The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 577 times Debate No: 34027
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




in this debate id like to focus on the two year old hypotheticals. any argument u make, address that hypo.

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)

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. if he got off he got off on technicalities or against the weight of the evidence i presented thats not cool. 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
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 t


Well, initially I was unsure of this argument as the website provided did not give the story mentioned in the title. I then realized that the pro side has had this argument before and lost each time. I will make reference to the previous speech, but still add my own spin on it.

The debate topic ideally should be on the ethical controversy surrounding abortion, but you have instead decided to demand the death of someone in an "eye for an eye" manner. And considering the fact that you have repeated you argument, this seems to be more of an emotional rant than a debate of reason. I recommend that you rationally reconsider your argument and instead of calling for the outright murder of another human being, even a criminal at that, which descends into a barbaric justice system that was abolished at least a thousand years ago. I will assume your stance is pro life, as you speak with such contempt for abortion and call for other pro lifers to agree, but is that is the case, then you should be considering the "sanctity of life" which pro lifers claim to defend. Your hypothetical hypocrisy, and desire to actually murder murderers makes you a murderer, which Tiller's next of kin would be honor bound to answer with your assassination. I must say, dairy girl, that you have a primitive and emotional approach to this argument, and I would consider thinking on that before you just copy and paste what you wrote last time, which if you do, I will answer by using AvalonXQ's skillful rebuttal against.

Awaiting your response, Duncan
Debate Round No. 1


i notice that you did not respond to the very first sentence of my debate request, to address the two year old hypothetical. it would be very informing of the morality of tiller and abortion.
you complain that ive debated this many times, but i started these new debates so people would focus on that instead of ignoring it as they always do... wanted to focus our energy more squarely on that.

this wouldn't be an 'eye for an eye' killing. that is about revenge for the sake of revenge. this is about preventing more murders, what i'm arguing, not eye for an eye. basic self defense. this is how the sactity of life is very much defended. would any be prolife if they thought it the right thing to do to just sit by while two year olds are shot? again, you need to address this hypothetical for your points to mean much of anything.
(and the whole honor bound to assisinate me thing is a bit trite, but if you follow that logic, dont you think the death of thousands of babies, illegal abortions of viable babies for trivial reasons, cries out for honor? only in this case, it's not an eye for an eye honor killing. you seem to follow that logic more than me, apparently./)
i dont see how you say this is all emotional appeal. it's all based on morality, philosophy, and debate. notice it's all cerebral what i wrote and based on reason, not a short diatrible about taking out the baby killer blah blah blah.


Dairygirl, the reason that I cannot address the two year old hypothetical is because it is, a two year old hypothetical. The website you have provided no longer shows the hypothetical, so you will have to simply post it along with your next reply.

Now, I brought up the honor system because I had initially appeared to me that you simply wanted Tiller dead because he was a murderer. I point out that you state in the title that he should have been shot, not executed. In countries with a death penalty, which I am not in support of, the sentence is usually done with an electric chair or lethal injection, at least with the injection it is less painful. From this desire for a firing squad to deliver painful retaliation, combined with your use of capital letters (and the fact that it is just your last argument again) I deduced that you are emotionally involved with this debate, understandable, and every debater falls victim to it, but please do try to review your work in a professional manner.

Am I to guess that you refer to the idea of killing one to save another as your hypothesis? In that case, true, killing one who may kill others is morally defensible, but only in the event that you are unable to simply prevent the crime occurring in the first place. By your logic, why don't we just not have police patrols, wait for criminals to show up, catch them on camera and then track them down and kill them? The answer is that you have not eliminated the source of the problem, only one of the "henchmen" so to speak. If you didn't already know, prison has three functions:

One: As a form of punishment for criminals. The most obvious function.

Two: To prevent the criminal committing further crimes. Essentially "keeping them off the streets", this is to ensure the safety of the public.

Three: To rehabilitate the criminal. Eventually, the criminal will finish their sentence and return to society. Rehabilitation serves to ensure that the criminal understands what was morally and legally wrong with their actions, and that they will no longer commit those actions, now reformed.

Your reasoning does fill the first two requirements, but completely removes the third as a possibility. Tiller could have been arrested and then served a sentence for his actions, the most morally justifiable course. Your hypothesis ignores that prevention is better than cure, and I suggest that you look for the real source of the problem instead of forming your own vigilantee solution. (even Batman doesn't kill)

Awaiting your response (please excuse my poor sense of humour),

Debate Round No. 2


we dont just kill criminals for any old crime, that's why we dont kill all criminals. we kill in self defense, though, everyone agrees. i didnt post a link to the two year old hypothetical... it's in the initial round. people are killing two year olds, it's legal to kill one year olds but not two year olds. most would kill to save ones and twos... but isn't it in no way unjusitifiable to kill in self defensse of the two year olds?
how is this different than killing viable babies for trivial purposes illegally?

we dont rehabilititate when we kill in self defense. we have to kill or be killed, it's just a fact of life. if there was a mroe immediate or sure way to get him in jail or rehab or stoping abortion then fine we dont have to kill him. but as is, he's going to keep doing it indefinitely.

please address the two year old hypothetical. if you use the mother's soverignty of her body, how is she not responsibe for her pregnancy at least some, and how not her fault she didnt abort earlier when morally grayer? even the law recognizes no abostulte right to abort.


You don't understand the point of my argument. Yes, it can be moral to kill those you suspect might continue to commit crimes, but only in the event that there is no other possible solution. While his actions are immoral, this debate is not about the concept of abortion, it is about whether or not the murder of a criminal is justifiable. In this case, no, it is not. Tiller could have been given life instead (imprisonment) and while you could argue that this uses state funds, it is the moral option. The most practical option is to kill every single criminal, unemployed or homeless person in the world, but you must of course agree that this is definitely the most immoral option. This is why Tiller should have been interned instead of killed.

Awaiting your response, Duncan
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 5 years ago
id like someone to focus on the two year old hypothetical given most just brush it off. it illustrates many points about the tiller situation.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
Diary, youve lost this debate 10 times now and are just copy-pasting arguments at this point, why do you keep debating this?
Posted by TheElderScroll 5 years ago
I am not sure....I did not see why Mr.Tiller should be shot other than the fact that he performed many illegal abortions. If anything, Mr.Tiller merely served the role of a henchman who performed abortions at ones' requests. Should a henchman be hanged when the true culprits are let lose? I doubt it.
Posted by danielawesome12 5 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 5 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 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: Conduct point for Pro simply cutting and pasting repeatedly, and demanding comment on a hypothetical she did not actually include in the resolution. Spelling and grammar point for Pro's truly horrendous butchering of the English language. Argument points to Con due to the fact that Pro never actually makes an argument for why vigilante murder is justified. She just claims it is.