"Joel" wrote in message
...
"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.

Just as true before it is born.

Joel wrote
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.

Mindless bull****. Both parents get a say on what
happens with children for some odd reason.

Not as equal to men.

The arent equal if they are the only ones with any say on what happens.

On 20/02/2021 23:09, Rod Speed wrote:


"Joel" wrote in message
...
"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.

Just as true before it is born.

At what point would you call it murder, from the sperm on the outside of
the egg to say 20 weeks?

"Rod Speed" wrote:
"Joel" wrote in message
.. .
"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.

Just as true before it is born.


Only when it's done late enough in pregnancy that the baby may be
viable, and there is no risk to the mother's health or life. Earlier
in pregnancy, it is definitely not equivalent to murder.

--
Joel Crump

On 20/02/2021 22:54, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.

So you finally accept it has the effect of discouraging implantation.

We have moved a long way!

discouraging implantation.

"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.

Mindless bull****. Both parents get a say on what
happens with children for some odd reason.


Only the woman can make the decision about abortion, but she is free
to talk to the man about it before and after the child is conceived.


Not as equal to men.

The arent equal if they are the only ones with any say on what happens.


The man can talk to her about what she'd do if she becomes pregnant,
before agreeing to have sex with her. If he fails to do that, and she
aborts his child, that's what he gets for being so obsessed with sex.

--
Joel Crump

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2021 22:54, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.

So you finally accept it has the effect of discouraging implantation.

Thats not a PURPOSE, stupid.

We have moved a long way!

Nope.

discouraging implantation.

"Joel" wrote in message
...
"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.

Mindless bull****. Both parents get a say on what
happens with children for some odd reason.


Only the woman can make the decision about abortion,

Wrong, as always. The state does too.

but she is free to talk to the man about
it before and after the child is conceived.

And he is free to be included in the
decision on murdering the child.

Not as equal to men.

The arent equal if they are the only
ones with any say on what happens.

The man can talk to her about what she'd do if she
becomes pregnant, before agreeing to have sex with her.

But there is no guaranteed that the circumstances wont change,

If he fails to do that, and she aborts his child, that's
what he gets for being so obsessed with sex.

There is no obsession involved.

"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.

Mindless bull****. Both parents get a say on what
happens with children for some odd reason.

Only the woman can make the decision about abortion,

Wrong, as always. The state does too.


Maybe you like the state making personal decisions for you, not
everyone feels that way.


but she is free to talk to the man about
it before and after the child is conceived.

And he is free to be included in the
decision on murdering the child.


It's not murder, and the man's input is only as relevant as the woman
makes it.


Not as equal to men.

The arent equal if they are the only
ones with any say on what happens.

The man can talk to her about what she'd do if she
becomes pregnant, before agreeing to have sex with her.

But there is no guaranteed that the circumstances wont change,


Yep, well, then don't have sex.


If he fails to do that, and she aborts his child, that's
what he gets for being so obsessed with sex.

There is no obsession involved.


Sure there is, he couldn't keep his pants on long enough to talk about
the consequences of having sex. That's on him.

--
Joel Crump

In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 20 Feb 2021 12:41:24 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 19/02/2021 22:22, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 19 Feb 2021 18:39:42 -0000, "Commander
Kinsey" wrote:

Scotland and Canada are (thinking of) changing to "opt out" for organ donation. Why? Why not just make it mandatory? You're dead, you don't need those organs. Why waste the doctor's time on paperwork? Why murder someone after your death who could have been saved by your body parts? And no I don’t care if you have some crazy religion.

Not only that, someone should go through all the caskets removing any
jewelry that might have been foolishly buried with you or your fellow
dead poeple.

In my mother-in-law's case, that was supposed to happen, but didn't. My
wife had always said that she wasn't bothered about anything else, but
she wanted her parents rings when they died. She has her father's, but
the undertaker made a mistake, didn't record a note to remove the rings
and buried her mother's with her.

That is a shame.

I wasn't thinking of that. I had in mind some govenment guy who could
go through caskets even when they wanted to be buried with their
jewelry.

I carried a kidney donor card since 1969, 52 years, and now I carry an
organ donor card, but I still think it's grave robbing to take organs
from people who didn't agree to it in advance and whose next of kin
doesn't authorize it.

(I'm also a registered bone marrow donor, but they never called me and
now they say I'm too old. My marrow seems to be working for me, so I
don't know why it wouldn't be good for someone else. )

On 20/02/2021 23:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2021 22:54, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.

So you finally accept it has the effect of discouraging implantation.

Thats not a PURPOSE, stupid.

Ok, then you accept copper in an IUD has the effect of discouraging
implantation

We have moved a long way!

Nope.

It seems we have.

discouraging implantation.

On 20/02/2021 23:53, Rod Speed wrote:


"Joel" wrote in message
...
"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.

Mindless bull****. Both parents get a say on what
happens with children for some odd reason.


Only the woman can make the decision about abortion,

Wrong, as always. The state does too.

Do you live in China. That would explain your responses.

but she is free to talk to the man about
it before and after the child is conceived.

And he is free to be included in the
decision on murdering the child.

It's quite rare for a father to want to murder his child. I guess life
in gaol is one disincentive.

Not as equal to men.

The arent equal if they are the only
ones with any say on what happens.

The man can talk to her about what she'd do if she
becomes pregnant, before agreeing to have sex with her.

But there is no guaranteed that the circumstances wont change,

If he fails to do that, and she aborts his child, that's
what he gets for being so obsessed with sex.

There is no obsession involved.

I take it you showed little interest in sex?

On 20/02/2021 22:51, Rod Speed wrote:


"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
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.

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.

So you always approved the use of contraceptives that are not foolproof
and stop the implantation of a formed embryo.

You should have made your position clearer.

Joel wrote
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.

Mindless bull****. Both parents get a say on what
happens with children for some odd reason.

Only the woman can make the decision about abortion,

Wrong, as always. The state does too.

Maybe you like the state making personal
decisions for you, not everyone feels that way.

Most do with crimes like murder for some odd reason.

And with what happens with the child after
it is born too, again for some odd reason.

but she is free to talk to the man about
it before and after the child is conceived.

And he is free to be included in the
decision on murdering the child.

It's not murder,

Corse it is when the child is killed.

and the man's input is only as
relevant as the woman makes it.

Wrong, as always.

Not as equal to men.

They arent equal if they are the only
ones with any say on what happens.

The man can talk to her about what she'd do if she
becomes pregnant, before agreeing to have sex with her.

But there is no guaranteed that the circumstances won't change,

Yep, well, then don't have sex.

Or use contraception.

If he fails to do that, and she aborts his child, that's
what he gets for being so obsessed with sex.

There is no obsession involved.

Sure there is, he couldn't keep his pants on long
enough to talk about the consequences of having sex.

Mindlessly silly and if this **** is the best you can
manage, there isnt any point in discussing it with you.

That's on him.

Why just him ? That's sexist.

"micky" wrote in message
...
In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 20 Feb 2021 12:41:24 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 19/02/2021 22:22, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 19 Feb 2021 18:39:42 -0000, "Commander
Kinsey" wrote:

Scotland and Canada are (thinking of) changing to "opt out" for organ
donation. Why? Why not just make it mandatory? You're dead, you
don't need those organs. Why waste the doctor's time on paperwork?
Why murder someone after your death who could have been saved by your
body parts? And no I don't care if you have some crazy religion.

Not only that, someone should go through all the caskets removing any
jewelry that might have been foolishly buried with you or your fellow
dead poeple.

In my mother-in-law's case, that was supposed to happen, but didn't. My
wife had always said that she wasn't bothered about anything else, but
she wanted her parents rings when they died. She has her father's, but
the undertaker made a mistake, didn't record a note to remove the rings
and buried her mother's with her.

That is a shame.

I wasn't thinking of that. I had in mind some govenment guy who could
go through caskets even when they wanted to be buried with their
jewelry.

I carried a kidney donor card since 1969, 52 years, and now I carry an
organ donor card, but I still think it's grave robbing to take organs
from people who didn't agree to it in advance and whose next of kin
doesn't authorize it.

(I'm also a registered bone marrow donor, but they never called me and
now they say I'm too old. My marrow seems to be working for me, so I
don't know why it wouldn't be good for someone else. )

Its passed its best by date.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2021 23:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2021 22:54, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.

So you finally accept it has the effect of discouraging implantation.

Thats not a PURPOSE, stupid.

Ok, then you accept copper in an IUD has the effect of discouraging
implantation

Nope, because it prevents fertilisation.

We have moved a long way!

Nope.

It seems we have.

Like I keep telling you, you need to get
your seems machinery seen to, BAD.

discouraging implantation.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2021 23:53, Rod Speed wrote:


"Joel" wrote in message
...
"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.

Mindless bull****. Both parents get a say on what
happens with children for some odd reason.


Only the woman can make the decision about abortion,

Wrong, as always. The state does too.

Do you live in China.

Nope.

That would explain your responses.

Nope, thats true in every modern first and second world country.

but she is free to talk to the man about
it before and after the child is conceived.

And he is free to be included in the
decision on murdering the child.

It's quite rare for a father to want to murder his child.

Yes, its much more common for the woman to do that.

I guess life in gaol is one disincentive.

Doesnt seem to be with the women who do it.

Not as equal to men.

The arent equal if they are the only
ones with any say on what happens.

The man can talk to her about what she'd do if she
becomes pregnant, before agreeing to have sex with her.

But there is no guaranteed that the circumstances wont change,

If he fails to do that, and she aborts his child, that's
what he gets for being so obsessed with sex.

There is no obsession involved.

I take it you showed little interest in sex?

Interest isnt the same as obsession, ****wit.

"Rod Speed" wrote:

Only the woman can make the decision about abortion,

Wrong, as always. The state does too.

Maybe you like the state making personal
decisions for you, not everyone feels that way.

Most do with crimes like murder for some odd reason.

And with what happens with the child after
it is born too, again for some odd reason.


You're just comparing irrelevant things. Abortion before the child is
viable isn't murder, nor are laws to protect children relevant to
abortion.


but she is free to talk to the man about
it before and after the child is conceived.

And he is free to be included in the
decision on murdering the child.

It's not murder,

Corse it is when the child is killed.


It's not a child until it's viable outside the womb.


and the man's input is only as
relevant as the woman makes it.

Wrong, as always.


Tell that to the lawmakers, who agree with me.


The man can talk to her about what she'd do if she
becomes pregnant, before agreeing to have sex with her.

But there is no guaranteed that the circumstances won't change,

Yep, well, then don't have sex.

Or use contraception.


That's not 100% effective, the conversation about pregnancy needs to
be had when heterosexuals have sex. If the man is in too much of a
hurry to ****, he forfeits any input he might've had on what would be
done about pregnancy.


If he fails to do that, and she aborts his child, that's
what he gets for being so obsessed with sex.

There is no obsession involved.

Sure there is, he couldn't keep his pants on long
enough to talk about the consequences of having sex.

Mindlessly silly and if this **** is the best you can
manage, there isnt any point in discussing it with you.


Feel free to shut the hell up, then, it's not like I have nothing
better to do than argue with your idiocy.


That's on him.

Why just him ? That's sexist.


Because that's the point at which he would have input. Once she's
pregnant, he no longer does, unless she allows him to.

--
Joel Crump

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2021 22:51, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.

So you always approved the use of contraceptives

Yes and said so repeatedly.

You should have made your position clearer.

I did.

On 21/02/2021 00:32, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2021 23:53, Rod Speed wrote:


"Joel" wrote in message
...
"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.

Mindless bull****. Both parents get a say on what
happens with children for some odd reason.


Only the woman can make the decision about abortion,

Wrong, as always. The state does too.

Do you live in China.

Nope.

That would explain your responses.

Nope, thats true in every modern first and second world country.

I don't know of any other state that decrees whether a women should be
subjected to an abortion. Perhaps this is the Aussie experience or a
claim by a fanatic, demented old man?

but she is free to talk to the man about
it before and after the child is conceived.

And he is free to be included in the
decision on murdering the child.

It's quite rare for a father to want to murder his child.

Yes, its much more common for the woman to do that.

Its quite rare for a women to kill a child.

I guess life in gaol is one disincentive.

Doesnt seem to be with the women who do it.

Please do cite the statistics of prosecutions where a child is murdered
by women. Otherwise you're talking nonsense.

Not as equal to men.

The arent equal if they are the only
ones with any say on what happens.

The man can talk to her about what she'd do if she
becomes pregnant, before agreeing to have sex with her.

But there is no guaranteed that the circumstances wont change,

If he fails to do that, and she aborts his child, that's
what he gets for being so obsessed with sex.

There is no obsession involved.

I take it you showed little interest in sex?

Interest isnt the same as obsession, ****wit.

Right. So you just showed an interest.

On 21/02/2021 00:24, Rod Speed wrote:
Joel wrote
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.

Mindless bull****. Both parents get a say on what
happens with children for some odd reason.

Only the woman can make the decision about abortion,

Wrong, as always. The state does too.

Maybe you like the state making personal decisions for you, not
everyone feels that way.

Most do with crimes like murder for some odd reason.
And with what happens with the child after it is born too, again for
some odd reason.

For the most of us it is far from 'odd'.

but she is free to talk to the man about
it before and after the child is conceived.

And he is free to be included in the
decision on murdering the child.

It's not murder,

Corse it is when the child is killed.

If we are talking of murder that attracts prosecutions, then we seem to
be singing the same hymn sheet after all.

and the man's input is only as relevant as the woman makes it.

Wrong, as always.
Not as equal to men.

They arent equal if they are the only
ones with any say on what happens.

The man can talk to her about what she'd do if she
becomes pregnant, before agreeing to have sex with her.

But there is no guaranteed that the circumstances won't change,

Yep, well, then don't have sex.

Or use contraception.
If he fails to do that, and she aborts his child, that's
what he gets for being so obsessed with sex.

There is no obsession involved.

Sure there is, he couldn't keep his pants on long enough to talk about
the consequences of having sex.

Mindlessly silly and if this **** is the best you can manage, there isnt
any point in discussing it with you.

So we have final acceptance that your argument and position is flawed?

That's on him.

Why just him ?Â* That's sexist.

Joel wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Only the woman can make the decision about abortion,

Wrong, as always. The state does too.

Maybe you like the state making personal
decisions for you, not everyone feels that way.

Most do with crimes like murder for some odd reason.

And with what happens with the child after
it is born too, again for some odd reason.

You're just comparing irrelevant things.

I am comparing nothing. And since this **** is the best you can
manage, here goes the chain on the rest of your even sillier ****.

You were warned.

On 21/02/2021 00:41, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2021 22:51, Rod Speed wrote:


"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
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.

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.

So you always approved the use of contraceptives

Yes and said so repeatedly.

Oh good so you approve of ones that also prevent implantation such as
estrogen birth control pills or combined pill, or copper IUDs. Not much
different to the morning after pill.

You should have made your position clearer.

I did.

Yep, clear as mud.

"Rod Speed" wrote:

Maybe you like the state making personal
decisions for you, not everyone feels that way.

Most do with crimes like murder for some odd reason.

And with what happens with the child after
it is born too, again for some odd reason.

You're just comparing irrelevant things.

I am comparing nothing. And since this **** is the best you can
manage, here goes the chain on the rest of your even sillier ****.

You were warned.


In other words, you lost the debate. Thanks for admitting it, even
though you should have hours ago.

--
Joel Crump

On 21/02/2021 00:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2021 22:58, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2021 22:32, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote

snip

**** all abortions are after rape, so that is a classic bogus
argument.

Does this mean you approve of abortions in these rare occasions?

Nope.

So you are forcing a woman to 9 months of pregnancy, risky delivery

There is **** all risk with a delivery now.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...e-giving-birth


I guess you think 303,000 women dying each year in childbirth

Thats the 3rd world, ****wit.

So you accept there is a risk. Perhaps it is specifically because of
abortion in the UK and developed countries there are fewer deaths.

Yes, it is the world. So in summary, are abortions more appropriate in
3rd world countries?

Only backward countries criminalise abortions.

And since this **** is the best you can manage,
here goes the chain on the rest of your even
sillier andÂ* even more flagrantly dishonest ****.

It is dishonest to say that all contraceptives do not affect
implantation of a healthy viable embryo, albeit an unwanted one.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2021 00:32, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2021 23:53, Rod Speed wrote:


"Joel" wrote in message
...
"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.

Mindless bull****. Both parents get a say on what
happens with children for some odd reason.


Only the woman can make the decision about abortion,

Wrong, as always. The state does too.

Do you live in China.

Nope.

That would explain your responses.

Nope, thats true in every modern first and second world country.

I don't know of any other state that decrees whether a women should be
subjected to an abortion.

That wasnt what was being discussed.

What was being discussed was when the woman
is ALLOWED to have an abortion, ****wit.

And since this **** is the best you can manage, here
goes the chain on the rest of your even sillier ****.

"Joel" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Maybe you like the state making personal
decisions for you, not everyone feels that way.

Most do with crimes like murder for some odd reason.

And with what happens with the child after
it is born too, again for some odd reason.

You're just comparing irrelevant things.

I am comparing nothing. And since this **** is the best you can
manage, here goes the chain on the rest of your even sillier ****.

You were warned.

In other words, you lost the debate.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 21/02/2021 00:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2021 22:58, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2021 22:32, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote

snip

**** all abortions are after rape, so that is a classic bogus
argument.

Does this mean you approve of abortions in these rare occasions?

Nope.

So you are forcing a woman to 9 months of pregnancy, risky delivery

There is **** all risk with a delivery now.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...e-giving-birth

I guess you think 303,000 women dying each year in childbirth

Thats the 3rd world, ****wit.

reams of your **** flushed where it belongs

Perhaps it is specifically because of abortion in the UK and developed
countries there are fewer deaths.

We know thats not true because the childbirth risk is
just as low in the first and second world countrys that
dont allow abortion.

And since this mindless **** is the best you can manage,
here goes the chain on the rest of your even sillier ****.

"Rod Speed" wrote:

You're just comparing irrelevant things.

I am comparing nothing. And since this **** is the best you can
manage, here goes the chain on the rest of your even sillier ****.

You were warned.

In other words, you lost the debate.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.


Nope, you're running away from the debate, because your arguments
sucked, and you lost.

--
Joel Crump

"Joel" wrote in message
news
"Rod Speed" wrote:

You're just comparing irrelevant things.

I am comparing nothing. And since this **** is the best you can
manage, here goes the chain on the rest of your even sillier ****.

You were warned.

In other words, you lost the debate.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

Nope,

Yep.

reams of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasy flushed where it belongs

On 02/20/2021 11:44 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 18:28:28 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/20/2021 01:58 AM, Jimmy Stewart ... wrote:
On 19/02/2021 19:03, Jimmy Stewart ... wrote:
On 19/02/2021 18:39, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Scotland and Canada are (thinking of) changing to "opt out" for organ
donation. Why? Why not just make it mandatory? You're dead, you
don't need those organs. Why waste the doctor's time on paperwork?
Why murder someone after your death who could have been saved by your
body parts? And no I dont care if you have some crazy religion.

not just thinking

https://www.organdonationscotland.or...caAp6cEALw_wcB


speaking as someone who has the liver of a 20 odd year old boy racer if
they don't want to live I do ......

Motorcycle riders are sometimes called organ donors but anybody waiting
for my spare parts has had a hell of a long wait.

You know what ****es me off? A car in a legally unroadworthy state
cannot drive on the road without you getting in trouble, but it's still
10 times safer than a motorbike.

Would it ramp your ire up a notch if I told you in this state
motorcycles don't need insurance? That registration is a one time
affair? You buy the bike and register it and the plates are good for as
long as you own it. I think that went into effect in 2000 so that last
time I forked over money to the state for my '98 Harley was 21 years ago.

On 02/20/2021 11:45 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

I went to school with one, the twit had a fight with a telegraph pole.
But he didn't reach 20. Well he probably reached 20mph, but not 20
years old :-)

When my ex called me on my birthday last year the conversation turned to
'how did we get so old?' She's been a medical disaster all her life and
my involvement with booze, bikes, and hot cars back in the day didn't
make either of us likely candidates to see 50.

I got a little saner over the years but she's like the Energizer Bunny.

On 02/20/2021 11:49 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 21:32:55 -0000, Snit wrote:

On Feb 19, 2021 at 2:00:50 PM MST, "Tim+" wrote
:

NY wrote:
Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news Scotland and Canada are (thinking of) changing to "opt out" for organ
donation. Why? Why not just make it mandatory? You're dead, you
don't
need those organs. Why waste the doctor's time on paperwork? Why
murder
someone after your death who could have been saved by your body
parts? And
no I dont care if you have some crazy religion.

Organ donation should still be optional, but with two provisos:

- the assumption is that unless you are on record as saying no, it
should be
presumed that you agree to donate

- your next of kin has no right to countermand your wishes and
withhold
their permission even though you have said that you want to donate:
their
permission should not even be sought



Legally they have all the rights. Once youre dead (or brain dead)
you have
no rights.

Tim

I think even Republicans should have rights.

You're too soft. I can imagine someone coming at you with a knife, and
instead of shooting them, you'd try to reason with them.

I would try to reach their hearts and minds. Double tap to the heart and
one in the head for insurance. Can't be too careful with all the body
armor around these days.

"Rod Speed" wrote:

I am comparing nothing. And since this **** is the best you can
manage, here goes the chain on the rest of your even sillier ****.

You were warned.

In other words, you lost the debate.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

Nope,

Yep.

reams of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasy flushed where it belongs


And you're still showing your cowardice, loser of the debate.

--
Joel Crump

On 2/20/2021 11:38 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


He's the type of nut who demands policies

I demand no policys.

based on his belief but doesn't offer a viable solution to the problem.

Another lie. The obvious solution to unwanted pregnancys is contraception.

They don't always work. Wise up.

In cases of rape or taking pregnancy precautions, He believes adoption
is the answer which forces a woman to carry a child she never asked
for which completely changes her hormones and body.

**** all abortions are after rape, so that is a classic bogus argument.

Of course, cause you're not a woman. Easy to say from your warped view.

It's easy for him to pass judgement to women cause he isn't one and
ill never experience what they do.

Dont need to experience it personally to realise that abortion is murder.

Wrong.


And I dont need to experience it personally to be able
to say that we shouldnt allow anyone to murder their
older children when they find that its a very annoying
brat that has ****ed up their life either.

Apples to oranges from one already born to a sperm cell, dummy.

On 2/20/2021 12:00 PM, Rod Speed wrote:



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.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

On Feb 20, 2021 at 3:48:27 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" 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.

It isnt and shouldn't be, just like it isnt and shouldn't be after the
brat has been born.

So you want to be able to make the choice for the woman. It is about
controlling woman to you. Got it.

--
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.

On Feb 20, 2021 at 3:58:38 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Does this mean you approve of abortions in these rare occasions?

Nope.

So you are forcing a woman to 9 months of pregnancy, risky delivery

There is **** all risk with a delivery now.

What would make you think this?!?!?


--
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.

On Feb 20, 2021 at 4:12:15 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Joel wrote
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.

Mindless bull****. Both parents get a say on what
happens with children for some odd reason.

But each person gets a say on what happens to their own body.



Not as equal to men.

The arent equal if they are the only ones with any say on what happens.


--
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.

On Feb 20, 2021 at 4:01:56 PM MST, "Joel" wrote
:

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.

And they are. If there are any exceptions in the US that can be verified I not
see the evidence.

--
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.