On Feb 20, 2021 at 4:03:41 PM MST, "Joel" wrote
:

"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.


Rod Speed cannot figure out why murder is wrong?


--
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 4:05:58 PM MST, "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. Not as equal to men.


Right: it is about controlling women. Not acceptable.

--
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 4:18:26 PM MST, "Joel" wrote
:

"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.

How could it be? The claim makes no sense.

--
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.

"Joel" wrote in message
...
"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

Mario wrote
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.

**** all of the abortions are due to contraception failure.

Wise up.

Stupid down in your case.

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.

You have no ****ing idea if I am or not.

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.

Nope.

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.

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.

"Mario" wrote in message
...
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. 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.

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

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

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

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.


It depends on state law, but that is the law in at least most states.

--
Joel Crump

"Rod Speed" wrote:

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


laughs at the loser of the debate

--
Joel Crump

"Snit" wrote in message
...
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.

Nope, for the father to have a say like she
does just like he does after its been born.

It is about controlling woman to you.

Nope.

Got it.

Nope, you never do.

"Snit" wrote in message
...
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?!?!?

The medical stats. Radical concept I realise.

"Snit" wrote in message
...
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.

But the unborn child isnt just one individual's body, stupid.

Not as equal to men.

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

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Feb 20, 2021 at 4:05:58 PM MST, "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. Not as equal to men.

Right: it is about controlling women.

Nope, its actually about the father getting a say on what happens.

Not acceptable.

True of your bull**** and lies.

Joel wrote

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

On Feb 20, 2021 at 9:05:50 PM MST, "Joel" wrote
:

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

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.


It depends on state law, but that is the law in at least most states.

Fewer than 1% of all abortions, and when they do happen it is generally
because of:

* Challenges in being able to get an abortion sooner -- so the right wingers
who add hurdles are a key reason for this edge case they claim to be concerned
with. These hurdles can be financial or having a clinic near by.

* Fetal anomalies: generally structural in nature, and when there is little
chance for viability. Yet right wingers want to force the woman to give birth
to a non-viable baby. It is cruelty.

* High risk to the pregnant woman. They promote death as they claim to be
pro-life.




https://www.kff.org/womens-health-po...-in-pregnancy/


https://www.parents.com/pregnancy/my...are-the-facts/


--
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 9:08:31 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
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.

Nope, for the father to have a say like she
does just like he does after its been born.

So it IS about controlling the woman. I am not for that.



It is about controlling woman to you.

Nope.

Got it.

Nope, you never do.


--
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 9:10:49 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
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.

But the unborn child isnt just one individual's body, stupid.

The woman has one body, and SHE gets to decide what she does with it. Not you,
just as she does not get to decide what you do with your body.



Not as equal to men.

They 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 9:09:33 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
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?!?!?

The medical stats. Radical concept I realise.

Ah, so you made it up out of ignorance. 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 9:13:05 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Feb 20, 2021 at 4:05:58 PM MST, "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. Not as equal to men.

Right: it is about controlling women.

Nope, its actually about the father getting a say on what happens.

In controlling the woman's body. The very thing you just said it was NOT
about. Make up your mind.



Not acceptable.

True of your bull**** and lies.


--
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 Sat, 20 Feb 2021 23:07:19 -0500, Joel wrote:

laughs at the loser of the debate

You are engaging with a TRUE (in the medical sense) sociopath!

--
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/

On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 18:47:13 -0700, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

Would it ramp your ire up

Would you FINALLY take that ******'s cock out of your senile Yankie gob,
senile gossip?

On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 18:57:29 -0700, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:


When my ex called me on my birthday last year the conversation turned to
'how did we get so old?'

Good grief! Do you have no shame at all, you troll-cock sucking senile
sicko?

On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 19:00:18 -0700, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

I would try to reach their hearts and minds.

Instead you keep reaching for the unwashed Scottish ******'s unwashed cock,
senile sucker of troll cock! BG

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:28:31 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Like I keep telling you, you need to get

Yeah, keep trolling those senile morons on these groups, you 86-year-old
senile sociopathic pest! It's obviously ALL you have in your senile abnormal
life! LOL

But they just don't catch on! LOL

--
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/

On 19/02/2021 19:14, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 19:03:39 -0000, 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.Â* Why?Â* Why not just make it mandatory?Â* You're dead, you don't
need those organs.Â* Why waste the doctor's time on paperwork?Â* 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


I knew someone would say that.Â* I live in Scotland a d know they've done
it (first sensible thing Sturgeon has ever done), but I read that Canada
was considering it.Â* I don't know if they have or not, so the brackets
was for Canada.
oh right

On 20/02/2021 18:28, 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.Â* Why?Â* Why not just make it mandatory?Â* You're dead, you
don't need those organs.Â* 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.
just Donors
well I survived riding since I was 16 as well .....

On 20/02/2021 18:44, 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.Â* Why?Â* Why not just make it mandatory?Â* You're dead, you
don't need those organs.Â* 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?Â* 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.
don't get that

On 21/02/2021 01:47, rbowman wrote:
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.Â* Why?Â* Why not just make it mandatory?Â* You're dead, you
don't need those organs.Â* 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?Â* 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.
cool..just like my lecy scooter in the UK

On 21/02/2021 08:32, Peeler wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 18:47:13 -0700, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

Would it ramp your ire up

Would you FINALLY take that ******'s cock out of your senile Yankie gob,
senile gossip?

doubt it

On 20/02/2021 18:45, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 08:58:12 -0000, 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.Â* Why?Â* Why not just make it mandatory?Â* You're dead, you
don't need those organs.Â* 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 ......

I went to school with one, the twit had a fight with a telegraph pole.
But he didn't reach 20.Â* Well he probably reached 20mph, but not 20
years old :-)
most sill boys write off a car in their first year of driving I know I
did at 17 in 1970 ...... made me a better driver though

On 21/02/2021 01:57, rbowman wrote:
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.Â* 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?'Â* 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.

young people think they are immortal and it will never happen to them ....

On 21/02/2021 09:04, Jimmy Stewart ... wrote:
On 20/02/2021 18:45, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 08:58:12 -0000, 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.Â* Why?Â* Why not just make it mandatory?Â* You're dead, you
don't need those organs.Â* 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 ......

I went to school with one, the twit had a fight with a telegraph pole.
But he didn't reach 20.Â* Well he probably reached 20mph, but not 20
years old :-)
most sill boys write off a car in their first year of driving I know I
did at 17 in 1970 ...... made me a better driver though
silly

On 21/02/2021 09:01, Jimmy Stewart ... wrote:
On 21/02/2021 01:47, rbowman wrote:
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.Â* Why?Â* Why not just make it mandatory?Â* You're dead, you
don't need those organs.Â* 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?Â* 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.
cool..just like my lecy scooter in the UK
Only you don't even have to register it....

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 08:58:08 +0000, Dimmy Stewart, the dim troll-feeding
senile idiot, blathered again:


oh right

The attention-starved trolling sociopath thanks you nicely for paying him
yet more attention, troll-feeding senile asshole!

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 09:00:32 +0000, Dimmy Stewart, the dim troll-feeding
senile idiot, blathered yet again:


don't get that

You don't get that the troll keeps baiting all you senile assholes for
attention, you mentally challenged senile dimwit?

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 09:04:25 +0000, Dimmy Stewart, the dim troll-feeding
senile idiot, blathered again:

most sill boys write off a car in their first year of driving I know I
did at 17 in 1970 ...... made me a better driver though

Take your meds, troll-feeding senile cretin!

On 20/02/2021 22:53, Rod Speed wrote:
"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 ?

Good idea as it avoids procedures such as amniocentesis that may
endanger mother and foetus. See what comes out and decide whether we
want it to live.

The difference between a late abortion and infanticide is birth, which
is an event *in* life, not its start.

--
Max Demian

On 20/02/2021 23:20, 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, but she is free
to talk to the man about it before and after the child is conceived.

What if the man will be expected to pay to raise a child which may not
be his?

It may be the result of adultery, or rape, and the mother might want to
keep it and the man not. Why should the man not have a say in this?

--
Max Demian

On 19/02/2021 19:15, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 18:58:09 -0000, Snit wrote:
On Feb 19, 2021 at 11:54:45 AM MST, "Joel" wrote
:
"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.


At least here in the U.S., they attempt to make contact with the
relatives of the dying person, before transplanting organs solely
based on the individual's identification card, which expresses that he
or she is an organ donor.* My driver's license indicates that i would
donate organs, but I'm pretty sure they'd still ask my family about it
if they were able to contact them.


Here in the US many people want body autonomy for their DEAD body, but
want to
deny it to living women.

Don't organs have to be of a similar size, so same sex and same age?

No; there is a singer called Angelica Hale who received a kidney from
her mother at age 4.

And a liver can be cut up and a part implanted if it's cut in the right
way, taking into account the blood vessels and ducts.

--
Max Demian

On 2/20/2021 10:58 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
Mario wrote
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.

**** all of the abortions are due to contraception failure.

Wise up.

Stupid down in your case.

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.

You have no ****ing idea if I am or not.

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.

Nope.

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.

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.

Abortion is legal.. you lose, dummy.