Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
On 20/02/2021 18:44, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote For being too stupid to use contraception Yet you seen to be anti-pill of the type to prevent embryo implantation? Thats not contraception, thats one form of abortion. So the contraceptive pill is considered by you as a form of abortion? Nope. Then you've just contradicted yourself. Nope. Many contraceptive pills allow for the fertilisation of the egg to form your living embryo but then prevent implantation. In fact most of them prevent fertilisation of the egg in the first place or the production of eggs where they can be fertilised. It's just like the morning after pill, where implantation is prevented. Most of them are in fact nothing like that. Most of them are everything like that. BULL****. To think otherwise is blatant denial. More bull****. The most successful is the combined pill, which has the effect of inhibiting implantation. Wrong, as always. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combin...sm_of_acti on There are references that the estrogens in the combined pill to inhibit implantation. From the manufacturer of the most popular UK contraceptive pill: https://www.pharmacy2u.co.uk/cerazette.html Finally Cerazette affects the quality of the lining of the womb so making successful implantation of a fertilised egg less likely. Combined pills provide several stages of protection against pregnancy. Something you will have to deal with. That's novel. Nope, dope. It's seems you're not so against abortion as a few posts ago. Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, again. Do make up your mind. I haven't changed my mind on that issue. So you don't approve of IUDs either? Never said that or anything like that, ****wit. Yet, as per a link you provided, "Copper can also alter the endometrial lining, but studies show that while this alteration can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg". |
#122
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Mario wrote Rod Speed wrote And are you willing to take care of the unwanted babies? No need, there is a desperate shortage of brats for adoption in the modern first and second world. It babies who cannot be taken care of by parents? See above. And who do you think should have more rights: a woman or a fetus? Neither have any right to murder the other because that is more convenient for them. Who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body if/after she was beaten, raped, tortured or who knows what, then having to endure 9 months of the trauma she never asked for? Very few abortions are after those events. They are almost all because the woman has been too stupid to use contraception. Are you advocating all women should have mandatory birth control? Nope, that those who dont want to become pregnant should use contraception instead of having an abortion. Some choose to abstain They are free to do that. And currently free to abort the pregnancy in the case of rape. Hurray. And free to abort the pregnancy when they are too stupid to use contraception. or are good catholics. Stupid catholics, actually. Maybe, No maybe about it. reams of your puerile **** flushed where it belongs You're not a good catholic are you? Not any sort of catholic and dont believe in any stupid god either. Or even a smart god or devil either. So you accept that the few abortions resulting from rape are acceptable then? Never said that, its still murder. Easy for you to sit in your mighty computer chair ans pass judgement, especially when you'll never have that experience. Just as true of the vast bulk that choose to have an abortion. That doesn't make sense. Wrong, as always. There is a difference between sitting in an armchair and the victim of a rape having to bring up a child they didn't want. They dont have to bring it up, they are free to put it up for adoption with hordes who want to adopt a newborn in the modern first and second world, far more than are put up for adoption. You seem to think they are one and the same Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, as always. |
#123
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
Fredxx wrote:
On 20/02/2021 14:57, Joel wrote: Bob F wrote: On 2/20/2021 3:39 AM, Mario wrote: Who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body if/after she was beaten, raped, tortured or who knows what, then having to endure 9 months of the trauma she never asked for? Easy for you to sit in your mighty computer chair ans pass judgement, especially when you'll never have that experience. How do these nuts think about having to bring their wife's rapist's baby to term? Will they happily accept them as their own? Antiabortion people (not "pro-life", which is a self-serving slogan and not a real policy) don't really care about women. And I know, a lot of them are women, but not ones who comprehend the idea of equality. A rape victim has every right to bear a child produced from rape, if they so choose, but to deny them the choice to abort it is unbelievably sexist. You were doing well up to this point. It's also sexist to ignore the father's opinion. I was discussing a *rapist* being the father, so that's obviously ridiculous - although, a woman has no responsibility to get the father's permission to have an abortion in other cases. If a man has sex with a woman, he ought to have these discussions first, if he expects her to bear a child they produce. It's up to her whether she does or not. As Mario said, a man will never have to face that decision. That's because as a father he doesn't have any rights for his unborn child. It's because men don't give birth. And if you have an "exception" to an abortion ban for victims of rape, how will they prove rape was the cause of the pregnancy? The only solution is to keep abortion legal in general. Back to common sense. Your position is unclear. -- Joel Crump |
#124
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
"Fredxx" wrote in message ... On 20/02/2021 18:49, Rod Speed wrote: "Fredxx" wrote in message ... On 20/02/2021 17:00, Rod Speed wrote: "Mario" wrote in message ... On 2/20/2021 9:57 AM, Joel wrote: Bob F wrote: On 2/20/2021 3:39 AM, Mario wrote: On 2/19/2021 4:49 PM, Rod Speed wrote: And who do you think should have more rights: a woman or a fetus? Neither have any right to murder the other because that is more convenient for them. Who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body if/after she was beaten, raped, tortured or who knows what, then having to endure 9 months of the trauma she never asked for? Easy for you to sit in your mighty computer chair ans pass judgement, especially when you'll never have that experience. How do these nuts think about having to bring their wife's rapist's baby to term? Will they happily accept them as their own? Antiabortion people (not "pro-life", which is a self-serving slogan and not a real policy) don't really care about women. And I know, a lot of them are women, but not ones who comprehend the idea of equality. A rape victim has every right to bear a child produced from rape, if they so choose, but to deny them the choice to abort it is unbelievably sexist. As Mario said, a man will never have to face that decision. And if you have an "exception" to an abortion ban for victims of rape, how will they prove rape was the cause of the pregnancy? The only solution is to keep abortion legal in general. I surely don't condone abortion as a method of BC, but even when many take precautions, it happens and of course, the rape issue. Easier to keep it legal, then allow the complacent to argue point of life. Pity about all the deliberate murders that happen that way. Some of us don't call using IUDs and the like murder. I dont either, because they dont kill the fertilised egg or prevent implantation either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrau...vice#Mechanism Quite, so using your own link, "Copper can also alter the endometrial lining, but studies show that while this alteration can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg". But it also says that that isnt the main mechanism of action. Let every child be a wanted child. |
#125
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Troll-feeding Senile ASSHOLE Alert!
On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 13:30:39 -0600, Muggles, another brain dead,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blathered again: The gender of the person donating doesn't matter. What does matter if the organ is viable and is a match to the recipient. Doesn't matter to the troll, troll-feeding senile asshole! What matters to him is whether you will take his idiotic baits or not! |
#126
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
On 20/02/2021 19:30, Muggles wrote:
On 2/20/2021 12:50 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote: On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 16:43:47 -0000, Muggles wrote: On 2/19/2021 1:15 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote: Don't organs have to be of a similar size, so same sex and same age? They have to be close to the same size of the organ recipient, especially, the veins that connect the donated organ to the recipient. Hence an average man cannot donate an organ to an average woman anyway. The gender of the person donating doesn't matter.* What does matter if the organ is viable and is a match to the recipient. I suspect that Commander Kinsey is considering that men and women are rarely of similar build, so the organs are unlikely to be of a similar size. I suspect that male organs are used to replace organs in other males and that female organs are used to replace organs in other women. Do you have any evidence to show that is not the case? |
#127
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote For being too stupid to use contraception Yet you seen to be anti-pill of the type to prevent embryo implantation? Thats not contraception, thats one form of abortion. So the contraceptive pill is considered by you as a form of abortion? Nope. Then you've just contradicted yourself. Nope. Many contraceptive pills allow for the fertilisation of the egg to form your living embryo but then prevent implantation. In fact most of them prevent fertilisation of the egg in the first place or the production of eggs where they can be fertilised. It's just like the morning after pill, where implantation is prevented. Most of them are in fact nothing like that. Most of them are everything like that. BULL****. To think otherwise is blatant denial. More bull****. The most successful is the combined pill, which has the effect of inhibiting implantation. Wrong, as always. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combin...sm_of_acti on There are references that the estrogens in the combined pill to inhibit implantation. But that isnt the primary mode of operation of those pills. From the manufacturer of the most popular UK contraceptive pill: https://www.pharmacy2u.co.uk/cerazette.html Finally Cerazette affects the quality of the lining of the womb so making successful implantation of a fertilised egg less likely. But that isnt the primary mode of operation of those pills. Combined pills provide several stages of protection against pregnancy. Something you will have to deal with. Nope. because that isnt the primary mode of operation of those pills. That's novel. Nope, dope. It's seems you're not so against abortion as a few posts ago. Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, again. Do make up your mind. I haven't changed my mind on that issue. So you don't approve of IUDs either? Never said that or anything like that, ****wit. Yet, as per a link you provided, "Copper can also alter the endometrial lining, but studies show that while this alteration can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg". But that isnt the primary mode of operation of IUDs. They prevent fertilisation in the first place. |
#128
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
UNBELIEVABLE: It's 07:19 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard has been out of Bed and TROLLING for OVER FOUR HOURS already!!!! LOL
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 07:19:16 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread 07:19??? And you've been up and trolling for OVER FOUR HOURS, yet again! Do you sociopathic cretin know NO shame AT ALL? -- Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian cretin's pathological trolling: https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/ |
#129
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
On Feb 20, 2021 at 12:55:45 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
: Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Mario wrote Rod Speed wrote And are you willing to take care of the unwanted babies? No need, there is a desperate shortage of brats for adoption in the modern first and second world. It babies who cannot be taken care of by parents? See above. And who do you think should have more rights: a woman or a fetus? Neither have any right to murder the other because that is more convenient for them. Who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body if/after she was beaten, raped, tortured or who knows what, then having to endure 9 months of the trauma she never asked for? Very few abortions are after those events. They are almost all because the woman has been too stupid to use contraception. Are you advocating all women should have mandatory birth control? Nope, that those who dont want to become pregnant should use contraception instead of having an abortion. Some choose to abstain They are free to do that. And currently free to abort the pregnancy in the case of rape. Hurray. And free to abort the pregnancy when they are too stupid to use contraception. Back to you wanting to control women. And you want to force women who are raped to have babies. That is not a choice. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
#130
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
On 20/02/2021 20:19, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote For being too stupid to use contraception Yet you seen to be anti-pill of the type to prevent embryo implantation? Thats not contraception, thats one form of abortion. So the contraceptive pill is considered by you as a form of abortion? Nope. Then you've just contradicted yourself. Nope. Many contraceptive pills allow for the fertilisation of the egg to form your living embryo but then prevent implantation. In fact most of them prevent fertilisation of the egg in the first place or the production of eggs where they can be fertilised. It's just like the morning after pill, where implantation is prevented. Most of them are in fact nothing like that. Most of them are everything like that. BULL****. To think otherwise is blatant denial. More bull****. The most successful is the combined pill, which has the effect of inhibiting implantation. Wrong, as always. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combin...sm_of_acti on There are references that the estrogens in the combined pill to inhibit implantation. But that isnt the primary mode of operation of those pills. It's good you condone the secondary purpose, namely discouraging implantation. From the manufacturer of the most popular UK contraceptive pill: Â* https://www.pharmacy2u.co.uk/cerazette.html Finally Cerazette affects the quality of the lining of the womb so making successful implantation of a fertilised egg less likely. But that isnt the primary mode of operation of those pills. It's good you approve the secondary purpose, namely discouraging implantation. Combined pills provide several stages of protection against pregnancy. Something you will have to deal with. Nope. because that isnt the primary mode of operation of those pills. It's good you condone the secondary purpose, namely discouraging implantation. That's novel. Nope, dope. It's seems you're not so against abortion as a few posts ago. Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, again. Do make up your mind. I haven't changed my mind on that issue. So you don't approve of IUDs either? Never said that or anything like that, ****wit. Yet, as per a link you provided, "Copper can also alter the endometrial lining, but studies show that while this alteration can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg". But that isnt the primary mode of operation of IUDs. They prevent fertilisation in the first place. It's so good you approve their secondary purpose, discouraging implantation. |
#131
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
On 20/02/2021 20:02, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message ... On 20/02/2021 18:49, Rod Speed wrote: "Fredxx" wrote in message ... On 20/02/2021 17:00, Rod Speed wrote: "Mario" wrote in message ... On 2/20/2021 9:57 AM, Joel wrote: Bob F wrote: On 2/20/2021 3:39 AM, Mario wrote: On 2/19/2021 4:49 PM, Rod Speed wrote: And who do you think should have more rights: a woman or a fetus? Neither have any right to murder the other because that is more convenient for them. Who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body if/after she was beaten, raped, tortured or who knows what, then having to endure 9 months of the trauma she never asked for? Easy for you to sit in your mighty computer chair ans pass judgement, especially when you'll never have that experience. How do these nuts think about having to bring their wife's rapist's baby to term? Will they happily accept them as their own? Antiabortion people (not "pro-life", which is a self-serving slogan and not a real policy) don't really care about women.Â* And I know, a lot of them are women, but not ones who comprehend the idea of equality.Â* A rape victim has every right to bear a child produced from rape, if they so choose, but to deny them the choice to abort it is unbelievably sexist.Â* As Mario said, a man will never have to face that decision.Â* And if you have an "exception" to an abortion ban for victims of rape, how will they prove rape was the cause of the pregnancy?Â* The only solution is to keep abortion legal in general. I surely don't condone abortion as a method of BC, but even when many take precautions, it happens and of course, the rape issue. Easier to keep it legal, then allow the complacent to argue point of life. Pity about all the deliberate murders that happen that way. Some of us don't call using IUDs and the like murder. I dont either, because they dont kill the fertilised egg or prevent implantation either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrau...vice#Mechanism Quite, so using your own link, "Copper can also alter the endometrial lining, but studies show that while this alteration can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg". But it also says that that isnt the main mechanism of action. Quite, so you approve the secondary purpose, namely discouraging implantation. Let every child be a wanted child. |
#132
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
On 20/02/2021 19:57, Joel wrote:
Fredxx wrote: On 20/02/2021 14:57, Joel wrote: Bob F wrote: On 2/20/2021 3:39 AM, Mario wrote: Who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body if/after she was beaten, raped, tortured or who knows what, then having to endure 9 months of the trauma she never asked for? Easy for you to sit in your mighty computer chair ans pass judgement, especially when you'll never have that experience. How do these nuts think about having to bring their wife's rapist's baby to term? Will they happily accept them as their own? Antiabortion people (not "pro-life", which is a self-serving slogan and not a real policy) don't really care about women. And I know, a lot of them are women, but not ones who comprehend the idea of equality. A rape victim has every right to bear a child produced from rape, if they so choose, but to deny them the choice to abort it is unbelievably sexist. You were doing well up to this point. It's also sexist to ignore the father's opinion. I was discussing a *rapist* being the father, so that's obviously ridiculous - although, a woman has no responsibility to get the father's permission to have an abortion in other cases. If a man has sex with a woman, he ought to have these discussions first, if he expects her to bear a child they produce. It's up to her whether she does or not. So, is it sexist or not? Where one interested party to the embryo doesn't have a say? I'm not debating whether that is right or not. Please remember you brought up the subject of sexism. As Mario said, a man will never have to face that decision. That's because as a father he doesn't have any rights for his unborn child. It's because men don't give birth. They are party to the formation of an embryo. Unless your name is Mary/ And if you have an "exception" to an abortion ban for victims of rape, how will they prove rape was the cause of the pregnancy? The only solution is to keep abortion legal in general. Back to common sense. Your position is unclear. It is not sexist for laws to be created from the opinion or both men and women. Have you not heard of suffrage? Anything else is the very definition of sexism. |
#133
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
On 20/02/2021 19:55, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Mario wrote Rod Speed wrote And are you willing to take care of the unwanted babies? No need, there is a desperate shortage of brats for adoption in the modern first and second world. It babies who cannot be taken care of by parents? See above. And who do you think should have more rights: a woman or a fetus? Neither have any right to murder the other because that is more convenient for them. Who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body if/after she was beaten, raped, tortured or who knows what, then having to endure 9 months of the trauma she never asked for? Very few abortions are after those events. They are almost all because the woman has been too stupid to use contraception. Are you advocating all women should have mandatory birth control? Nope, that those who dont want to become pregnant should use contraception instead of having an abortion. Some choose to abstain They are free to do that. And currently free to abort the pregnancy in the case of rape. Hurray. And free to abort the pregnancy when they are too stupid to use contraception. Or where it has failed, or where the contraception is from a secondary action, preventing implantation. or are good catholics. Stupid catholics, actually. Maybe, No maybe about it. reams of your puerile **** flushed where it belongs You're not a good catholic are you? Not any sort of catholic and dont believe in any stupid god either. Or even a smart god or devil either. So you accept that the few abortions resulting from rape are acceptable then? Never said that, its still murder. Lets be clear, do you accept abortions are appropriate after rape? Easy for you to sit in your mighty computer chair ans pass judgement, especially when you'll never have that experience. Just as true of the vast bulk that choose to have an abortion. That doesn't make sense. Wrong, as always. There is a difference between sitting in an armchair and the victim of a rape having to bring up a child they didn't want. They dont have to bring it up, they are free to put it up for adoption with hordes who want to adopt a newborn in the modern first and second world, far more than are put up for adoption. If you're the sort of arsehole who is willing to give away your own child then that says more about you than you'll even understand. Better still care for the child and then give the child away just before it's started walking, say at 9 months. You seem to think they are one and the same Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, as always. Is that a yes? |
#134
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
Fredxx wrote:
Antiabortion people (not "pro-life", which is a self-serving slogan and not a real policy) don't really care about women. And I know, a lot of them are women, but not ones who comprehend the idea of equality. A rape victim has every right to bear a child produced from rape, if they so choose, but to deny them the choice to abort it is unbelievably sexist. You were doing well up to this point. It's also sexist to ignore the father's opinion. I was discussing a *rapist* being the father, so that's obviously ridiculous - although, a woman has no responsibility to get the father's permission to have an abortion in other cases. If a man has sex with a woman, he ought to have these discussions first, if he expects her to bear a child they produce. It's up to her whether she does or not. So, is it sexist or not? Where one interested party to the embryo doesn't have a say? I'm not debating whether that is right or not. Please remember you brought up the subject of sexism. If the father wants a say, he should talk to the woman about what would happen if she were to get pregnant, before he takes his pants off. Once she is pregnant, the woman alone makes the decision. As Mario said, a man will never have to face that decision. That's because as a father he doesn't have any rights for his unborn child. It's because men don't give birth. They are party to the formation of an embryo. Unless your name is Mary/ I realize that, but he isn't the one who will have to carry and bear the child. It's incumbent upon him to talk about the subject before they have sex. And if you have an "exception" to an abortion ban for victims of rape, how will they prove rape was the cause of the pregnancy? The only solution is to keep abortion legal in general. Back to common sense. Your position is unclear. It is not sexist for laws to be created from the opinion or both men and women. Have you not heard of suffrage? Anything else is the very definition of sexism. The woman is allowed to take his opinion into account, but it's ultimately her decision alone. -- Joel Crump |
#135
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
On 2/20/2021 4:11 PM, Joel wrote:
Fredxx wrote: Antiabortion people (not "pro-life", which is a self-serving slogan and not a real policy) don't really care about women. And I know, a lot of them are women, but not ones who comprehend the idea of equality. A rape victim has every right to bear a child produced from rape, if they so choose, but to deny them the choice to abort it is unbelievably sexist. You were doing well up to this point. It's also sexist to ignore the father's opinion. I was discussing a *rapist* being the father, so that's obviously ridiculous - although, a woman has no responsibility to get the father's permission to have an abortion in other cases. If a man has sex with a woman, he ought to have these discussions first, if he expects her to bear a child they produce. It's up to her whether she does or not. So, is it sexist or not? Where one interested party to the embryo doesn't have a say? I'm not debating whether that is right or not. Please remember you brought up the subject of sexism. If the father wants a say, he should talk to the woman about what would happen if she were to get pregnant, before he takes his pants off. Once she is pregnant, the woman alone makes the decision. As Mario said, a man will never have to face that decision. That's because as a father he doesn't have any rights for his unborn child. It's because men don't give birth. They are party to the formation of an embryo. Unless your name is Mary/ I realize that, but he isn't the one who will have to carry and bear the child. It's incumbent upon him to talk about the subject before they have sex. And if you have an "exception" to an abortion ban for victims of rape, how will they prove rape was the cause of the pregnancy? The only solution is to keep abortion legal in general. Back to common sense. Your position is unclear. It is not sexist for laws to be created from the opinion or both men and women. Have you not heard of suffrage? Anything else is the very definition of sexism. The woman is allowed to take his opinion into account, but it's ultimately her decision alone. So, you believe the woman is justified in taking the life of an innocent child because she wants to? -- Maggie |
#136
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
"Snit" wrote in message ... On Feb 20, 2021 at 12:55:45 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote : Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Mario wrote Rod Speed wrote And are you willing to take care of the unwanted babies? No need, there is a desperate shortage of brats for adoption in the modern first and second world. It babies who cannot be taken care of by parents? See above. And who do you think should have more rights: a woman or a fetus? Neither have any right to murder the other because that is more convenient for them. Who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body if/after she was beaten, raped, tortured or who knows what, then having to endure 9 months of the trauma she never asked for? Very few abortions are after those events. They are almost all because the woman has been too stupid to use contraception. Are you advocating all women should have mandatory birth control? Nope, that those who dont want to become pregnant should use contraception instead of having an abortion. Some choose to abstain They are free to do that. And currently free to abort the pregnancy in the case of rape. Hurray. And free to abort the pregnancy when they are too stupid to use contraception. Back to you wanting to control women. Nope. them doing what makes sense if they dont want to have a brat. And you want to force women who are raped to have babies. Nope. just stop them murdering, just like we do if they dont like how a particular brat turns out etc or the same thing with their personal circumstance or the one they are voluntarily ****ing, or their relos etc/ That is not a choice. Yep, we choose not to allow the choice of murder for some reason. |
#137
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
On 20/02/2021 22:11, Joel wrote:
Fredxx wrote: Antiabortion people (not "pro-life", which is a self-serving slogan and not a real policy) don't really care about women. And I know, a lot of them are women, but not ones who comprehend the idea of equality. A rape victim has every right to bear a child produced from rape, if they so choose, but to deny them the choice to abort it is unbelievably sexist. You were doing well up to this point. It's also sexist to ignore the father's opinion. I was discussing a *rapist* being the father, so that's obviously ridiculous - although, a woman has no responsibility to get the father's permission to have an abortion in other cases. If a man has sex with a woman, he ought to have these discussions first, if he expects her to bear a child they produce. It's up to her whether she does or not. So, is it sexist or not? Where one interested party to the embryo doesn't have a say? I'm not debating whether that is right or not. Please remember you brought up the subject of sexism. If the father wants a say, he should talk to the woman about what would happen if she were to get pregnant, before he takes his pants off. Once she is pregnant, the woman alone makes the decision. As Mario said, a man will never have to face that decision. That's because as a father he doesn't have any rights for his unborn child. It's because men don't give birth. They are party to the formation of an embryo. Unless your name is Mary/ I realize that, but he isn't the one who will have to carry and bear the child. It's incumbent upon him to talk about the subject before they have sex. And if you have an "exception" to an abortion ban for victims of rape, how will they prove rape was the cause of the pregnancy? The only solution is to keep abortion legal in general. Back to common sense. Your position is unclear. It is not sexist for laws to be created from the opinion or both men and women. Have you not heard of suffrage? Anything else is the very definition of sexism. The woman is allowed to take his opinion into account, but it's ultimately her decision alone. I agree, but can we agree it's not sexist for parliament [1] stipulate the terms of an abortion. [1] where so it happens MPs are voted in by a majority of women (in the electorate and likelihood of voting). |
#138
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote For being too stupid to use contraception Yet you seen to be anti-pill of the type to prevent embryo implantation? Thats not contraception, thats one form of abortion. So the contraceptive pill is considered by you as a form of abortion? Nope. Then you've just contradicted yourself. Nope. Many contraceptive pills allow for the fertilisation of the egg to form your living embryo but then prevent implantation. In fact most of them prevent fertilisation of the egg in the first place or the production of eggs where they can be fertilised. It's just like the morning after pill, where implantation is prevented. Most of them are in fact nothing like that. Most of them are everything like that. BULL****. To think otherwise is blatant denial. More bull****. The most successful is the combined pill, which has the effect of inhibiting implantation. Wrong, as always. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combin...sm_of_acti on There are references that the estrogens in the combined pill to inhibit implantation. But that isnt the primary mode of operation of those pills. It's good you condone the secondary purpose, namely discouraging implantation. From the manufacturer of the most popular UK contraceptive pill: https://www.pharmacy2u.co.uk/cerazette.html Finally Cerazette affects the quality of the lining of the womb so making successful implantation of a fertilised egg less likely. But that isnt the primary mode of operation of those pills. It's good you approve the secondary purpose, namely discouraging implantation. Combined pills provide several stages of protection against pregnancy. Something you will have to deal with. Nope. because that isnt the primary mode of operation of those pills. It's good you condone the secondary purpose, namely discouraging implantation. That's novel. Nope, dope. It's seems you're not so against abortion as a few posts ago. Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, again. Do make up your mind. I haven't changed my mind on that issue. So you don't approve of IUDs either? Never said that or anything like that, ****wit. Yet, as per a link you provided, "Copper can also alter the endometrial lining, but studies show that while this alteration can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg". But that isnt the primary mode of operation of IUDs. They prevent fertilisation in the first place. It's so good you approve their secondary purpose, It isnt the secondary purpose. discouraging implantation. |
#139
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
"Fredxx" wrote in message ... On 20/02/2021 20:02, Rod Speed wrote: "Fredxx" wrote in message ... On 20/02/2021 18:49, Rod Speed wrote: "Fredxx" wrote in message ... On 20/02/2021 17:00, Rod Speed wrote: "Mario" wrote in message ... On 2/20/2021 9:57 AM, Joel wrote: Bob F wrote: On 2/20/2021 3:39 AM, Mario wrote: On 2/19/2021 4:49 PM, Rod Speed wrote: And who do you think should have more rights: a woman or a fetus? Neither have any right to murder the other because that is more convenient for them. Who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body if/after she was beaten, raped, tortured or who knows what, then having to endure 9 months of the trauma she never asked for? Easy for you to sit in your mighty computer chair ans pass judgement, especially when you'll never have that experience. How do these nuts think about having to bring their wife's rapist's baby to term? Will they happily accept them as their own? Antiabortion people (not "pro-life", which is a self-serving slogan and not a real policy) don't really care about women. And I know, a lot of them are women, but not ones who comprehend the idea of equality. A rape victim has every right to bear a child produced from rape, if they so choose, but to deny them the choice to abort it is unbelievably sexist. As Mario said, a man will never have to face that decision. And if you have an "exception" to an abortion ban for victims of rape, how will they prove rape was the cause of the pregnancy? The only solution is to keep abortion legal in general. I surely don't condone abortion as a method of BC, but even when many take precautions, it happens and of course, the rape issue. Easier to keep it legal, then allow the complacent to argue point of life. Pity about all the deliberate murders that happen that way. Some of us don't call using IUDs and the like murder. I dont either, because they dont kill the fertilised egg or prevent implantation either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrau...vice#Mechanism Quite, so using your own link, "Copper can also alter the endometrial lining, but studies show that while this alteration can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg". But it also says that that isnt the main mechanism of action. Quite, so you approve the secondary purpose, It isnt a secondary purpose. namely discouraging implantation. Let every child be a wanted child. |
#140
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
On 20/02/2021 22:18, Rod Speed wrote:
"Snit" wrote in message ... On Feb 20, 2021 at 12:55:45 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote : Fredxx wrote Â*Rod Speed wrote Â*Fredxx wrote Â*Rod Speed wrote Â*Mario wrote Â*Rod Speed wrote Â*And are you willing to take care of the unwanted babies? Â*No need, there is a desperate shortage of brats Â*for adoption in the modern first and second world. Â*It babies who cannot be taken care of by parents? Â*See above. Â*And who do you think should have more rights: a woman or a fetus? Â*Neither have any right to murder the other because that is more convenient for them. Â*Who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body if/after she was beaten, raped, tortured or who knows what, then having to endure 9 months of the trauma she never asked for? Â*Very few abortions are after those events. They are almost all because the woman has been too stupid to use contraception. Â*Are you advocating all women should have mandatory birth control? Â*Nope, that those who dont want to become pregnant Â*should use contraception instead of having an abortion. Â*Some choose to abstain Â*They are free to do that. Â*And currently free to abort the pregnancy in the case of rape. Hurray. And free to abort the pregnancy when they are too stupid to use contraception. Back to you wanting to control women. Nope. them doing what makes sense if they dont want to have a brat. And you want to force women who are raped to have babies. Nope. So you accept abortion is appropriate in these circumstances. just stop them murdering, So you accept abortion isn't murder in the case of rape. Of not, then please do make up your mind. |
#141
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
Fredxx wrote:
It is not sexist for laws to be created from the opinion or both men and women. Have you not heard of suffrage? Anything else is the very definition of sexism. The woman is allowed to take his opinion into account, but it's ultimately her decision alone. I agree, but can we agree it's not sexist for parliament [1] stipulate the terms of an abortion. [1] where so it happens MPs are voted in by a majority of women (in the electorate and likelihood of voting). Only where it deals with restrictions on late term abortions, where the baby may be viable - it's reasonable to prohibit elective abortions in that period, but to protect the mother's health or life, or in cases where the baby will be severely deformed at birth, it should be allowed. -- Joel Crump |
#142
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
On 20/02/2021 22:25, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote snip Yet, as per a link you provided, "Copper can also alter the endometrial lining, but studies show that while this alteration can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg". But that isnt the primary mode of operation of IUDs. They prevent fertilisation in the first place. It's so good you approve their secondary purpose, It isnt the secondary purpose. Ok, nth purpose; where 'n' can be any number. Are you in denial that copper on IUD reduces the probability of a fertilised embryo implantation? discouraging implantation. |
#143
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
"Fredxx" wrote in message ... On 20/02/2021 19:57, Joel wrote: Fredxx wrote: On 20/02/2021 14:57, Joel wrote: Bob F wrote: On 2/20/2021 3:39 AM, Mario wrote: Who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body if/after she was beaten, raped, tortured or who knows what, then having to endure 9 months of the trauma she never asked for? Easy for you to sit in your mighty computer chair ans pass judgement, especially when you'll never have that experience. How do these nuts think about having to bring their wife's rapist's baby to term? Will they happily accept them as their own? Antiabortion people (not "pro-life", which is a self-serving slogan and not a real policy) don't really care about women. And I know, a lot of them are women, but not ones who comprehend the idea of equality. A rape victim has every right to bear a child produced from rape, if they so choose, but to deny them the choice to abort it is unbelievably sexist. You were doing well up to this point. It's also sexist to ignore the father's opinion. I was discussing a *rapist* being the father, so that's obviously ridiculous - although, a woman has no responsibility to get the father's permission to have an abortion in other cases. If a man has sex with a woman, he ought to have these discussions first, if he expects her to bear a child they produce. It's up to her whether she does or not. So, is it sexist or not? Not when its the result of rape. Where one interested party to the embryo doesn't have a say? Just like criminals dont on the penalty they receive. I'm not debating whether that is right or not. Please remember you brought up the subject of sexism. And you mindlessly trolled about it, as always. As Mario said, a man will never have to face that decision. That's because as a father he doesn't have any rights for his unborn child. It's because men don't give birth. They are party to the formation of an embryo. Unless your name is Mary/ She was too, she was the one into a quick **** with a passing goat herd, the slut. And if you have an "exception" to an abortion ban for victims of rape, how will they prove rape was the cause of the pregnancy? The only solution is to keep abortion legal in general. Back to common sense. Your position is unclear. |
#144
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
On 20/02/2021 22:33, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message ... On 20/02/2021 20:02, Rod Speed wrote: "Fredxx" wrote in message ... On 20/02/2021 18:49, Rod Speed wrote: "Fredxx" wrote in message ... On 20/02/2021 17:00, Rod Speed wrote: "Mario" wrote in message ... On 2/20/2021 9:57 AM, Joel wrote: Bob F wrote: On 2/20/2021 3:39 AM, Mario wrote: On 2/19/2021 4:49 PM, Rod Speed wrote: And who do you think should have more rights: a woman or a fetus? Neither have any right to murder the other because that is more convenient for them. Who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body if/after she was beaten, raped, tortured or who knows what, then having to endure 9 months of the trauma she never asked for? Easy for you to sit in your mighty computer chair ans pass judgement, especially when you'll never have that experience. How do these nuts think about having to bring their wife's rapist's baby to term? Will they happily accept them as their own? Antiabortion people (not "pro-life", which is a self-serving slogan and not a real policy) don't really care about women.Â* And I know, a lot of them are women, but not ones who comprehend the idea of equality.Â* A rape victim has every right to bear a child produced from rape, if they so choose, but to deny them the choice to abort it is unbelievably sexist.Â* As Mario said, a man will never have to face that decision.Â* And if you have an "exception" to an abortion ban for victims of rape, how will they prove rape was the cause of the pregnancy?Â* The only solution is to keep abortion legal in general. I surely don't condone abortion as a method of BC, but even when many take precautions, it happens and of course, the rape issue. Easier to keep it legal, then allow the complacent to argue point of life. Pity about all the deliberate murders that happen that way. Some of us don't call using IUDs and the like murder. I dont either, because they dont kill the fertilised egg or prevent implantation either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrau...vice#Mechanism Quite, so using your own link, "Copper can also alter the endometrial lining, but studies show that while this alteration can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg". But it also says that that isnt the main mechanism of action. Quite, so you approve the secondary purpose, It isnt a secondary purpose. Ok, nth purpose; where 'n' can be any number. Are you in denial that copper on IUD reduces the probability of a fertilised embryo implantation? namely discouraging implantation. Let every child be a wanted child. |
#145
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
"Fredxx" wrote in message ... On 20/02/2021 19:55, Rod Speed wrote: Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Mario wrote Rod Speed wrote And are you willing to take care of the unwanted babies? No need, there is a desperate shortage of brats for adoption in the modern first and second world. It babies who cannot be taken care of by parents? See above. And who do you think should have more rights: a woman or a fetus? Neither have any right to murder the other because that is more convenient for them. Who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body if/after she was beaten, raped, tortured or who knows what, then having to endure 9 months of the trauma she never asked for? Very few abortions are after those events. They are almost all because the woman has been too stupid to use contraception. Are you advocating all women should have mandatory birth control? Nope, that those who dont want to become pregnant should use contraception instead of having an abortion. Some choose to abstain They are free to do that. And currently free to abort the pregnancy in the case of rape. Hurray. And free to abort the pregnancy when they are too stupid to use contraception. Or where it has failed, or where the contraception is from a secondary action, preventing implantation. or are good catholics. Stupid catholics, actually. Maybe, No maybe about it. reams of your puerile **** flushed where it belongs You're not a good catholic are you? Not any sort of catholic and dont believe in any stupid god either. Or even a smart god or devil either. So you accept that the few abortions resulting from rape are acceptable then? Never said that, its still murder. Lets be clear, I was. do you accept abortions are appropriate after rape? I just said they are murder, stupid. Easy for you to sit in your mighty computer chair ans pass judgement, especially when you'll never have that experience. Just as true of the vast bulk that choose to have an abortion. That doesn't make sense. Wrong, as always. There is a difference between sitting in an armchair and the victim of a rape having to bring up a child they didn't want. They dont have to bring it up, they are free to put it up for adoption with hordes who want to adopt a newborn in the modern first and second world, far more than are put up for adoption. If you're the sort of arsehole who is willing to give away your own child Nothing arseholy about that if you cant provide them with a decent life. Same with a pet. then that says more about you than you'll even understand. You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag. Better still care for the child and then give the child away just before it's started walking, say at 9 months. More bull****. The brat wont even notice if its given away just after birth to the individual(s) who has been organised to adopt it just after it is born. Just as true of surrogacy. You seem to think they are one and the same Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, as always. Is that a yes? Pathetic. |
#146
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
On 20/02/2021 22:34, Joel wrote:
Fredxx wrote: It is not sexist for laws to be created from the opinion or both men and women. Have you not heard of suffrage? Anything else is the very definition of sexism. The woman is allowed to take his opinion into account, but it's ultimately her decision alone. I agree, but can we agree it's not sexist for parliament [1] stipulate the terms of an abortion. [1] where so it happens MPs are voted in by a majority of women (in the electorate and likelihood of voting). Only where it deals with restrictions on late term abortions, where the baby may be viable - it's reasonable to prohibit elective abortions in that period, but to protect the mother's health or life, or in cases where the baby will be severely deformed at birth, it should be allowed. I was under the impression that the current UK law does largely reflect that opinion. |
#147
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
"Joel" wrote in message ... Fredxx wrote: Antiabortion people (not "pro-life", which is a self-serving slogan and not a real policy) don't really care about women. And I know, a lot of them are women, but not ones who comprehend the idea of equality. A rape victim has every right to bear a child produced from rape, if they so choose, but to deny them the choice to abort it is unbelievably sexist. You were doing well up to this point. It's also sexist to ignore the father's opinion. I was discussing a *rapist* being the father, so that's obviously ridiculous - although, a woman has no responsibility to get the father's permission to have an abortion in other cases. If a man has sex with a woman, he ought to have these discussions first, if he expects her to bear a child they produce. It's up to her whether she does or not. So, is it sexist or not? Where one interested party to the embryo doesn't have a say? I'm not debating whether that is right or not. Please remember you brought up the subject of sexism. If the father wants a say, he should talk to the woman about what would happen if she were to get pregnant, before he takes his pants off. Once she is pregnant, the woman alone makes the decision. As Mario said, a man will never have to face that decision. That's because as a father he doesn't have any rights for his unborn child. It's because men don't give birth. They are party to the formation of an embryo. Unless your name is Mary/ I realize that, but he isn't the one who will have to carry and bear the child. It's incumbent upon him to talk about the subject before they have sex. And if you have an "exception" to an abortion ban for victims of rape, how will they prove rape was the cause of the pregnancy? The only solution is to keep abortion legal in general. Back to common sense. Your position is unclear. It is not sexist for laws to be created from the opinion or both men and women. Have you not heard of suffrage? Anything else is the very definition of sexism. The woman is allowed to take his opinion into account, but it's ultimately her decision alone. It isnt and shouldn't be, just like it isnt and shouldn't be after the brat has been born. |
#148
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
"Muggles" wrote in message ... On 2/20/2021 4:11 PM, Joel wrote: Fredxx wrote: Antiabortion people (not "pro-life", which is a self-serving slogan and not a real policy) don't really care about women. And I know, a lot of them are women, but not ones who comprehend the idea of equality. A rape victim has every right to bear a child produced from rape, if they so choose, but to deny them the choice to abort it is unbelievably sexist. You were doing well up to this point. It's also sexist to ignore the father's opinion. I was discussing a *rapist* being the father, so that's obviously ridiculous - although, a woman has no responsibility to get the father's permission to have an abortion in other cases. If a man has sex with a woman, he ought to have these discussions first, if he expects her to bear a child they produce. It's up to her whether she does or not. So, is it sexist or not? Where one interested party to the embryo doesn't have a say? I'm not debating whether that is right or not. Please remember you brought up the subject of sexism. If the father wants a say, he should talk to the woman about what would happen if she were to get pregnant, before he takes his pants off. Once she is pregnant, the woman alone makes the decision. As Mario said, a man will never have to face that decision. That's because as a father he doesn't have any rights for his unborn child. It's because men don't give birth. They are party to the formation of an embryo. Unless your name is Mary/ I realize that, but he isn't the one who will have to carry and bear the child. It's incumbent upon him to talk about the subject before they have sex. And if you have an "exception" to an abortion ban for victims of rape, how will they prove rape was the cause of the pregnancy? The only solution is to keep abortion legal in general. Back to common sense. Your position is unclear. It is not sexist for laws to be created from the opinion or both men and women. Have you not heard of suffrage? Anything else is the very definition of sexism. The woman is allowed to take his opinion into account, but it's ultimately her decision alone. So, you believe the woman is justified in taking the life of an innocent child because she wants to? And we dont allow that with a guilty child either. Cant imagine why for the life of me. |
#149
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
On 20/02/2021 22:48, Rod Speed wrote:
"Joel" wrote in message ... Fredxx wrote: snip And if you have an "exception" to an abortion ban for victims of rape, how will they prove rape was the cause of the pregnancy?Â* The only solution is to keep abortion legal in general. Back to common sense. Your position is unclear. It is not sexist for laws to be created from the opinion or both men and women. Have you not heard of suffrage? Anything else is the very definition of sexism. The woman is allowed to take his opinion into account, but it's ultimately her decision alone. It isnt and shouldn't be, just like it isnt and shouldn't be after the brat has been born. You must truly hate children. |
#150
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
"Fredxx" wrote in message ... On 20/02/2021 22:18, Rod Speed wrote: "Snit" wrote in message ... On Feb 20, 2021 at 12:55:45 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote : Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Mario wrote Rod Speed wrote And are you willing to take care of the unwanted babies? No need, there is a desperate shortage of brats for adoption in the modern first and second world. It babies who cannot be taken care of by parents? See above. And who do you think should have more rights: a woman or a fetus? Neither have any right to murder the other because that is more convenient for them. Who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body if/after she was beaten, raped, tortured or who knows what, then having to endure 9 months of the trauma she never asked for? Very few abortions are after those events. They are almost all because the woman has been too stupid to use contraception. Are you advocating all women should have mandatory birth control? Nope, that those who dont want to become pregnant should use contraception instead of having an abortion. Some choose to abstain They are free to do that. And currently free to abort the pregnancy in the case of rape. Hurray. And free to abort the pregnancy when they are too stupid to use contraception. Back to you wanting to control women. Nope. them doing what makes sense if they dont want to have a brat. And you want to force women who are raped to have babies. Nope. So you accept abortion is appropriate in these circumstances. Nope. just stop them murdering, So you accept abortion isn't murder in the case of rape. Nope. Of not, then please do make up your mind. I havent changed my mind on that issue, ****wit. |
#151
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
"Joel" wrote in message ... Fredxx wrote: It is not sexist for laws to be created from the opinion or both men and women. Have you not heard of suffrage? Anything else is the very definition of sexism. The woman is allowed to take his opinion into account, but it's ultimately her decision alone. I agree, but can we agree it's not sexist for parliament [1] stipulate the terms of an abortion. [1] where so it happens MPs are voted in by a majority of women (in the electorate and likelihood of voting). Only where it deals with restrictions on late term abortions, where the baby may be viable - it's reasonable to prohibit elective abortions in that period, but to protect the mother's health or life, or in cases where the baby will be severely deformed at birth, it should be allowed. Why not after it is born ? |
#152
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
"Fredxx" wrote in message ... On 20/02/2021 22:25, Rod Speed wrote: Fredxx wrote Rod Speed wrote Fredxx wrote snip Yet, as per a link you provided, "Copper can also alter the endometrial lining, but studies show that while this alteration can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg". But that isnt the primary mode of operation of IUDs. They prevent fertilisation in the first place. It's so good you approve their secondary purpose, It isnt the secondary purpose. Ok, nth purpose; where 'n' can be any number. It isnt a purpose. Are you in denial that copper on IUD reduces the probability of a fertilised embryo implantation? Nope. discouraging implantation. |
#153
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
Fredxx wrote:
The woman is allowed to take his opinion into account, but it's ultimately her decision alone. I agree, but can we agree it's not sexist for parliament [1] stipulate the terms of an abortion. [1] where so it happens MPs are voted in by a majority of women (in the electorate and likelihood of voting). Only where it deals with restrictions on late term abortions, where the baby may be viable - it's reasonable to prohibit elective abortions in that period, but to protect the mother's health or life, or in cases where the baby will be severely deformed at birth, it should be allowed. I was under the impression that the current UK law does largely reflect that opinion. I would presume so, I don't live in the UK, but most would agree that late term abortions should only be done when necessary. -- Joel Crump |
#154
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
UNBELIEVABLE: It's 09:25 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard has been out of Bed and TROLLING for OVER SIX HOURS already!!!! LOL
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 09:25:53 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: FLUSH the trolling senile cretin's latest troll**** unread 09:25??? LOL And you've been up and trolling since 03:11, you abnormal SENILE SWINE! -- addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent: "You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates his particular prowess at it every day." MID: |
#155
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
"Rod Speed" wrote:
"Joel" wrote in message .. . Fredxx wrote: I agree, but can we agree it's not sexist for parliament [1] stipulate the terms of an abortion. [1] where so it happens MPs are voted in by a majority of women (in the electorate and likelihood of voting). Only where it deals with restrictions on late term abortions, where the baby may be viable - it's reasonable to prohibit elective abortions in that period, but to protect the mother's health or life, or in cases where the baby will be severely deformed at birth, it should be allowed. Why not after it is born ? *That* *is* murder. -- Joel Crump |
#156
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Simply UNBELIEVABLE: It's 09:38 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard has been out of Bed and TROLLING for OVER SIX HOURS already!!!! LOL
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 09:38:20 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: FLUSH the trolling senile sociopath's latest troll**** unread 09:38!!! And you've been up and trolling for OVER SIX HOURS, yet again! Do you sociopathic swine really know no shame AT ALL? -- The Natural Philosopher about senile Rodent: "Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole." Message-ID: |
#157
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
"Rod Speed" wrote:
The woman is allowed to take his opinion into account, but it's ultimately her decision alone. It isnt and shouldn't be, just like it isnt and shouldn't be after the brat has been born. Your position treats women as baby factories. Not as equal to men. -- Joel Crump |
#158
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
On Feb 20, 2021 at 2:59:52 PM MST, "Fredxx" wrote
: On 20/02/2021 19:57, Joel wrote: Fredxx wrote: On 20/02/2021 14:57, Joel wrote: Bob F wrote: On 2/20/2021 3:39 AM, Mario wrote: Who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body if/after she was beaten, raped, tortured or who knows what, then having to endure 9 months of the trauma she never asked for? Easy for you to sit in your mighty computer chair ans pass judgement, especially when you'll never have that experience. How do these nuts think about having to bring their wife's rapist's baby to term? Will they happily accept them as their own? Antiabortion people (not "pro-life", which is a self-serving slogan and not a real policy) don't really care about women. And I know, a lot of them are women, but not ones who comprehend the idea of equality. A rape victim has every right to bear a child produced from rape, if they so choose, but to deny them the choice to abort it is unbelievably sexist. You were doing well up to this point. It's also sexist to ignore the father's opinion. I was discussing a *rapist* being the father, so that's obviously ridiculous - although, a woman has no responsibility to get the father's permission to have an abortion in other cases. If a man has sex with a woman, he ought to have these discussions first, if he expects her to bear a child they produce. It's up to her whether she does or not. So, is it sexist or not? Where one interested party to the embryo doesn't have a say? The woman has the final say over her body. Period. I'm not debating whether that is right or not. Please remember you brought up the subject of sexism. Your push to deny women equal rights is sexist. As Mario said, a man will never have to face that decision. That's because as a father he doesn't have any rights for his unborn child. It's because men don't give birth. They are party to the formation of an embryo. Unless your name is Mary/ They STILL have no control over the woman's body. And if you have an "exception" to an abortion ban for victims of rape, how will they prove rape was the cause of the pregnancy? The only solution is to keep abortion legal in general. Back to common sense. Your position is unclear. It is not sexist for laws to be created from the opinion or both men and women. Have you not heard of suffrage? Anything else is the very definition of sexism. You also speak of "common sense" to figure out if someone was raped. Please go on... how do you know? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
#159
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
"Fredxx" wrote in message ... On 20/02/2021 22:48, Rod Speed wrote: "Joel" wrote in message ... Fredxx wrote: snip And if you have an "exception" to an abortion ban for victims of rape, how will they prove rape was the cause of the pregnancy? The only solution is to keep abortion legal in general. Back to common sense. Your position is unclear. It is not sexist for laws to be created from the opinion or both men and women. Have you not heard of suffrage? Anything else is the very definition of sexism. The woman is allowed to take his opinion into account, but it's ultimately her decision alone. It isnt and shouldn't be, just like it isnt and shouldn't be after the brat has been born. You must truly hate children. Wrong, as always. |
#160
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Organ donation should be compulsory, not just "opt out"
On Feb 20, 2021 at 3:11:24 PM MST, "Joel" wrote
: Fredxx wrote: Antiabortion people (not "pro-life", which is a self-serving slogan and not a real policy) don't really care about women. And I know, a lot of them are women, but not ones who comprehend the idea of equality. A rape victim has every right to bear a child produced from rape, if they so choose, but to deny them the choice to abort it is unbelievably sexist. You were doing well up to this point. It's also sexist to ignore the father's opinion. I was discussing a *rapist* being the father, so that's obviously ridiculous - although, a woman has no responsibility to get the father's permission to have an abortion in other cases. If a man has sex with a woman, he ought to have these discussions first, if he expects her to bear a child they produce. It's up to her whether she does or not. So, is it sexist or not? Where one interested party to the embryo doesn't have a say? I'm not debating whether that is right or not. Please remember you brought up the subject of sexism. If the father wants a say, he should talk to the woman about what would happen if she were to get pregnant, before he takes his pants off. Once she is pregnant, the woman alone makes the decision. In short: each person is in full control of their own body. Period. As Mario said, a man will never have to face that decision. That's because as a father he doesn't have any rights for his unborn child. It's because men don't give birth. They are party to the formation of an embryo. Unless your name is Mary/ I realize that, but he isn't the one who will have to carry and bear the child. It's incumbent upon him to talk about the subject before they have sex. Yup. And if you have an "exception" to an abortion ban for victims of rape, how will they prove rape was the cause of the pregnancy? The only solution is to keep abortion legal in general. Back to common sense. Your position is unclear. It is not sexist for laws to be created from the opinion or both men and women. Have you not heard of suffrage? Anything else is the very definition of sexism. The woman is allowed to take his opinion into account, but it's ultimately her decision alone. Right. Nobody gets to tell her what to do with her body. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why Oil & Gas Industry Should Opt For Ex-proof Camera? | Metalworking | |||
Compulsory water metering | UK diy | |||
Compulsory water metering | UK diy | |||
Compulsory water metering | UK diy | |||
Why not compulsory water meters? | UK diy |