The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

The courts should be allowed to grant retrospective abortion orders

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 6 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,896 times Debate No: 19194
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Austria, 1901. A customs official returns home to his wife.

Mr Alois Hitler (for it is he): Good evening, dear.

Mrs Klara Hitler (for it is she): Good evening, Alois. Nice day at work?

Mr Hitler: Not really, Klara, where’s young Adolf? I can’t hear him goose-stepping around the house, barking orders at people. Is he ill?

Mrs Hitler: No, I sent him to bed with no supper for being naughty.

Mr Hitler: Goodness me! Now what’s the little rascal been up to?

Mrs Hitler: Well, this morning he smashed down the next door neighbours’ fence and annexed their back garden. He said they are Bolshevist sympathisers and that their land rightfully belongs to our family.

Mr Hitler: Oh, heavens!

Mrs Hitler: And that’s not all, this afternoon I went to put the dinner in the oven and found three little Jewish boys in there. Adolf had locked them inside and turned on the gas.

Mr Hitler: May the angels and ministers of grace preserve us! What on earth possessed him to do that?

Mrs Hitler: Apparently, Adolf thinks all Jews are sub-human, but don’t worry, they all survived.

Mr Hitler: Luckily. Even so, Adolf’s behaviour really becoming intolerable – if only you had had an abortion like I suggested.

Mrs Hitler: Yes, with the benefit of hindsight, I think an abortion would have been for the best, but it’s too late to do anything about it now.

Mr Hitler: Unfortunately, you are right. Even though the best thing for society would be to retrospectively terminate your pregnancy, the law would see it as infanticide and we could be prosecuted for murder.

Mrs Hitler: Oh well, never mind. Perhaps his anti-social behaviour is just a phase he’s going through and that when he grows up he’ll be a kind, gentle and caring man who puts the best interests of others before his own personal ambitions.

Mr Hitler: We can only hope.



Although the above conversation may never have taken place, we now know that laws preventing Adolf Hitler’s parents retrospectively aborting their son ultimately cost the lives of tens of millions of innocent people during the Second World War.

If the parents of Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Robert Mugabe, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and countless other evil despots, tyrants, terrorists and dictators had had the legal right to retrospectively abort their offspring, the world would be a better place.

That’s why, in cases of exceptional naughtiness, parents should be able to apply for court orders to retrospectively abort their children.

Thank you.
imabench

Con

I would like to start off by saying that reading that conversation the pro listed above has got to be the funniest darn thing ive ever found on this website and even now I cant stop laughing at it when I read it.

But in all seriousness the Pro is resting his case on 2 arguments. 1 is that it would bring peace to the world, the 2nd is that it would only be used on children of extreme naughtiness.

As much as I despise Hitler for many reasons, Hitler only became involved in what would be the Nazi party in 1919. He was born in 1889 and his first career choice was actually to be an artist.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Growing up we could assume that Hitler may have had a fascination with art and would spend his childhood time finger-painting and what not, not plotting to kill over 40 million people. This could show how even if retrospective abortion were legal, it would not have prevented Hitler from being killed and preventing a world war.

Also the definition of "exceptional naughtiness" is not defined so how would it be defined and how many people could it implicate? my brother likes to use zipties to tie my foot to my a** when im asleep and when I get out of it the first thing I do is beat the cr*p out of him for doing it. Is that defined as exceptional naughtiness or is it just brotherly love?

Many of the people that the Pro listed (all of whom i despise) probably did not show off their warped and devastating views of society until they had reached adulthood, so at what age limit would retrospective abortion orders be set at?

Many kids who are very mischievous brats could grow up and become normal people, childhood behaviors do not guarantee grown up behavior of the same person.

Ill stop here and elaborate further on later if I must, but here are some points of why retrospective abortion should not be allowed
- It might not protect the world from future tyrannical people who act like normal children in their early years
- This process could put to death thousands of children whose lives would not have caused the misery of millions
- Childhood behavior does not foretell how they will act in the future
- Many of the people who are infamous in history did not develop into who they became until adulthood
- The age limit of such a law could allow people who do act evil to escape the system
- Parents may try to exploit the system to have their children aborted because they could not get an abortion before.
- If the children witness the parents commit a terrible crime the parents could try to use this law to silence them
- Such a law could easily be considered unconstitutional, unlawful, morally unjust, etc.
- If such a law were to be implemented millions of people would protest it and call for its removal
- Exceptional naughtiness is not clearly defined so how could we justify the killing of children over it
- Such a law could easily be considered legalized murder
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I thank imabench for accepting this debate and for, quite rightly, raising his concerns over my proposal.

I should like to put his mind at rest by assuring that the retrospective abortion process will be operated on a completely professional and legal basis.

To elaborate, any mothers wishing to protect world security by retrospectively terminating their pregnancies would first have the alleged future tyrant assessed by a qualified child psychologist who would then submit a report to the Court. A batch of such reports might read something like this:

Name: Dick Tater
Age: 11
Analysis: A dangerous, manically-depressive loner who exhibits an unhealthy obsession with guns and who is liable to walk into school armed with a high-powered firearm and indiscriminately shoot students and teachers before turning the gun on himself, but who is not intelligent enough to pose any serious threat to national security.
Recommendation: Counselling and possible incarceration in a juvenile detention facility.

Name: Polly Stait
Age: 13
Analysis: A very badly behaved young lady indeed, but more interested in fashion and music than world domination.
Recommendation: Medication.

Name: Des Pott
Age: 10
Analysis: This boy is properly mental, but too retarded to cause destruction on a wholesale basis.
Recommendation: Remedial schooling.

Name: Anne T. de-Mocratique
Age: 11
Analysis: A spoilt little brat who has a tantrum if she doesn't get her own way but, essentially, harmless.
Recommendation: Parental tutoring.

Name: Thackeray C. I. O'Toller
Age: 12
Analysis: This cynical and calculating youngster exhibits psychotic tendencies, has delusions of grandeur, is very aggressive who does not tolerate dissent. He is a religious fundamentalist who has a very real potential to develop into a dangerous tyrant that could seriously threaten regional, national or international security. He is an extremely naughty boy.
Recommendation: Retrospective abortion.

Name: Holly Korst
Age: 8
Analysis: This frothing little nut-job uses torture procedures on her dolls but there is no indication, at this stage, that she has any ambition to harm real people.
Recommendation: Review case in one year.

Name: Sue Easside-Bommer
Age: 12
Analysis: Has ADHD.
Recommendation: Medication.

Name: T. R. Anne Yee
Age: 13
Analysis: A lovely young lady but is very sexually-promiscuous which upsets her devoutly religious parents.
Recommendation: Refer to social services.

Name: Jenny Syde
Age: 11
Analysis: Has Obsessive Compulsion Disorder.
Recommendation: Tell her to chill out.

Name: Juan-Pat E. Roole
Age: 10
Analysis: Thinks he is the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte - the classic fruitcake, but quite harmless.
Recommendation: Lock him up in a loony bin and throw away the key.

Name: Terry Wrist
Age: 9
Analysis: An out-and-out nutcase, whois highly-strung (and perhaps should be) but is essentially quite harmless.
Recommendation: Medication.

You see, only the most dangerous children will be recommended for retrospective abortion, and even then, their cases will be properly judged by the courts, with due leave for the parents to appeal if the court decides that the child should be allowed to live.

My opponent's final objection was "Such a law could easily be considered legalized murder." The same argument can, and has been, used against the death penalty, which according to his profile, he supports and which is legal in his own country, so this argument doesn't hold water.

That, and the hereinabove mentioned points, should convince you to support this motion and duly vote Pro.

Thank you.
imabench

Con

The Pro has clarified how people who are suspected of being future tyrannical leaders would be examined on an annual basis which may give his argument more believable, but what if a subject is examined multiple times and only once is considered for retrospective abortion? 1 bad run out of 10 examinations may not be enough to justify killing the subject in question.

As for the Con attacking my position over the death penalty to nullify my argument, there is a very outstanding difference between retrospective abortion and the death penalty

Death penalty - The subject has already committed a terrible crime, been found guilty of committing it, and the state he was prosecuted in has decided to sentence him to death.

Retrospective abortion - The subject has committed no crime at all. They are being killed because of fear they will commit a crime based on their early childhood behavior and nothing else.

The Pro has forfeited the argument that it might not protect the world from future tyrannical people
The Pro has forfeited the argument that this process could put to death thousands of children whose lives would not have caused the misery of millions
The Pro has forfeited the argument that childhood behavior does not foretell how they will act in the future
The Pro has forfeited the argument that many of the people who are infamous in history did not develop into who they became until adulthood
The Pro has forfeited the argument that the age limit of such a law could allow people who do act evil to escape the system
The Pro has forfeited the argument that such a law could easily be considered unconstitutional, unlawful, morally unjust, etc.
The Pro has forfeited the argument that such a law were to be implemented millions of people would protest it

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Kethan: your allowed to change your vote at anytime it wont award extra points to any side
Chrysippus: my name is imabench cause my actual last name is bench, hence, I am technically a bench
Posted by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
LOL I accidentally trolled....I feel like an a**
Posted by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
Also, since when is "Arguments" worth six points?
Posted by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
Reluctantly, though Brian is near the top of his form in this offering, I have to give arguments to... "imabench"? Why are you a bench? HOW are you a BENCH?!? WHAT IS THIS BENCH DOING HERE???

Just... ok, fine. NOT questioning the sanity. I know better here.

At any rate, there were several objections "bench" raised that Brian failed to answer adequately. I did enjoy reading this; specially the children's names.. those were some sadistic parents! Classy, Brian.

All other points tied. Nice clean match, gentlemen; (or rather, gentleman and item-of-lawn-furniture).

All in all, not bad for an ottoman.
Posted by Logic_on_rails 5 years ago
Logic_on_rails
I tip my hat to Brian. This is one of his funniest cases in my opinion, and is much funnier than my own humourous debate that I set up. Well done Brian!
Posted by Logic_on_rails 5 years ago
Logic_on_rails
I tip my hat to Brian. This is one of his funniest cases in my opinion, and is much funnier than my own humourous debate that I set up. Well done Brian!
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
This is so funny. I can't wait to see a response.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I agree, especially with a 5-4 republican advandage right now.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
brian_egglestonimabenchTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countervotebomb to Kethen. And I lol'd at this, My RFD is like F-16's, while I agree CON won this seriously, everyone should know that when debating against Brian, his debates are meant to be humorous and not-that-serious.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
brian_egglestonimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: WTF Brian, I agree it wasn't fully trolling, but you need to take this seriously. And also Why do you have a hitler picture with a fake mustache drew on?
Vote Placed by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
brian_egglestonimabenchTied
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: Brian...retrospective abortion is called murder. I could kill you because I am retrospectively aborting you. How can I say this nicely. Please take this sight more seriously! Not seriously just more seriously
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
brian_egglestonimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: While I feel that Con was able to poke holes in Pro's arguments, the purpose of having the debate must be kept in mind when voting. This was meant to be a humorous light -hearted debate and Pro did that very well in both rounds first with Hitler, and then with the children's names. Con was unable to match him.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
brian_egglestonimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comment. Hilarious debate.
Vote Placed by Chthonian 5 years ago
Chthonian
brian_egglestonimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con systematically establishes the problems he sees with retrospective abortion. Pro fails to provide a convincing argument for his position.