The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Dunndee
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Baby-killers (AKA "Abortionists") Deserve the Death Penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Dunndee
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,878 times Debate No: 103439
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (31)
Votes (2)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

DEATH PENALTY FOR BABY-KILLERS:
Why do individuals that kill babies
in their mothers' wombs deserve the death penalty?

There are many factors involved in all violent crimes,
and a fewR03; of the most important are:

-- the vulnerability of the victim

-- the age of the victim

-- the innocence of the victim, and

-- the degree of violence

In most cases, the more vulnerable the victim of a violent crime, the harsher the sentence. For example, physically assaulting someone who is ill, weak, or otherwise extra vulnerable consistently draws a harsher sentence in court than physically assaulting someone who is healthy, strong, and reasonably able to defend himself.

Similarly, in most cases of violent crime, the younger the victim is, the harsher a sentence the crime draws. For example, it is a much more serious crime to rape a minor than to rape an adult, and even more serious to rape a baby than to rape a minor. In cases of simple assault, it is considered more serious to assault a minor than to assault an adult, and also considered more serious to assault a baby than to assault a minor. In all these cases, the harshness of the sentence is consistently greater, the younger the victim is.

The innocence of the victim is also taken into consideration in courts of law. For example, if someone attacks you, and then you hit back in self-defense, then you will probably be excused, but if you hit someone who is innocent, for no reason, then you'll most likely be convicted of assault and punished.

Of course, the degree of violence is also an important factor. For example, killing is considered a heavier offense than either rape or simple assault.

All of these factors also have significant bearing on the issue of baby-killing:

The most vulnerable time in human life is the time we spend in our mothers' wombs. Being very dependent and physically weak at that time makes us extremely vulnerable and completely defenseless against attacks.

Also, there is no victim of any crime younger then a baby in the womb, and as noted above, the youth of the victim consistently draws harsher sentences in courts of law.

Of course, there is no victim more innocent than a baby killed in the womb: These are human beings who have done practically nothing at all in their entire lives: Babies in the womb are the very epitome of innocence.

In addition to all of that, the killing of human beings is generally agreed in courts of law to be the most serious category of all violent crimes.

In fact, killing healthy adults who are reasonably capable of self-defense often draws the death penalty. Not always, but death has been given as a sentence in many such murder cases.

Comparatively speaking, the killing of babies in their mothers' wombs should be considered much, much more serious than the killing of adults.

Taking all of these important factors into consideration, it is easy to understand the fact that killing babies in the womb should be considered the most serious of all violent crimes.

Therefore the killing of babies in their mothers' wombs should definitely draw the harshest sentence, because of the extreme vulnerability of the victim, the extreme youth of the victim, the extreme innocence of the victim, and the extreme seriousness of the crime (which is the taking of human life).

This is why baby-killers should receive the death penalty.
Dunndee

Con

We should first establish the reasoning behind judiciary proceedings and the purpose behind sentencing issued once a person is found guilty of some crime. I think we can both agree that "sentencing" in most cases can be described more accurately as the punishment. IE: a person is convicted of a crime, and then issued a form of punishment; time in prison, community service, fines, and in some cases the death penalty. (I think it is also important to point out now that any sentencing, save the death penalty for obvious reasons, and life without the possibility of parole is typically issued as a "corrective measure" in that it should be designed to punish the offender in such a way that they are given the chance to understand their error, and give them the chance to turn it around.

As I understand it, you are of the opinion that any woman who has an abortion is guilty of a crime that is so brutal in nature that it warrants the death penalty in every case, and should therefore be the default punishment for such actions.

The first and most obvious issue with this is that it deals in an absolute. Any Abortion=Death Penalty. The most obvious arguments to this idea are also the most clich"; women who are raped, and women who during the course of the pregnancy are made aware of life threatening situations to themselves if they go through with the pregnancy should by your logic also be put to death if they have an abortion.

You also gloss over the idea of the intent of the "crime" being factored into a sentencing. You mention the difference between deliberate murder, or premeditated murder, vs. a death or assault being the result of self-defense, and call abortion a "violent crime" but you do not unpack in what manner an abortion constitutes malicious intent (In the majority of death penalty rulings the prosecution is required to establish that the act of violence was inherently malicious in intent and therefore constitutes the sentencing of death. Which in this case your argument fails to establish such a precedence. Unless you"re arguing that every woman who has an abortion is acting out of malice for the unborn child, then again you are dealing in an absolute and would need to establish evidence that proves that EVERY woman who has an abortion is doing so out of malice. As stated above there are 2 very obvious examples of when this cannot be proven to be the case.

If the mere occurrence of death constitutes the death penalty because of the loss of life involved, by your reasoning any judge, juryman, or those who carry out the sentencing should also be put to death. The convicted is in that moment "innocent" in that they are powerless to protect their own life, and they are ultimately killed in a premeditated manor.

(There are several other merits to argue this topic on, but I feel like you may want to elaborate further on your initial ideas, and then we can go from there.)
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"As I understand it, you are of the opinion that any woman who has an abortion is guilty of a crime that is so brutal in nature that it warrants the death penalty in every case, and should therefore be the default punishment for such actions."

I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. Please attempt to argue against my actual position instead, WHICH IS CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED IN MY OP.

"The first and most obvious issue with this is that it deals in an absolute. Any Abortion=Death Penalty."

That is your statement, not my statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part: Please attempt to argue against my actual position instead, WHICH IS CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED IN MY OP.

"by your logic also be put to death if they have an abortion."

Again, I never made that statement, so that's yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part: Please attempt to argue against my actual position instead, WHICH IS CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED IN MY OP.

You also gloss over the idea of the intent of the "crime" being factored into a sentencing. You mention the difference

"malicious intent"

The intent to kill an innocent baby by tearing her body limb from limb using razor-sharp stainless steel implements is most definitely malicious.

"Unless you"re arguing that every woman who has an abortion"

Again, that is your argument, not mine, so you are committing another straw man logical fallacy: Please attempt to argue against my actual position instead, WHICH IS CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED IN MY OP.

"evidence that proves that EVERY woman who has an abortion"

Not my statement, so another one of your straw man logical fallacies: Please attempt to argue against my actual position instead, WHICH IS CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED IN MY OP.

"If the mere occurrence of death constitutes the death penalty because of the loss of life involved"

I didn't make that statement either. Almost all you have done so far is compile a long list of straw man logical fallacies and argue against your own straw men: Please attempt to argue against my actual position instead, WHICH IS CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED IN MY OP.

You did almost nothing but straw man, from the beginning of your post to the end. Therefore you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Dunndee

Con

My opponent ended their first iteration of their argument stating

"Taking all of these important factors into consideration, it is easy to understand the fact that killing babies in the womb should be considered the most serious of all violent crimes.

Therefore the killing of babies in their mothers' wombs should definitely draw the harshest sentence, because of the extreme vulnerability of the victim, the extreme youth of the victim, the extreme innocence of the victim, and the extreme seriousness of the crime WHICH IS THE TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE ."

Please note the absence of any qualifiers limiting who the criminal is or the crime being committed to only a select few cases and repeatedly states that the mother is guilty of a malicious crime after an abortion and should therefore be subjected to the death penalty, which makes the argument an absolute. Also note the use of the wordage, "seriousness of the crime", and the following qualifier "which is the taking of human life," as further examples to qualify the idea behind my following statement presented in the first round of arguing.

Me: "If the mere occurrence of death constitutes the death penalty because of the loss of life involved."

My Opponent: I didn't make that statement either. Almost all you have done so far is compile a long list of straw man logical fallacies and argue against your own straw men: Please attempt to argue against my actual position instead, WHICH IS CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED IN MY OP."

So you very clearly state that the seriousness of the crime is the loss of human life. Not some loss, not the loss of a babies life, you very CLEARLY STATE THAT THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS CRIME IS THE LOSS OF ANY HUMAN LIFE I'd like to hear how direct quoting you is constitutes a straw man argument.

(Note to the Debater: Anyone can pick up an English A1 book at their local community college and spout nonsense from some random page in an attempt to add credibility to their argument, shouting "STRAW MAN" because your own argument lacks substance isn't a valid argument and wastes your time, my time, and anyone who hoped to actually see an informed exchange of opinions here.)

So, now let's get to meat of your second argument attempting to establish abortions as inherently malicious in nature. You state, "The intent to kill an innocent baby by tearing her body limb from limb using razor-sharp stainless steel implements is most definitely malicious." First, that's a bit graphic, also slightly tongue-in-cheek; this is what is known as an "appeal to emotion" and laughingly enough is a logical fallacy. There is more than one way to induce an abortion depending on how far along the pregnancy is, and involves the presence of a doctor to administer the procedure. So then are you suggesting that the doctor should also be put to death for carrying out the procedure? (I know you're going to cry straw man again, but the attempt here is to establish the illogical conclusion of your argument.)

Lastly, I don't think you know how these debates work. You don't actually decide if you won or not. It"s up to those who read the arguments and then decide who presented their ideas in the clearest context establishing their side of the argument. I guess you can tell yourself you won at any point, but then we have to ask what the point of you being on the site is. Clearly not to exchange ideas or add anything meaningful to any ongoing topic because you"re too busy shouting, "I WIN, I WIN, I WIN THE MATCH!!! STRAW MAN STRAW MAN! MOM LOOK I WON AGAIN." We can continue the debate, if you have anything more meaningful to add, but if not than I guess sure "You win" uhm Congrats?
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"repeatedly states that the mother is guilty of a malicious crime"

I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"So you very clearly state that the seriousness of the crime is the loss of human life"

That is your statement, not mine, so you are once again committing a straw man logical fallacy.

"you very CLEARLY STATE THAT THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS CRIME IS THE LOSS OF ANY HUMAN LIFE"

That is your statement, not mine, so your strawmannirg continues: Don't you ever get tired of lying? Probably not -- believers in atheist Dogma are natural-born liars.

"The intent to kill an innocent baby by tearing her body limb from limb using razor-sharp stainless steel implements is most definitely malicious." First, that's a bit graphic"

Baby-killing is a horrific, demonic, and extremely graphic practice. If you don't like reading about it, then you should not engage in debates on the subject.

"an "appeal to emotion""

Malice is an emotional state, and you yourself brought up the question of malice -- I didn't bring it up. Therefore, my response to your question regarding malice is not an "appeal to emotion" logical fallacy, but is, rather, a logical, very fitting, and inevitable response to your questioning me on the subject of malice.

"So then are you suggesting that the doctor should also be put to death"

Not "also," no, because I never stated that anyone but the baby-killer (to whom you refer as "Doctor") himself should receive the death-penalty. Also, Doctors make a vow to refrain from doing any harm, and since killing babies is definitely harmful to the babies, such demonic individuals have violated their vows to practice Medicine, and thus given up their right to be referred to as actual "Doctors."

I won the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Dunndee

Con

"Malice is an emotional state"

Perhaps, Malice more accurately is, the intention do evil. Although you do attempt to establish the idea of malice being considered in assault charges. "For example, if someone attacks you, and then you hit back in self-defense, then you will probably be excused." Here you're attempting to establish that the motive behind the assault is important when establishing the sentencing handed down. Therefore it is also reasonable to expect the establishment of intent of the mother to be just as, if not more important when attempting to establish that the woman is guilty of a crime that is serious enough in nature to warrant the death penalty, which is what you should be attempting to establish.

Again, following you're line of logical conclusion, if the intent of the assault was self-defense than the motive lacked malice, the accused wasn't acting under the intention to deliberately harm the assaulted. But was acting in his own self-interest. So if that is the case in an assault charge, you also need to establish grounds for EVERY abortion to be carried out with some malicious intent. If you cannot prove that ALL ABORTIONS are malicious in nature then your argument is weak at best, and more than likely the result of multiple fallacies.

One example of an abortion carried out without establishing malicious motive would be in the event of a threat to the woman's own life. Her care provider makes her aware of a complication in the pregnancy that is life threatening and she is faced with a choice, carry on with the pregnancy risking her own life, or seek an abortion, which if your opinion were law would result in her death either way. AGAIN: ***Baby-killers (AKA "Abortionists") Deserve the Death Penalty*** your argument establishes that woman who get abortions are "Baby-killers" and deserve to be put to death. Not some, not a few, not one, just ABORTIONISTS deserve death... which is once again an absolute and is ultimately why your argument fails to hold water.

Also, I'll take a little extra time to unpack your appeal to emotions fallacy, the response itself is not the fallacy, in attempting to paint EVERY abortion as the dismemberment of the baby by, "Tearing her body limb from limb using razor-sharp stainless steel implements" is an appeal to the emotions of your readers by misrepresenting how abortions are conducted by misrepresenting that it is the only way an abortion is carried out. By not fleshing out the various manners in which an abortion is undertaken you're attempting to establish in your reader a sense of disgust in that one procedure instead of sticking to the impartial facts of various abortion techniques used you weaken the credibility of your statement by attempting to influence an emotional response. It has nothing to do with my lack of desire to read about, and everything to do with educating you on how to properly identify a fallacy.

You make mention of a doctors vows. It can be argued and easily established that 1. The vow you're referring to is not LAW 2. There is no legal demand that every doctor must take these vows and 3. The modern day vows established by the American Medical Association (found here: https://www.ama-assn.org...) makes no mention of the vow to do no harm, and furthermore make no mention directly related to abortions. (Again, argue in the facts, not your emotional feelings of the topic.) It is true that there may be interpretations that attempt to establish that the original oath, known as the Hippocratic Oath, makes mention of doing intentional harm and does refer to abortions in some translations, however this oath is both outdated, and is not typically the vow taken by modern day practitioners.

At this point it's rather obvious you have no real argument to establish, or any ability to articulately express any factual evidence to support your claim and are more interested in patting yourself on the back in some vain attempt to self-establish your ideology, thus falsely reinforcing and justifying your beliefs.

We'll finish the debate for debates sake, regardless of your continued shouting "I WIN, I WIN!"

But again, congrats?
Debate Round No. 3
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

""Malice is an emotional state"

Perhaps, Malice more accurately is, the intention do evil."

Intention is an emotional state.

"when attempting to establish that the woman is guilty of a crime"

I never attempted to do so with any woman during this debate, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"you also need to establish grounds for EVERY abortion to be carried out with some malicious intent."

No I don't.

"One example of an abortion carried out without establishing malicious motive would be in the event of a threat to the woman's own life."

That has never happened.

" she is faced with a choice, carry on with the pregnancy risking her own life"

That has never happened.

"which if your opinion were law would result in her death either way."

No it wouldn't -- you just straw manned my argument yet again. Therefore I won the debate.

***Baby-killers (AKA "Abortionists") Deserve the Death Penalty*** your argument establishes that woman who get abortions are "Baby-killers""

I never made that claim, no, so that is a strawman logical fallacy on your part.

"ABORTIONISTS deserve death."

Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you!

BTW, do you think that the terms "abortionist" and "pregnant woman" are synonymous? They are not.

"your argument fails to hold water."

Correction: Your straw man of my argument holds no water. You have yet to even attempt to address my actual argument.

"Also, I'll take a little extra time to unpack your appeal to emotions fallacy,"

I didn't commit such a fallacy.

"in attempting to paint EVERY abortion as the dismemberment of the baby by, "Tearing her body limb from limb using razor-sharp stainless steel implements""

I did not make that attempt, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" by misrepresenting how abortions are conducted"

It is not a misrepresentation -- abortions are actually practiced by tearing the baby's body limb from limb using razor-sharp stainless steel implements.

" by misrepresenting that it is the only way an abortion is carried out"

I never made that statement, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Therefore I won the debate.

"you're attempting to establish in your reader a sense of disgust in that one procedure"

I never made such an attempt, so that is also a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"an emotional response."

Your question had to do with malice, which is an emotional state, so you can't fault me simply because my response to your question included some emotional content. That would be an intellectually dishonest double-standard, but then again, believers in atheist Dogma are natural-born liars, so there is no surprise that you did that.

" properly identify a fallacy."

Without God, nobody could properly identify a fallacy.

"1. The vow you're referring to is not LAW "

I never claimed that it was, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"2. There is no legal demand that every doctor must take these vows"

Yes there is.

" (Again, argue in the facts,"

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between facts and falsehoods.

"At this point it's rather obvious you have no real argument to establish"

Yes I do.

", or any ability to articulately express any factual evidence to support your claim"

Yes I do.

Also, without God, there could be no evidence for or against any claim.

" and are more interested in patting yourself on the back in some vain attempt to self-establish your ideology, thus falsely reinforcing and justifying your beliefs."

Without God, none of that could be objectively wrong.

"your continued shouting "I WIN, I WIN!""

I never shouted that, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"But again, congrats"

For winning the debate, you mean? Thank you for that admission, and thanks for your time! =)
Dunndee

Con

"No I don't. " -- Yes you did.

"That has never happened." Yes, it has "Intrauterine Infection
A pregnant woman might develop an infection in the uterus that infects the fetal membranes (chorioamnionitis). An abortion might be necessary to prevent maternal systemic infection and death. An intrauterine infection can also lead to premature rupture of membranes and labor or premature death of the fetus."

"That has never happened." --Yes it has - http://www.cancer.net...

"I never made that claim"-- Yes, you did.

"ABORTIONISTS deserve death."

"Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you!"-- Cherry picking and taken out of context. Both more examples of your own fallacies.

"BTW, do you think that the terms "abortionist" and "pregnant woman" are synonymous? They are not." -- I never made that claim so you committed your own golden straw man fallacy.

"Your straw man of my argument holds no water. You have yet to even attempt to address my actual argument." -- You never presented a coherent argument to address. Instead forcing me to spend the bulk of the debate explaining English 101 and the use of fallacies.

I didn't commit such a fallacy. -- You did.

"It is not a misrepresentation." -- It is, not only a misrepresentation it's also just wrong.

"Your question had to do with malice, which is an emotional state, so you can't fault me simply because my response to your question included some emotional content. That would be an intellectually dishonest double-standard, but then again, believers in atheist Dogma are natural-born liars, so there is no surprise that you did that." -- I am actually Christian so your above statement is an "intellectually dishonest double-standard."

"Yes there is".-- No there isn't http://gizmodo.com...

"Without God, none of that could be objectively wrong." I think you're getting your debates, but then someone who is 0 and 9 (about to be 0 and 10) I'm not surprised you get your debates mixed up, losing so many...

Thanks for making this easy...
Debate Round No. 4
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
Bye jackass!
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Saying that a person under 55 years of age is not a human being is logically and morally equivalent to saying that a baby in her mother's womb is not a human being. Both statements are incorrect because both persons are indeed human beings.

Your statement about babies was ignorant and demonic, and I said the 55-year-old statement in order to point out your demonic mentality.

I am done with you.
Posted by Youraverageunicorn 11 months ago
Youraverageunicorn
purushadasa, I don't know why I keep interfering with this because you obviously don't care, but I would love to point out not just to you but to everybody that you embellished my comment on Abortionists.
" adult would need, but the adult's not a human being unless it's over 55 years of age."
"Meaning it has to be over age 55 and alive, and breathing." I'm quite annoyed I didn't notice this before. I'm happy to try to have a debate with you but if you're going to distort my words, I can't do that. And I'm also going to tell everyone they shouldn't too. I'm done blowing up at you. But I'm not done with you. You're wasting other people's time and I have no problem telling everyone to not waste there time with you. I know you're going to respond to this pretending you don't know what I'm saying, but at least everyone else will know.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
We are done here -- bye, jackass!
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
So you dont worship god. Got it.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Human beings worship God. Animals do not.
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
We are not in the general habit of liking no-legged animals like you
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
I'm not in the general habit of answering questions asked by two-legged animals under my debates.
Posted by JimShady 11 months ago
JimShady
Purushadasa: how about presenting an argument instead of just restating your point?
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Dunndee, you lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 11 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaDunndeeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Anyone who isn't Purushadasa deserves to win.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
PurushadasaDunndeeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31