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

prolife folks should agree, abortionist tiller should have been shot

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 415 times Debate No: 34061
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




PLEASE NOTE: in this debate id like to focus on the two year old hypotheticals. along with 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


I fully agree that what he and many other abortionists are doing is wrong, but I take a very strong stance against capital punishment even though I'm pro-life.
Here's why he shouldn't be "shot", you're doing him a favor because that's what he wants. No criminal would want to stay in prison for life, and would rather face execution.

Plus, his innocent friends and family wouldn't be too happy about it.
Debate Round No. 1


you like everyone just ignored the beginning big letter point... address the two year old hypothetical. what if they were being killed instead of babies? even if you are against capital punishment, almost not one thinks it's wrong to kill in order to save innocent people, self defense war defesnse of others etc. you might be an extreme example but you are not common. plus i just inherently disagree with the idea that no one should never die ever.
but yeah, please explain if your anti capital punishment stops with self defesnse etc, and explain the two year old hypo response of yours


Again, I'm pro-life so I DO disagree with this type of "murder" as we may call it. But still, there is a lot of ignorance behind comparing the death of a two year old and a baby. There is no difference. And I'm not running against you in this debate to disagree about abortion, because I'm pro-life. To be honest, I ran against you because your "hypothetical" scenario just needs to be beat by someone. I can't do that without changing the topic, so I'm not sure where we're getting at here.
Debate Round No. 2


so you agree it's the same as two year olds being killed. and you would be against saving the two year olds if it meant shooting their murderers? you have not been very clear.
i dont know what you mean the hypo "just needs to be beat by someone". what do you mean?
why would we have to change topic? the hypo is on topic of what happens when people are being murdererd. it's still on subject, and if you are against all that type of killing we could at least argue about the philoso;hy behind that.
almost everything youve said, i dont know what you mean or are getting at etc


I would agree with self-defense but I'm saying that has nothing to do with abortion if the child is two. This is a failed debate... I'm sorry it's just up for the voters to decide. I guess nobody made sense at all.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by wolfman4711 3 years ago
Umm... Con should have lost this debate no matter how bad bad pros argument was. Con didn't put in any effort and pretty much forfeited the debate, and used a stupid assumption. "He would have rather died then have been In prison" bull****, you liberals pretend prison is so horrible, I didn't know having a free room, with no taxes, labor for life and flat screen Ty's were so bad
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
This is like her 20th one and im pretty sure shes lost every one of them
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The claim by Pro of "what if he was killing two year olds" is ridiculous and irrelevant to the debate, as the man was NOT killing two year olds and she failed to make any good argument that murdering a man is okay no matter what he's done.