Venus Toronto
Pure Pleasure Spa
  • Dear Guest,
    To be able see or reply in all our forum threads please register and become a member.

"So, you kill them now or you kill them later”. Abortion.

Riess

Reviewer
Alabama State Rep. John Rogers (D) on abortion: “Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later. You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or you kill them later”

 

cristy

Active member
Vongolo;n1468969 said:
He is a miserable man. Cannot believe he said that.
Why? He is speaking truth...He is not without compassion he is speaking too how things work and are.
 

Prim0

Senior Member
How things work is that if you have intercourse...a pregnancy may occur. If you don't want a pregnancy you have a couple of options. Don't have sex. Use protection. If a pregnancy does occur, find out quickly and have the procedure done asap.

What most people who are against abortions are concerned with is the waiting until the months pass before having the abortion. There's very few good reasons for it. Incest and rape don't fit as I assume the woman would want those pregnancies terminated quickly. If something goes medically wrong and the baby will be deformed or very ill, I can see a reason for a later term abortion. If the pregnancy becomes dangerous for the mother, I can see a reason for a later term abortion.

The problem is that both extreme sides are making it look like you either get rid of every abortion or you allow every kind of abortion up to and including letting the baby die after it has survived delivery. Both of those sides are full of shit. I think we should be able to come to some agreement on what constitutes a legitimate reason for an abortion. Unwanted babies shouldn't be one of them in later parts of the pregnancy.

There should also be some discussion about the male's part of the pregnancy. It's often made clear that it takes TWO to make a baby when it comes to fathers taking responsibility for the care of a child.....but at the same time, women want 100% control of the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy. That's not justice or fairness. You don't get to blame the guy for the pregnancy and then shut him out of decision making completely. It's the woman's body that carries the baby....but that's during those nine months....not for the following 18 years.

I think this should be fairly straight forward.

1. Abortions for unwanted pregnancies should be allowed in the early stages. Pregnancy can be detected accurately and early. If you are having sex, you need to take responsibility and test for it after sexual intercourse. Don't wait months to notice you've missed periods and may have a bun in the oven. Tests are cheap, take one every month or few weeks. It's not that difficult or expensive.

2. Abortions for rape and incest should be allowed. Unwanted pregnancies like this shouldn't be run to term unless the mother absolutely wants to. And she should have all the counseling she needs to get through such a messed up situation.

3. Later term abortions should be banned except in the case of medical need for the mother or baby. Being irresponsible and not knowing you were pregnant for 6 months just doesn't cut it. Getting pregnant and then breaking up with the father doesn't cut it. You two were responsible enough to have sex and get pregnant, the kid is still your responsibility...it's not the kids fault! Changing your mind because becoming a parent becomes scary as the due date approaches doesn't cut it. None of that bullshit cuts it.

4. If you want the decision to belong 100% to the woman, because it's her body, then the fathers should not be held responsible financially or otherwise for the child if they didn't want it. Either take full responsibility or share it but you can't have it both ways.

Now....quit with the 100% PRO and 100% Anti bullshit and let's work this out.
 

ROBERTSON

Senior Member
If a single women who lives in the slums becomes pregnant, knowing full well that the possible child will be brought up in the same conditions without a father, and little hope for anything other than living in a slum with a single mother.

Who will suffer?
Not the "father", he is NOT going to found.
Even if he is, what is the result of forcing him to stand up going to be, maybe a drug dealing "father", who beats the mother, just because.

That, is what the OP is stating, facing reality, which some times, is NOT pleasant, but thats the thing with reality.

What difference does it make if the single welfare women is 3 months or 6 months pregnant, the end result is the same.

Who has the right to decide when its to late, just because the scan looks more like a child at 6 months than at 1 month.

Keep emotion out of the decision making process.
 
He is off base because there are plenty of kids who made it away from neglectful abusive parents and turned themselves into productive citizens. Those people deserve to live their life just like anyone else. Hardships and all.

Who the fuck is he to assume they will end "dead" as adults and determine that their lives are not worth anything so it's better to terminate them now? What an ass!
 

ROBERTSON

Senior Member
Jessica Rain;n1469068 said:
He is off base because there are plenty of kids who made it away from neglectful abusive parents and turned themselves into productive citizens. Those people deserve to live their life just like anyone else. Hardships and all.

Who the fuck is he to assume they will end "dead" as adults and determine that their lives are not worth anything so it's better to terminate them now? What an ass!
Mostly agree with you, but subject in the OP was about abortion.

NOT about existing children.

Are we to not allow any abortion, if a single women in the "projects" knows she could not provide a good home life, and raise a well grounded child.

One reason why the "projects" keep on getting bigger.

Yes their are exceptions, and well done by those who made it happen.

Since you are most definitely a women, should you be allowed to make the abortion decision, or some government official ?
 
Last edited:
You misunderstand my post. I will not presume to tell any woman what she can and can not do with her body.

I'm simply proving why he is an ass based on what he wrote. To dismiss a whole bunch of people and regard them to death over life simply because they will not be raised the way you agree with, is a ridiculous.

Saying they will die later so kill them now is just stupid. Plain and simple. You and I will die at some point as well. I'm sure both of us have hard hardships, so we should have been aborted as well? I think not.

He is a loser with an opinion like that as far as I'm concerned.
 

cristy

Active member
^ Well you haven't proven anything, nor did he write anything. He was speaking, lol. His point isn't to kill people because of poverty, hardships or for other reasons, he is claiming that this is already happening because of a broken system( welfare, jail, etc, etc) so he's wondering why the state is wanting to criminalize abortion. He is hard to understand but none the less, he has a strong point and has seen life in a light and through experience that we haven't, and never will,( he is a black man born and raised in predominantly black State) which has led him to his conclusions. In this interview, as I said, you have to listen closely as he is hard to understand...he explains his point further..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5o8cCGxE-s
 

Prim0

Senior Member
ROBERTSON;n1469065 said:
If a single women who lives in the slums becomes pregnant, knowing full well that the possible child will be brought up in the same conditions without a father, and little hope for anything other than living in a slum with a single mother.

Who will suffer?
Not the "father", he is NOT going to found.
Even if he is, what is the result of forcing him to stand up going to be, maybe a drug dealing "father", who beats the mother, just because.

That, is what the OP is stating, facing reality, which some times, is NOT pleasant, but thats the thing with reality.

What difference does it make if the single welfare women is 3 months or 6 months pregnant, the end result is the same.

Who has the right to decide when its to late, just because the scan looks more like a child at 6 months than at 1 month.

Keep emotion out of the decision making process.
Why the extra 3 months delay. I covered it. You have sex...you get checked for pregnancy....you get it taken care of. The difference between 3 and 6 months is that the fetus is developing and may be more aware of what is happening to it. There's no good reason why women or couples can't get a pregnancy test soon after the potential of a pregnancy occurs.

And what are people...fucking animals? If someone knows they can't care for a baby...how about some self control? Skip intercourse or do some alternate activities (ie. oral). How about you use more than the ole pull-out method or rhythm method? Oh...you can't afford condoms or other birth control?....then you should know you can't afford to get knocked up or afford to bring up a child.

Why is personal responsibility just tossed aside in this "debate"? Fucking can have consequences....disease, pregnancy, etc. We just gonna give everyone a pass on those like they don't have minds that can think of what can go wrong? And why is that important? Because they aren't exactly the ones who pay the price, are they? It's the aborted fetus that gets destroyed (look into what that entails as the fetus gets older....dismemberment by a fucking mini vacuum...tell me how that must feel) and it's the child who will be neglected and maybe abused. Hold people responsible for their choices and actions.
 

ROBERTSON

Senior Member
^
I don't know why you quoted my post, you missed the whole point of my post.

The reality is,... the people in question are NOT responsible people, hence the Irresponsible pregnancies.

What do you suggest, have this "class" of people castrated and sterilized ?

Or allow people to be "free", and live their lives how ever they want.

Edit: I have know idea if a 3 month old fetus has any higher brain function/awareness.
And if there is, what would the fetus experience if the irresponsible mother was on crack cocaine?

Or now born with irrecoverable birth defects, and live a life of hell.

Pick one !!!
 
Last edited:

Prim0

Senior Member
It's not one or the other. It's not....NO ABORTIONS or ALL ABORTIONS. There are going to be some case by case situations.

And look at your argument....people are irresponsible so we should allow them to do whatever they want with no consequences? No...you can't legislate everyone into doing the right thing all the time. You've gotta know I'm not for a shitload of government interference. But how is it that people are so concerned for the parents' poor choices and what it will do to them and seem less concerned about the child. No, I don't want a child to be born already hooked on drugs. I'm no against abortions in those situations but that doesn't mean the woman should get to wait until the baby is almost born to decide she doesn't want it and then have it chopped up in the womb. Perhaps some government help with early screening and cheap/free abortions in the case of drug addiction should exist.....but maybe they come with sterilization for those women. Do you want them to just keep going out and fucking for drugs, getting knocked up and then coming in for another 6 month abortion? Maybe you get one mistake but then your done being an issue for all of society.

And drug addiction isn't the only way that parents can screw up a kid. Rich or poor, smart or idiotic, some kids have a hell of a life regardless of their parent's background. Using the bad situation that the kid might have as a reason to give carte blanche to abortions isn't a good argument. The kid born to a drug addicted mother might have a shit life or could be the one to break the cycle in that family.....or be the one motivated to find a cure for addiction...you can't say for sure what is going to happen to that kid.

You mention birth defects which falls under my medical conditions exception too. So you lose points there.

I think part of the pro-abortion argument is that so many kids are unwanted and should be aborted. My argument is that if kids are unwanted, then perhaps the parents should fucking take responsibility to make sure a pregnancy doesn't happen in the first place. And arguing that people are irresponsible and therefore should be allowed to kill a baby at 9 months is not a good argument. If it has to be done, it should be detected early and the situation fixed EARLY. All this bullshit about late term abortions just because a parental relationship changed, or finances changed, or someone just changed their mind is bullshit. Late term abortions should be reserved for medical situations (and I don't mean that the parents will be depressed because they don't want the baby now).

Shit....are we just going to give passes to people because they are irresponsible? Not a good way for society to work in general.
 

ROBERTSON

Senior Member
^
Once again, you are missing the point of the OP.

Its NOT about the mothers, it about the potential children's future.

Which the state is NOT being responsible either.
 

Prim0

Senior Member
So....is your point that he is right? That if you don't abort the unwanted child, it will just grow up to be a criminal that will end up shot by police? That the world and these "potential" kids are better off aborted than birthed to irresponsible parents?

I don't know. It seems to me that there are plenty of good people in the world that may have been "unplanned/unwanted" offspring, orphans,etc. And at the same time, there are plenty of pieces of shit out there who were loved by their parents. I'm not sure just allowing for the killing of the unborn is going to solve what some see as the problem.

And I still don't see why people need 9 months to figure out that they don't want a pregnancy when a cheap pregnancy test could tell them early on that they have a problem.
 

ROBERTSON

Senior Member
^
My point always has been to help out those here who didn't understand what he was stating, that some here completely missed.

And it is NOT simply about irresponsible mothers.

Is it your point that he is completely wrong ?
 

Prim0

Senior Member
Ok.....so what is your view of his point?

It sounds to me like he's arguing that aborting unwanted kids is better than having unwanted kids and teens going around causing trouble and ending up shot or executed for crimes. With that usually comes the argument that abortions are a womans right and they can have them at any point they wish in the pregnancy and even afterwards as some states have put it recently.

In that case, I argue with the idea that all of these kids would turn out bad. I was raised by a single mother and turned out pretty well. There are also kids from good homes that turn out to be evil dirtbags. So being wanted or not isn't always a determinant factor for "killing them later". I also argue with the need to have abortions available past the first few months. Detection is easy and prevention also easy. Unwanted pregnancies can still happen....but there's no reason not to take a test if you've had sex. Detect it early and get an early abortion and you won't end up with unwanted kids.

I just can't stand "irresponsibility" as an argument for any of this. Are we just going to wash away the consequences for people who are irresponsible in other ways? Is the drunk driver going to get to walk after having run over a little kid? Does the gun owner who leaves their loaded weapon out and their kid accidentally shoots themselves in the head get to walk? Why does the person who creates a live because they didn't want to have a condom or didn't want to remember to take a pill every day get to walk?
 

Top