The Instigator
Robert_Weiler
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Unitomic
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Violent defense of the unborn is a legitimate tool to end abortion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Unitomic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,360 times Debate No: 71418
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (42)
Votes (2)

 

Robert_Weiler

Pro

I will be arguing that the use of physical force to defend the unborn is legitimate and morally justified. My opponent necessaryly takes the opposite view.

First round for acceptance only.
Unitomic

Con

I accept.



==Unitomic==
Debate Round No. 1
Robert_Weiler

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting and look forward to a good debate.

"It is certain that we should use the means necessary to defend the innocent, and since the unborn are innocent, it is equally certain that we should use the means necessary to defend them. If we knew that we, or our loved ones were about to be killed, as thousands of unborn children are each day, we would defend one another with the means necessary. We would not limit ourselves to legal and educational remedies that might possibly stop the bloodshed in the future; rather, we would take the immediate action necessary to save one another. If questioned, we would assert the moral necessity of taking this action. The law of love requires us to similarly defend the unborn, and uphold the duty to do so.

"The duty the defend the innocent with the means necessary is an essential aspect of the Moral Law that is found in both the Old and New Testaments, and has been recognized and implemented throughout history. Neither the overwhelming majority of citizens, nor the government, questions the duty to defend the innocent. Not everyone agrees on the degree of defensive force that is appropriate, but the obligation to defend innocent people with the means necessary is such a clear and compelling aspect of the Moral Law that it can scarcely be denied."[1]

Rev. Paul Jennings Hill committed these words to paper after gunning down a Pensacola, Florida abortionist and his bodyguard and surrendering to police in July, 1994. Subsequently, Rev. Hill was executed by the State of Florida. His actions were the second of such magnitude in the United States. Michael Griffin, a little over a year prior to Rev. Hill's actions, gunned down an abortionist, also in Pensacola, Florida. What made Paul Hill different, is that he went to the execution chamber defending his actions. He stated, in an interview immediately prior to his execution "I think more people should act the way I acted".[2]

What Rev. Hill recognized, is that believing the unborn to be fully human from the moment of conception requires an acknowledgement that they also are entitled to the same actions one would take to defend any other human being. Others had acknowledged this before, but lacked the means, courage, or sincerity to carry out the actions.

Paul Hill's actions were the inspiration for others to act as well. Eric Rudolph also said that Paul Hill's actions were the motivation for his subsequent actions, although he later recognized that his bombing of Centennial Park was a "Mistake"[3].

The actions of these men saved the lives of innocent children, slated for abortion. While most would be abortive women are understandably reluctant to come forward and state that violent action saved their child's life, there is at least one notable exception.[4]

These actions, in defense against imminent harm to unborn children, are objectively justified, and have saved lives.


References

1. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill in the foreword to his book Mix My Blood With The Blood Of The Unborn; available online at http://www.armyofgod.com...

2. Pensacola News Journal September 3, 2003.

3. http://www.armyofgod.com...

4. Baby Saved From Being Murdered by Abortion by John Salvi's actions. - Life Advocate-November/December, 1998 AD Volume XIII Number 3 (Story online at http://www.armyofgod.com... )
Unitomic

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the debate. I shall start with addressing his quote.


Counter-Case I: Rev. Paul Jennings Quote.

Part 1: "It is certain that we should use the means necessary to defend the innocent, and since the unborn are innocent, it is equally certain that we should use the means necessary to defend them."

Response 1: This is a presumption. Should we take all necessary means to defend an innocent life? Even murder? Should we declare war on an powerful nation to save a single life? No, there is ultimately a limit.


Part 2: "If we knew that we, or our loved ones were about to be killed, as thousands of unborn children are each day, we would defend one another with the means necessary."

Response 2: This is one massive appeal to emotion. No one can be expected to respond in a proper, rational means when it's a loved one. That is why there are rules for who can be on a jury and who can preside. In order to make the right choice, we must not make the mistake of allowing an appeal to emotion to cloud our judgement.


Part 3: "We would not limit ourselves to legal and educational remedies that might possibly stop the bloodshed in the future; rather, we would take the immediate action necessary to save one another. If questioned, we would assert the moral necessity of taking this action. The law of love requires us to similarly defend the unborn, and uphold the duty to do so."

Response 3: This very argument justifies ISIS, Stalin, and Hitler. They all work on personal moralities. We must never ignore legal remedies, as once we decide one thing is worth ignoring the law, we set down on a dangerous path of precedence which can easily justify ignoring law on many other occasions. We have seen many other times with places such as Ferguson, MO, that we already have a precarious situation with people openly defying law in violent manners, that last thing we need is to push deeper. Pro continues on afterwards to mention the Law of Love, which is undefined, and may be interpreted into any of a million possible meanings to justify any actions. Lastly Pro mentioned our "duty to do so", again assuming many things.


Part 4: "The duty the defend the innocent with the means necessary is an essential aspect of the Moral Law that is found in both the Old and New Testaments, and has been recognized and implemented throughout history."

Response 4: Pro mentions a "Moral Law", which, just like "Law of Love", is an undefined (and unbinding) law with many possible interpretations. Pro says it is found in the Testaments of the Bible, which is not a binding, nor entirely accepted document. Opponents may bring in the fact that the Bible also ordains a genocide to make room for the Jews. The fact that they have been implemented throughout history means nothing has biblical law only truly was implemented in Christian nations, and only during the middle ages in large quantity. And still it wouldn't matter as it would be an appeal to tradition.


Part 5: "Neither the overwhelming majority of citizens, nor the government, questions the duty to defend the innocent."

Response 5: The is entirely a misrepresentation of the concept. If asked, certainly no citizen will argue with the phrase, but once you go into detail, that is where you will find that people would not extend this to include murdering someone (whom they are likely to themselves consider more or less innocent).


Part 6: "Not everyone agrees on the degree of defensive force that is appropriate, but the obligation to defend innocent people with the means necessary is such a clear and compelling aspect of the Moral Law that it can scarcely be denied."

Response 6: This is again making a presumption. Again most people, once given details on the implications, will give a much more refined answer which will not include murder. Most would say that breaking "moral law" (the dangers of which I've prior noted) by murdering someone is far worse.


Counter-Case 2: Rev. Paul Jennings

After the quote Pro goes on to detail the murders committed by Rev. Jones. For the entire first paragraph of this part, he presents absolutely nothing but a backstory, which itself doesn't seem to advance the debate. That fact that he performed those murders does not in any way show why it's acceptable, nor is a blunt statement that others show follow suit. The fact that others followed suit also shows nothing on why it's an acceptable action. Pro goes on to mention that these murders saved innocent lives, however many of these women would likely have just went elsewhere to acquire their abortions, and many could argue that saving one innocent life by killing another innocent life (as the "Moral Law" isn't a binding or even detailed law of any sort) is ultimately still worse, as the murder will gravely hurt those who knew the doctor. Pro is putting the life of this child over the life of a life saving doctor and holds no regards for the wife and child of whatever doctor has been murdered. Pro mentions a woman who spoke up about being made to keep the child, however this is again an appeal to emotion, and does not answer for the fact that in an alternate version where the woman didn't keep the child, she is likely to also be just as happy. Pro ends his round by making a claim of moral objectivity, claiming we are all bound by his morality though most of us are likely to draw the line well before murder.


Counter-Case 3: Sources

To put it as simply as possible, all of Pros sources are from the exact same website, except for once which is a printed journal that can't be located online. Though this doesn't nullify his sources, it certainly shouldn't go without mention.



Case 1: Precedence

I've mentioned it once before, but I'll bring it back up. Pro's case ultimately opens up any of a hundred horrible actions which can be justified under the same principals. If we consider something to be justified under our own personal interpretation of this "Moral Law", then we can do it. Ferguson, MO {1}? Justified. Isis? Justified. Slaughtering a small town over an insult? Justified as some people that one must retaliate against insult. {2} The things which can be justified only grow worse from there. At what point do we slaughter lawmakers for the War in Iraq? Many people consider it illegal and would consider many of it's casualties on both sides to be unacceptable. {3} Precedence must always be remembered.



Case 2: The Lack of Uniformity in Morality.

Furthermore, Pro neglects that not everyone considers abortion a bad thing to be stopped. {4} Pro is talking under the assumption that the majority of people follow his morality, when in truth Gallop Polls suggest that 47% support for Abortion (28 of hat 47% consider it acceptable all the time). Certainly these people would not support murder of the doctor, as they do not consider his actions amoral. {5} That aside few people would ever agree to the blatant murder of others, for an act which many don't consider wrong. While my opponent may consider mentioning peoples moralities as an Appeal to Popularity as I'm referencing that most are against his views, however Appeal to Popularity is informal, and it is fully acceptable to mention it when we are referencing the general view of the nation.



Closing Statement

I end this round by reiterating that we must bear in mind the dangerous precedence set in the idea that we can (or in Pros words, must) act in a violent and illegal manner, even resorting to murder, based on our personal interpretation of morality. We can not allow such a horrendous act to become acceptable simply because a part of the population consider Abortion a crime.



1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

2]http://www.nytimes.com...

3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

4]http://prochoice.org...

5] http://www.gallup.com...


==Unitomic==

Debate Round No. 2
Robert_Weiler

Pro

First, I would like to address a fact my opponent pointed out, namely that all of my sources were "from the exact same website, except for once which is a printed journal that can't be located online." Two of these sources are books, written by Eric Rudolph and Paul Hill, they are made available in PDF format of this website. I could have just listed the book title's, but I thought I would make it easy for my opponent to review by linking the pdf files where I know them to be available online. The Pensacola News Journal is available online, however, their online archives do not reach back for enough to pull this article. Life Advocate magazine is no longer published, and I used the article as quoted on the Army of God website. I has subsequently found an online archive fore Life Advocate Magazine, with the article in question.[1]

My opponent points to a gallop poll to claim large support for legalized abortion. I do not dispute this, and this is not the subject of the debate. We are not debating whether or not abortion should be legal, or whether or not the majority of Americans would have it banned in any or all circumstances. We are debating the morality of violent defense of the unborn. Quite simply, whether or not abortion is the type of unjust aggression which calls for forceful, violent if necessary, defense.

"
The Morality of Abortion

"Asked about the morality of abortion in general, Americans are evenly divided: 42% told Gallup in a May 2001 survey that abortion is morally acceptable while 45% answered that it is morally wrong.

"Asked whether abortion is murder, slightly differently worded questions have produced slightly different rates of agreement, ranging between 45% and 57%. Questions that ask whether abortion is an "act of murder" tend to produce answers that are slightly lower than those that simply ask whether abortion is murder.

  • Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Abortion is murder.

"Los Angeles Times, June 2000: 57% agree; 36% disagree

  • Which of these statements comes closer to your opinion: Abortion is the same thing as murdering a child, or abortion is not murder because the fetus really isn't a child?

"CBS/New York Times, January 1998: 50% murder; 38% not murder

  • Do you think abortion is an act of murder, or don’t you feel this way?

"CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, January 1998: 48% murder and 45% don’t feel this way

  • What is your view -- do you think abortion is an act of murder, or don’t you feel this way? Time/CNN, August 1994: 43% murder; 47% don’t feel this way

"A unique question asked by the Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia explored Americans’ feelings about abortion as murder in greater detail. Given four categories to choose from, a combined 48% indicate abortion is murder while 42% say it is not murder -- very similar to the Gallup’s 1998 findings. However, as can be seen, about one-fifth of those who consider abortion murder make a distinction between abortion and killing a person who is already born. On the other side, two-thirds of those who do not consider abortion murder nevertheless perceive it as the taking of human life. Only 16% of Americans view it as a surgical procedure for removing human tissue.

Which of these statements best describes your feelings about abortion? Abortion is just as bad as killing a person who has already been born, it is a murder. Abortion is murder, but it is not as bad as killing someone who has already been born. Abortion is not murder, but it does involve the taking of human life. Abortion is not murder, it is a surgical procedure for removing human tissue?

University of Virginia, January 1996

Murder, as bad as killing person already born

38%

Murder, not as bad as killing a person already born

10

Not murder, does involve taking human life

26

Not murder, is a surgical procedure for removing human tissue

16

No opinion

11

"[2]
This article shows that the majority of Americans believe that abortion is murder. If abortion is murder, it necessarily extends that force is justified to stop it, and protect the life of the child. Except for the very small portion of the population that believes in absolute pacifism, few doubt the justification of defending one's self or others from imminent, unjustified aggression.

Granted, when asked directly most Americans would not support killing an abortionist. However, the ideological and moral justification supporting such an action are already inherent in their belief systems. Therefore, while for many reasons most Americans would not vocally support violent defense of the unborn, they can not, logically and consistently, condemn it.

References
1. http://www.lifeadvocate.org...
2. http://www.gallup.com...
Unitomic

Con

Preface: I will start this round by pointing out that Pro has completely ignored every case I’ve made outside of my remarks about his sources. In doing so, he has largely dropped all my arguments (sources withstanding).


Counter-Rebuttal I: Sources

Pro attempts to justify the use of full books as a source. The problem here is that books are not acceptable sources (unless he presents a specific part of the book), as you can't expect the voters to honestly read through two books to get the meaning. Pro attacks my source from Gallup Poll saying that it isn't relevant. It is however entirely relevant, as it proves a relevant point. That point is that not all people support his extreme views, thereby nullifying any claim to a moral high ground or absolutism in moral belief. It also calls into question the concept of necessity (and therefore legitimate use) of force.


Counter-Case I: Morality of Abortion

Pro provide us a group of Gallup studies, which shows that the phrasing of a question can greatly change the results. This actually hurts his case, by showing that many people are so uncertain about their views that even slight rephrasing can change it. Next he presents a more developed study. Pro attempts to show that the majority of people consider it murder, however it in truth shows 48% consider it murder, not the majority as he claims. Pro tries to insinuate that the 26% whom consider it taking a human life are to be include in those who consider it murder. However this is wrong, as taking a life is not the same as murder. {1/2/3} Many forms of killing are actually considered justified {4/5}, even in Abortion {6}. I would even point out that his polls never even mentioned situations wherein the mothers life is in danger.


Pro goes on to state that if abortion is murder, the use of force is necessary to stop it. Firstly, these polls don't actually provide any reason why half the population (48%) are right, and the other half are wrong. The half who do not consider abortion murder must be explained as wrong. Secondly, it again does not explain how force is justifiable. Thirdly, I'll point out the public opinion doesn't matter here. Law does. We cannot fall into the belief that simply because we think something is wrong that we can murder others for it. Lastly on this note I'll remind Pro that we cannot perform executive actions, as we are not legally permitted enforcers (such as police).


Pro ends this paragraph by claiming few doubt defence from "imminent, unjustified aggression". Again Pro fails to provide a proper case that abortions is "imminent, unjustified aggression", and pro also fails to source or substantiate in any way that people consider force a "necessity" against abortion (as people may perceive the required response different depending on their view of the "murder" {the very fact that 10% of the people in Pros study consider abortion a lower form of murder prove that many people treat different forms of "murder" differently, thereby nullifying pro's generalization about the required response}).


Pro ends this by stating outright state that most people do not agree with him. He attempts to shoot down their belief by claiming their belief system inherently suggests they support him. This in entirely unacceptable. Pro cannot declare what other peoples beliefs are. Peoples beliefs are just that, it is what they believe. It is a complex system that is different for everyone. If they say that are against killing an abortionist, then they are against killing an abortionist. There is some variable in that action which changes their moral view on the matter. Pro however ignores this. To sum this up, if people are against the action, then they are against the action.


Case I: Sentence before Trial, and the Legality of Murder.

Pro fails to bear in mind that everyone deserves a trial. {7/8/9/10/11} Unlike Pro's case, this is a universally accepted standard. Now Pro is suggesting that it is acceptable to murder abortionists without a fair trial (given by his support for the actions of those whom have done just that). This is in breach of the most basic legal rights we have. This presents another issue. Abortion is not considered illegal in the regions that are important (as that is where abortionists can legally work. Obviously), {12} therefore a trial would not provide a sentence. If the courts do not provide sentencing, then no punishment can be provided, and any act of punishment would be a crime in and of itself, and allowing such a crime would be a horrifying precedence that shouldn't be allowed.


I'll add that vigilantism is not a generally accepted act anyhow. Therefore it is not an appropriate action for someone to act out "justice" (as they perceive it) without a trial. I'll end this argument by pointing out that many people are entirely against murder. If they are against the death penalty, why would they support murdering an abortionist (especially without a trial). While it is true that most people are still in favour of death penalty, the fact that a substantial percentage of people are against it throws doubt into the morality of killing anyone as a punishment.


If Pro cannot show that killing is a morally justified response, then Pro fails to prove the resolution. Simply saying over and over that 'personal belief that abortion is immoral = justification of murdering someone', is not a full enough substantiation, especially since Pro fails to properly show that any reasonable number of people agree with him, outside of trying to say that their beliefs "inherently" support him, even though they themselves claim their beliefs to not.


I end this round by reminding Con that round 4 is finishing round, and cannot be used for making additional cases, only rebuttals.


1]http://criminal.lawyers.com...

2] http://dictionary.reference.com...

3] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

5]http://en.wikipedia.org...

6]http://www.bbc.co.uk...

7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

8] https://www.law.cornell.edu...

9] http://www.equalityhumanrights.com...

10]http://www.un.org... {article 11}

11] http://criminal.findlaw.com...

11]http://en.wikipedia.org...


==Unitomic==


Debate Round No. 3
Robert_Weiler

Pro

Again, my opponent has taken dead aim at the bulls eye, and missed the target completely.

My opponent ignores every poll presented in the group of polls that shows a majority believing that abortion is in fact murder, and concentrates on the only one that where less than 50% call it murder, but a vast majority still consider it the taking of a human life.

My opponent declares "everyone deserves a trial" while completely missing the point that abortion itself is the taking of a human life without a trial.

I must take issue with my opponent declaring that it is only the law that matters, because very few would agree that the law is always correct, or should be followed. Insurgent groups existed in WWII Germany, fighting against the holocaust. Were their methods less justified because they were illegal? Slavery in the United States was often fought with force and weaponry. Were these methods unjustified because they were illegal? History is replete with examples of those who acted against the legal powers of the day and are remembered, and honored, as heroes.

My opponent continuously refers to the defense of the unborn as "murder". However, my opponent has himself admitted "taking a life is not the same as murder. Many forms of killing are actually considered justified". Furthermore, violent defense does not constitute murder or even necessarily the taking of life. My opponent calls this vigilantism, however, we are talking about defense, not justice. Justice is the sole province of God and government, defense is a moral right and duty. My opponent has completely missed this distinction.
Unitomic

Con

Preface: As this is the final round, I shall not make any cases, rather I shall make only counter-cases.

Counter-Case:Polls and The Right to a Trial.

Pro starts by attempting to say that I ignored all of his polls, except for the one where murder is less. In fact I actually mentioned all of them when stating that his polls only show how the phrasing can change the outcome of the poll. This references all the polls. After this I went on to mention the final poll, as it is the one referenced when Pro stated most people thought abortion was murder. I have already shown that Pro attempted to twist the polls to his benefit through misrepresentation. Pro simply attempts to repeat his claim, in no way attempting to refute my counters.

"My opponent declares "everyone deserves a trial" while completely missing the point that abortion itself is the taking of a human life without a trial."


Pro says this, but ignores that this in no way is how the legal system works. By this system, we can simply kill a criminal without trial. Why should we? Their victims suffered without trial. And according to Pro, we don't need to give them a trial because they never gave their victim a trial. But in the real world, you get a trial, no matter what you have done. Whether you've given the other person a "trial" doesn't cost you the right to a trial.


Counter-Case II: Acts of those in the past.

Pro spends this part of his argument making substantial mis-comparisons. First of all, the resistance against the Germans was an insurrection against a occupier {1} that has broken an incalculable numbers of war crimes (as opposed to abortion, which is not an international crime). {2} As for slavery, most of those who acted in violence for the slaves (outside of war, which is a major factor to be considered), were persecuted by the law. Though a few might say they were heroes, they are rarely treated as such. The true heroes were those who acted non-violently in order to secure the freedom of slaves. {3/4/5} A more proper modern variation of the true heroes would be those who work to save the unborn through offering to adopt.

Pro mentions that history is "replete" with another example. However most of these would have explanations, or are simply cases of hypocrisy (which becomes common as we view the past). Ultimately as Pro fails to mention any other ones, I cannot explain them, as each example would be obviously different.


Counter-Case III: Semantics

Pro starts his final paragraph by attempting to discredit me through the use of simple semantics. Violent defense is still "violent", given the nature. One could replace all my references to lethal violence with non-lethal violence, and my arguments would still stand just as strong. So the changing from murder to maiming doesn't alter the validity of my cases.

Pro ends his round by stating that these actions don't constitute vigilante "justice", but rather defense. This isn't the case at all though. Non-Justice "Defense" would be someone pulling a knife on you, and you fighting back. Going to his house to paralyze him because he once pulled a knife is not defense, it is justice. To aid to my case, the definition of defense is "resistance against attack; protection". {6} It in no way reference a "moral right or duty" (which I've in a prior round pointed out is a dangerous (and possibly hypocritical) concept when used to justify violence). Therefore Pro is using an unsupported definition. Pro has ultimately ended this paragraph by saying I've missed some distinction, when in truth that "distinction" was created through improper redefinement. By his definitions, there is no such thing as "vigilantism", as they can simply claim it's "defense" of others, rather than "justice".


Counter-Case IV: Shifting the Goal Post

This is a small point, and thus will not be a long Counter-Case, however I feel I should give it it's own place simply to emphasis the point.


"violent defense does not constitute murder or even necessarily the taking of life."


This quote obviously comes from Pro. Now I will point out that the resolution isn't about "non-lethal violent defense". It is about "violent defense". Pro never iterates the point in his opening round. And in fact all his examples were blatant killings. Pro can not attempt to discredit my arguments by saying that not every example might be killing. His resolution includes killing, therefore he must defend it also, otherwise he fails to fully affirm the resolution. Pro can successfully defend all the non-lethal examples, and still fail to affirm the resolution because it includes lethal examples (some of which, again I say, he brought up).


Conclusion: Violent Defense of the Unborn is Not a Legitimate Tool to End Abortion.

I end this debate by pointing out that Pro has largely failed to counter my arguments, and has made little effort to truly refute my counters. Pro's sources have been few, and from sites with overwhelming bias present at every step of the way. His entire last round held no sources, and therefore any claim made in that round by him is unsubstantiated.

He has largely made his points through use of unapologetic semantics play, and misrepresentation of my own arguments. Near the end, Pro attempted to shift the goal post to discredit my arguments. But no, as the resolution includes killing, my arguments stand. Pro has failed to counter me (usually dropping cases), and failed to defend his points. As such, I can only leave by saying Pro has failed to Affirm his Resolution.



Sources:

1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
3] http://www.history.com...

4] http://www.pbs.org...

5]
http://en.wikipedia.org...
6]http://dictionary.reference.com...


==Unitomic==
Debate Round No. 4
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Robert_Weiler 1 year ago
Robert_Weiler
Again, the debate is ongoing. please take the "comment section debate" elsewhere. Either one of you could have accepted the debate if you wished, you chose not to.
Posted by Chuz-Life 1 year ago
Chuz-Life
Sorry for the cross posts. Please continue your debate. I'll interrupt no more.
Posted by Chuz-Life 1 year ago
Chuz-Life
- Robert storms an abortion clinic.

Without permission and without alerting the cops that a crime against a child might be in progress.

- A Dr is about to perform an abortion.

That may or may not be justified to save a woman's life.

- Robert says stop. Dr says no, the woman has the right to choose, I will not stop,.

Show me a doctor that actually wouldn't stop what they are doing when a gun is pointed in their face and they are ordered to stop.

- Robert shoots the Dr. Robert cites defense of life of other as defense.

Right. And as sympathetic as I would be to that defense, I would not be able to give him a pass on all the other things he (likely) did wrong (mentioned above). Two wrongs don't make a right.

(Some Christians claim he has done the work of the Lord while yelling Jesus is lord).

They have a right to their beliefs.

Now what ?

Now what. What?
Posted by Robert_Weiler 1 year ago
Robert_Weiler
I agree with Unitomic. The debate has started, arguments on the resolution now belong solely in the debate rounds, in personal messages or the forums.
Posted by Unitomic 1 year ago
Unitomic
Both of you, take it to the Inbox. It's rude to argue the resolution on other peoples debate.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 1 year ago
Illegalcombatant
That would all depend on whether the use of force was excessive or not, and some places have very different ideas where that line is. But lets for the sake of argument agree that in such a case they would agree with your claim here.

Lets change the details a bit...........

Robert storms an abortion clinic. A Dr is about to perform an abortion. Robert says stop. Dr says no, the woman has the right to choose, I will not stop,. Robert shoots the Dr. Robert cites defense of life of other as defense. (Some Christians claim he has done the work of the Lord while yelling Jesus is lord).

Now what ?
Posted by Chuz-Life 1 year ago
Chuz-Life
In your own example, the prosecutor would be quick to point out that the shooter had other means to keep the abortionist from killing the child. The use of deadly force would be seen as an excessive use of force and the shooter would be justifiably convicted of murder. And that would be true in a world where abortion has already been banned. As, in your own example, the doctor was not in the act, authorities was not called in (when they could have been) and there was no way to know if the abortion the doctor was preparing for might have been justified (to save the life of a mother) for example. Indeed, scrubbing doesn't even mean the doctor was getting ready to do an abortion. He may have been getting ready for some other procedure.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 1 year ago
Illegalcombatant
Your making an argument to justify killing an abortion doctor that doesn't phaze you, BUT chaz vs chuz is a deal break for you ?

Nice prioritizes mate :)

With that said okey...............CHUZ

"Robert follows an abortion doctor to work, abortion doctor scrubs up to perform an abortion. Robert kills doctor. Cites defense of other life as defense aka prevented a murder cause abortion is murder.

Once again I claim this is the outcome if you follow this line of reasoning to it's logical (without exemptions) conclusion.

So now what ?"
Posted by Chuz-Life 1 year ago
Chuz-Life
I'll not be responding to slurs of my screen name anymore.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 1 year ago
Illegalcombatant
Okey Chaz lets see how that plays out, operating on the premise that abortion is MURDER.........

Robert follows an abortion doctor to work, abortion doctor scrubs up to perform an abortion. Robert kills doctor. Cites defense of other life as defense aka prevented a murder cause abortion is murder.

Once again I claim this is the outcome if you follow this line of reasoning to it's logical (without exemptions) conclusion.

So now what ?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by phiLockeraptor 1 year ago
phiLockeraptor
Robert_WeilerUnitomicTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This isn't a typical pro-life versus pro-choice debate. Pro was shooting himself in the foot with a ridiculous burden of proof, and cited religious sources in his opening case (a big no-no, since this is not in the "Religion" category). The trial argument was flawed, he didn't significantly prove why the unborn life was more important than the fully grown human being, and dropped a boatload of arguments. Easy win.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
Robert_WeilerUnitomicTied
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: Pro has a really huge burden to fulfill... He is arguing for life but is advocating murder of abortionists. Pro also argues against the right to a trial, despite the fact we have a right to trial. Con responds to all of pro's arguments and demonstrates the right to a trial, and this invalidates a lot of Pro's case because the murder would not only infringe upon the abortionists right to life, but also go against the right to a trial. Con really shows us that it is morally superior to act peacefully in response to abortion rather than act violently. Pro cites slavery and how many abolitionists were violent, but Uni points out that those who resisted peacefully are the true heroes. Pretty clear Con win.