- Joined
- May 1, 2012
- Messages
- 27,375
- Reaction score
- 19,412
- Location
- Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I accept your surrender.Yawn!
I accept your surrender.Yawn!
https://www.acronymfinder.com/ZEF.html - 4th definition. It won't let me copy.What science?
My claims continue to be valid!
Zef (Afrikaans: [ˈzɛf]) is a South African counter-culture movement. Kyle Hans Brockmann has compared zef counter-culture to many similar anarchic sub-cultures in the northern hemisphere.
that the ZEF resides inside the woman and not the man and its a risk of health and life to her and not himWhat science?
no they don't, they are just your feelings, some you can back up some are factually wrong and that's the best partMy claims continue to be valid!
denying the medical acronym ZEF only makes your failed OP look even more retarded and dishonest LMAOZef (Afrikaans: [ˈzɛf]) is a South African counter-culture movement. Kyle Hans Brockmann has compared zef counter-culture to many similar anarchic sub-cultures in the northern hemisphere.
wrong science has nothing to do with that, wow your posts are looking dumber each timeScience, not emotion, says he is the child's father yet has no rights, you keep putting lipstick on that pig of an argument all you want.
nope its factual science, the one with the uterus carries the childThe issue of her carrying it is emotional
aaaaand another retarded strawman that i made no mention of and is meaningless to again SCIENCE, and I have posted the benefits during, and after pregnancy women receive, and you want to rob them of it.
What science?
My claims continue to be valid!
Zef (Afrikaans: [ˈzɛf]) is a South African counter-culture movement. Kyle Hans Brockmann has compared zef counter-culture to many similar anarchic sub-cultures in the northern hemisphere.
Science, not emotion, says he is the child's father yet has no rights, you keep putting lipstick on that pig of an argument all you want. The issue of her carrying it is emotional, and I have posted the benefits during, and after pregnancy women receive, and you want to rob them of it.
I asked you a question. If the man has an equal say in the issue can he then pressure the woman to have an abortion and his opinion is worth the same as hers if she wants to have the child? Or does your scenario only work one way, the way you think sounds best?Well I shared a post about the actual benefits women receive from pregnancy so,,,,,, no! Again, she has the child, he is on the hook period, she doesn't want it, and he does, no choice. I am for men having the choice to keep the child if he wants it. See the issue is just because the woman carries it, she gets the only choice men should have equal rights.
I think if either want it they should keep it I think they shopuld keep it regardless as it is the man has no say!I asked you a question. If the man has an equal say in the issue can he then pressure the woman to have an abortion and his opinion is worth the same as hers if she wants to have the child? Or does your scenario only work one way, the way you think sounds best?
no. The man is not carrying the child to term, the man is not risking death through complications, the man is not suffering cramps, nausea, etc. The man's bodily autonomy is not in question.If a man, and a woman agree to consensual sex, and she gets pregnant, why, when the child is equally the mans, does he not get equal protection under the law, lets keep it scientific shall we, leave your emotion next to the tissues. WHY DOES HE NOT RECEIVE EQUAL RIGHTS
Actually, no they aren't, except for equal amounts of DNA at the moment immediately before conception that point of "equal parts" quickly changes. A sperm is not a child and ovum is not a child. Once the two half strands of DNA combine it is a unique creation that is 100% itself. The mother then provides all that is needed to sustain the life and growth of that unique creation, hopefully, normally unto birth in the 9 month cycle.The Child in the womb is equal parts Father/ Mother
The amount of times I have to tell people a fertilized egg is not a child anymore than a seed is a sapling is pretty nauseating lol.Actually, no they aren't, except for equal amounts of DNA at the moment immediately before conception that point of "equal parts" quickly changes. A sperm is not a child and ovum is not a child. Once the two half strands of DNA combine it is a unique creation that is 100% itself. The mother then provides all that is needed to sustain the life and growth of that unique creation, hopefully, normally unto birth in the 9 month cycle.
It's also flawed.My argument is simple,
No, they didn't. There is no right to murder and abortion isn't murder. Your argument fails on that point alone.women received a special right to murder their unborn children!
emotional rhetoric. It's funny how you say, " lets keep it scientific shall we, leave your emotion next to the tissues." And yet, you use emotionally driven or manipulative language. It seems you can't follow your own conditions, much less make a rational, valid argument.Dress it up anyway you want, by dehumanizing that child, it is still a human. every term used is simply a stage of human development! But it eases the souls of the evil bastards who support baby killing it lets them disconnect form the truth!
The ‘article’ is Gaetz’ own website!While that article you posted has no reference to pro-life, it does show him to be a great leader.
It appears you are trying to use a false equivalence of someone rightfully getting the death penalty for murder and quickly (which I wholeheartedly agree with), and a female killing a baby.
The southeast part of the ‘lower 48’ will have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the late 18th century. It’s patheticIt is the 'why' of universal medicare
Nice dodge. The question was, should a man be allowed to bring pressure to make the woman get an abortion if he has equal say in the case. If a womans decision to abort can be overruled by the man wanting to keep the child, then likewise her decision to carry the pregnancy to term should be equally up for negotiation. It either works both ways or it doesnt work at all.I think if either want it they should keep it I think they shopuld keep it regardless as it is the man has no say!
and...........???The ‘article’ is Gaetz’ own website!
They say ignorance is bliss. Have a great night.
1950 called. They say you got lost on your way to the bingo game.Simple answer. Cross your legs, close your eyes and count to a hundred.
You can't really say "except for equal amounts of DNA" as that is the building block of life. So yes, after conception where DNA transfer completed it is a separate being and should be protected, and the father should have rights.Actually, no they aren't, except for equal amounts of DNA at the moment immediately before conception that point of "equal parts" quickly changes. A sperm is not a child and ovum is not a child. Once the two half strands of DNA combine it is a unique creation that is 100% itself. The mother then provides all that is needed to sustain the life and growth of that unique creation, hopefully, normally unto birth in the 9 month cycle.
What you call legal, is barbaric. It is murder regardless of mans interpretation.It's also flawed.
No, they didn't. There is no right to murder and abortion isn't murder. Your argument fails on that point alone.
emotional rhetoric. It's funny how you say, " lets keep it scientific shall we, leave your emotion next to the tissues." And yet, you use emotionally driven or manipulative language. It seems you can't follow your own conditions, much less make a rational, valid argument.
What rights are you wanting?If a man, and a woman agree to consensual sex, and she gets pregnant, why, when the child is equally the mans, does he not get equal protection under the law, lets keep it scientific shall we, leave your emotion next to the tissues. WHY DOES HE NOT RECEIVE EQUAL RIGHTS
I have made my rational, valid argument, all over this thread, and you reduce the argument to she carries it. That is a simple, biological fact, not the premise for all decisions to be made by the woman!It's also flawed.
No, they didn't. There is no right to murder and abortion isn't murder. Your argument fails on that point alone.
emotional rhetoric. It's funny how you say, " lets keep it scientific shall we, leave your emotion next to the tissues." And yet, you use emotionally driven or manipulative language. It seems you can't follow your own conditions, much less make a rational, valid argument.
Error on the side of life in all cases!Nice dodge. The question was, should a man be allowed to bring pressure to make the woman get an abortion if he has equal say in the case. If a womans decision to abort can be overruled by the man wanting to keep the child, then likewise her decision to carry the pregnancy to term should be equally up for negotiation. It either works both ways or it doesnt work at all.
And who makes this call If they disagree, who decides which voice prevails? How, if the decision is made to over-ride the womans intent to abort, is it to be enforced? Do you jail the woman for her full term so she doesnt come to Canada?
You need to think these things through.
If it means prtecting the most innocent among us keep dragging!The southeast part of the ‘lower 48’ will have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the late 18th century. It’s pathetic
Only in your mind.I have made my rational, valid argument, all over this thread,
That's a simple fact and is what makes all the difference.and you reduce the argument to she carries it.
Actually, it is. Feel free to explain why not and why a man should have any say over the woman!That is a simple, biological fact, not the premise for all decisions to be made by the woman!
"Innocent" of what exactly? THat's just emotional rhetoric.If it means prtecting the most innocent among us keep dragging!
That's not for you to decide for anyone else!Error on the side of life in all cases!
Why should the man or the ZEF have rights over that of the woman? A woman does not automatically lose rights when she becomes pregnant.You can't really say "except for equal amounts of DNA" as that is the building block of life. So yes, after conception where DNA transfer completed it is a separate being and should be protected, and the father should have rights.
You are legally and factually wrong, regardless of your opinion on the matter!What you call legal, is barbaric. It is murder regardless of mans interpretation.
biological fact
What you call legal, is barbaric. It is murder regardless of mans interpretation.
No one has any right to be a parent.Fatherhood
You conveniently left out all the negative impacts of pregnancy that can and do happen - including for some women lifelong health complications such as diabetes, high blood pressure, potential hysterectomy, potential uterine ruptured, and even death.I shared a whole post about the impact (positive) for women ! You are incorrect he can talk until he is blue in the face and she still can murder his offspring!
Medically they are classified as “spontaneous abortions”Miscarriages are not abortions!
If a man isn’t married to a woman, then even if she becomes pregnant, there is no legal standing to presume that a potential child would even be his without forcing the woman to undergo a medical procedure.Not married. Why does he have no case they mutually agreed to have sex.
I do not care if they used, or didn't use birth control, it is a well known fact birth control can fail! They engaged in behavio that is known to cause pregnancy sometimes even with birth control!