Sociopath Community

Hawk said: 

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.

If they want to make abortion illegal and want to force a woman to carry a baby to full term then the man that impregnated her should pay medical bills and 50% or more of his paycheck in order for the pregnant woman to carry the baby to term and then 70% for at least the first two years of the child's life of said child if the child doesn't get adopted. Children are expensive. Everyone knows that.

Hawk said: 

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

 But it's not on the women, women alone aren't ejaculating sperm reckless into others. Instead Men should get Vasectomies. 

After all, almost all vasectomies are reversible while tubal ligation isn't (tubes tied). 

If you want to stop Abortions you need to be aware that all unwanted pregnancies are caused by men 100% of the time. It's irresponsible men not using condoms that are causing abortions. The focus should not be on the women but rather men. 

Lenalee said: 

Hawk said: 

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.

If they want to make abortion illegal and want to force a woman to carry a baby to full term then the man that impregnated her should pay medical bills and 50% or more of his paycheck in order for the pregnant woman to carry the baby to term and then 70% for at least the first two years of the child's life of said child if the child doesn't get adopted. Children are expensive. Everyone knows that.

Men and women should be able to procreate without all these laws imposing on them.

If a couple doesn't want a child, then they should cut out risky behaviors in sex.

In most cases if a man has to sacrifice 50% of his income, that can destroy his nest unless of course she's going dutch, but it's still less income in the household if she isn't working.

 In that case new laws should be placed where if you're ass is broke, it should be illegal to procreate. Then we'll see less poverty in the future. Otherwise there'll be an issue of soul sucking hoes spawning a dozen kids and carrying them all from child support from multiple partners falling down into poverty.

.

.

.

If you're going to have children. Do it because you want them. And choose your partners wisely, there's much better deals out there.

Lenalee said: 

Hawk said: 

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

 But it's not on the women, women alone aren't ejaculating sperm reckless into others. Instead Men should get Vasectomies. 

After all, almost all vasectomies are reversible while tubal ligation isn't (tubes tied). 

If you want to stop Abortions you need to be aware that all unwanted pregnancies are caused by men 100% of the time. It's irresponsible men not using condoms that are causing abortions. The focus should not be on the women but rather men. 

 

 Let the pro choice men get vasectomies.

I, am pro life.

Lenalee said: 

Hawk said: 

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

 But it's not on the women, women alone aren't ejaculating sperm reckless into others. Instead Men should get Vasectomies. 

After all, almost all vasectomies are reversible while tubal ligation isn't (tubes tied). 

If you want to stop Abortions you need to be aware that all unwanted pregnancies are caused by men 100% of the time. It's irresponsible men not using condoms that are causing abortions. The focus should not be on the women but rather men. 

I assume you've heard about how the men are currently angling to handle women who'd do out of state abortions? 😒

Hawk said: 

Lenalee said: 

Hawk said: 

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.

If they want to make abortion illegal and want to force a woman to carry a baby to full term then the man that impregnated her should pay medical bills and 50% or more of his paycheck in order for the pregnant woman to carry the baby to term and then 70% for at least the first two years of the child's life of said child if the child doesn't get adopted. Children are expensive. Everyone knows that.

Men and women should be able to procreate without all these laws imposing on them.

If a couple doesn't want a child, then they should cut out risky behaviors in sex.

So you're saying that laws should instead be imposed on men and women to punish them for having sex, rather than just getting an abortion? 

In that case new laws should be placed where if you're ass is broke, it should be illegal to procreate.

...

I mean... I agree, but there's no way they could enforce something like that. They'd need to tamper with their drinking water or something to achieve the desired effect. 

Hawk said: 

Lenalee said: 

Hawk said: 

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.

If they want to make abortion illegal and want to force a woman to carry a baby to full term then the man that impregnated her should pay medical bills and 50% or more of his paycheck in order for the pregnant woman to carry the baby to term and then 70% for at least the first two years of the child's life of said child if the child doesn't get adopted. Children are expensive. Everyone knows that.

 

Men and women should be able to procreate without all these laws imposing on them.

If a couple doesn't want a child, then they should cut out risky behaviors in sex.

In most cases if a man has to sacrifice 50% of his income, that can destroy his nest unless of course she's going dutch, but it's still less income in the household if she isn't working.

 In that case new laws should be placed where if you're ass is broke, it should be illegal to procreate. Then we'll see less poverty in the future. Otherwise there'll be an issue of soul sucking hoes spawning a dozen kids and carrying them all from child support from multiple partners falling down into poverty.

.

.

.

If you're going to have children. Do it because you want them. And choose your partners wisely, there's much better deals out there.

 So now you want to tell people how to have sex? 

If the state and voters decide that a woman has no right to her life then the man that impregnated her should be in some way punished as well. Most women are discriminated against because of pregnancy, no one wants an employee that will take leave in 8 months, and those that are working aren't given sufficient time or money to be taking care of a child's needs. 

Her body will go through a traumatic change and experience meanwhile. The least that irresponsible man can do is help her financially. 

"Soul sucking hoes" 

It is simple Tony, allow them to have an abortion or pay up.

Hawk said: 

Lenalee said: 

Hawk said: 

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

 But it's not on the women, women alone aren't ejaculating sperm reckless into others. Instead Men should get Vasectomies. 

After all, almost all vasectomies are reversible while tubal ligation isn't (tubes tied). 

If you want to stop Abortions you need to be aware that all unwanted pregnancies are caused by men 100% of the time. It's irresponsible men not using condoms that are causing abortions. The focus should not be on the women but rather men. 

 

 Let the pro choice men get vasectomies.

I, am pro life.

 Then should you accidentally engage in risky behavior or are somehow tricked by a woman that does want your money but not a relationship with her, i hope you take full responsibility and pay child support.

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

Hawk said: 

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

 But it's not on the women, women alone aren't ejaculating sperm reckless into others. Instead Men should get Vasectomies. 

After all, almost all vasectomies are reversible while tubal ligation isn't (tubes tied). 

If you want to stop Abortions you need to be aware that all unwanted pregnancies are caused by men 100% of the time. It's irresponsible men not using condoms that are causing abortions. The focus should not be on the women but rather men. 

I assume you've heard about how the men are currently angling to handle women who'd do out of state abortions? 😒

 Bounty hunters? I think Connecticut passed a law that bars summons/subpoenas/compliance from out of state warrants and has extended it to trans healthcare as well