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

abortionist tiller should have been shot, prolife folks should agree

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  
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: 5/10/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 538 times Debate No: 33541
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
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 WomenA533;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 RescueA533;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 WomenA533;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 A533; 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 A533; an international legal advocacy group A533; 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


Dr. Tiller was illegally killed by a vigilante in cold blood. This did not bring him to justice or shed light on his illegal practices.

In your initial argument, you failed to explain why Tiller's actions justified his illegal murder. In fact, I would argue that his actions, if they are as you described them, would justify his incarceration by appropriate authorities -- not his death at the hands of a crazed individual.

I look forward to reading your justifications for your claim.
Debate Round No. 1


he should be shot because he is murdering babies. late term trivial illegal abortion, is murder. they've tried many times to get him legally but have failed. if this is the standard you want to use go for it. based on what i can tell, he's guilty though, and if he got off he got off on technicalities or against the weight of the evidence i presented. maybe the people i quoted didnt or couldnt testify for some reason. who knows.
but again based on what i know, at least in theory if what i say is true.... he deserves to be shot. not even deserves for his own punishment... deserves for teh lives of future babies saved


Yet again, you focus on the problems with Tiller's actions and ignore giving a full justification for a vigilante response.

Because we live in a society of laws, you have a heavy burden to meet to explain why it's appropriate to go outside of those laws to punish someone. It's not sufficient to argue that the individual's actions were reprehensible; you also have to argue why having an unbalanced crazy person show up and shoot him in church was the right answer to the problem of Tiller's behavior.

Consider the case of Kermit Gosnell:

It is clear that sending Dr. Gosnell to prison for the rest of his life will do far more for the anti-abortion cause in this country than killing Dr. Tiller did. Can you provide evidence that the solution for Gosnell would not have worked for Tiller? Do you disagree that the consequences of killing Tiller are worse for society than the consequences of incarcerating Gosnell?

The fact that abortion doctors acting outside the law CAN be brought to justice is a further reason why vigilante murder is not the answer.
Debate Round No. 2


i have said that arguing against vigilantism is the main concern i have as well, in that the evidence needs properly weighed and we'd hope a good judge is the one pulling the trigger.

they were trying to get him since the ninties without success. i can't speak to the details as to why, but if what i posted is true, he should have been shot.

in the case of gosnell... justice came. perhaps not soon enough. id be content if tiller were locked up for life or unable to do any ote abortion again. in both cases, if we see law isnt working but babies are dying... what are we to just wait around and let them die?
if someone shot gosnell while we were waiting for process to work... that's just life and a good thing at least if babies are being saved.

i forgot to add in the debate, what if he was killing two year olds? and consider both if the laws were favorable for it and not favorable for it etc? are to wait for the political and legal process? and engage in that line of reasoning and questioning. especially if you add that she has soverignty here as the mother etc.
even if it was legal, id say we have an obligation to act. to a large extent this is appliable w late terms as well.


The conclusion is simple: there are good legal processes in place to deal with situations like what you're proposing. You have provided no moral justification for allowing vigilante justice, and in fact we know that vigilante justice is not the answer (which is why it, too, is illegal).

I was hoping that you would spend more time and effort attempting provide an actual moral justification for your position. Instead, you just re-stated it. You have provided no real justification for the actions of Tiller's murderer, nor reasons to believe that his behavior was better than available legal alternatives. You have not met your burden of proof in this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
he may not be most people per vigilantism but if you are (eg, the two year old hypothetical) you need to address the difference, and if you aren't, you need to explain how you can just sit by or allow it to happen and think it's not the moral thing to do, to take em out.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
i give him props for being among the best ive argued on this topic. vigilantism has a high burden to be justifiable. not that there's no room for it, though, i argued.

i argued in my initial post the thing about the two year olds. so i brought him around back to that question as he didn't realize it needed addressed if he wants to say there's never any room for vigilantism. if there is in some cases, like the two year olds, why not here?

you cant just assert they aren't teh same. you have to explain philsophsically, teh difference.
Posted by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
You didn't address that question until past the debate period and in your conclusion. You did not follow form.

And the question of 2 year olds is irrelevant, since Tiller did not in fact do that, and you still provided ZERO argument as to why illegally murdering someone for any crime is all right either legally or morally.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
as usual and expected the debater did not address my question about killing two year olds, an didnt really address any of those hypotheticals in teh initial post. how is this much of a debate if con doesnt even address the points?
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
i forgot to add in the debate, what if he was killing two year olds? are to wait for the political and legal process? and engage in that line of reasoning and questioning.
Posted by Overkill 3 years ago
You sourced from a non-existent YouTube video and an indie, Christian news site.
Posted by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Someone claiming to be "pro life" advocating murder...hilariously hypocritical.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is nigh incoherent, and provided no actual argument.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: None of the links even work and its pretty clear that pro plagiarized her arguments from somewhere