The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

abortionist tiller should have been shot, prolife folks should agree

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,291 times Debate No: 30854
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




HE DID THEM ILLEGALLY... (and carhart does too
Operation Rescue ran its own investigation and released reports of former patients who testified that the Women's Health Care Services in Wichita " where Carhart was employed at the time " falsified the gestational age of viable babies to avoid complying with the law and performed illegal abortions. Kansas law prohibits abortion when the fetus is viable unless the mother's life in danger.



Luhra (Tivis) Warren, a former Tiller employee, wrote the following:

"I was required to falsify the medical records. But not just that, related to that, I was required to lie to the women over the phone. And the way he'd explain it to me was, without coming right out and saying it, these are really third trimester abortions, but we're going to tell them they're only in the second trimester. They would say, well, I've already had a sonogram, and my bpd was 7.8 or 8.3 or whatever. He said, when they tell you that, don't turn them away as being too far along. Tell them to come in, and we'll do our own sonogram, and it will show they're not that far along. Tell them that sonogram reading is an art, not a science. He explained to me that the bpd is a measurement of the angle of the baby's head, where at that angle, the baby's head is roughly egg-shaped. The usual way that you measure the bpd is from the top of the egg to the bottom of the egg, which is at the widest point. But we measure it from side to side, at the narrowest point." from Celebrate Life Sept/Oct 1994 "Where is the Real Violence?"



'late term abortion, cause the mom says she had too many kids'


"Jessica speaks out"
we decided having 2 babies under 1 year old was not going to work for us with [5] children total, so after thinking about it we decided upon an abortion though it was painful to think about.
I was I believe 26 weeks along which is pretty far in my book, but anyway.
First day was taking blood, sonogram to see exactly how far along I was, etc... which they wouldn't let me see the sonogram photo when I asked.

I can remember Tiller half-delivering my baby, jabbing the scissors into his head, & killing him. Then just kind of throwing him to the side and finishing up.


he did them late term for trivial reaSONS...

[Tiller gave out a video called] "Philosophies and techniques of late term abortion services at Women's Health Care Services". In this video, Tiller talks openly about the reasons women come to Wichita for late-term abortion which include "occupational issues" and "financial issues".


Dr. Paul McHugh is a Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. McHugh was hired by the then-Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline to review some of Tiller's records. McHugh said the records show Tiller performed abortions for trivial reasons. One woman even said she was having a late-term, abortion because she wanted to go to a rock concert. Click here to see Dr. McHugh's interview in Lenexa, Kansas on June 11, 2007.

political and legal process werent working....

We know from experience that closing abortion clinics saves lives. In 2006, Operation Rescue bought and closed Central Women�s Services, an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas. On the day we took possession of the building, we were able to speak with one woman who came for an abortion, but chose instead to keep her baby. The building was completely renovated and now serves as Operation Rescue�s national headquarters.

Over the ensuing months, many women have come to our offices seeking abortions. We have referred them to a pro-life pregnancy center next door where the director tells us that every woman who has come to them seeking an abortion at our former abortion building has instead made the decision to chose life for their babies.

Since the closure of Women�s Health Care Services in June, 2009, Wichita has become an abortion-free community. That same pregnancy center reports a dramatic increase in business and in requests for adoption information. Since abortions are not available in Wichita, more and more women who would have resorted to abortion as a quick solution to their problems have instead sought the help and support they needed to cope with their crisis pregnancies in ways that did not include the intentional death of their babies.

Study weighs threats' effects on abortion providers
Washington correspondent

WASHINGTON � An abortion rights group has found that doctors and clinics in six states, including Missouri, that perform abortions "are routinely targeted" for legal and physical harassment, including death threats.

The result, according to a study by the Center for Reproductive Rights � an international legal advocacy group � is that women seeking to terminate pregnancies face a dwindling supply of providers as threats and intimidation take their toll.


we have just war theory, and defense of others if death is imenent. i think just war applies. otherwise we have defense of others.... while noy literally immeint who cares? we donty have to be just whatever orhodoxy says. its the point that matters. desperate times desperate measures.... defense of others but not truly immenient, a death will soon occur. understood not normative law or ethics.... but bottomline, if u are gonna kill us very likely etc... u should die. otherwise wed just be sticking to tradiotion of whats been allowed and overlooking the point involved, and not be a little more unorthodox.

bottomline... what if they were killing two year olds and it was generally legal? not only that what if it was illegal at times and efftive to shoot the few two year old killers? poltics and law werent working.... what is the moral thing to do?

(also, the prolife building next to tiller had very high success preventing abortion when getting a chance to talk to the women. before and after tiller was shut down. why didnt tiller refer them there first at least as a suggestion etc? it follows that he cared more about money, why else wouldnt he do things to help reduce abortion
common objections
mother's life endangered. exceptions for that and should be. isnt trivial reason. dont know why you point it out. all u have left is body soverignty to justify the abortion. but as said, she had plenty of time to abort earlier when more morally gray, and she is responsible for the conception so she does not have absolute right here.

society cant do this? civil war, revolutions, defending others etc... killing is sometimes necessary.
address the two year old hypothetical. almost everyone would agree that should be a moral necessity to defend them. the only distinction you could make is body soverignty arguments. but if u do make this argument.... how is it not her responsibility that the child was conceived so not her absolute right (even the law recognizes no absolute right), and how not her fault she did not abort sooner when morally grayer?

i could see if he did them for trivial reasons at a point where it's legal, and for nontrivial when it's illegal. the only thing that is not trivial and not the mom's life, is a deformed baby. i could understand if that was the reason he did them, i may need more information.... it sounds like he was not this scrupulous.
we see aborted at 26 weeks for too many kids. far as i can tell, that's illegal or pushin it. no expert


first i would like to say i am pro-life. Now im not sure if you mean literaly get shot, or you think he was wrong in what he was doing. i think he was wrong, but there is another way of dealing with him then just shooting him.
Debate Round No. 1


yes i mean literally shot. this should be a given.
how else deal with him? law and poltics werent working. no one would stand by and let people kill two year olds if legal etc... how is that different?
cut his arms off or put him in a cage r? what are u suggesting? even tiller's killer thought of stuff like that but decided to kill him. it's the only sure ay to stop him.


I agree he deserves death for what he was doing. But going up to him and shooting him makes you no better. There are ways to deal with people like this. We should be doing this in the right way by not revenge, but for justice. There is a difference. What were the reasons the law was not dealing with this? Was there a reason?
Also cutting his arms off would be torture and that would not be right.
I'm going to do more research on this guy before I comment again lol.
Off topic but who was his killer?
Debate Round No. 2


you say usecourts etc. it aint working though. we have no other options.

you still dont address the two year old hypothetical.

it aint about revenge its about stopping him from killing again.


Ok I give up on this debate so I'm just going to say this.
He does not deserve to get shot. He deserves to be tortured. Being shot is to quick and painless.
He should have been hung naked in a gay pride parade.
He should have been shot in the balls and killed with a knife or scissors stabbed through his skull like he did to all those children.
I hope he rots in hell.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Let me reiterate here. Murdering someone for something they've done is revenge, nothing else, and has no place in civilized society. Murder is never justice until the unjustly killed can be restored to life. Can you do that? Can anyone? Dead is dead, dead is permanent. Death isn't punishment, death is an escape from accountability for the offender.

And torture is barbaric in the extreme. We as a society have to rise above primitive desires to cause pain or death as revenge for perceived wrongs, regardless of the accuracy of those perceptions. People who advocate for violence against anyone for their misdeeds are the true danger to society. There's room in civilized society for those who still believe in state-performed "humane" executions, though I disagree with the sentiment; but no room for violent psychopaths such as the participants in this debate.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
men like tiller and people who would allow for that... that is abhorrent.
i fear for society becase of tiller and both passive and active enablers like deadly.
also deadly kris keeps harping on revenge when i explained it has nothing to d w revenge.
deadly hasnt addressed the two year old hypothetial, and the following body soverignty arguments that usually follow.
the debate is over so deadly shouldnt fear giving away points.instead deadly harps on points that do not follow, and does respond to counter points.
Posted by zezima 3 years ago
Posted by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Shooting a man for perceived crimes - whether or not that perception is true - is abhorrent. Torturing him, on the other hand, is even worse. Revenge has no place in civilized society, and I worry for the general public while people like dairygirlu2c and zezma walk the streets.
Posted by dezagirl 3 years ago
Agreed, this debate was awful. >_< Some references or, y'know, debate would be nice. You weren't debating on the punishment, you were debating on whether or not 'abortionist tiller' was responsible and should've been executed/shot accordingly.

which is a bad debate topic in and of itself. but whatever.
Posted by zezima 3 years ago
Posted by BennyW 3 years ago
This was a horrible debate.
Posted by BennyW 3 years ago
I am considering taking this, I am pro-life and want to demonstrate we can oppose what he did without becoming vigilantes.
Posted by Deadlykris 3 years ago
I won't accept this debate on the basis of your poor spelling and grammar. However, I will refrain from posting comments that could aid your potential opponent.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
it's not about revenge or even punishment. it's about stopping more murders.

as said n debate, this really no different than us stopping people from killing two year olds, w all the qualification said in the debate.
defese of other using death, war, rebellion etc.... all part of civilized societym life.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by samurai 3 years ago
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: Was more convincing when he was serious.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I cannot in good conscience side with either side of this debate, on moral grounds. Shooting a man for perceived crimes - whether or not that perception is true - is abhorrent. Torturing him, on the other hand, is even worse. Revenge has no place in civilized society, and I worry for the general public while people like dairygirlu2c and zezma walk the streets.