DNA is not a signature. It can be used to identify individuals, but it is not a form of consent, nor does it prove consent.
And two people having sex with a pregnancy resulting does not form a contract either. Your comparing it to a contract is just really wacky and has no basis in the law. In addition, the father of a ZEF has no legal obligation to the ZEF. This is just another wacky idea.
My wording is not unbecoming. It is realistic. It's a reasonable characterization of then nonsensical claims you've been making, such as how you believe that there is some legal obligation between the father and a ZEF. Calling it a delusion is 100% accurate.
And you might well take your own advice and prove your own claims. So far, all you've done is make claims while providing nothing to support them besides the fact that you actually believe in your delusions.
Totally agree on the fact that DNA does not prove consent, well...at least it doesn't in a good 1% of the cases [ that would be the average of 13,000 rapes and incests that occur out of the average 1 million 250 thousand abortions, planned killings, that occur every year in our country, the US of A. So, to be accurate, lets bump that up to .0104 . 50 million lives taken in this manner since Roe.
98.96% [
basically 99 percent] of the times the sex was consensual leading up to an abortion. DNA is plenty sufficient to prove paternity…
So, semantics, both knowing the bottom line…which = DNA is as good/ better than a signature. Of the 100% of the times abortion is bidden/entreated each and every year, 98.96% of the times this sex resulting in a pregnancy is just plain old consensual, as you know including willingness and/or, at minimum, ultimate agreement. We can quibble over the 1percenters later… okay okay, the 1.04%ers. 1% is statistically insignificant… yet should still be dealt with in good faith… and with dignity. That is a discussion worth having even though I leave open the door, but unless logically and morally convinced, will remain intellectually honest in a steadfast support of innocent yet voiceless unborn. It is just the right thing to do. Up to a limited point I can see the other side, but life is the superior right, especially in the 99% of the cases where nobody is forced. Totally unconcerned whether you agree or not, I only appeal to the logical in any event, ideologues generally cannot be swayed in the face of the rational, but the just and the logical can be... and the facts of the matter are there are consequences to actions... and one must accept one's own personal responsibilities...really does not matter one whit what sangha thinks...
And, tell me...
What, one should ask, besides a loved one, what is more valuable in life to you than your very own life…??
And… to just summarily remove that opportunity from someone else...an innocent someone else paying for the bad decisions of others... and so that chance at the most precious thing you own you can simply take in total from another, without their consent? Don’t know about you, but would that not just be considered just toooooo cosmically cruel?
Law has gotten away from good sense and
we, the people, need take it back. Logic and justice should prevail in the law. To a much lesser degree emotion, much lesser. What you call wacky will change real quick to just how its done once we get Roe overturned. Just will be.
Let me get this straight, you are saying the father of a child bears no responsibility? Now you talk about whacky…
Hhhmmmm….
Calling me delusional
then adding the 100% accurate part…
just classic, sangha… so we can all assume this statement is as factually accurate as all the rest of your 100% accurates have been, wow, what a hoot… thanks, made my day, whew…
But such the watery justification for using name calling, while at the same time not even attempting high brow? Unsophisticated ad hominems? Having developed the appropriately abundant epidermal material over here, however, one usually need only consider the fountainhead from which the crudities sequentially flow.
It is your duty to ask or question any claim I have made, so ask away. I have provided many sources and quoted documentation, including the Constitution, the D.O.I., the pertinent portions of UVVA 2004, the pertinent parts of the R v W decision, Merriam as well as other sources for the vocabulary we are using, blah blah blah, etc, etc…and my logic you have yet to even raise a dull spoon to….nor... lest we forget all your myriad factual inaccuracies previously strewn wildly about but nicely placed in the evidence locker of my previous comments.
If you are just going to want to trade more verbal barbs... well, you'll continue to lose at that as well, soooo...
