Sociopath Community

LiYang said: 

I've gone back and forth on this issue. Here's my logic at this point. Life starts at conception, the sperm and egg become a developing human life. Therefore killing he/she is homicide under our current laws. Killing a human life.

No additional government laws are needed.

The viability argument is not valid, children are not viable to survive on their own until at least 8 or 10 years old. I mean, just remember back to your first memory. The very first one. I was 3 or 4 years old for mine. Proof the brain is still developing and definitely not able to survive on your own.

So the viability argument would force abortion to be legal up until 8 to 10 years old.

This logic is not based on religion, god or faith of any kind. Just the definition of when life starts and existing laws.

 

 I agree, and I feel that the fact it just MIGHT be human life even if that's up for debate, should be enough to not end it by force of any kind at any time

Lenalee said: 

LiYang said: 

I've gone back and forth on this issue. Here's my logic at this point. Life starts at conception, the sperm and egg become a developing human life. Therefore killing he/she is homicide under our current laws. Killing a human life.

No additional government laws are needed.

The viability argument is not valid, children are not viable to survive on their own until at least 8 or 10 years old. I mean, just remember back to your first memory. The very first one. I was 3 or 4 years old for mine. Proof the brain is still developing and definitely not able to survive on your own.

So the viability argument would force abortion to be legal up until 8 to 10 years old.

This logic is not based on religion, god or faith of any kind. Just the definition of when life starts and existing laws. 

 Men should be forced to pay child support to full term of the pregnancy, as most pregnant women are unable to work or discriminated against and lose financially because of it. Maybe garnish the sperm donors paycheck for about 50% percent, while the state provides 50% if she can't find work due to her condition. 

Then after birth, the male should be made to pay any medical bills and additional necessities for the child while it is put into adoption.

If the child is not adopted and the male sperm donor refuses to take responsibility for the child then he should be forced to pay 70% in child support for the child and to the woman he impregnated, up to 2 years of age. 

Afterwards he should only be made to pay child support until the child is 18 years of age when the child is finally considered an adult. 

 So if a man impregnates his wife or girlfriend, he should give her half of his income, and the government should match that ?

Heh, heh, heh.

While I think a guy should look after his spouse, I don't see why he should overextend 50% of his income. In some cases 50% is far beyond sufficient.

🌺plumeria🌺 said: 

LiYang said: 

I've gone back and forth on this issue. Here's my logic at this point. Life starts at conception, the sperm and egg become a developing human life. Therefore killing he/she is homicide under our current laws. Killing a human life.

No additional government laws are needed.

The viability argument is not valid, children are not viable to survive on their own until at least 8 or 10 years old. I mean, just remember back to your first memory. The very first one. I was 3 or 4 years old for mine. Proof the brain is still developing and definitely not able to survive on your own.

So the viability argument would force abortion to be legal up until 8 to 10 years old.

This logic is not based on religion, god or faith of any kind. Just the definition of when life starts and existing laws.

 

 I agree, and I feel that the fact it just MIGHT be human life even if that's up for debate, should be enough to not end it by force of any kind at any time

 That's not fully understanding the viability argument.

Basically the point is that it's part of the woman up until the point that it could function independantly (in a biological sense, as in it's got its own organs and doesn't rely on a host). 

Basically it's not a seperate life, it's a parasite. It's part of another person, and so their rights should trump that of the parasite.

It doesn't make sense to deny the rights of a functional adult in favor of a piece of tissue. 

Pro choice women should get their tubes tied. It's less messy and controversial.

Tbh I don't really see children as truly conscious of themselves until well after they're born, and when killed in the womb they're likely perceiving what's going on even less than a plant. 

We don't exactly have a shortage of people right now either, so I don't really see the point in trying to make sure more survive. If anything there ought to be controls put in place to keep the number of children people have to lower numbers. 

Hawk said: 

Pro choice women should get their tubes tied. It's less messy and controversial.

It's an invasive surgery. 

Turncoat said: 

Hawk said: 

Pro choice women should get their tubes tied. It's less messy and controversial.

It's an invasive surgery. 

 Many doctors refuse to tie tubes, I tried getting mine tied and they refused.

Max_Power said: 

It doesn't make sense to deny the rights of a functional adult in favor of a piece of tissue. 

At the end of the day it boils down to the perceived value of a soul. 

Turncoat said: 

Max_Power said: 

It doesn't make sense to deny the rights of a functional adult in favor of a piece of tissue. 

At the end of the day it boils down to the perceived value of a soul. 

 More so the value of human life, I don't necessarily believe in souls 

🌺plumeria🌺 said: 

Turncoat said: 

Max_Power said: 

It doesn't make sense to deny the rights of a functional adult in favor of a piece of tissue. 

At the end of the day it boils down to the perceived value of a soul. 

 More so the value of human life, I don't necessarily believe in souls 

What's the difference in this case?