@no1marauder saidThey're not politicians. Their time is valueless.
Seems like right wingers are wasting a lot more time crying about such a minor tweak than legislators did making it.
@Suzianne saidMarauder effectively said that people could not be parents of a child without being their father or mother.
Don't get in everyone's way with your idiotic takes on the English language.
Dream up some BS, then claim it's not true. This is about all you do.
Don't be mad at me, I just disseminate information
1 edit
@no1marauder saidGet this.
It doesn't change anything you have to do, idiot.
Some legal forms still required one parent to be designated as a "father" and the other as a "mother". The change will replace that language on such forms with more inclusive and accurate terms better reflecting modern realities of life.
If a form says mother, its reader immediately, due to YEARS OF FAMILIARITY with our ingrained muscle-memory language, know without even thinking who is who in the scenario.
Follow me here.
So, if you say gestating parent (Which is patently wrong on its face, in that there is no baby to be a parent of ), if you say gestating parent, the person you say it to has to translate the stupid-ass phrase. They have to attach that phrase to a certain person, and then draw some conclusion, when up to now, they know what a mother and father are in relation to the case at hand. What was a ONE STEP processing in the brain is now a 2-step process.
What is wrong with your people????🤬😱
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidNo I didn't, you idiot.
Marauder effectively said that people could not be parents of a child without being their father or mother.
Don't be mad at me, I just disseminate information
I said the exact opposite.
2 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidMy error. AvJoe wrong. Can’t read this fast.
Marauder effectively said that people could not be parents of a child without being their father or mother.
Don't be mad at me, I just disseminate information
So to my point, since people can be parents to a child, which is what I should’ve said, I do not understand the issue , since they already “ can be the parents of the child, that is the status of today’s modern society as you call it above.
Tell me, did the creators of this Bill think that we are all too stupid, cannot understand definitions of father and mother..
Or are the creators too stupid in trying to change the simplicity of 100s of years of recognizing the words, father and mother
@AverageJoe1 saidBy this logic it would seem that you are allowing for the notion that until the baby is born, the foetus is not a baby!
It does not dawn on them that until the baby is born, the parents are NOT parents.
1 edit
@kmax87 saidRight. I am following Stillhouse, Wgrass, Marauder and their lot that a baby is not a baby until born!!
By this logic it would seem that you are allowing for the notion that until the baby is born, the foetus is not a baby!
I did ask Marauder and the lot this question, but it was a case of 'Non-Answer On the Forum".
I asked, if a woman goes the 9 months, WOULD it have been a baby if it had been taken by CSection only 5 months into the pregnancy? Like, if it were a baby at 5 months, why would it not be a baby just before natural child birth??
So, since they did not respond, I went with the lemmings and subscribed to what Stillhouse said....It is a foetus until birthed.
Next question. Ask me a question.
@AverageJoe1 saidAgain, get a dictionary and stop mauling our language.
Right. I am following Stillhouse, Wgrass, Marauder and their lot that a baby is not a baby until born!!
I did ask Marauder and the lot this question, but it was a case of 'Non-Answer On the Forum".
I asked, if a woman goes the 9 months, WOULD it have been a baby if it had been taken by CSection only 5 months into the pregnancy? Like, if it were a baby at 5 mon ...[text shortened]... ribed to what Stillhouse said....It is a foetus until birthed.
Next question. Ask me a question.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidWhat about you people? We call out the liar, inside trader and thief in the White House and you call it "TDS". We try to protect the Constitution and you claim we're "crybabies". We call him out as a doddering old man and you all cry "What about Biden?"
Well there hasn’t been any issues for 250 years.
marerider failed to answer my question is testament to that.
You libs have some tortured thinking…your lives are miserable aren’t they?
Always whining 👦🏿
Whose reality is really twisted?
@AverageJoe1 saidAre you really that stupid?
?? Is it possible to be a parent if the child is not born yet?? 'Hello. Quintisha, are you a parent, we heard the news!!" "Well, soon, she's not born yet."
Well it's not my job to educate you.
Go find a third grade teacher who's not doing anything.
2 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidYou often call a pregnant woman an "expectant parent". Don't you realize that "gestating" is the same as "expecting"?
?? Is it possible to be a parent if the child is not born yet?? 'Hello. Quintisha, are you a parent, we heard the news!!" "Well, soon, she's not born yet."
It's really hard dealing with the 50% of the population who are dumber than dirt.
You have a cognitive mental condition that should keep you from voting in our great country. It should be akin to going out in public as a psychopath. You (and your kind) are a danger to this country. "Voting while stupid" needs to be an equivalent crime as "driving while intoxicated".
@Suzianne saidThis says you try to “protect the constitution.
What about you people? We call out the liar, inside trader and thief in the White House and you call it "TDS". We try to protect the Constitution and you claim we're "crybabies". We call him out as a doddering old man and you all cry "What about Biden?"
Whose reality is really twisted?
Suzianne……..AvJoe says this:
* Student loan forgiveness by executive action. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration’s broad student loan forgiveness plan exceeded its statutory authority because Congress had not authorized it.
* COVID-19 vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers. The Supreme Court blocked the OSHA rule, finding the agency likely exceeded the authority Congress gave it.
* Federal eviction moratorium. The Supreme Court held that the CDC lacked the statutory authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium.
* Attempts to pressure social media companies to remove or suppress certain content. Critics argue this raises First Amendment concerns if government coercion is involved, though the legal questions are complex and continue to be litigated.
* Expansive interpretations of executive power. Conservatives often argue that presidents of both parties have bypassed Congress by relying too heavily on executive orders.
* Gun regulations issued by executive agencies. Some regulations have been challenged under the Second Amendment or as exceeding statutory authority.
* Immigration enforcement policies. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have faced lawsuits alleging that certain immigration actions exceeded executive authority or violated federal law.