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

prolife folks should agree, abortionist tiller should have been shot

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,296 times Debate No: 33542
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)




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


I.. accept this confusing challenge. Ok, so you believe that the guy who performs illegal abortions should be shot? Why specifically should he be shot? why not a normal execution, and you should debate that his actions is wrong-that he should be jailed not shot. Using murder against murder doesn't help your pro life statement.
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


Ok... WHAT? one point you are stating that he should be shot, not jailed like I said or to have death row because of the killing of unborn infants. Why specifically shot? That sounds like a gang reference or an unprofessional way of carrying out punishments in your term. Next you put in the comments "what if he killed two year old?" What if he did? He will still gain the same punishment when he killed the unborn babies. Just tell me why he needs to be SPECIFICALLY shot, not by emotional opinion but somewhere in the law book that he deserves that way to die.
Debate Round No. 2


you are not going to find this in no law book. this is vigilantism, i admit it. if we could get him in jail or ban him from abortrions, but if it's not working, we should have him taken out on the side.

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 to compare... 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.

you need to address the two year old hypothetical. no one would just sit around an wait for politics or law to work while two year olds were being shot. most people would be for vigilantism here. if they or you would be, why not in cases of illegal abortions late term for trivial reasons? you may not be most people per vigilantism but if you are 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.


im so confused at the moment.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 5 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 dairygirl4u2c 5 years ago
instead of all the nonsense of these comments, why doesn't someone actually engage in dialouge? it's always telling when the snarkiness increases so does decrease the substance behind it.
for example, how are these late term trivial illegal abortions any different than killing two year olds in that hypothetical i presented? if you use bodily soverignty as a distinguisher, how about asking the questions i posed in that regard?
engage the substance, engage my line of reasoning.
almost no one does it. they point out one thing i present in the opening statement, then fail to respond to my counter points.
Posted by Skeptikitten 5 years ago
And just for the record- YOU aren't intelligible. You have been unable to post a single coherent sentence. Why would anyone sane debate a person who can barely speak the language.
Posted by Skeptikitten 5 years ago
The fact that you claim the only reason not to murder a person is because vigilantism is a bad idea says all kinds of things about the state of your morality. Or lack thereof.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 5 years ago
EVEN if it couldnt be cited as a defense, there's merely the placement of the baby as to the real difference between whether or not it should be a defense. placement doesn't mean much of anything at that stage of pregnancy.
the only intelligible idea against shooting him is that we shouldnt take hte law into our own hands. though this and other points are addressed in the opening argument.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 5 years ago
viable baby is the cut off for what a person is? no one said they had to eb born. at twenty six weeks, the baby is viable. he committed illegal abortion, for trivial reason, as cited in the initial round, at twenty six weeks. this means it could be argued as a defense.
Posted by Skeptikitten 5 years ago
Kid, a fetus isn't a "person" under the law, so it wouldn't be defense.

Please learn to spell. Please learn proper grammar. You sound like a third grader.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
This is hilarious.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 5 years ago
if a person were to shoot him while he's in the process of doing an illegal abortion of a viable baby, it could very easily be said to be self defense of another person.

i should add that in the philoophical section.

then it's not even murder.

i can see saying it's not self defense accoding to tradictional rules if he's not about to kill someone, if you killed him at his church as happened. but if you waited till he's about to kill hte baby, it's the same as killing someone in self defense. at least for teh nontrivial and illegal abortions.
Posted by Bullish 5 years ago
Holy **** how is she in the 98th percentile?!!?!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by AgentRocks 5 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Copy and paste, however, Badtothebone has no effort shown.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 5 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: Conduct-- Pro advocated murder. S&G- Obvious. Arguments- Pro didn't show he should be shot rather than jailed or executed. Sources-- Links don't work. Welcome to the site, BTTB.
Vote Placed by imabench 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 Checkmark1 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: Plagiarized and the links dont work.