@columbus - is this correct?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abortion
- Thread starter Adamski
- Start date
Curious George
Veteran Member
And abortion to save the life of the pregnant woman would be choosing. The omission to let them both die would not be choosing. I do not know how he could be anymore clear.
He is saying no abortions period. No self defense period. Killing in war is something with which he is not ok. He is not ok with the death penalty. And he is not okay with euthanasia.
Let's let @columbus speak for himself, okay?
I call that "justifiable homicide".
In that case, you didn't choose that someone would die. You chose who it would be.
The perp already chose death for someone.
Tom
Curious George
Veteran Member
Well I am pretty sure that I chose to kill another human being. It is justified by the situation here but it is still the taking of another humans life. I chose death for them, which is exactly what you said you were against.
Again, at the time it was the individual doing the killing that justified the killing. This is where our point of contention is.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I quoted him. If his view contradicts what his own statement entails I cannot help that.
Thanks for your consideration.
But I will rip George a new one on my own.
You know I will.
Tom
Curious George
Veteran Member
Lol, the only new one that will be ripped will be to air out your internal inconsistency.
What internal inconsistency is that?
People keep telling me that I have them, but they never explain what they are.
Go for it.
Do me. Tell me what I am saying that is inconsistent, logically. What I keep hearing is people saying that humans don't exist until they're "ensouled";or something.
Tom
Curious George
Veteran Member
"Is saying" is different than "said." No abortions period was entailed by what you said. What you said, is what I quoted.
Curious George
Veteran Member
You said you are not okay with choosing to death for another human being.
Killing someone is choosing death for another human being.
To then say that you are okay with choosing death for another human when the case is "justifiable homicide" is internally inconsistent, because it shows that you are okay with choosing death for another human.
If someone makes a choice to kill someone else, your son or anyone else, they are the one who chose death for someone else.
Self-defense, or the defense of anybody else, is not choosing death for someone else. It's just choosing who will die.
I have posted that many times.
Tom
Curious George
Veteran Member
Then you have been wrong many times. Are you then suggesting that anyone killed chose to be the one who died because they didn't defend themselves or they didn't do it well enough? That is ridiculous.
If I take another person's life by choice I did not choose to kill them or I did? Which is it?
Maybe the fetuses chose to be the ones who died in an abortion. I am glad we could solve that riddle.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Also, what if they do not actually choose death. What if that stranger running at you with a machete only plans on chopping off a few fingers and then sewing you back up? What if they were never going to kill you but anyone would have reasonably believed they were going to do so?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
That is what regrets and ex post facto rationalizations are for.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I don't know if there would be any regret.
And I am pretty sure the only "exception post facto rationalization" is trying to suggest that someone who chooses to kill another human is not choosing to kill another human if that human was or appeared to be about to kill someone already.
Major mental gymnastics.
However, the point is we can see self defense with lethal force when the person never chose that death.
Sorry, I got about 50 alerts yesterday but not a couple from this thread.
No, I don't see self defence as "choosing death for somebody else". In bonafide cases, the perp has chosen to kill. The defender is choosing who actually dies, not the death itself. That's two different issues.
In the case of medical problems, nobody really chose it. But an abortion can be needed to save the mother. My own Mom would have died an ugly death from a disastrous pregnancy had surgical abortion not been done. It was purely self defence, she and my Dad really wanted that child. They wound up adopting 4 kids to get their big family.
It doesn't really take much elevated risk, over a normal pregnancy, to justify an abortion in my mind. I value the mother far more than a fetus, particularly early on. I would also put a "morning after" pill in every rape response kit, and encourage victims to take it. Before anybody even knows if that additional trauma has happened.
Some abortions are the right thing to do.
Tom
Curious George
Veteran Member
What I am now trying to understand is your mental gymnastics.
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. How can you honestly believe that is in anyway rational. You are simply using semantics to change choosing to kill to choosing who will die, therefore not choosing to kill. Make no mistake, if you kill someone in self defense, you are choosing to kill them. Unless you are trying to utilize some form of determinism in which case no one chose anything nor are they responsible.