"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
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.

That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats dont
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.

But the logic is that to sire a new line with a replacement woman requires
a huge investment of energy and resources, not to mention time,

Thats bull**** too, just a bit of ****ing which many
do even when the first ones havent died. Boris has
now gone thru at least 4. His dad far more.

whereas doing what you can to ensure the survival
of the existing wife and child both saves that

But dying before them means they will die anyway, just later.

and also protects the energy and resources already
invested into them, if you see what I mean.

Not when they die anyway when the breadwinner is gone.