[ModelBreaker]

“Your error is that you’re equating a statistical possibility (gunning down every black or hispanic [sic] man to prevent a possible death) with the actual prevention of deaths by someone who is in the business of killing. In the first case, you may or may not prevent a death. In the second case, the actual practice of killing is permanently interrupted.”

Nope, given my hypothetical, I only posited gunning down men selling drugs on street corners, not “every black and hispanic man.” On that hypothetical, that you will prevent deaths is a statistical certainty. Those guys are in the business of killing, just like an abortionist. They sell death and death results with certainty.

The mechanism of how the death occurs is a little different, and certainly the victims are not as innocent (usually) as unborn babies. On the other hand, the drug dealers are violating the law while Tiller was obeying the law, passed by duly elected representatives, hideous as that law is.

But you are deeply into situational ethics as soon as you start distinguishing between murder in these two situations. Down that path lies Charlie Manson.

The only principled out is to declare the US and State governments who authorize and pay for the killing of babies illegitimate and start a revolution. I’m not ready to go there. Are you?

[aruanan]

Nope, given my hypothetical, I only posited gunning down men selling drugs on street corners, not “every black and hispanic man.” On that hypothetical, that you will prevent deaths is a statistical certainty. Those guys are in the business of killing, just like an abortionist. They sell death and death results with certainty.

No, I was giving your hypothetical, my abbreviated quotation was not being used to change the meaning and, therefore, the premise of the argument. Again, you're incorrect because of a false equivalency: "those guys are in the business of killing, just like an abortionist." They are not in the "business of killing" and they are not "just like an abortionist." Though it is true that some people involved with the illegal drug trade kill or are killed (rival drug gangs accounting for the majority of all the deaths), die accidentally (self-administered overdose), die at a premature age due to impaired health, such an equivalency would require equivalency in both outcome and intent.

Intent: Neither the providers nor the purchasers of illegal drugs are providing their product with the intent to kill someone any more than any other producer or consumer of a product or service (other than do-it-yourself suicide kits, including razor blades, rope, guns, vehicles, and a wide variety of pills, both OTC and prescription) are selling or purchasing for the purpose of killing anyone (though vehicle, gun, rope, and pharmaceutical companies are not producing or marketing their products for the purpose of killing someone).

Outcome: The majority of deaths in the illegal drug industry are between rival gangs vying for a customer base by trying to kill off each other. The majority of deaths in the abortion industry are not between rival abortionists trying to eliminate the competition. Some deaths in the illegal drug industry are accidental (mostly due to overdose). There are some accidental deaths in the abortion industry resulting in the demise of customers along with their intended victim.

The majority of deaths in the abortion industry, though, happens because the provider and the consumer are both intentionally working together to cause the death. That is the primary reason for their relationship, not a secondary or accidental outcome.

If the abortion industry is to be compared accurately to an illegal enterprise, it should be compared to hiring a hit man to get rid of someone you don't like. In both the primary purpose is to kill someone. In both, the provider is deliberately trying to terminate a life.