The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
The_Chaos_Heart
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

prolife folks should agree that abortionist tiller should have been shot

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 1 vote the winner is...
The_Chaos_Heart
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 976 times Debate No: 30405
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

HE DID THEM ILLEGALLY... (and carhart does too
.
http://www.christianpost.com...
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.

and

Quote

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?"

------------------------------

HE DID THEM FOR TRIVIAL REASONS

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

Quote

"Jessica speaks out"

I wanted to say that I was a "patient" if you will of Dr. Tiller back in [2000]. I was married at the time & had just had my [4th] child very recently & had become pregnant again as my husband didn't want to wait. Anyway, 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.

My husband FINALLY reached a nurse there (said it was a 24 hr number yet no one answered). They told me it was MY fault and that I was to be at the clinic at 6:00 am... yet the paper they gave me said 10:00 am and I was told 10:00 am.

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...
-------------------
Quote

[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".

Quote

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.

https://www.youtube.com...
----------------

political and legal process werent working.... while his death has caused less death

------------
CLOSING CLINICS SAVES LIVES

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
BY DAVID GOLDSTEIN
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.
---------------------------

HIS DEATH WAS JUSTIFIABLE PHILOSOPHICALLY

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?
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

My opponent's first argument is hypocritical. She attempts to invoke law as a reason to justify murder, forgetting however that murder is itself illegal. She cannot justify an unlawful act, by claiming someone else did an unlawful act.

Beyond that however, law has nothing to do with this. It doesn't matter if something was legal or illegal. Only if whether or not it was moral. George Tiller may have done things illegally, but was it moral, and further more, was it moral to shoot him for it? I contest that the answer for the latter should be a vehement and resounding NO. Therefore, this argument is irrelevant.


My opponent's second argument, that he performed late-term abortions for trivial reasons, is ridiculous. Having too many children is NOT a trivial reason. Bringing one more person into the home would cause extra financial strain, which would lower the quality of life for the entire family. That is a very serious reason.


My opponent goes on to say, thirdly, that closing clinics saves lives. So what? This existence of abortion clinics has no bearing on the morality of shooting a man in the head and murdering him. Murder is murder, and is always wrong. Unless it is in self-defense. Therefore this argument too is irrelevant.


Which brings me to her fourth argument...where she attempts to claim that his murder was justifiable in the defence of the unborn child. However, I can simply use the same argument for my side; the abortion of a fetus is justifiable in the defence of the mother, as it infringes upon her bodily sovereignty, and in some cases, endangers her very life. What makes the doctor's and the mother's lives less valuable than the fetus, to the point where you would rather see them die than the fetus?


My opponent concludes by asking "what is the moral thing to do?" Whatever it may be, it was certainly not to kill. When we start killing one another because we disagree, all we do is perpetuate a system of violence and suffering. We are a civilized society. We should be able to settle our differences by means other than putting a bullet in someone's skull every time they do something we do not approve of.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

Why is everyone forfeiting?
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

then we really agree... it's not about law per se, it's about the moral thing to do.
so why bring up the idea that im being hypocritical?
and it's not cause we agreed it's more about morality, and at a certain point everyone would take law into their own hands, morality by necessity.

you did mention at the end saving the mothers life. we could agree this is a moral thing to do.

too many children? they can always adopt. even if they couldnt, they are responisble for having the child, particluarly not aborting earlier when itd be more morallly gray. also u didnt address the rock concert example etc.
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

My opponent's comment comes a day after she posted her counter-argument. I'm having a hard time believing she "accidentally" hit accept too early.

But never let it be said that I am one to stifle intellectual discussion on the basis of a technicality. I'll still rebut the arguments posted in the comments section.


"it's not about law per se, it's about the moral thing to do.
so why bring up the idea that im being hypocritical?"

Because if it is about morality, and not law, your first argument (that what he did was unlawful) is meaningless. You trying to justify his murder by saying "he broke the law", while simultaneously saying "it's not about what's legal", is hypocrisy.


"too many children? they can always adopt. even if they couldnt, they are responisble for having the child, particluarly not aborting earlier when itd be more morallly gray."

The problem is, I have presented a clear-cut case for why it is morally justifiable to do so (self-defence). A case which you did not contest.


"also u didnt address the rock concert example"

I did, in that I provided a moral argument for why abortion is alwyas justifiable, under any circumstance; self-defence. An argument you did not dispute, which means you dropped it.


"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."

1) How do you know it was her who was responsible for the conception?
2) At what point does the mother lose sovereignty over her own body? Consequently, at what point do we, as human beings, lose sovereignty over our own body? Is there a point in time where it is okay for me to rape you, because you've lost soveriengty over your body? Or to take, against your will, your bodily organs? I propose there is never sucha point, as allowing such a point would lead to barabric and disatrous moral results for society.


"you say society cant do this... but it always has and must sometimes by necessity sometimes. civil war, revolutions, defending others etc... killing is sometimes necessary."

You say society has always killed, but that does not justify the killings it has done. Further more, saying "people kill in war" does not negate my claim that "the only just time to kill is in self-defence". After all, at one point or another, all sides of a war are killing "in self-defence".


"you didnt address the two year old hypothetical. almost everyone would agree that should be a moral necessity to defend them."

Because they are a living child, no longer infringing upon someone's bodily sovereinty.

This is not comparable to a fetus, which is.


"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, and how not her fault she did not abort sooner when morally grayer?"

Whether or not it was her hoice to concieve the child, doesn't change the face that she should be able to boot it out when she wants. If I invite you into my house, does htat mean I have no right to tell you to leave, and force you out of my house, if you choose not to go or are incapable of not leaving?


"i could see if he did them for trivial reasons at a point where it's legal, and for nontrivial when it's not 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.
and we see he aborted at 26 weeks for too many kids. far as i can tell, that's into 3rd trimester and pushing if not illegal. not an expert, i admit"

Once again, legality here is not the issue; it's the morality.

And it was completely immoral, and logically unjustifiable, to murder this man, simply because he respected women's bodily sovereignty, and aborted their babies.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i accidentally hit submit. more arguments.
you focused on mother's life endangered. law allows exceptions for that and it should. this isnt a trivial reason. i 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.

you say society cant do this... but it always has and must sometimes by necessity sometimes. civil war, revolutions, defending others etc... killing is sometimes necessary.
you didnt 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, 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 not 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.
and we see he aborted at 26 weeks for too many kids. far as i can tell, that's into 3rd trimester and pushing if not illegal. not an expert, i admit
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i added more documentation ofhim doing them illegally, and i found the article that showed tons of lives that were saved. this was called into question before, i want to remove it from real consideration.
also last debater didnt really show how the killing two year olds was really all that different, just touched on it and didnt respond to my response.
also only one person voted last time so it's not like it indicates that i must be wasting my time.plus i like the educational opportunity this provides
Posted by Dovahkiin117 4 years ago
Dovahkiin117
You already lost one debate on this, and you're doing ANOTHER one? You didn't even change you're argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ockcatdaddy 4 years ago
ockcatdaddy
dairygirl4u2cThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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: i believe that he shouldnt be shot i believe killing someone for doing something crooked is still immoral also con raised very many good points