The Instigator
ellyphant
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
Jokerdude
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

To be against abortion and in favor of capital punishment is hypocritical.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,713 times Debate No: 3365
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (14)

 

ellyphant

Pro

This has irked me for a long time; I cannot completely understand how anyone can support killing in one context but not in another, let alone in this order. I believe that all killing is murder, no matter the context; the only reason I say that I support abortion in my profile is because it will take place no matter what, and I would prefer that it takes place in a clean room with properly trained medical practitioners than in a dark alley.

What shocks me the most is how many strongly religious people take the opposite view of me. Taking, for instance, Christianity: the Ten Commandments themselves say that "Thou Shalt Not Kill," and Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount that, when we face a sinful person who harms us or others, we should "turn the other cheek." This eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth stuff is outdated and immoral, and only ends with a bunch of blind guys with bare gums.
Jokerdude

Con

Ill start off by stating my views on the issue. I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent life and should only be used in cases of rape. In any other use is wrong and should be banished from the US. I am an avid Catholic who goes to church every Sunday but I believe that nothing in life is black and white. At the same time I advocate for the use of the death penalty in cases of rape and 1st and 2nd degree murder. This is a method used to punish those who have done grotesque deeds while living.

To answer your question

I advocate the death penalty because the person who is to be killed has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt has committed a hanus crime that physically and mentally harmed another person or group of persons. Allowing the person to live only clutters up out world with out them in it the world is a better place.

Abortion however is the killing of an innocent life. This baby has done nothing wrong and never gets the chance to experience in life. The women must live with her CHOICE everything is within her power to stop from being pregnant and if she does there are options abortion is not one of them.

For the quote thing, the way I bring this into context is that you shall not knowingly kill someone when they have done nothing to harm you greatly. The eye for an eye part is when someone does harm you greatly I believe they should receive punishment. This ties in with the above arguments because unborn babies have done nothing so deserve to live but murders etc. have thus deserve punishment.
Debate Round No. 1
ellyphant

Pro

Thank you, both for your thorough response and willingness to pick up such a hot debate.

I was a little startled, though, that you "advocate the death penalty because ...with out [these convicted criminals] in it the world is a better place." That seems to me to be a bit of a rash statement, particularly given your statement that you are an "avid Catholic". Having attended a Catholic school for many years, I have repeatedly been told that, according to your faith and many others around the world, all people possess a human dignity given to them by God, the creator of all things. Anything created by God, which is anything and anyone on the planet, is therefore valuable. Even the most disreputable or those who have committed the most heinous crimes never deserve harm or the intention of harm from others. The gospel of Luke supports this strongly, as does that of Matthew. For instance, Matthew 13 contains a story called approximately "the weeds among the wheat". If you request, I can explain the story in detail, but its moral is that God is responsible for the punishment of souls, not us on earth.

That being said, I also refuse to believe that even the worst criminals do not benefit the world in some way. I do not believe that this benefit is from their crime, or even anything related to it; but these are living human beings, with relationships, families, and friends. How can one choose to draw a line--for instance, second degree murder--upon a set of human lives? Such things cannot be classified upon a court sentence alone, as some may be capable of reform, some may have only aided in the crime due to personal suffering, and some may be innocent, even if the court has evidence that proves them guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Where do you draw the line or even a chart showing when a life is no longer worthwhile, showing some dotted curve between unborn children and mass murderers? And who are we to draw that line at all?

That being said, I do not believe that we should simply let them go; when damage is done, damage is done. But there are so many other, more responsible and less harmful punishments that can be used. Service hours have always been one of my favorites, though for some, a mental ward may be the only healthy setting. Regardless, while rape and murder may result in loss of life or dignity, more loss of life and dignity solves no problem.
Jokerdude

Con

I think Ill address this based on each paragraph

It really isn't a rash idea if you think about it these are the worst criminals we have on the planet, they have had the chance to live a life in our world. These criminals do have value but they are of more value in death than in life. For the world will be a safer place if the death penalty was in full swing. Though if they truly are sorry for what they have done then at the time of their death they shall be received into the Lord's arms. This is proven by Jesus' last words on Earth. The verse your referring to Matthew 13 does refer to weeds and wheat but in the sense of growing up and developing into something prior to the "weeds being pulled and burned by the bundles." This example proves my point because the "weeds/criminals" have grown alongside everyone else and at the point where they cause more harm then good they too are harvested and burned. This is my interpretation of the verse at hand. God does punish the souls so truly he judges after death, the death penalty is a means to get to that point in time.

Grouping most of this paragraph the line between a new born baby and a murderer/rapist is just that. THIS IS THE LINE Its how a person lives their life and the chance to live. Courts are very black and white if proven guilty if you would like a definition of 1st degree 2nd degree and Rape Ill oblige but until then you should know the difference between them and what that means in our society. Also I'm open to hear any reason how a murderer could be a "help" to society please do go on.

"Damage done is damage done!?!?!?!" ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?! Through this logic I could kill someone do some community service, get out kill your best friend do some more community service then kill you and well.... do some more community service. This is terrible logic and hardly worth debating its like giving an infinite free pass to any criminal. I'm not saying anymore on this absurd piece of thought. You give some alternatives for a sentence, these are busying sentences just buying time for someone on drugs or a misdemeanor not for someone convicted of any of the hanus crimes that have been listed. By taking the life of someone proven to have done such inconceivable harm to another adds value to the victims families lives and God will judge that felon then.

Also I'd like to point out the lack of comparison between abortion and death penalty I don't know but I thought the debate was about how someone could believe in both not just the merits of the death penalty which is humane through lethal injection.
Debate Round No. 2
ellyphant

Pro

Instead of addressing entire paragraphs, I'll choose specific quotes and try to analyze them within their context as well as possible.

"These are the worst criminals we have on the planet, they have had the chance to live a life in our world."

Really? I wasn't aware that there was a one-strike-you're-out thing for life. Besides, the only people who suffer the death penalty are those who have already entered the court system. It seems far more appropriate to even give a lifetime jail sentence than a death sentence, as it still keeps the criminal away from the victims and the rest of the world, but doesn't kill them. I personally would prefer even more leniency than that, but this isn't about what I would prefer; this is a logical analysis of when murder is appropriate and when it isn't. No matter how horrible the person you kill, no matter how much bureaucracy involved, murder is always murder. So if the court system orders and executes the death of a 3-time convicted rapist and murderer, there's hardly any difference in the result than if that same rapist and murderer was unconvicted of those crimes and was killed in the street by a family member looking for revenge. Revenge with paperwork doesn't make it any less wrong.

"The line between a new born baby and a murderer/rapist is just that. THIS IS THE LINE"

That's a very, very, very thick line to span over that much. After all, according to you, there's a lot in between. What if the murderer claims self-defense? What if the second-degree murderer is a politician, perhaps the Commander-in-Chief himself?

"I'm open to hear any reason how a murderer could be a "help" to society please do go on. "

Why, thank you, I will. THE SAME WAY ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING DOES--get a job, raise a family, donate to charity, take a bike instead of a car, invent a new hairdryer, whatever. You seem to assume that, if someone murdered someone else, that's the only event in their entire life. People frequently make an assumption with similar basis that all people other than heterosexuals are obsessed with their sexuality. A murder is only a small portion of a man's life, albeit with a large effect.

If you don't agree with the previous argument, then answer me this: how does killing the criminal "help" society? If locking him behind bars does the same job, then what does the government do but damage? It's traumatic for everyone he's known, who do not consist solely of the person he's murdered and any accomplices he may have had.

By the way, I expect that an argument to this point will be that capital punishment is justified, while actual murder is not. But look at it this way: legalized murder is taking place every day. People get awarded for it. Many innocent people have been killed in Iraq by American soldiers, accidentally or not, and their killers have never been so much as brought to trial. That's first degree murder, isn't it? Yet again, I ask where the line falls between the innocent and the guilty, the fetus and the murderer.

"This is terrible logic and hardly worth debating its like giving an infinite free pass to any criminal."

I agree; the community service idea BY ITSELF is not a good method of dealing with people. I never intended that it would be employed alone, but I guess I failed to communicate that. Besides, my example was simply an example; disproving it still doesn't disprove my primary argument, that killing anyone for any reason is a crime against nature and that there are better ways to handle the situation. And by the way, a patronizing tone, while a tempting debate tactic, isn't going to help your case. It's the issue we're talking about, not me; keep it to the issue.

"Also I'd like to point out the lack of comparison between abortion and death penalty I don't know but I thought the debate was about how someone could believe in both not just the merits of the death penalty which is humane through lethal injection."

I never said we were comparing Abortion and Capital Punishment. I said that it's hypocritical to support one and not the other, since (I added later) both are forms of murder. I can go into detail, if you like, about Abortion, but that's not where we really seem to disagree, so I felt it was pointless to approach. However, I'll approach it anyway.

The typical reason to not support abortion is because it is the killing of a living human being. If you support the death penalty, than I don't see why killing a child who will destroy a family or a life is much of a leap. Personally, I don't really consider fetuses to be complete living beings until they are disconnected from their umbilical cord and begin thinking for themselves. Even if you don't believe this, though, it's oxymoronic to support the killing of a murderer but not an unborn child. Pets are "put down" to relieve their pain all the time; if the baby is not yet born, then an abortion may be a way of putting it down to quickly end a life of pain. The majority of abortions are to keep a baby from being born into an unhealthy situation: if convicts should be killed to make the world a better place, why shouldn't unwanted children? It would also make the world a better place to not have them. (I don't believe this--it's just parallel to the argument in favor of capital punishment)

I know I'm not going to get the last say in this, and the last word always makes a huge difference, but I'm going to ask that everyone compare the logic here, not vote in defence of your own opinions. Hopefully that goes without saying.

Thank you again, Jokerduede, for accepting such a controversial debate.
Jokerdude

Con

Well now then lets wrap this debate up doing the quote thing

"It seems far more appropriate to even give a lifetime jail sentence than a death sentence, as it still keeps the criminal away from the victims and the rest of the world, but doesn't kill them."

There are several differences between life in prison and the death penalty. Truly life in prison is a death sentence only one that takes years to complete costing the tax payers more than executing the person. So ask your self which is the more efficient way to punish a convicted criminal?

"Revenge with paperwork doesn't make it any less wrong"

The difference here being that it is not revenge if done through the right channels and have been proven guilty, it is wrong to exact revenge if the accused is not convicted or acquitted. Doing the punishment the right way isn't revenge though killing in cold blood is.

"Thats a very thick line to span over that much"

No it really isn't the self defense is taken care of during the trial for a jury of peers to decide. Its pretty dam black and white if you look at it your guilty or not guilty of the several crimes to be punished by death. If the President was found guilty of 1st degree murder then yes like every other person should be subjected to the same person. Thats really idiotic to place people with titles above everyother person in America.

"You seem to assume that, if someone murdered someone else, that's the only event in their entire life"

It is a deciding moment in that persons life they could have done those things you listed prior. The fact is these people ruined other peoples lives, whose to say they couldn't have invented something uber sweet? Murder is not a pass time just something to do on a whim and go about life. This may not be the only moment in their life but it is one that will alter it permanently.

"It's traumatic for everyone he's known"

Yes it is Id imagine finding something like my wife murdered someone, but the effect is different. This effect spans over the fact that the felon did something illegal and morally wrong and must be punished. The family would be sad that the person did it and must be punished.

"Many innocent people have been killed in Iraq by American soldiers, accidentally or not, and their killers have never been so much as brought to trial"

Interesting point though this argument is pretty much moot due to the fact its based on opinions of the war. The killings have been for people guilty of much more than one murder. And any accidental deaths are just that accidental. Unless you can prove otherwise this is a moot point not worth voting on.

"Patronizing tone, while a tempting debate tactic, isn't going to help your case"

Sorry didn't mean to patronize but the example you used and tried to justify is absurd I agree this too is a moot point but I found it very difficult to swallow if this truly was your plan for murderers, etc.

"Explaining opinions and rationalization for abortion sorry just couldn't find a quote I liked..."

I consider a baby to be alive and a person the moment the sperm touches the egg because at that moment the body begins to send chemicals out to prepare and life begins to form, it soon has a heartbeat prior to realizing that the women is pregnant.

Again please vote on the issues above not on any preconceived notions.

And Thank You ellyphant for the long but interesting debate it twas quite fun
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
Hi TheLwerd!

There's no problem with your assertion, however once you open that can of worms you must be consistent.

Let's say a women wants to get an abortion, but the guy wants her to keep the baby, and is more than willing to take on the whatever responsibilities as well as financial burdens of children, even if the women wants out and will have no part of the baby's life.. Many pro-choicers would say that the women can do what she wants and the guy has no say in the matter because it's the woman's body. However last time I checked, it takes two people to make a baby. Are you really going to tell me that the father has no say in the matter and it's okay to make the father sit back and watch as his son/daughter is killed?

It's a very scary thought in my eyes but that's just me. I guess you can say I am biased because I come from a huge family, I have 7 siblings, and one of my life's goals is to beat my parent's record in terms of how many kids they have.
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
"The women must live with her CHOICE everything is within her power to stop from being pregnant..." -- CON

Uhm. Why should only the WOMAN have to live with her choice? Last time I checked, a guy was necessary in the process to make a baby. Yet a guy need not worry about the burden of pregnancy, the health risks associated with pregnancy/child birth, etc. If a guy can choose not to partake in this responsibility, why should a woman be forced to endure these things as a result of TWO people's actions?
Posted by ellyphant 9 years ago
ellyphant
Candice made a point earlier in the comments that anti-lifers are "grasping" because they group fetuses with murderers and rapists. My entire argument grouped them based upon the fact that they were all human beings; I don't exactly think that was a stretch, or even necessarily anti-life. That's not what this debate is about--it's about the fact that either both or neither of these cases of murder are wrong, depending on your morality.
Posted by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
mjg283,

"In addition, PARENTS have responsibilities toward their children that strangers don't have toward each other. A parent who stands idly by and watches their child perish will generally prosecuted, for, at the very least, parental neglect. A parent of a child conceived through rape has no less of a responsibility to care for that child"

The whole point of my argumnt was to show that a parent of a child concieved through rape should have less of a responsibility since the child's state of dependence was not caused by them.

Let's say we have a case in which a woman has not one, but two children on a stranded island. One of those children is hers vie natural conception with her husband who passed away. the other child is hers vie some thug who raped her. Both babies have a special condition in which they require X ammount of the womans breast milk for 9 months.

In this case however, for whatever reason, the woman can only produce just enough breast milk for only one of the two children. She can only save one.

So which one does this woman save?

Does she save the child sired vie rape? or the one sired vie her own will?

To which child does she have more of an obligation to save.

I would personally say that, logically, she has much more of an obligation to save the child that was made vie her own will rather than the one that was sired vie rape, since she was the initial causer of dependence for the legitiment child, but when it comes to the illigitiment child, she was not the initial causer of dependence and thus she will have much more responsibility to her rightful child.

So I think the concept of a woman having less of a responsibiity to a child from rape than a child from legitiment relations is not so foreign. In fact I think it makes a good deal of logical sense.
Posted by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
EvanMacian And Mig283,

Yes you are both correct. MOST abortions involve cutting the fetus into many different parts with a curette or salt poisioning the baby, and that would not be permissable even in a case of rape since it attacks the baby rather than only denying him nutrients.

HOWEVER: there are some abortions that either pramaturely deliver the whole baby and some abortions that simply cut the umbilical cord and sever the mother from providing oxygen and nutrients to the baby. Here is one example:

Hysterotomy or Caesarean Section:

Used mainly in the last three months of pregnancy, the womb is entered by surgery through the wall of the abdomen. The technique is similar to a Caesarean delivery, except that the umbilical cord is usually cut while the baby is still in the womb, thus cutting off his oxygen supply and causing him to suffocate.

This abortion method can be used for cases of rape, since it does not directly attack th baby, but simply denies the baby nutrients from the mother. Of course, when it's not rape, the mother is obligated to give nutrients from her body since she is the initial causer of dependency.

I think this method of abortion in the case of rape resolved the objections raised by mig283 and Evan Macian
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
Bitz,

You make some interesting points, but there is a major flaw in your reasoning. You're right that we generally don't force people to be good Samaritans and take action to save another's life. But abortion doesn't just involve killing the fetus by failing to care for it or by simply cutting off its access to nutrients. ACTIVE steps are taken by the abortion doctor (which I'd rather not get into) to ensure that the fetus does not survive. This is no less true in cases of rape than in most other cases of abortion.

In addition, PARENTS have responsibilities toward their children that strangers don't have toward each other. A parent who stands idly by and watches their child perish will generally prosecuted, for, at the very least, parental neglect. A parent of a child conceived through rape has no less of a responsibility to care for that child.
Posted by Evan_MacIan 9 years ago
Evan_MacIan
And to be clear, since both sides were stated in the round, direct abortion is always immoral according to Catholic teaching. I do not question Jokerdude's sincerity when he says he is an avid Catholic, but his stance is definately opposed to Catholic teaching.

Also, the Catholic Church teaches that capital punishment, while justifiable, is almost never justified in the modern world. Capital punishment is to be a last resort to protect society, and when our prison system is as reliable as it is, it is not justified to execute prisoners.
Posted by Evan_MacIan 9 years ago
Evan_MacIan
The objection that I see, Bitz, is that an abortion is an operation on the child. Yes, the operation does take place in the womb, but the actual actions are only on the child. Your bone marrow analogy is flawed for the simple reason that you aren't killing the person who needs the bone marrow transplant. The most your reasoning justifies is cutting the umbilical cord or a premature delivery. It does not justify abortion at all.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Oh gee Im sixteen and Im TRY-sexual

Ill try ANYTHING!

good parents there for sure

NOT!
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Quite the opposite is true

To be for murdering the innocent and preserving the worst murderers is mentally deficient

(or liberal - same thing)

Liberalism is a mental disorder- a dangerous one

SOLARMAN
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kamaz 9 years ago
kamaz
ellyphantJokerdudeTied
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 
Vote Placed by SchinkBR 9 years ago
SchinkBR
ellyphantJokerdudeTied
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 
Vote Placed by writer 9 years ago
writer
ellyphantJokerdudeTied
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 
Vote Placed by candice 9 years ago
candice
ellyphantJokerdudeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lenfent 9 years ago
Lenfent
ellyphantJokerdudeTied
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 
Vote Placed by dumbell2424 9 years ago
dumbell2424
ellyphantJokerdudeTied
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 
Vote Placed by CP 9 years ago
CP
ellyphantJokerdudeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
ellyphantJokerdudeTied
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 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 9 years ago
LaSalle
ellyphantJokerdudeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
ellyphantJokerdudeTied
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