"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Stephen Cole wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is
beneath
contempt Steve.

I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?

Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?


Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.

That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents finding
themselves destitute.

Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a persons (the mans) offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the continuation of
the genetic line, so €œwomen and children first€� and a husband sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.


Interesting choice of words.

Where does that leave those who arent married?

What matters isnt married but producing brats.

BTW, nature makes a nonsense of your claim. The natural
world is peppered with examples of the female being the
protector or the offspring being simply left to get of with it.

The latter only with species that produce vast numbers of brats.

In other words, biology has nothing to do with it. The women and children
first concept comes from the kind of values you spend your time
rubbishing.