?
Tom

 

[Curious George]

Well, there's a word salad deserving of the compost bin.

So, let me help you understand what I have already said, again and again.

People all die. The deaths we are talking about are the homicides, when someone dies because someone chose to cause death for someone else.

Let's keep it basic. We are talking about killings. Homicides are killings.

Some of those are justifiable,

Yes justifiable killings. I said that earlier and you said "justified by whom"

such as when someone has decided to threaten other humans. If someone else chooses to stop them from killing, the perp has already chosen death for someone.

Chooses to stop them from killing by choosing to kill them.

The other human is only deciding who will die, not choosing death for someone.

Yep this is where the trouble is. They choose to kill someone but they are not choosing death for someone?

 

[columbus]

They choose to kill someone but they are not choosing death for someone?

Choosing who will die is not the same as choosing that someone will die.
Is this really so hard for you to understand?
Tom

 

[Curious George]

Choosing who will die is not the same as choosing that someone will die.
Is this really so hard for you to understand?
Tom

You are playing semantics.

Is this really so hard for you to understand?

We are not presented with a scenario of A and B hanging from a cliff with only the ability to choose one.

Here is the scenario we have:
It reasonably appears that A is about to kill B or cause B severe bodily injury. We have the ability to kill A.

If I have the ability to kill or not to kill A. And I kill A. I chose to kill A.

How is this even questionable?

 

[columbus]

How is this even questionable?

I don't see what the question is.

Self defense is a form of homicide. Murder is a different form of homicide.
You don't seem able to distinguish between any form if homicide, unless you get validation for your ideology.
I do.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

I don't see what the question is.

Self defense is a form of homicide. Murder is a different form of homicide.
You don't seem able to distinguish between any form if homicide, unless you get validation for your ideology.
I do.
Tom

Hmmm. You are tossing out these terms and I do not think they matter. We are talking about killing. Homicide is killing, murder is killing. Then we have another question regarding choice. If it was an intentional killing (homocide) then it was a choice to kill someone. Murder is a specific type of Homicide. I have no issue differentiating. But all of these are types of killing. Your statement said that you are not ok with choosing to kill another human. That includes Homicide and justifiable Homicide. (This is that internal inconsistency that you wanted to locate). But you are rationalizing this inconsistency by saying if person A chooses to kill person B who has already chosen to kill, (or reasonably appears to have chosen to kill) someone then the person A choice to kill doesn't count as a choice to kill-even though it is precisely that.