That would make sense if they did the same with cars.Â* Insurance is a
scam and should be got rid of.Â* In the UK, if you crash into me and
everyone agrees it's your fault, your premium will go up about £130 a
year, but mine will go up by almost the same, £110.Â* So what was the
point in the insurance?Â* It didn't protect me from your careless
driving!Â* A better way would simply be if you crash, pay for your own
damage.Â* If you're a safe driver, you'll be able to avoid the careless
ones.Â* If you have a more expensive car that costs more to repair, you
can afford it.
well said

Come to think of it, the same car a year earlier was a write off but not
a right off.Â* A woman (it's always a woman) reversed into the side of me
in a car park.Â* She bent the central pillar and dented both doors
severely.Â* Her foot had slipped off the clutch and she reversed
rapidly.Â* The insurance company inspected my car and said the damage was
more than the value of the car, so gave me the value of the car, £700.
I kept the car, bought my boss's car which was almost identical but
falling to bits for £70, and swapped the doors over, then bent the
pillar back with a sledgehammer.Â* £630 in my pocket due to stupid
insurance.
well done

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 23:53:59 +0000, Fredxx, the notorious, troll-feeding,
senile smartass, blathered again:


Go and do that yourself, ****wit.

I'm not the ****wit making the claim he can't back up with real numbers.

Right, you are just the ****wit who keeps feeding the troll, even though you
KNOW that he IS nothing but a trolling, attention-starved senile asshole!

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 07:00:15 +0000, Dimmy Stewart, the dim troll-feeding
senile idiot, blathered:


well said

Well fed again, troll-feeding senile asshole! tsk

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 07:01:55 +0000, Dimmy Stewart, the dim troll-feeding
senile idiot, blathered:


well done

Yeah, he baited you good again, troll-feeding senile asshole!

On 22/02/2021 03:56, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 5:19 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 22:46, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 3:33 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 18:35, Rod Speed wrote:

reams of your **** flushed where it belongs


You seem to hate them sufficiently where you would like to remove
the choice between an abortion and saving a woman's life vs the
alternative.


The majority of the time women have a choice to have sex or not.
When they choose to have sex, they should also take responsibility
for the aftermath.Â* Pregnancy is a well-known result of sex, so for
her to kill an innocent child, she commits murder by taking the life
of another innocent human being.

That's without the mental health aspects of carrying a baby after a
rape to full term.

Pregnancy from rape removes the premise of choice to have sex.Â* When
force removes ones choice to risk conception, the woman STILL has a
choice to save a life of an innocent child or to kill an innocent child.
Killing innocent children is still murder, although many people
believe in justifiable homicide.Â* Are you one of those who opt for
the latter?


That's a very big leap. I have already said I do not condone murder.
Why you would think so is beyond any reasonable person's comprehension.

You have repeatedly stated you approve of women killing their babies
because they should have control of their own bodies,

I have never, ever said that. Please read what I have said, not what you
think I have said.

It's an issue many people grapple with when it comes to pregnancy
from a rape.

Quite, which where abortion comes to the rescue of the victim.

A child is not responsible for how they were conceived, so why do you
condone killing an innocent child because of how it was conceived?

I have never, ever condoned the killing of babies. Please read what I
have said, not what you think I have said.

Snip this again before your response and it will show what a
sadistic monster you really are.

Sadistic monsters usually fall on the side of those who kill innocent
children.



Rod is a prime example of someone who hates women sufficiently to make
them, after rape, carry the resulting pregnancy to full term, make
them suffer childbirth and then expect them to give the child away,
through no fault of their own.


This issue is not about Rod and his views on rape or even abortion.

Good, we have established something.

On 2/22/2021 9:10 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 22/02/2021 03:56, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 5:19 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 22:46, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 3:33 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 18:35, Rod Speed wrote:

reams of your **** flushed where it belongs


You seem to hate them sufficiently where you would like to remove
the choice between an abortion and saving a woman's life vs the
alternative.


The majority of the time women have a choice to have sex or not.
When they choose to have sex, they should also take responsibility
for the aftermath.Â* Pregnancy is a well-known result of sex, so for
her to kill an innocent child, she commits murder by taking the life
of another innocent human being.

That's without the mental health aspects of carrying a baby after a
rape to full term.

Pregnancy from rape removes the premise of choice to have sex.Â* When
force removes ones choice to risk conception, the woman STILL has a
choice to save a life of an innocent child or to kill an innocent
child.
Killing innocent children is still murder, although many people
believe in justifiable homicide.Â* Are you one of those who opt for
the latter?


That's a very big leap. I have already said I do not condone murder.
Why you would think so is beyond any reasonable person's comprehension.


You have repeatedly stated you approve of women killing their babies
because they should have control of their own bodies,


I have never, ever said that. Please read what I have said, not what you
think I have said.

You believe women should be able to abort their children. What do you
think happens when they abort them? They already have control over
their bodies and they make choices to have sex and often get pregnant
from that choice. The problem with your reasoning is choice does not
include aborting innocent babies without also receiving the title of
baby killer.

You can't defend women's right to CHOOSE ABORTION without also condoning
the killing of innocent babies.


--
Maggie

On 22/02/2021 15:24, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:10 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 22/02/2021 03:56, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 5:19 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 22:46, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 3:33 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 18:35, Rod Speed wrote:

reams of your **** flushed where it belongs


You seem to hate them sufficiently where you would like to remove
the choice between an abortion and saving a woman's life vs the
alternative.


The majority of the time women have a choice to have sex or not.
When they choose to have sex, they should also take responsibility
for the aftermath.Â* Pregnancy is a well-known result of sex, so for
her to kill an innocent child, she commits murder by taking the
life of another innocent human being.

That's without the mental health aspects of carrying a baby after
a rape to full term.

Pregnancy from rape removes the premise of choice to have sex.
When force removes ones choice to risk conception, the woman STILL
has a choice to save a life of an innocent child or to kill an
innocent child.
Killing innocent children is still murder, although many people
believe in justifiable homicide.Â* Are you one of those who opt for
the latter?


That's a very big leap. I have already said I do not condone murder.
Why you would think so is beyond any reasonable person's comprehension.


You have repeatedly stated you approve of women killing their babies
because they should have control of their own bodies,


I have never, ever said that. Please read what I have said, not what
you think I have said.

You believe women should be able to abort their children. What do you
think happens when they abort them?Â* They already have control over
their bodies and they make choices to have sex and often get pregnant
from that choice.Â* The problem with your reasoning is choice does not
include aborting innocent babies without also receiving the title of
baby killer.

You can't defend women's right to CHOOSE ABORTION without also condoning
the killing of innocent babies.


According to your bible: 'The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes A
Living Being'

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of
conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact that
a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the formation of a
living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living human being.
According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until
after drawing its first breath.

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He €œbreathed into his nostrils the
breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being€�.
Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a
living being until after taking his first breath.

In Job 33:4, it states: €œThe spirit of God has made me, and the breath
of the Almighty gives me life.€�

http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/...a-living-being


Muggles! like most christians, you either don't know your bible or you
interpret what it says to suit what you want it to mean.

On 2/22/2021 9:37 AM, Bod wrote:
On 22/02/2021 15:24, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:10 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 22/02/2021 03:56, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 5:19 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 22:46, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 3:33 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 18:35, Rod Speed wrote:

reams of your **** flushed where it belongs


You seem to hate them sufficiently where you would like to remove
the choice between an abortion and saving a woman's life vs the
alternative.


The majority of the time women have a choice to have sex or not.
When they choose to have sex, they should also take responsibility
for the aftermath.Â* Pregnancy is a well-known result of sex, so
for her to kill an innocent child, she commits murder by taking
the life of another innocent human being.

That's without the mental health aspects of carrying a baby after
a rape to full term.

Pregnancy from rape removes the premise of choice to have sex.
When force removes ones choice to risk conception, the woman STILL
has a choice to save a life of an innocent child or to kill an
innocent child.
Killing innocent children is still murder, although many people
believe in justifiable homicide.Â* Are you one of those who opt for
the latter?


That's a very big leap. I have already said I do not condone
murder. Why you would think so is beyond any reasonable person's
comprehension.


You have repeatedly stated you approve of women killing their babies
because they should have control of their own bodies,


I have never, ever said that. Please read what I have said, not what
you think I have said.

You believe women should be able to abort their children. What do you
think happens when they abort them?Â* They already have control over
their bodies and they make choices to have sex and often get pregnant
from that choice.Â* The problem with your reasoning is choice does not
include aborting innocent babies without also receiving the title of
baby killer.

You can't defend women's right to CHOOSE ABORTION without also
condoning the killing of innocent babies.


According to your bible: 'The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes A
Living Being'

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of
conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact that
a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the formation of a
living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living human being.
According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until
after drawing its first breath.

This is someone's interpretation of Gen 2:7 you're quoting below.

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He €œbreathed into his nostrils the
breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being€�.
Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a
living being until after taking his first breath.

You're talking about God creating man. That is not the same as conception.


In Job 33:4, it states: €œThe spirit of God has made me, and the breath
of the Almighty gives me life.€�

http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/...a-living-being


This scripture has many interpretations.



Muggles!Â* like most christians, you either don't know your bible or you
interpret what it says to suit what you want it to mean.


You think you can use someone's interpretation of scripture to back your
personal view of life.

--
Maggie

On 22/02/2021 15:49, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:37 AM, Bod wrote:
On 22/02/2021 15:24, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:10 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 22/02/2021 03:56, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 5:19 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 22:46, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 3:33 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 18:35, Rod Speed wrote:

reams of your **** flushed where it belongs


You seem to hate them sufficiently where you would like to
remove the choice between an abortion and saving a woman's life
vs the alternative.


The majority of the time women have a choice to have sex or not.
When they choose to have sex, they should also take
responsibility for the aftermath.Â* Pregnancy is a well-known
result of sex, so for her to kill an innocent child, she commits
murder by taking the life of another innocent human being.

That's without the mental health aspects of carrying a baby
after a rape to full term.

Pregnancy from rape removes the premise of choice to have sex.
When force removes ones choice to risk conception, the woman
STILL has a choice to save a life of an innocent child or to kill
an innocent child.
Killing innocent children is still murder, although many people
believe in justifiable homicide.Â* Are you one of those who opt
for the latter?


That's a very big leap. I have already said I do not condone
murder. Why you would think so is beyond any reasonable person's
comprehension.


You have repeatedly stated you approve of women killing their
babies because they should have control of their own bodies,


I have never, ever said that. Please read what I have said, not what
you think I have said.

You believe women should be able to abort their children. What do you
think happens when they abort them?Â* They already have control over
their bodies and they make choices to have sex and often get pregnant
from that choice.Â* The problem with your reasoning is choice does not
include aborting innocent babies without also receiving the title of
baby killer.

You can't defend women's right to CHOOSE ABORTION without also
condoning the killing of innocent babies.


According to your bible: 'The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes A
Living Being'

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of
conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact
that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the
formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living
human being. According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person
with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

This is someone's interpretation of Gen 2:7 you're quoting below.

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He €œbreathed into his nostrils
the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living
being€�. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he
was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

You're talking about God creating man.Â* That is not the same as conception.


In Job 33:4, it states: €œThe spirit of God has made me, and the breath
of the Almighty gives me life.€�

http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/...a-living-being


This scripture has many interpretations.



Muggles!Â* like most christians, you either don't know your bible or
you interpret what it says to suit what you want it to mean.


You think you can use someone's interpretation of scripture to back your
personal view of life.

No, I quote bible verses.
The bible is cobbled together out of Greek myths. It's choc full of
contradictions and errors.

1000 CLEAR CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS IN THE BIBLE

MOST OF THE ARTICLES MENTIONED BELOW WERE COMPILED AND WRITTEN BY
CHRISTIANS,EX-PRIESTS AND SCHOLARS OF THE BIBLE.

https://wardoons.wordpress.com/debate/

On 2/22/2021 9:55 AM, Bod wrote:
On 22/02/2021 15:49, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:37 AM, Bod wrote:

According to your bible: 'The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes A
Living Being'

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of
conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact
that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the
formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living
human being. According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person
with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

This is someone's interpretation of Gen 2:7 you're quoting below.

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He €œbreathed into his nostrils
the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living
being€�. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he
was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

You're talking about God creating man.Â* That is not the same as
conception.


In Job 33:4, it states: €œThe spirit of God has made me, and the
breath of the Almighty gives me life.€�

http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/...a-living-being


This scripture has many interpretations.



Muggles!Â* like most christians, you either don't know your bible or
you interpret what it says to suit what you want it to mean.


You think you can use someone's interpretation of scripture to back
your personal view of life.


No, I quote bible verses.
The bible is cobbled together out of Greek myths. It's choc full of
contradictions and errors.

Anyone can quote bible verses.

--
Maggie

On 22/02/2021 16:02, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:55 AM, Bod wrote:
On 22/02/2021 15:49, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:37 AM, Bod wrote:

According to your bible: 'The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes A
Living Being'

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of
conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact
that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the
formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living
human being. According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person
with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

This is someone's interpretation of Gen 2:7 you're quoting below.

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He €œbreathed into his nostrils
the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living
being€�. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he
was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

You're talking about God creating man.Â* That is not the same as
conception.


In Job 33:4, it states: €œThe spirit of God has made me, and the
breath of the Almighty gives me life.€�

http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/...a-living-being


This scripture has many interpretations.



Muggles!Â* like most christians, you either don't know your bible or
you interpret what it says to suit what you want it to mean.


You think you can use someone's interpretation of scripture to back
your personal view of life.


No, I quote bible verses.
The bible is cobbled together out of Greek myths. It's choc full of
contradictions and errors.

Anyone can quote bible verses.

I note that you deleted the link to the 1000 contradictions.
No surprise there. You just don't want to read it.

On 2/22/2021 10:08 AM, Bod wrote:
On 22/02/2021 16:02, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:55 AM, Bod wrote:
On 22/02/2021 15:49, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:37 AM, Bod wrote:

According to your bible: 'The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes A
Living Being'

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of
conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact
that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the
formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a
living human being. According to the bible, a fetus is not a living
person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

This is someone's interpretation of Gen 2:7 you're quoting below.

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He €œbreathed into his nostrils
the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living
being€�. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects,
he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

You're talking about God creating man.Â* That is not the same as
conception.


In Job 33:4, it states: €œThe spirit of God has made me, and the
breath of the Almighty gives me life.€�

http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/...a-living-being


This scripture has many interpretations.



Muggles!Â* like most christians, you either don't know your bible or
you interpret what it says to suit what you want it to mean.


You think you can use someone's interpretation of scripture to back
your personal view of life.


No, I quote bible verses.
The bible is cobbled together out of Greek myths. It's choc full of
contradictions and errors.


Anyone can quote bible verses.



I note that you deleted the link to the 1000 contradictions.
No surprise there. You just don't want to read it.

I note you didn't respond to 'anyone can quote bible verses.'


--
Maggie

On 22/02/2021 16:15, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 10:08 AM, Bod wrote:
On 22/02/2021 16:02, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:55 AM, Bod wrote:
On 22/02/2021 15:49, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:37 AM, Bod wrote:

According to your bible: 'The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes
A Living Being'

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of
conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact
that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the
formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a
living human being. According to the bible, a fetus is not a
living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

This is someone's interpretation of Gen 2:7 you're quoting below.

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He €œbreathed into his
nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a
living being€�. Although the man was fully formed by God in all
respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first
breath.

You're talking about God creating man.Â* That is not the same as
conception.


In Job 33:4, it states: €œThe spirit of God has made me, and the
breath of the Almighty gives me life.€�

http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/...a-living-being


This scripture has many interpretations.



Muggles!Â* like most christians, you either don't know your bible
or you interpret what it says to suit what you want it to mean.


You think you can use someone's interpretation of scripture to back
your personal view of life.


No, I quote bible verses.
The bible is cobbled together out of Greek myths. It's choc full of
contradictions and errors.


Anyone can quote bible verses.



I note that you deleted the link to the 1000 contradictions.
No surprise there. You just don't want to read it.

I note you didn't respond to 'anyone can quote bible verses.'


Because it was a statement and you were just stating the obvious.

On 22/02/2021 15:24, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:10 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 22/02/2021 03:56, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 5:19 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 22:46, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 3:33 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 18:35, Rod Speed wrote:

reams of your **** flushed where it belongs


You seem to hate them sufficiently where you would like to remove
the choice between an abortion and saving a woman's life vs the
alternative.


The majority of the time women have a choice to have sex or not.
When they choose to have sex, they should also take responsibility
for the aftermath.Â* Pregnancy is a well-known result of sex, so for
her to kill an innocent child, she commits murder by taking the
life of another innocent human being.

That's without the mental health aspects of carrying a baby after
a rape to full term.

Pregnancy from rape removes the premise of choice to have sex.
When force removes ones choice to risk conception, the woman STILL
has a choice to save a life of an innocent child or to kill an
innocent child.
Killing innocent children is still murder, although many people
believe in justifiable homicide.Â* Are you one of those who opt for
the latter?


That's a very big leap. I have already said I do not condone murder.
Why you would think so is beyond any reasonable person's comprehension.


You have repeatedly stated you approve of women killing their babies
because they should have control of their own bodies,


I have never, ever said that. Please read what I have said, not what
you think I have said.

You believe women should be able to abort their children.

Wodney, lets make it clear, I have never said women can abort or kill a
human being which is capable of life outside the womb.

I have said on occasions, from rape in particular, women should not have
to carry to full term an unwanted pregnancy and undergo childbirth that
kills 300,000 women each year.

If you feel your morals trump life and welfare of women that can only
make you a fanatical monster.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 22/02/2021 15:24, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:10 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 22/02/2021 03:56, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 5:19 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 22:46, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 3:33 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 18:35, Rod Speed wrote:

reams of your **** flushed where it belongs


You seem to hate them sufficiently where you would like to remove
the choice between an abortion and saving a woman's life vs the
alternative.


The majority of the time women have a choice to have sex or not. When
they choose to have sex, they should also take responsibility for the
aftermath. Pregnancy is a well-known result of sex, so for her to
kill an innocent child, she commits murder by taking the life of
another innocent human being.

That's without the mental health aspects of carrying a baby after a
rape to full term.

Pregnancy from rape removes the premise of choice to have sex. When
force removes ones choice to risk conception, the woman STILL has a
choice to save a life of an innocent child or to kill an innocent
child.
Killing innocent children is still murder, although many people
believe in justifiable homicide. Are you one of those who opt for
the latter?


That's a very big leap. I have already said I do not condone murder.
Why you would think so is beyond any reasonable person's
comprehension.


You have repeatedly stated you approve of women killing their babies
because they should have control of their own bodies,


I have never, ever said that. Please read what I have said, not what you
think I have said.

You believe women should be able to abort their children.

Wodney,

Thats Muggles, ****wit.

lets make it clear, I have never said women can abort or kill a human
being which is capable of life outside the womb.

I have said on occasions, from rape in particular, women should not have
to carry to full term an unwanted pregnancy and undergo childbirth that
kills 300,000 women each year.

If you feel your morals trump life and welfare of women that can only make
you a fanatical monster.

On 2/22/2021 11:13 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 22/02/2021 15:24, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:10 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 22/02/2021 03:56, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 5:19 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 22:46, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 3:33 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 18:35, Rod Speed wrote:

reams of your **** flushed where it belongs


You seem to hate them sufficiently where you would like to remove
the choice between an abortion and saving a woman's life vs the
alternative.


The majority of the time women have a choice to have sex or not.
When they choose to have sex, they should also take responsibility
for the aftermath.Â* Pregnancy is a well-known result of sex, so
for her to kill an innocent child, she commits murder by taking
the life of another innocent human being.

That's without the mental health aspects of carrying a baby after
a rape to full term.

Pregnancy from rape removes the premise of choice to have sex.
When force removes ones choice to risk conception, the woman STILL
has a choice to save a life of an innocent child or to kill an
innocent child.
Killing innocent children is still murder, although many people
believe in justifiable homicide.Â* Are you one of those who opt for
the latter?


That's a very big leap. I have already said I do not condone
murder. Why you would think so is beyond any reasonable person's
comprehension.


You have repeatedly stated you approve of women killing their babies
because they should have control of their own bodies,


I have never, ever said that. Please read what I have said, not what
you think I have said.

You believe women should be able to abort their children.



Wodney, lets make it clear, I have never said women can abort or kill a
human being which is capable of life outside the womb.

Why do you qualify a woman's right to abortion as "a human being which
is capable of life outside the womb?" When women conceive, they refer to
themselves as having a baby.

Previously you said this:
"You seem to hate them sufficiently where you would like to remove
the choice between an abortion and saving a woman's life vs the
alternative."

You weren't referring to babies capable of life outside the womb. How
do you KNOW which babies qualify for life and which ones are worthless
to be killed and discarded?

I have said on occasions, from rape in particular, women should not have
to carry to full term an unwanted pregnancy and undergo childbirth that
kills 300,000 women each year.

Woman choose to have sex. Why do you think women should not take
responsibility for their own choices to HAVE sex? Why is it fine with
you that they kill an innocent child JUST BECAUSE they don't want it?
Every woman who kills an innocent child is NOT taking responsibility for
their own choices, but they are choosing instead to kill a living human
child. Those are the monsters who kill innocent babies for no other
reason but they don't want it.


If you feel your morals trump life and welfare of women that can only
make you a fanatical monster.


I'm a woman, and I've given birth to 3 children. Each pregnancy was
successively more difficult to the point of lengthy hospital stays and
near death. The children I carried were innocent, and they are now
grown adults. Sure, it was difficult to suffer thru such pregnancies,
but you don't know squat about the welfare of women, let alone have a
clue of what you're talking about on this topic.

--
Maggie

On 22/02/2021 18:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 22/02/2021 15:24, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:10 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 22/02/2021 03:56, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 5:19 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 22:46, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 3:33 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 18:35, Rod Speed wrote:

reams of your **** flushed where it belongs


You seem to hate them sufficiently where you would like to
remove the choice between an abortion and saving a woman's life
vs the alternative.


The majority of the time women have a choice to have sex or not.
When they choose to have sex, they should also take
responsibility for the aftermath.Â* Pregnancy is a well-known
result of sex, so for her to kill an innocent child, she commits
murder by taking the life of another innocent human being.

That's without the mental health aspects of carrying a baby
after a rape to full term.

Pregnancy from rape removes the premise of choice to have sex.
When force removes ones choice to risk conception, the woman
STILL has a choice to save a life of an innocent child or to kill
an innocent child.
Killing innocent children is still murder, although many people
believe in justifiable homicide.Â* Are you one of those who opt
for the latter?


That's a very big leap. I have already said I do not condone
murder. Why you would think so is beyond any reasonable person's
comprehension.


You have repeatedly stated you approve of women killing their
babies because they should have control of their own bodies,


I have never, ever said that. Please read what I have said, not what
you think I have said.

You believe women should be able to abort their children.

Wodney,

Thats Muggles, ****wit.

If it looks like Wodney, posts like Wodney, shows the same fanaticism as
Wodney, well you know the rest. Plus you have form.

lets make it clear, I have never said women can abort or kill a human
being which is capable of life outside the womb.

I have said on occasions, from rape in particular, women should not
have to carry to full term an unwanted pregnancy and undergo
childbirth that kills 300,000 women each year.

If you feel your morals trump life and welfare of women that can only
make you a fanatical monster.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 22/02/2021 18:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 22/02/2021 15:24, Muggles wrote:
On 2/22/2021 9:10 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 22/02/2021 03:56, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 5:19 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 22:46, Muggles wrote:
On 2/21/2021 3:33 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/02/2021 18:35, Rod Speed wrote:

reams of your **** flushed where it belongs


You seem to hate them sufficiently where you would like to remove
the choice between an abortion and saving a woman's life vs the
alternative.


The majority of the time women have a choice to have sex or not.
When they choose to have sex, they should also take responsibility
for the aftermath. Pregnancy is a well-known result of sex, so for
her to kill an innocent child, she commits murder by taking the
life of another innocent human being.

That's without the mental health aspects of carrying a baby after
a rape to full term.

Pregnancy from rape removes the premise of choice to have sex.
When force removes ones choice to risk conception, the woman STILL
has a choice to save a life of an innocent child or to kill an
innocent child.
Killing innocent children is still murder, although many people
believe in justifiable homicide. Are you one of those who opt for
the latter?


That's a very big leap. I have already said I do not condone murder.
Why you would think so is beyond any reasonable person's
comprehension.


You have repeatedly stated you approve of women killing their babies
because they should have control of their own bodies,


I have never, ever said that. Please read what I have said, not what
you think I have said.

You believe women should be able to abort their children.

Wodney,

Thats Muggles, ****wit.

If it looks like Wodney, posts like Wodney, shows the same fanaticism as
Wodney, well you know the rest. Plus you have form.

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

lets make it clear, I have never said women can abort or kill a human
being which is capable of life outside the womb.

I have said on occasions, from rape in particular, women should not have
to carry to full term an unwanted pregnancy and undergo childbirth that
kills 300,000 women each year.

If you feel your morals trump life and welfare of women that can only
make you a fanatical monster.

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 15:14:41 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH more of the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

On 2/21/2021 5:46 PM, Muggles wrote:



Pregnancy from rape removes the premise of choice to have sex.Â* When
force removes ones choice to risk conception, the woman STILL has a
choice to save a life of an innocent child or to kill an innocent child.
Â*Killing innocent children is still murder, although many people
believe in justifiable homicide.Â* Are you one of those who opt for the
latter?

It's an issue many people grapple with when it comes to pregnancy from a
rape.

Snip this again before your response and it will show what a sadistic
monster you really are.

Sadistic monsters usually fall on the side of those who kill innocent
children.



Paul Harvey often mentioned "abortion after the fact". He was referring
to children that die from neglect, abuse, other forms of suffering for
years after birth.

In the case of a child from rape, what happens to it after birth? Is it
accepted by the mother? Family? Adopted? Will that child have some of
the traits of the rapist father? Do you want to be a party to it if he
does?

Easy to sit back at your computer to say what you think is the right
solution but you are not a victim of rape. Nor am I so I'm not going to
judge what the victim does. You and I don't have to live with and care
for that unplanned and unwanted child.

On 2/23/2021 10:37 AM, Heywood wrote:
On 2/21/2021 5:46 PM, Muggles wrote:



Pregnancy from rape removes the premise of choice to have sex.Â* When
force removes ones choice to risk conception, the woman STILL has a
choice to save a life of an innocent child or to kill an innocent
child. Â*Â*Killing innocent children is still murder, although many
people believe in justifiable homicide.Â* Are you one of those who opt
for the latter?

It's an issue many people grapple with when it comes to pregnancy from
a rape.

Snip this again before your response and it will show what a sadistic
monster you really are.

Sadistic monsters usually fall on the side of those who kill innocent
children.




Paul Harvey often mentioned "abortion after the fact".Â* He was referring
to children that die from neglect, abuse, other forms of suffering for
years after birth.

So, abort innocent babies because at some point in the future they might
have problems or suffer in some way just like the rest of us? Kill
babies because someone might not want them?? Why not kill every unborn
child?


In the case of a child from rape, what happens to it after birth?Â* Is it
accepted by the mother? Family?Â* Adopted?Â* Will that child have some of
the traits of the rapist father?Â* Do you want to be a party to it if he
does?

Rape is an act of violence, and it's a BAD decision that some men make
in a string of bad decisions. You think punishing an innocent baby
because of what their future MIGHT be like is reasonable? Every human
birth has the same potential to turn out horrible human being OR that
human being can take responsibility for their own lives and make GOOD
decisions.

There's a movie called Minority Report that takes your mindset to the
ultimate end result.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/

You can't justify punishing ANYONE, and that includes innocent babies
because of a belief they MIGHT turn out bad as adults, or make bad
decisions. If that's the case, why not kill every unborn baby and
eliminate the entire human race, now.


Easy to sit back at your computer to say what you think is the right
solution but you are not a victim of rape.Â* Nor am I so I'm not going to
judge what the victim does.Â* You and I don't have to live with and care
for that unplanned and unwanted child.


I don't NEED to be a victim of rape to understand the emotions involved.
I'm a woman who has given birth to 3 children who are all now
responsible adults in their 30's. All 3 pregnancies were difficult, and
the second put me in the hospital for 10 days, while the third nearly
cost me my life.

What do you know about the pain and suffering of unplanned pregnancies,
or dealing with difficult decisions as to whether or not to continue a
pregnancy? I had many people encouraging me to abort my son because the
pregnancy was high risk. Spending weeks in a hospital clinging to life,
the healthcare workers told my husband to prepare to raise our 2
daughters alone.

You know nothing.

--
Maggie

On 2/23/2021 8:37 AM, Heywood wrote:
On 2/21/2021 5:46 PM, Muggles wrote:



Pregnancy from rape removes the premise of choice to have sex.Â* When
force removes ones choice to risk conception, the woman STILL has a
choice to save a life of an innocent child or to kill an innocent
child. Â*Â*Killing innocent children is still murder, although many
people believe in justifiable homicide.Â* Are you one of those who opt
for the latter?

It's an issue many people grapple with when it comes to pregnancy from
a rape.

Snip this again before your response and it will show what a sadistic
monster you really are.

Sadistic monsters usually fall on the side of those who kill innocent
children.



Paul Harvey often mentioned "abortion after the fact".Â* He was referring
to children that die from neglect, abuse, other forms of suffering for
years after birth.

In the case of a child from rape, what happens to it after birth?Â* Is it
accepted by the mother? Family?Â* Adopted?Â* Will that child have some of
the traits of the rapist father?Â* Do you want to be a party to it if he
does?

Easy to sit back at your computer to say what you think is the right
solution but you are not a victim of rape.Â* Nor am I so I'm not going to
judge what the victim does.Â* You and I don't have to live with and care
for that unplanned and unwanted child.

How many people want to raise or adopt a rapists kid?

On 2/23/2021 10:56 AM, Bob F wrote:
On 2/23/2021 8:37 AM, Heywood wrote:

Easy to sit back at your computer to say what you think is the right
solution but you are not a victim of rape.Â* Nor am I so I'm not going
to judge what the victim does.Â* You and I don't have to live with and
care for that unplanned and unwanted child.

How many people want to raise or adopt a rapists kid?

It ONLY takes one.

--
Maggie

On 2/23/2021 11:53 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/23/2021 10:37 AM, Heywood wrote:
On 2/21/2021 5:46 PM, Muggles wrote:



Pregnancy from rape removes the premise of choice to have sex.Â* When
force removes ones choice to risk conception, the woman STILL has a
choice to save a life of an innocent child or to kill an innocent
child. Â*Â*Killing innocent children is still murder, although many
people believe in justifiable homicide.Â* Are you one of those who opt
for the latter?

It's an issue many people grapple with when it comes to pregnancy
from a rape.

Snip this again before your response and it will show what a
sadistic monster you really are.

Sadistic monsters usually fall on the side of those who kill innocent
children.




Paul Harvey often mentioned "abortion after the fact".Â* He was
referring to children that die from neglect, abuse, other forms of
suffering for years after birth.

So, abort innocent babies because at some point in the future they might
have problems or suffer in some way just like the rest of us?Â* Kill
babies because someone might not want them?? Why not kill every unborn
child?


In the case of a child from rape, what happens to it after birth?Â* Is
it accepted by the mother? Family?Â* Adopted?Â* Will that child have
some of the traits of the rapist father?Â* Do you want to be a party to
it if he does?

Rape is an act of violence, and it's a BAD decision that some men make
in a string of bad decisions.Â* You think punishing an innocent baby
because of what their future MIGHT be like is reasonable?Â* Every human
birth has the same potential to turn out horrible human being OR that
human being can take responsibility for their own lives and make GOOD
decisions.

There's a movie called Minority Report that takes your mindset to the
ultimate end result.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/

You can't justify punishing ANYONE, and that includes innocent babies
because of a belief they MIGHT turn out bad as adults, or make bad
decisions.Â* If that's the case, why not kill every unborn baby and
eliminate the entire human race, now.


Easy to sit back at your computer to say what you think is the right
solution but you are not a victim of rape.Â* Nor am I so I'm not going
to judge what the victim does.Â* You and I don't have to live with and
care for that unplanned and unwanted child.


I don't NEED to be a victim of rape to understand the emotions involved.
Â*I'm a woman who has given birth to 3 children who are all now
responsible adults in their 30's.Â* All 3 pregnancies were difficult, and
the second put me in the hospital for 10 days, while the third nearly
cost me my life.

What do you know about the pain and suffering of unplanned pregnancies,
or dealing with difficult decisions as to whether or not to continue a
pregnancy?Â* I had many people encouraging me to abort my son because the
pregnancy was high risk.Â* Spending weeks in a hospital clinging to life,
the healthcare workers told my husband to prepare to raise our 2
daughters alone.

You know nothing.


No, it is you that know nothing. Sorry about you problems but my wife
has been through worse. It is not your job to be the moral dictator.

On 2/23/2021 2:16 PM, Heywood wrote:
On 2/23/2021 11:53 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/23/2021 10:37 AM, Heywood wrote:
On 2/21/2021 5:46 PM, Muggles wrote:



Pregnancy from rape removes the premise of choice to have sex.Â* When
force removes ones choice to risk conception, the woman STILL has a
choice to save a life of an innocent child or to kill an innocent
child. Â*Â*Killing innocent children is still murder, although many
people believe in justifiable homicide.Â* Are you one of those who
opt for the latter?

It's an issue many people grapple with when it comes to pregnancy
from a rape.

Snip this again before your response and it will show what a
sadistic monster you really are.

Sadistic monsters usually fall on the side of those who kill
innocent children.




Paul Harvey often mentioned "abortion after the fact".Â* He was
referring to children that die from neglect, abuse, other forms of
suffering for years after birth.

So, abort innocent babies because at some point in the future they
might have problems or suffer in some way just like the rest of us?
Kill babies because someone might not want them?? Why not kill every
unborn child?


In the case of a child from rape, what happens to it after birth?Â* Is
it accepted by the mother? Family?Â* Adopted?Â* Will that child have
some of the traits of the rapist father?Â* Do you want to be a party
to it if he does?

Rape is an act of violence, and it's a BAD decision that some men make
in a string of bad decisions.Â* You think punishing an innocent baby
because of what their future MIGHT be like is reasonable?Â* Every human
birth has the same potential to turn out horrible human being OR that
human being can take responsibility for their own lives and make GOOD
decisions.

There's a movie called Minority Report that takes your mindset to the
ultimate end result.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/

You can't justify punishing ANYONE, and that includes innocent babies
because of a belief they MIGHT turn out bad as adults, or make bad
decisions.Â* If that's the case, why not kill every unborn baby and
eliminate the entire human race, now.


Easy to sit back at your computer to say what you think is the right
solution but you are not a victim of rape.Â* Nor am I so I'm not going
to judge what the victim does.Â* You and I don't have to live with and
care for that unplanned and unwanted child.


I don't NEED to be a victim of rape to understand the emotions
involved. Â*Â*I'm a woman who has given birth to 3 children who are all
now responsible adults in their 30's.Â* All 3 pregnancies were
difficult, and the second put me in the hospital for 10 days, while
the third nearly cost me my life.

What do you know about the pain and suffering of unplanned
pregnancies, or dealing with difficult decisions as to whether or not
to continue a pregnancy?Â* I had many people encouraging me to abort my
son because the pregnancy was high risk.Â* Spending weeks in a hospital
clinging to life, the healthcare workers told my husband to prepare to
raise our 2 daughters alone.

You know nothing.


No, it is you that know nothing.Â* Sorry about you problems but my wife
has been through worse.Â* It is not your job to be the moral dictator.

You seem to believe your wife's issue was somehow worse than mine. Pain
and suffering is not something you can measure and compare so flippantly.

Morality only counts when you practice it despite you're individual
circumstances. There's no excuse for killing babies because it is
difficult to deal with a pregnancy, or giving up a child after it's born.

The innocent child did not commit any offense to deserve a death
sentence. Think about that for a while.

Selfishness abounds in the minds of people like you.


--
Maggie

Help stop the spread! Sign this petition!

http://chng.it/XqyYHGwj

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 21:43:59 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/21/2021 11:50 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Come to think of it, the same car a year earlier was a write off but not
a right off. A woman (it's always a woman) reversed into the side of me
in a car park. She bent the central pillar and dented both doors
severely. Her foot had slipped off the clutch and she reversed
rapidly. The insurance company inspected my car and said the damage was
more than the value of the car, so gave me the value of the car, £700.

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 21:43:59 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/21/2021 11:50 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Come to think of it, the same car a year earlier was a write off but not
a right off. A woman (it's always a woman) reversed into the side of me
in a car park. She bent the central pillar and dented both doors
severely. Her foot had slipped off the clutch and she reversed
rapidly. The insurance company inspected my car and said the damage was
more than the value of the car, so gave me the value of the car, £700.

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 21:48:03 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/21/2021 12:01 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

That reminds me of a theif's slogan: Spectacles, testicles, wallet and
watch.

That's a Catholic thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqXZ9YoRD50

Ah! That's where I heard it! They probably invented it.

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 21:48:03 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/21/2021 12:01 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

That reminds me of a theif's slogan: Spectacles, testicles, wallet and
watch.

That's a Catholic thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqXZ9YoRD50

Ah! That's where I heard it! They probably invented it.

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 21:42:04 -0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 21/02/2021 18:57, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:19:08 -0000, Max Demian
wrote:
On 19/02/2021 19:15, Commander Kinsey wrote:

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.

The partial liver I can understand, but how did the kidney physically
fit? Or did they install just the one, sideways?

People have a kidney transplant when both fail, and only have one
transplanted, as that's all anyone needs: if necessary it grows to a
required size.

But can it go sideways? Otherwise a large one won't fit in a small body.

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 20:00:59 -0000, Snit wrote:

On Feb 21, 2021 at 12:02:24 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 20:14:17 -0000, David Brooks wrote:

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?

Well you certainly can't implant my testicle in a woman.

Have you ever tried?

Is that a thing?

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 18:07:00 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/21/2021 02:36 AM, Jimmy Stewart ... wrote:
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. 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.
cool..just like my lecy scooter in the UK
Only you don't even have to register it....

They haven't figured out what to do with those here. I think the one
wheel electric skateboards are banned in the city but hoverboards and
other configurations are a grey area.. eBikes are banned on some of the
trails. Full sized electric motorcycles like the Zero are treated as
other motorcycles.

Around here we just ignore the law, I saw a group of teenagers on very large [1] dirtbikes, tearing around on pavements between open areas. A woman noticed I had just been on the phone to someone, so asked if I'd photograph them and call the police. I told her to go **** herself, they're just having a bit of fun, and I'm sure you're capable of stepping to one side.

[1] I know how heavy they are as I saw one later pushing one up a hill that had broken down.

On Mar 3, 2021 at 1:41:26 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 20:00:59 -0000, Snit wrote:

On Feb 21, 2021 at 12:02:24 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 20:14:17 -0000, David Brooks wrote:

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?

Well you certainly can't implant my testicle in a woman.

Have you ever tried?

Is that a thing?

I am NOT gonna look that up!

--
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 Mar 3, 2021 at 1:41:09 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 21:42:04 -0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 21/02/2021 18:57, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:19:08 -0000, Max Demian
wrote:
On 19/02/2021 19:15, Commander Kinsey wrote:

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.

The partial liver I can understand, but how did the kidney physically
fit? Or did they install just the one, sideways?

People have a kidney transplant when both fail, and only have one
transplanted, as that's all anyone needs: if necessary it grows to a
required size.

But can it go sideways? Otherwise a large one won't fit in a small body.

There is likely room for 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 Wed, 03 Mar 2021 21:12:22 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:


Is that a thing?

I am NOT gonna look that up!

Doing again what you can do best, abnormal senile ****, sucking unwashed
Scottish troll cock? BG

On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 21:12:58 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:


There is likely room for it.

A room is what you two abnormal sick swines need, **** the git!

On 3/3/2021 3:12 PM, Snit wrote:
On Mar 3, 2021 at 1:41:26 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 20:00:59 -0000, Snit wrote:

On Feb 21, 2021 at 12:02:24 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 20:14:17 -0000, David Brooks wrote:

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?

Well you certainly can't implant my testicle in a woman.

Have you ever tried?

Is that a thing?

I am NOT gonna look that up!


ROFLOL!!!

--
Maggie

On Wed, 03 Mar 2021 21:12:22 -0000, Snit wrote:

On Mar 3, 2021 at 1:41:26 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 20:00:59 -0000, Snit wrote:

On Feb 21, 2021 at 12:02:24 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 20:14:17 -0000, David Brooks wrote:

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?

Well you certainly can't implant my testicle in a woman.

Have you ever tried?

Is that a thing?

I am NOT gonna look that up!

At my first place of work (a university), a female postgrad student told me she couldn't open a video. She used a mac, hence it was incompatible with everything, so I told her to forward it to me by email and I'd convert it. I played the video to make sure my PC could read it, and almost fell of my chair laughing. Then I showed it to my colleague and boss. Then I phoned her up pretending I couldn't convert it but she could watch it on my computer. She came into the tech's room and we all had a good laugh at her going bright red. It was a video her friend had sent her, which she thought was work related. It was in fact a man trampling on a guy's testicles in high heels.