Australian Christian Lobby wants abortion banned here

[Nomen Nescio]

Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.

[Max]

On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>

Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.

[Fran]

And some clueless males who post on usenet are proof of the need for
retrospective abortion to be allowed to be applied......

[Fran]

On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:

Some clueless males who post on usenet are proof of the need for

[Max]

1. The day before a woman gives birth, what is in her uterus is a human
life.

2. On any day, if what's in the woman's uterus is a human life, then the
day before it is also a human life.

3. Therefore, for all days of the pregnancy, what is the in the woman's
uterus is a human life.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:

**Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman what
she may do with HER body. You should realise that giving birth is one of
the most deadly acts a woman can engage in.

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/maternal-deaths-in-australia/contents/maternal-deaths-in-australia

In any case, I fully respect a woman's right not to have an abortion, if
she wishes. Likewise, I respect a woman's right to have a safe abortion,
should she wish.

And again: Assuming you are a male, then you can stick your opinion
where the Sun don't shine. This is a woman's choice, not a male's. If a
woman chooses not to engage in the potentially deadly act of giving
birth, then she should be supported for her choice.

Fuckwits like you can take a running jump.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Max]

On 26/06/2022 7:31 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:
>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>
>>
>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>
>>
>
> **Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman what
> she may do with HER body. You should realise that giving birth is one of
> the most deadly acts a woman can engage in.
>
> https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/maternal-deaths-in-australia/contents/maternal-deaths-in-australia
>
>
> In any case, I fully respect a woman's right not to have an abortion, if
> she wishes. Likewise, I respect a woman's right to have a safe abortion,
> should she wish.
>
> And again: Assuming you are a male, then you can stick your opinion
> where the Sun don't shine. This is a woman's choice, not a male's. If a
> woman chooses not to engage in the potentially deadly act of giving
> birth, then she should be supported for her choice.
>

What about the rights of the unborn child? When do they get a say in
what happens?

[Fran]

If a fetus can't survive on it's own outside the uterus, it's just a
bunch of cells.

[Fran]

A bunch of cells that cannot survive outside the uterus doesn't get a
say as those cells don't rate highly on the sentient scale. Besides
which, there are more than enough dullards who seem to believe that they
have the right to speak on behalf of the bunch of cells and on behalf of
women.

[JONZ]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to
speak and remove all doubt!.
>
>

[JONZ]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Max]

A baby after birth can't survive on its own outside the uterus.

[Rod Speed]

Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> Max wrote

>> Nomen Nescio wrote

>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.

>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.

> Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman what
> she may do with HER body.

Mindless bullshit when it involves deliberately killing an unborn child.

> You should realise that giving birth is one of the most deadly acts a
> woman can engage in.

Then she should have considered that before getting pregnant, fuckwit.

> https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/maternal-deaths-in-australia/contents/maternal-deaths-in-australia

Just because some fool claims something...

> In any case, I fully respect a woman's right not to have an abortion, if
> she wishes. Likewise, I respect a woman's right to have a safe abortion,
> should she wish.

More fool you when it involves killing an unborn child.

> And again: Assuming you are a male, then you can stick your opinion
> where the Sun don't shine.

You in spades.

> This is a woman's choice, not a male's.

That's mindless bullshit too given that she didn't produce it unaided.

> If a woman chooses not to engage in the potentially deadly act of giving
> birth, then she should be supported for her choice.

Not when that involves killing an unborn child.

> Fuckwits like you can take a running jump.

You too.

[hgt]

More mindless bullshit. You can run the same mindless line
with a terminal illness after it is born.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 26/06/2022 8:14 pm, Max wrote:

**I will say once more:

If you are a male, then stick your opinions up your arse. This is a
matter for women. The foetus cannot survive without a woman. Therefore,
it is part of a woman's body. Therefore, it is a WOMAN'S choice. Not
your and not mine.

It is not an 'unborn child'. It is a foetus. It is a WOMAN'S choice.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 27/06/2022 4:32 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>> Max wrote
>>> Nomen Nescio wrote
>
>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>
>>>  Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>
>> Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman what
>> she may do with HER body.
>
> Mindless bullshit when it involves deliberately killing an unborn child.

**It is not an "unborn child". It is a foetus and cannot survive outside
a woman's body. If the foetus can survive outside a woman's body, then
that is a different matter.

>
>> You should realise that giving birth is one of the most deadly acts a
>> woman can engage in.
>
> Then she should have considered that before getting pregnant, fuckwit.

**I see. So a foetus that is the product of rape, incest, underage sex,
etc is irrelevant? Because that is what many US states now regard as
irrelevant.

>
>> https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/maternal-deaths-in-australia/contents/maternal-deaths-in-australia
>>
>
> Just because some fool claims something...

**It's a fact you moron. Giving birth is dangerous to women. A woman
should never be forced to engage in a life-threatening activity by men.

>
>> In any case, I fully respect a woman's right not to have an abortion,
>> if she wishes. Likewise, I respect a woman's right to have a safe
>> abortion, should she wish.
>
> More fool you when it involves killing an unborn child.

**It is not an "unborn child". It is a foetus and cannot survive outside
a woman's body. If the foetus can survive outside a woman's body, then
that is a different matter.

>
>> And again: Assuming you are a male, then you can stick your opinion
>> where the Sun don't shine.
>
> You in spades.

**Sure.

>
>> This is a woman's choice, not a male's.
>
> That's mindless bullshit too given that she didn't produce it unaided.

**True. She may have been raped.

>
>> If a woman chooses not to engage in the potentially deadly act of
>> giving birth, then she should be supported for her choice.
>
> Not when that involves killing an unborn child.

**It is not an "unborn child". It is a foetus and cannot survive outside
a woman's body. If the foetus can survive outside a woman's body, then
that is a different matter.

>
>> Fuckwits like you can take a running jump.
>
> You too.

**Fortunately, we are not in the US, where fuckwits like you get to
dictate what a woman may do with her body.

[Peter Jason]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 06:32:31 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 27/06/2022 4:32 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Max wrote
>>>> Nomen Nescio wrote
>>
>>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.

Haven't these women and men heard of contraception? Why not tie
women's tubes at birth & reconnect them when wanting babies.
Vasectomies for men at birth too.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Rape.

[Rod Speed]

Repeating that mindless shit changes nothing.

> It is not an 'unborn child'. It is a foetus.

Its both.

> It is a WOMAN'S choice.

Wrong, as always, its murder.

[Rod Speed]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 06:32:31 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 27/06/2022 4:32 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Max wrote
>>>> Nomen Nescio wrote
>>
>>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>
>>>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>
>>> Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman what
>>> she may do with HER body.
>> Mindless bullshit when it involves deliberately killing an unborn
>> child.

> It is not an "unborn child". It is a foetus

Its both.

> and cannot survive outside a woman's body.

Irrelevant. It can survive fine if not aborted.

> If the foetus can survive outside a woman's body, then that is a
> different matter.

Wrong, as always.

>>> You should realise that giving birth is one of the most deadly acts a
>>> woman can engage in.

>> Then she should have considered that before getting pregnant, fuckwit.

> I see.

You never do.

> So a foetus that is the product of rape, incest, underage sex, etc is
> irrelevant?

Nope, it is still an unborn child.

> Because that is what many US states now regard as irrelevant.

Irrelevant to your mindless shit.

>>> https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/maternal-deaths-in-australia/contents/maternal-deaths-in-australia
>> Just because some fool claims something...

> It's a fact you moron.

So is the fact that she should have considered that before getting
pregnant, fuckwit.

> Giving birth is dangerous to women.

She should have considered that before getting pregnant, fuckwit.

> A woman should never be forced to engage in a life-threatening activity
> by men.

She isnt when she chooses to fuck.

>>> In any case, I fully respect a woman's right not to have an abortion,
>>> if she wishes. Likewise, I respect a woman's right to have a safe
>>> abortion, should she wish.

>> More fool you when it involves killing an unborn child.

> It is not an "unborn child". It is a foetus

Its both.

> and cannot survive outside a woman's body.

Irrelevant. It will mostly survive without being aborted.

> If the foetus can survive outside a woman's body, then that is a
> different matter.

Wrong, as always.

>>> And again: Assuming you are a male, then you can stick your opinion
>>> where the Sun don't shine.

>> You in spades.

> Sure.

>>> This is a woman's choice, not a male's.

>> That's mindless bullshit too given that she didn't produce it unaided.

> True. She may have been raped.

And can avoid getting pregnant by being on the pill, stupid.

>>> If a woman chooses not to engage in the potentially deadly act of
>>> giving birth, then she should be supported for her choice.

>> Not when that involves killing an unborn child.

> It is not an "unborn child". It is a foetus

Its both.

> and cannot survive outside a woman's body.

Irrelevant. It will mostly survive without being aborted.

> If the foetus can survive outside a woman's body, then that is a
> different matter.

Wrong, as always.

>>> Fuckwits like you can take a running jump.

>> You too.

> Fortunately, we are not in the US, where fuckwits like you get to
> dictate what a woman may do with her body.

In fact we did just that for centurys.

And still dictate what a woman can do to the child once it has been born,
fuckwit.

[Ördög]

Rod Speed, the Alzheimer ridden angry old fart

/Auto-snip retarded hard right trolls and their disgusting dumps/

> fuckwit.

Yeah, the fitting sig for all your posts.

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil.

[Ördög]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

/Auto-snip retarded hard right trolls and their disgusting dumps/

> **It is not an "unborn child". It is a foetus and cannot survive outside
> a woman's body. If the foetus can survive outside a woman's body, then
> that is a different matter.

/snip/

> **Fortunately, we are not in the US, where fuckwits like you get to
> dictate what a woman may do with her body.
>

This is what happens when privileged fundamentalist old farts take
control of politics and the justice system.

They thrive for enforcing absolute conformity with their anachronistic
views of society that is better fitting for the 17th century than the
21st one.

Basically, if a foetus can not survive outside the uterus even with the
best medical care modern science has on offer it can not (nor should
not) be considered as an independent human life. No more than a
cancerous growth is regarded as an individual. The fact that that a
foetus carries the uncertain potential to eventually develop into a real
functioning human being does not change that fact. Until the point of
survivable birth the only human that is in existence is the woman who
caries that foetus as part of her body. And she has the absolute right
to decide what happens to her body.
Those theocratic and fundamentalist conservative fuckers who now trying
to force their will on society in the USA should be regarded no better
than similar creeps who run those theocratic shit-holes in Iran,
Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
The Xtian fundy Taliban is now full in swing.

BTW if wishful thinkers thought the fundamentalist low-lives in charge
in the US are now finished with their undermining of modern society they
could not be more wrong.
What's next on their agenda:

1 Banning contraception
2 Banning interstate travel for pregnant women.
3 Death penalty for abortion providers and the women who use their
services.
4 Banning gays (the death penalty is considered as an option)

But this list is far from complete...just read some history books on
17th century US society to expand your expectations of the upcoming
horror show. Specially after the Democrats get wiped out after the GOP
rigged 2022 midterm and the 2024 presidential elections.

Could something like this happen here in OZ?
If we are not careful to snip this in the bud politically speaking it
certainly will. We have to break all links between fundamentalist
religion and politics just as we have to strengthen democracy in order
to avoid going down the same horrible conservative path as the US does.

--
Your ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil.

[Ördög]

hgt trolled unrepentantly

/Auto-snip retarded hard right trolls and their disgusting dumps/

> Fran

>> If a fetus can't survive on it's own outside the uterus, it's just a
>> bunch of cells.

And so it is.

> More mindless bullshit.

...it is. All of it. All of that Xtian fundamentalist crap you and your
ilk spew into cyberspace covertly hoping to grab the full control over
what women may or may not do with their lives in society.

AND NOW FOAD!

[Ördög]

Rod Speed, the Alzheimer ridden angry old fart:

/Auto-snip retarded hard right trolls and their disgusting dumps/

> Wrong, as always,

I agree. I am yet to see anything ever posted by this anger management
disaster creep that is factual, well reasoned and correct.

> its murder.

Sure. You have managed to murder in your mind all remnants of human
compassion, decency, care and understanding for your fellow humans. Hard
right ego mania, reversion to your during childhood received ultra
conservative indoctrination and pathological sociopathy took full
control over your Alzheimer effected misfiring brain.

How sad!

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil.

[Max]

On 27/06/2022 9:37 am, Ördög wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> /Auto-snip retarded hard right trolls and their disgusting dumps/
>
>> **It is not an "unborn child". It is a foetus and cannot survive
>> outside a woman's body. If the foetus can survive outside a woman's
>> body, then that is a different matter.
> /snip/
>> **Fortunately, we are not in the US, where fuckwits like you get to
>> dictate what a woman may do with her body.
>>
>
> This is what happens when privileged fundamentalist old farts take
> control of politics and the justice system.
>
> They thrive for enforcing absolute conformity with their anachronistic
> views of society that is better fitting for the 17th century than the
> 21st one.
>
> Basically, if a foetus can not survive outside the uterus even with the
> best medical care modern science has on offer it can not (nor should
> not) be considered as an independent human life.

That's just your opinion. Others see that line as arbitrary.

So what if the foetus needs the mother's body to survive?

That's what being pregnant is about. If you don't want that, then don't
become pregnant.

> No more than a
> cancerous growth is regarded as an individual.

Cancer is not human DNA, so that is a false equivalence.

[Clocky]

That would have to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. A
baby can't survive outside of the uterus either as has already been
pointed out.

I think the issue isn't black and white. I don't think abortions are
something that should be performed after a certain time (5 months is
unreasonable for instance) but at the same time they should absolutely
be allowed in cases of rape and incest etc. early on in the pregnancy.

[Clocky]

On 26/06/2022 5:31 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:
>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>
>>
>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>
>>
>
> **Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman what
> she may do with HER body. You should realise that giving birth is one of
> the most deadly acts a woman can engage in.
>
> https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/maternal-deaths-in-australia/contents/maternal-deaths-in-australia
>
>
> In any case, I fully respect a woman's right not to have an abortion, if
> she wishes. Likewise, I respect a woman's right to have a safe abortion,
> should she wish.
>
> And again: Assuming you are a male, then you can stick your opinion
> where the Sun don't shine. This is a woman's choice, not a male's.

But to play devil's advocate, the woman is making a choice on behalf of
a life that's *not* hers.

If a
> woman chooses not to engage in the potentially deadly act of giving
> birth, then she should be supported for her choice.
>

What, and abortions don't carry risks?

That's a stupid argument.

> Fuckwits like you can take a running jump.
>


--

keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

[Clocky]

On 26/06/2022 5:31 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:
>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>
>>
>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>
>>
>
> **Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman what
> she may do with HER body. You should realise that giving birth is one of
> the most deadly acts a woman can engage in.
>
> https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/maternal-deaths-in-australia/contents/maternal-deaths-in-australia
>
>
> In any case, I fully respect a woman's right not to have an abortion, if
> she wishes. Likewise, I respect a woman's right to have a safe abortion,
> should she wish.
>
> And again: Assuming you are a male, then you can stick your opinion
> where the Sun don't shine. This is a woman's choice, not a male's.

But to play devil's advocate, the woman is making a choice on behalf of
a life that's *not* hers.

If a
> woman chooses not to engage in the potentially deadly act of giving
> birth, then she should be supported for her choice.
>

What, and abortions don't carry risks?

That's a stupid argument.

> Fuckwits like you can take a running jump.
>


--

[Clocky]

I'm not against abortions within reason but your arguments are stupid.
A foetus *is* an unborn child. A woman making an absolute choice for
that foetus is also making that choice to end the life of a child. That
separation between foetus and human life is only a construct created by
those who wish to distance themselves from the fact that an abortion is
killing a child. This whole "foetus can't survive without a woman" is
nonsense, a *baby* can't survive without human intervention either
which, in most instances, falls on the woman.

So if you're going to argue a point at least make it based on facts,
science and biological fact and not absolute statements based on fucking
nonsense.

[Clocky]

Awesome, so we will never be subjected to your mindless and idiotic
gibberish again.

Good news.

[Petzl]

Should there be a limit on how many abortions a female can have?
>
--
Petzl
If voting made any difference,
They wouldn't let us do it- Mark Twain

[Fran]

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just trolling?

[Fran]

On 27/06/2022 10:46 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 26/06/2022 6:21 pm, Fran wrote:
>> On 26/06/2022 12:50 pm, Max wrote:
>>> On 26/06/2022 11:58 am, Fran wrote:
>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:
>>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And some clueless males who post on usenet are proof of the need for
>>>> retrospective abortion to be allowed to be applied......
>>>
>>> 1. The day before a woman gives birth, what is in her uterus is a
>>> human life.
>>>
>>> 2. On any day, if what's in the woman's uterus is a human life, then
>>> the day before it is also a human life.
>>>
>>> 3. Therefore, for all days of the pregnancy, what is the in the
>>> woman's uterus is a human life.
>>
>> If a fetus can't survive on it's own outside the uterus, it's just a
>> bunch of cells.
>>
>
>
> That would have to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. A
> baby can't survive outside of the uterus either as has already been
> pointed out.

Yes, Max is indeed very dumb. He (and you) must be either trolling or
obtuse to be unable to figure out that a fetus that relies on a placenta
for survival and therefore cant' survive on it's own outside the uterus
is nothing more than just a bunch of cells.

> I think the issue isn't black and white. I don't think abortions are
> something that should be performed after a certain time (5 months is
> unreasonable for instance) but at the same time they should absolutely
> be allowed in cases of rape and incest etc. early on in the pregnancy.

I've got no issues with those.

[Fran]

Are they? Explain how a fetus can survive without a woman's body?
Explain why any male has any logical, scientific or biological say in
what decisions a woman makes about whether she carries a fetus to term?

[Fran]

On 27/06/2022 9:37 am, Ördög wrote:

> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> /Auto-snip retarded hard right trolls and their disgusting dumps/
>
>> **It is not an "unborn child". It is a foetus and cannot survive
>> outside a woman's body. If the foetus can survive outside a woman's
>> body, then that is a different matter.
> /snip/
>> **Fortunately, we are not in the US, where fuckwits like you get to
>> dictate what a woman may do with her body.
>>
>
> This is what happens when privileged fundamentalist old farts take
> control of politics and the justice system.

The US Supreme Court situation gets more interesting byt the day. did
you read this article?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-27/supreme-court-could-turn-to-marriage-contraception-post-abortion/101183828

> They thrive for enforcing absolute conformity with their anachronistic
> views of society that is better fitting for the 17th century than the
> 21st one.
>
> Basically, if a foetus can not survive outside the uterus even with the
> best medical care modern science has on offer it can not (nor should
> not) be considered as an independent human life. No more than a
> cancerous growth is regarded as an individual. The fact that that a
> foetus carries the uncertain potential to eventually develop into a real
> functioning human being does not change that fact. Until the point of
> survivable birth the only human that is in existence is the woman who
> caries that foetus as part of her body. And she has the absolute right
> to decide what happens to her body.
> Those theocratic and fundamentalist conservative fuckers who now trying
> to force their will on society in the USA should be regarded no better
> than similar creeps who run those theocratic shit-holes in Iran,
> Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
> The Xtian fundy Taliban is now full in swing.

Yep.

> BTW if wishful thinkers thought the fundamentalist low-lives in charge
> in the US are now finished with their undermining of modern society they
> could not be more wrong.
> What's next on their agenda:
>
> 1 Banning contraception
> 2 Banning interstate travel for pregnant women.
> 3 Death penalty for abortion providers and the women who use their
>   services.
> 4 Banning gays (the death penalty is considered as an option)

:-))) I suspect you might have read the ABC article I cited......

>
> But this list is far from complete...just read some history books on
> 17th century US society to expand your expectations of the upcoming
> horror show. Specially after the Democrats get wiped out after the GOP
> rigged 2022 midterm and the 2024 presidential elections.

Yep. It's becoming quite a barbaric society rather than a progessive one.

[Fran]

On 27/06/2022 10:49 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 26/06/2022 5:31 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:
>>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman
>> what she may do with HER body. You should realise that giving birth is
>> one of the most deadly acts a woman can engage in.
>>
>> https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/maternal-deaths-in-australia/contents/maternal-deaths-in-australia
>>
>>
>> In any case, I fully respect a woman's right not to have an abortion,
>> if she wishes. Likewise, I respect a woman's right to have a safe
>> abortion, should she wish.
>>
>> And again: Assuming you are a male, then you can stick your opinion
>> where the Sun don't shine. This is a woman's choice, not a male's.
>
> But to play devil's advocate, the woman is making a choice on behalf of
> a life that's *not* hers.

That just a good example of the pot calling the kettle black and
conveniently ignoring a basic fact that a bunch of cells that can't
survive without a placenta is no more a 'life' than a tumour. If you
are going to whine about the woman making such a choice then you should
be whining about males (such as yourself) trying to make decisions for
woman. In fact it's even worse than that, it's about imposing decisons
on woman.

[Rod Speed]

Ördög <newsgro...@hell.incorporated.biz> wrote

<reams of your mindless shit flushed where it belongs>

> BTW if wishful thinkers thought the fundamentalist low-livesin charge
> in the US are now finished with their underminingof modern society they

> could not be more wrong.

We'll see...

> What's next on their agenda:

> 1 Banning contraception

No chance, they aren't roman catholics, stupid.

> 2 Banning interstate travel for pregnant women.

Not even possible given their constitution.

> 3 Death penalty for abortion providers and the women who use their
> services.

No chance, you watch.

> 4 Banning gays (the death penalty is considered as an option)

No chance, you watch.

> But this list is far from complete...just read some history bookson
> 17th century US society to expand your expectations of theupcoming
> horror show. Specially after the Democrats get wiped out

Not gunna happen, you watch.

> after the GOP rigged 2022 midterm and the 2024 presidential elections.

You are pathetic.

> Could something like this happen here in OZ?

Nope, we have never actually been stupid enough to claim that
our constitution has anything whatever to say about abortion.

> If we are not careful to snip this in the bud politically speaking it
> certainly will.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> We have to break all links between fundamentalist religion and politics

Not even possible given what our constitution has to say about that.

> just as we have to strengthen democracy in order to avoid goingdown the

> same horrible conservative path as the US does.

Not a chance.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

You have to ask?

I'm sure if the OP had been anti-abortion Max would right now be
busy arguing with Rod Speed with a bunch of generic pro-abortion
arguments. His trolling has lost all imagination, but people are
still feeding it.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[Max]

On 27/06/2022 12:22 pm, Fran wrote:
> On 27/06/2022 10:49 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 26/06/2022 5:31 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:
>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> **Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman
>>> what she may do with HER body. You should realise that giving birth
>>> is one of the most deadly acts a woman can engage in.
>>>
>>> https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/maternal-deaths-in-australia/contents/maternal-deaths-in-australia
>>>
>>>
>>> In any case, I fully respect a woman's right not to have an abortion,
>>> if she wishes. Likewise, I respect a woman's right to have a safe
>>> abortion, should she wish.
>>>
>>> And again: Assuming you are a male, then you can stick your opinion
>>> where the Sun don't shine. This is a woman's choice, not a male's.
>>
>> But to play devil's advocate, the woman is making a choice on behalf
>> of a life that's *not* hers.
>
> That just a good example of the pot calling the kettle black and
> conveniently ignoring a basic fact that a bunch of cells that can't
> survive without a placenta is no more a 'life' than a tumour.

The difference is that a tumor doesn't have human DNA.

[JONZ]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HMmmm, the *expected* proof/truth of my poast!.
The same er, person that likes to squeak and squeal about saving
this (very) over populated planet, is an *anti abortionist*.

Why am I *not* surprised. <FBG>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[JONZ]

On 6/27/2022 11:06 AM, Clocky wrote:

[Fran]

On 27/06/2022 1:11 pm, Max wrote:
> On 27/06/2022 12:22 pm, Fran wrote:
>> On 27/06/2022 10:49 am, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 26/06/2022 5:31 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:
>>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman
>>>> what she may do with HER body. You should realise that giving birth
>>>> is one of the most deadly acts a woman can engage in.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/maternal-deaths-in-australia/contents/maternal-deaths-in-australia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In any case, I fully respect a woman's right not to have an
>>>> abortion, if she wishes. Likewise, I respect a woman's right to have
>>>> a safe abortion, should she wish.
>>>>
>>>> And again: Assuming you are a male, then you can stick your opinion
>>>> where the Sun don't shine. This is a woman's choice, not a male's.
>>>
>>> But to play devil's advocate, the woman is making a choice on behalf
>>> of a life that's *not* hers.
>>
>> That just a good example of the pot calling the kettle black and
>> conveniently ignoring a basic fact that a bunch of cells that can't
>> survive without a placenta is no more a 'life' than a tumour.
>
> The difference is that a tumor doesn't have human DNA.

So you'll be able to give a cite on your understanding of what
constitutes human DNA vs cancer DNA........

[Fran]

On 27/06/2022 12:46 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.legal Fran <gettingmoredelusiona...@nutcasewannabefran.com> wrote:
>> On 26/06/2022 10:45 pm, Max wrote:
>>> On 26/06/2022 8:21 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>> If a fetus can't survive on it's own outside the uterus, it's just a
>>>> bunch of cells.
>>>
>>> A baby after birth can't survive on its own outside the uterus.
>>
>> Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just trolling?
>
> You have to ask?

:-)) Sometimes I like to play with trolls and/or the dimwitted.

> I'm sure if the OP had been anti-abortion Max would right now be
> busy arguing with Rod Speed with a bunch of generic pro-abortion
> arguments. His trolling has lost all imagination, but people are
> still feeding it.

Did he ever have any imagination because I don't recall noticing it.

[Rod Speed]

> but at the same time they should absolutely be allowedin cases of rape

> and incest etc. early on in the pregnancy.

Why should that child be killed when it had no say in itw creation ?

[Rod Speed]

Its half his, fuckwit.

[Petzl]

All that has happened was removing a law made by SCOTUS.

Roe v. Wade was a "law" made by SCOTUS.
SCOTUS under constitution are not allowed to make laws.
So it has gone back to State legislation.
SCOTUS like it or lump it made the correct decision!
>
--
Petzl
Good lawyers know the law
Great lawyers know the judge

[Rod Speed]

Not a law, an interpretation of what their constitution has to say.

> Roe v. Wade was a "law" made by SCOTUS.

Nope, an interpretation of what their constitution has to say.

> SCOTUS under constitution are not allowed to make laws.

And they never did that.

> So it has gone back to State legislation.
> SCOTUS like it or lump it made the correct decision!

Yes.

[Daryl]

First I've seen any of this thread so I'm not sure which comment should
be attributed to who?
Its a rather difficult and complex subject and not as simple as the
"Christian Lobby" thinks, by banning abortion its likely that the total
death toll from abortion will increase, not just the unborn babies will
die but also many women will also die trying to give themselves an
abortion, my mothers mother died that way long before I was born.
I certainly don't know what the answer is but IMHO just banning abortion
entirely is not the answer, without a doubt the USA is the dumbest
country in the world and getting dumber by the minute.

--
Daryl

[Sylvia Else]

On 26-June-22 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>

They can want all they like. It's not going to happen.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

On 26-June-22 7:31 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:

>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>
>>

>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>
>>
>

> **Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman what
> she may do with HER body. You should realise that giving birth is one of
> the most deadly acts a woman can engage in.

That's how the UK got abortion on demand. The legislation says that an
abortion is lawful if the woman would be at greater risk if she went
through with the pregnancy than if she had an abortion.

Turns out, this is always the case.

Sylvia.

[Noddy]

On 27/06/2022 10:14 pm, Daryl wrote:

> First I've seen any of this thread so I'm not sure which comment should
> be attributed to who?

Same

> Its a rather difficult and complex subject and not as simple as the
> "Christian Lobby" thinks, by banning abortion its likely that the total
> death toll from abortion will increase, not just the unborn babies will
> die but also many women will also die trying to give themselves an
> abortion, my mothers mother died that way long before I was born.
> I certainly don't know what the answer is but IMHO just banning abortion
> entirely is not the answer,

I don't think it's a difficult subject at all. It should be every
woman's right to do what she wants with her body, and the religious
nutters and right to life fruitcakes can go set themselves on fire in
protest if they wish. Banning abortion is not only a ridiculously
draconian mentality, but also an insanely hypocritical one in any
environment where birth control is allowed to exist.

> without a doubt the USA is the dumbest
> country in the world and getting dumber by the minute.

What do you expect from a Nation that put an egotistical maniac like
Donald Trump in Whitehouse?

A couple of years ago an 11 year old Ohio girl who was repeatedly raped
fell pregnant to her attacker, and under the state's "heatbeat law" she
would be forced to deliver the baby. Similar crimes happen all over the
US, and similar laws are now being signed into effect by Governors all
over the country that would prevent under age girls who become pregnant
as a result of being raped from terminating the pregnancy and instead
forcing them to deliver the child.

This is as fucked up as any human rights abuses that backward arsed
groups like the Taliban impose on women, yet America looks at their
actions with a highly critical eye but sees nothing wrong with how it
handles itself. It's insane. As things stand now, a military assault
rifle has more rights than a pregnant 13 year old girl in Texas, and it
seems absolutely bizarre to me that the various US State Governments
would enforce the protect the "rights" of unborn children in the womb
but totally abandon them and leave them at the mercy of gun crazy
whackjobs by the time they're old enough to go to school.

The human race deserves extinction.






--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Noddy]

On 27/06/2022 10:14 pm, Daryl wrote:

> First I've seen any of this thread so I'm not sure which comment should
> be attributed to who?

Same

> Its a rather difficult and complex subject and not as simple as the
> "Christian Lobby" thinks, by banning abortion its likely that the total
> death toll from abortion will increase, not just the unborn babies will
> die but also many women will also die trying to give themselves an
> abortion, my mothers mother died that way long before I was born.
> I certainly don't know what the answer is but IMHO just banning abortion
> entirely is not the answer,

I don't think it's a difficult subject at all. It should be every
woman's right to do what she wants with her body, and the religious
nutters and right to life fruitcakes can go set themselves on fire in
protest if they wish. Banning abortion is not only a ridiculously
draconian mentality, but also an insanely hypocritical one in any
environment where birth control is allowed to exist.

> without a doubt the USA is the dumbest
> country in the world and getting dumber by the minute.

[Clocky]

Tell that to parents that miscarried at 14 weeks that their baby was
just a "bunch of cells" you ignorant, insensitive and uneducated dolt.

>> I think the issue isn't black and white. I don't think abortions are
>> something that should be performed after a certain time (5 months is
>> unreasonable for instance) but at the same time they should absolutely
>> be allowed in cases of rape and incest etc. early on in the pregnancy.
>
> I've got no issues with those.
>

You shouldn't have issues with any of it.

[Clocky]

I get your point but it's a murky grey area sometimes.

[Clocky]

It's irrelevant and that argument relies on the false premise that the
fetus is part of the woman. It's not. Scientifically, logically and
biologically the fetus is growing inside of the woman but not part of
the woman... in spades because the genetic code of a fetus is unique,
not *shared* with the woman as it would be if the fetus was part of the
woman.

This is an undisputed scientific and biological fact.

> Explain why any male has any logical, scientific or biological say in
> what decisions a woman makes about whether she carries a fetus to term?
>

Without the male there wouldn't be a fetus. And see above.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

[Clocky]

On 27/06/2022 10:22 am, Fran wrote:
> On 27/06/2022 10:49 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 26/06/2022 5:31 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:
>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> **Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman
>>> what she may do with HER body. You should realise that giving birth
>>> is one of the most deadly acts a woman can engage in.
>>>
>>> https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/maternal-deaths-in-australia/contents/maternal-deaths-in-australia
>>>
>>>
>>> In any case, I fully respect a woman's right not to have an abortion,
>>> if she wishes. Likewise, I respect a woman's right to have a safe
>>> abortion, should she wish.
>>>
>>> And again: Assuming you are a male, then you can stick your opinion
>>> where the Sun don't shine. This is a woman's choice, not a male's.
>>
>> But to play devil's advocate, the woman is making a choice on behalf
>> of a life that's *not* hers.
>
> That just a good example of the pot calling the kettle black and
> conveniently ignoring a basic fact that a bunch of cells that can't
> survive without a placenta is no more a 'life' than a tumour.

You're getting even more irrational, ridiculous and illogical to make
that comparison.

If you
> are going to whine about the woman making such a choice then you should
> be whining about males (such as yourself) trying to make decisions for
> woman.  In fact it's even worse than that, it's about imposing decisons
> on woman.
>
>

Actually no, because I said I was playing devils advocate and I'm *not*
against abortions under certain circumstances. I'm presenting biological
and scientific facts whilst your repeating the same nonsense because
that is all you have to support your argument and so you can pretend
that removing a fetus is not killing an unborn child. It very well is
and you can present a valid argument *for* doing so under certain
circumstances but don't be disingenuous and pretend that a fetus is part
of the woman and just a bunch of cells as there is no scientific or
biological basis of fact to that argument.

[Clocky]

You're so determined to prove my exact point. I'm not anti-abortion. You
insist to make the case *for* abortion having never contributed anything
of value to any newsgroup ever since you infested usenet with your
mindless gibberish.

[Rod Speed]

No it isnt. The unborn child got no say on how it was created
and it makes no sense to kill it.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Exactly. Many people seem to think that giving birth is no big deal.
It ain't for some. If males were the ones who had to give birth,
abortion on demand would be normal all over the planet. It seems that
male politicians like to exert control over women.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Trevor Wilson]

**Yep. The figures that came through today suggest that more than 50% of
Aussies report that they are non-Christians and 39% report no religion.

Gotta be happy with that. I look forward to those numbers increasing
over the next few years.

[Rod Speed]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 06:34:40 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 27/06/2022 10:56 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 26-June-22 7:31 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:
>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> **Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman
>>> what she may do with HER body. You should realise that giving birth is
>>> one of the most deadly acts a woman can engage in.
>> That's how the UK got abortion on demand. The legislation says that an
>> abortion is lawful if the woman would be at greater risk if she went
>> through with the pregnancy than if she had an abortion.
>> Turns out, this is always the case.

> Exactly. Many people seem to think that giving birth is no big deal. It
> ain't for some.

The stupid cow should have considered that before not using contraception

Makes no sense to be killing the unborn child when that fact dawns on the
stupid cow.

> If males were the ones who had to give birth, abortionon demand would

> be normal all over the planet.

Bullshit.

Plenty have actually gone the other route, drown the unwanted
brat in a bucket of water after it has been born when it turns out
to be the unwanted sex or just leave it to die as the abos did.

> It seems that male politicians like to exert control over women.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

Doesn't explain why they exerted control over murderers too.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 28/06/2022 7:27 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 06:34:40 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 27/06/2022 10:56 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 26-June-22 7:31 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:
>>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman
>>>> what she may do with HER body. You should realise that giving birth
>>>> is one of the most deadly acts a woman can engage in.
>>>  That's how the UK got abortion on demand. The legislation says that
>>> an abortion is lawful if the woman would be at greater risk if she
>>> went through with the pregnancy than if she had an abortion.
>>>  Turns out, this is always the case.
>
>> Exactly. Many people seem to think that giving birth is no big deal.
>> It ain't for some.
>
> The stupid cow should have considered that before not using contraception

**Including rape?

>
> Makes no sense to be killing the unborn child when that fact dawns on
> the stupid cow.

**It is a foetus, not a child. Unborn or otherwise.

>
>> If males were the ones who had to give birth,  abortionon demand would
>> be normal all over the planet.
>
> Bullshit.

**Fact.

>
> Plenty have actually gone the other route, drown the unwanted
> brat in a bucket of water after it has been born when it turns out
> to be the unwanted sex or just leave it to die as the abos did.
>
>> It seems that  male politicians like to exert control over women.
>
> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>
> Doesn't explain why they exerted control over murderers too.

**Huh?

[Rod Speed]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 09:03:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson

<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 28/06/2022 7:27 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 06:34:40 +1000, Trevor Wilson
>> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/06/2022 10:56 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 26-June-22 7:31 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman
>>>>> what she may do with HER body. You should realise that giving birth
>>>>> is one of the most deadly acts a woman can engage in.
>>>> That's how the UK got abortion on demand. The legislation says that
>>>> an abortion is lawful if the woman would be at greater risk if she
>>>> went through with the pregnancy than if she had an abortion.
>>>> Turns out, this is always the case.
>>
>>> Exactly. Many people seem to think that giving birth is no big deal.
>>> It ain't for some.

>> The stupid cow should have considered that before not using
>> contraception

> Including rape?

We aren't discussing abortion only after rape and the unborn child you
want to allow her to kill didn't have any say in being created anyway.

>> Makes no sense to be killing the unborn child when that fact dawns on
>> the stupid cow.

> It is a foetus, not a child. Unborn or otherwise.

Its both, fuckwit.

>>
>>> If males were the ones who had to give birth, abortionon demand would
>>> be normal all over the planet.

>> Bullshit.

> Fact.

How odd that even the female dominated societys didnt allow abortion
either.

>> Plenty have actually gone the other route, drown the unwanted
>> brat in a bucket of water after it has been born when it turns out
>> to be the unwanted sex or just leave it to die as the abos did.
>>
>>> It seems that male politicians like to exert control over women.
>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

>> Doesn't explain why they exerted control over murderers too.

> Huh?

Murder was banned even tho most victims were male, fuckwit.

[Ördög]

Rod Speed, the Alzheimer ridden angry old fart


/Auto-snip retarded hard right trolls and their disgusting dumps/

/...and snip some stuff manually/

> The stupid cow
> the stupid cow
> Bullshit.
> Even sillier

Amazing quality input ... NOT!

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil

[Ördög]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> They can want all they like. It's not going to happen.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> **Yep. The figures that came through today suggest that more than 50% of
> Aussies report that they are non-Christians and 39% report no religion.
>
> Gotta be happy with that. I look forward to those numbers increasing
> over the next few years.
>

I was just about to post that report, but you've now beaten me to it.
Here is the ABC-article on this subject:
<https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-28/census-2021-data-shows-a-changed-australia/101177152?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=abc_news_newsmail_am_sfmc&utm_term=&utm_id=1892131&sfmc_id=126532366>

It looks like our Petz is going to be really-really unhappy about that
news, although he surely will argue that this is just more fake news by
the "communist" mainstream media.
Sigh!

I think rational and progressive people would all want to live in a 21st
century society where women are equal to men in all aspects of their
lives and where everyone has the same right to have control over one's
own body no matter what.

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Nope.

A child is a human outside the womb. A foetus is part of a woman's body.

>
>>>
>>>> If males were the ones who had to give birth,  abortionon demand
>>>> would be normal all over the planet.
>
>>>  Bullshit.
>
>> Fact.
>
> How odd that even the female dominated societys didnt allow abortion
> either.

**Which modern female dominated society doesn't allow abortion.

>
>>>  Plenty have actually gone the other route, drown the unwanted
>>> brat in a bucket of water after it has been born when it turns out
>>> to be the unwanted sex or just leave it to die as the abos did.
>>>
>>>> It seems that  male politicians like to exert control over women.
>>>  Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>
>>>  Doesn't explain why they exerted control over murderers too.
>
>> Huh?
>
> Murder was banned even tho most victims were male, fuckwit.

[Fran]

You're being hysterical and illogical and applying a one size fits all
soluton to a situation of your fantasising.

The fantasy parents in your fantasy scenario wanted a child. Women who
seek an abortion DO NOT want a child. There IS a huge difference
between those two circumstances. You'd know that if you weren't
hysterical, obtuse, ill educated, narrow minded, experientially
challenged and insensitive.

>>> I think the issue isn't black and white. I don't think abortions are
>>> something that should be performed after a certain time (5 months is
>>> unreasonable for instance) but at the same time they should
>>> absolutely be allowed in cases of rape and incest etc. early on in
>>> the pregnancy.
>>
>> I've got no issues with those.
>>
>
> You shouldn't have issues with any of it.

Thanks for proving (yet again) why women have issues with obtuse and
thick males who keep telling them what they should think, feel or do.

[Trevor Wilson]

**And yet, the stupid cunts you worhsip in the US have stated that if 1
10 year old is raped by her father and falls pregnant that she must
carry the foetus to full term.

You are a stupid, ignorant arsehole, just like the morons in the US.

[Fran]

That is just a bullshit strawman. MY 'premise' (as opposed to your
strawman claim) is that survival of the fetus depends on the placenta!

It's not. Scientifically, logically and
> biologically the fetus is growing inside of the woman but not part of
> the woman...

Yawn. You're answering your own strawman and not anything I wrote

in spades because the genetic code of a fetus is unique,
> not *shared* with the woman as it would be if the fetus was part of the
> woman.

More strawman answering on your part......

> This is an undisputed scientific and biological fact.

So? Who, other than you, (and that idiot Max who clearly has no idea
about human DNA) even mentioned DNA of the fetus.

>> Explain why any male has any logical, scientific or biological say in
>> what decisions a woman makes about whether she carries a fetus to term?
>>
>
> Without the male there wouldn't be a fetus. And see above.

So do explain how a male can get the fetus to term without a woman's
body being involved?

[Fran]

On 28/06/2022 1:17 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 27/06/2022 10:22 am, Fran wrote:
>> On 27/06/2022 10:49 am, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 26/06/2022 5:31 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:
>>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman
>>>> what she may do with HER body. You should realise that giving birth
>>>> is one of the most deadly acts a woman can engage in.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/maternal-deaths-in-australia/contents/maternal-deaths-in-australia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In any case, I fully respect a woman's right not to have an
>>>> abortion, if she wishes. Likewise, I respect a woman's right to have
>>>> a safe abortion, should she wish.
>>>>
>>>> And again: Assuming you are a male, then you can stick your opinion
>>>> where the Sun don't shine. This is a woman's choice, not a male's.
>>>
>>> But to play devil's advocate, the woman is making a choice on behalf
>>> of a life that's *not* hers.
>>
>> That just a good example of the pot calling the kettle black and
>> conveniently ignoring a basic fact that a bunch of cells that can't
>> survive without a placenta is no more a 'life' than a tumour.
>
> You're getting even more irrational, ridiculous and illogical to make
> that comparison.

Failure to answer noted.

>  If you
>> are going to whine about the woman making such a choice then you
>> should be whining about males (such as yourself) trying to make
>> decisions for woman.  In fact it's even worse than that, it's about
>> imposing decisons on woman.
>>
>>
>
> Actually no, because I said I was playing devils advocate and I'm *not*
> against abortions under certain circumstances. I'm presenting biological
> and scientific facts whilst your repeating the same nonsense because
> that is all you have to support your argument and so you can pretend
> that removing a fetus is not killing an unborn child. It very well is
> and you can present a valid argument *for* doing so under certain
> circumstances but don't be disingenuous and pretend that a fetus is part
> of the woman and just a bunch of cells as there is no scientific or
> biological basis of fact to that argument.

Could you please stop telling lies about what I write. You are obtuse,
incapable or reading for comprehension and yu constantly post strawmen.

I have NEVER claimed the fetus is part of the woman. That is your
strawman. I have also not claimed that a bunch of cells is not capable
of becoming a child.

I've got no idea about the source of your hysteria but get back to me
when you can post like an adult rather than a born again fundie.

[Rod Speed]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 09:19:58 +1000, Ördög
<newsgro...@hell.incorporated.biz> wrote:

> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> They can want all they like. It's not going to happen.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>> **Yep. The figures that came through today suggest that more than 50%
>> of Aussies report that they are non-Christians and 39% report no
>> religion.
>> Gotta be happy with that. I look forward to those numbers increasing
>> over the next few years.
>>
> I was just about to post that report, but you've now beaten me to it.
> Here is the ABC-article on this subject:
> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-28/census-2021-data-shows-a-changed-australia/101177152?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=abc_news_newsmail_am_sfmc&utm_term=&utm_id=1892131&sfmc_id=126532366>
>
> It looks like our Petz is going to be really-really unhappy about that
> news, although he surely will argue that this is just more fake news by
> the "communist" mainstream media.
> Sigh!

> I think rational and progressive people would all want to live in a 21st
> century society where women are equal to men in all aspects of their
> lives

Not even possible.

> and where everyone has the same right to have control over one's own
> body no matter what.

Some of us don't believe in murder for the convenience of the murderer.

[Fran]

On 28/06/2022 6:34 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 27/06/2022 10:56 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 26-June-22 7:31 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:
>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> **Dunno about you, but, as a male, I have no right to tell a woman
>>> what she may do with HER body. You should realise that giving birth
>>> is one of the most deadly acts a woman can engage in.
>>
>> That's how the UK got abortion on demand. The legislation says that an
>> abortion is lawful if the woman would be at greater risk if she went
>> through with the pregnancy than if she had an abortion.
>>
>> Turns out, this is always the case.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> **Exactly. Many people seem to think that giving birth is no big deal.
> It ain't for some.

:-))) Yep. I speak from personal experience. I was bloody lucky to
survive the experience.

If males were the ones who had to give birth,
> abortion on demand would be normal all over the planet. It seems that
> male politicians like to exert control over women.

And not just male politicians. You don't have to look far in this
thread to see 'control' oozing out of the posting from males.

[Fran]

Hey Clocky, looky here at this claim maede by Trevor! NOW you can use
the strawman you tried against me on Trevor.

Sorry Trevor :-))))

>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> If males were the ones who had to give birth,  abortionon demand
>>>>> would be normal all over the planet.
>>
>>>>  Bullshit.
>>
>>> Fact.
>>
>> How odd that even the female dominated societys didnt allow abortion
>> either.
>
> **Which modern female dominated society doesn't allow abortion.

Uhoh! Our Roddles wont be stupid enough to go for the well baited hook
will he?

>
>>
>>>>  Plenty have actually gone the other route, drown the unwanted
>>>> brat in a bucket of water after it has been born when it turns out
>>>> to be the unwanted sex or just leave it to die as the abos did.
>>>>
>>>>> It seems that  male politicians like to exert control over women.
>>>>  Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>>
>>>>  Doesn't explain why they exerted control over murderers too.
>>
>>> Huh?
>>
>> Murder was banned even tho most victims were male, fuckwit.
>
> **Huh?

:-)) Just be thankful not to own poor Roddles addled brain. He (maybe)
knows what he means but he's not letting the rest of us in on it.

[Rod Speed]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:08:35 +1000, Trevor Wilson

> Nope.

Yep.

> A child is a human outside the womb.

An unborn child is a human not yet outside the womb.

> A foetus is part of a woman's body.

Nope, it's a unborn child and a fetus.

The body doesnt eject major stuff that is inside it.

>>>>> If males were the ones who had to give birth, abortionon demand
>>>>> would be normal all over the planet.
>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>
>>> Fact.

>> How odd that even the female dominated societys didnt allow abortion
>> either.
>

> Which modern female dominated society doesn't allow abortion.

Modern is irrelevant, fuckwit.

>>>> Plenty have actually gone the other route, drown the unwanted
>>>> brat in a bucket of water after it has been born when it turns out
>>>> to be the unwanted sex or just leave it to die as the abos did.
>>>>
>>>>> It seems that male politicians like to exert control over women.
>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>>
>>>> Doesn't explain why they exerted control over murderers too.
>>
>>> Huh?
>> Murder was banned even tho most victims were male, fuckwit.
>

> Huh?

Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.

[Rod Speed]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:28:05 +1000, Trevor Wilson

> And yet, the stupid cunts you worhsip in the US

I do nothing of the sort, you silly little pathological liar.

> have stated that if 1 10 year old is raped by her father and falls
> pregnant that she must carry the foetus to full term.

I couldn't care less what some stupid yank states.

<reams of your shit any 3 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

[hgt]

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed drunken psychotic
fantasies.

Murder is murder.

[Fran]

Has that really seriously been suggested? I ask because I saw that
particular case of a 10 year old girl mentioned on
TV last night but thought it was ludicrous and such a highly outrageous
suggestion that it was just the abortion lobby being hysterical.

Well I've just done a google.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-abortion-heartbeat-bill-pregnant-11-year-old-rape-victim-barred-abortion-after-new-ohio-abortion-bill-2019-05-13/

> You are a stupid, ignorant arsehole, just like the morons in the US.

And they seem to be getting worse by the year.

[Fran]

On 27/06/2022 10:14 pm, Daryl wrote:

> On 27/6/2022 3:30 pm, JONZ wrote:
>> On 6/27/2022 11:06 AM, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 26/06/2022 7:56 pm, JONZ wrote:

>>>> On 6/26/2022 10:59 AM, Max wrote:
>>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.

>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>>   Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool,
>>>> than to speak and remove all doubt!.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Awesome, so we will never be subjected to your mindless and idiotic
>>> gibberish again.
>>>
>>> Good news.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>   HMmmm, the *expected* proof/truth of my poast!.
>>       The same er, person that likes to squeak and squeal about saving
>> this (very) over populated planet, is an *anti abortionist*.
>>
>> Why am I *not* surprised. <FBG>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

> First I've seen any of this thread so I'm not sure which comment should
> be attributed to who?
> Its a rather difficult and complex subject and not as simple as the
> "Christian Lobby" thinks, by banning abortion its likely that the total
> death toll from abortion will increase, not just the unborn babies will
> die but also many women will also die trying to give themselves an
> abortion, my mothers mother died that way long before I was born.
> I certainly don't know what the answer is but IMHO just banning abortion
> entirely is not the answer, without a doubt the USA is the dumbest
> country in the world and getting dumber by the minute.


:-))) They do seem to like turning back the clock.

[Fran]

On 28/06/2022 9:19 am, Ördög wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> They can want all they like. It's not going to happen.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> **Yep. The figures that came through today suggest that more than 50%
>> of Aussies report that they are non-Christians and 39% report no
>> religion.
>>
>> Gotta be happy with that. I look forward to those numbers increasing
>> over the next few years.
>>
>  I was just about to post that report, but you've now beaten me to it.
> Here is the ABC-article on this subject:
> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-28/census-2021-data-shows-a-changed-australia/101177152?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=abc_news_newsmail_am_sfmc&utm_term=&utm_id=1892131&sfmc_id=126532366>
>
>
> It looks like our Petz is going to be really-really unhappy about that
> news, although he surely will argue that this is just more fake news by
> the "communist" mainstream media.
> Sigh!

I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Pixies at the bottom of
the garden or a Sky Fairy. Why would any adult believe in any of those
things?

>
> I think rational and progressive people would all want to live in a 21st
> century society where women are equal to men in all aspects of their
> lives and where everyone has the same right to have control over one's
> own body no matter what.

:-)) Wouldn't that be good.

[Daryl]

Maybe they should turn back the clock even further to a time when they
actually had decent leaders not that any of ours have been much better.
Kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you but what can you
do for your country", those words/ideals seems to have got lost
somewhere along the way.

--
Daryl

[Ördög]

hgt, the nymshifter LNP troll's newsgroup defecation
/snip all crap/

> pathetic little drug crazed drunken psychotic fantasies.

Clearly you share every minute of the above mentioned on-going mental
affliction of yours with Usenet in a very unmistakable manner.

> Murder is murder.

Correct. All actually born individual sapient humans are covered by that
kind of sensible assessment. And that is good so.
Sadly your ilk is know to be advocates of state sponsored murder (either
by war or the death penalty). So I assume you plus ilk agree fully with
putting to death abortion providers and the women who seek those
services. And obviously also including all instances of medically
justifiable abortions as well a spontaneous miscarriages. As we can
clearly see that is slowly becoming a reality in the US in a number of
GOP run and terrorised member states.
Alt-right theocratic dystopia is fully in the up-swing.

There is no doubt in my mind that well planned justified abortions could
be doing man kind a great service...just imagine if you plus scumbag ilk
would have been aborted, how much better human society could function now.

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.

[Sylvia Else]

On 28-June-22 6:36 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 27/06/2022 10:37 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 26-June-22 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>
>>
>> They can want all they like. It's not going to happen.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> **Yep. The figures that came through today suggest that more than 50% of
> Aussies report that they are non-Christians and 39% report no religion.
>

I suspect the true non-religion number is higher, due to religious
parents filling in the form for their non-religious children, including
adult children living with their parents.

Sylvia.

[Trevor Wilson]

**We can only hope you are correct. Finally, Australians have seen the
light and are embracing logic, common-sense and reason.

[hgt]

>> And yet, the stupid cunts you worhsip in the US have stated that if 1
>> 10 year old is raped by her father and falls pregnant that she must
>> carry the foetus to full term.

> Has that really seriously been suggested?

Yes, the most extreme of them like the roman catholics
oppose abortion under any circumstances, even when
not aborting will result in the death of the woman.

> I ask because I saw that particular case of a 10 year old girl mentioned
> on
> TV last night but thought it was ludicrous and such a highly outrageous
> suggestion that it was just the abortion lobby being hysterical.

> Well I've just done a google.
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-abortion-heartbeat-bill-pregnant-11-year-old-rape-victim-barred-abortion-after-new-ohio-abortion-bill-2019-05-13/

>> You are a stupid, ignorant arsehole, just like the morons in the US.

> And they seem to be getting worse by the year.

Nope, the most extreme of them have always run that same line.

[hgt]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 11:02:28 +1000, Fran
<gettingmoredelusiona...@nutcasewannabefran.com> wrote:

> On 28/06/2022 9:19 am, Ördög wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> They can want all they like. It's not going to happen.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> **Yep. The figures that came through today suggest that more than 50%
>>> of Aussies report that they are non-Christians and 39% report no
>>> religion.
>>>
>>> Gotta be happy with that. I look forward to those numbers increasing
>>> over the next few years.
>>>
>> I was just about to post that report, but you've now beaten me to it.
>> Here is the ABC-article on this subject:
>> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-28/census-2021-data-shows-a-changed-australia/101177152?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=abc_news_newsmail_am_sfmc&utm_term=&utm_id=1892131&sfmc_id=126532366>
>> It looks like our Petz is going to be really-really unhappy about
>> that news, although he surely will argue that this is just more fake
>> news by the "communist" mainstream media.
>> Sigh!
>
> I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Pixies at the bottom of
> the garden or a Sky Fairy. Why would any adult believe in any of those
> things?

It is basically either a crutch for their pathetically inadequate 'minds',
or they don't like the idea that when they die, that's all there is, or
they prefer to believe that the rules dreamed up by some silly senile
old fart more than 2K years ago which might have made some sense
at that time and who realised that they would be more likely to be
adhered to if it was claimed that some god or other had proclaimed
them would work better than trying to come up with some rational
argument for why those rules must be obeyed.

[hgt]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 11:56:54 +1000, Ördög
<newsgro...@hell.incorporated.biz> wrote:

>> Murder is murder.

> Correct. All actually born individual sapient humans are covered by that
> kind of sensible assessment.

You don't turn from a bunch of cells no more significant
than a tumor into a human at the instant of birth, fuckwit.

[Rod Speed]

Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

> On 28/06/2022 1:04 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 28-June-22 6:36 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2022 10:37 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 26-June-22 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They can want all they like. It's not going to happen.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> **Yep. The figures that came through today suggest that more than 50%
>>> of Aussies report that they are non-Christians and 39% report no
>>> religion.
>>>
>> I suspect the true non-religion number is higher, due to religious
>> parents filling in the form for their non-religious children, including
>> adult children living with their parents.
>> Sylvia.
>
> **We can only hope you are correct. Finally, Australians have seen the
> light and are embracing logic, common-sense and reason.

More likely they are just prepared to say that openly.

[Rod Speed]

That fool only got involved in Vietnam because catholics were involved
there.

> those words/ideals seems to have got lost somewhere along the way.

Nope, it was always just more mindless polly bullshit.

[Sylvia Else]

I suspect that a bunch of guys discovered that they could exert control
over weaker minds by alleging that there was a higher being to which
they'd be accountable to later. That way they could extract a living
from them parasitically, without having to do any real work, which, back
then, would be quite tiresome.

After that, it became self perpetuating, though I imagine plenty of
present day priests are in it just for the power, money and status.

Sylvia.

[Petzl]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 04:33:31 +1000, hgt <tf...@nurk.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 20:21:44 +1000, Fran
><gettingmoredelusiona...@nutcasewannabefran.com> wrote:
>
>> On 26/06/2022 12:50 pm, Max wrote:
>>> On 26/06/2022 11:58 am, Fran wrote:

>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:59 am, Max wrote:
>>>>> On 26/06/2022 10:49 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>> Well, it didn't take the fundies long to crawl out of the shandows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Abortion should be banned - it is killing an unborn child.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> And some clueless males who post on usenet are proof of the need for
>>>> retrospective abortion to be allowed to be applied......
>>> 1. The day before a woman gives birth, what is in her uterus is a
>>> human life.
>>> 2. On any day, if what's in the woman's uterus is a human life, then
>>> the day before it is also a human life.
>>> 3. Therefore, for all days of the pregnancy, what is the in the
>>> woman's uterus is a human life.
>>
>> If a fetus can't survive on it's own outside the uterus, it's just a
>> bunch of cells.
>>

>More mindless bullshit. You can run the same mindless line
>with a terminal illness after it is born.
>
Just corporition funded brain washing give everyone the Dumb 3.

A 100 years ago, big companies built housing for the families of their
employees and then schools and libraries to educate them. It was the
humane thing to do, but it also seemed to make good business sense at
the time. If you wanted workers you could count on, you had to take
care of them and their offspring, but over time, that arrangement got
expensive.
Employees with families demanded higher wages to support their
children, and in many cases, they formed unions to get those raises.
So, labor costs soared.
in response to this, developed a new model: hire single women. At many
big companies, including in the traditionally male banking sector,
young women now make up the majority of new employees and you can see
why they do. They work hard, they're reliable. They tend to be loyal
to the companies they work for. The one downside to hiring young women
is they can get pregnant.
If you're running the H.R. department at a big companie, that is the
last thing you want. Children make your health care plan more
expensive. Worse than that, they tend to compete with an employee's
attention. Responding to after work emails seems less pressing to most
new moms than putting their own kids to bed.

That's a huge problem for big companies, so they have every incentive
to prevent their workers from having children. You can't say that out
loud, of course. It would it be too obvious. Give us the best years of
your life and in exchange we'll pay you what's effectively a
subsistence wage in whatever overpriced urban hellscape we're based in
and then take from you the one thing that might give your existence
meaning and joy in middle age, which is having children. That's the
deal we're offering. That is the deal they're offering, but they can't
say that. It would sound like what it is, which is exploitation, no
better than what the cotton mills once did to 14-year-old girls.
If you're running the H.R. department at a big company, that is the
last thing you want. Children make your health care plan more
expensive. Worse than that, they tend to compete with an employee's
attention. Responding to after work emails seems less pressing to most
new moms than putting their own kids to bed.

That's a huge problem for big companies, so they have every incentive
to prevent their workers from having children. You can't say that out
loud, of course. It would it be too obvious. Give us the best years of
your life and in exchange we'll pay you what's effectively a
subsistence wage in whatever overpriced urban hellscape we're based in
and then take from you the one thing that might give your existence
meaning and joy in middle age, which is having children. That's the
deal we're offering. That is the deal they're offering, but they can't
say that. It would sound like what it is, which is exploitation, no
better than what the cotton mills once did to 14-year-old girls.

abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
--
Petzl
New South Wales health minister Brad Hazzard, Pro-Abortionist!
Should be the one to lance the fetus larynx so no-one can hear the unborn scream.
Most do not know this is part of the abortion "procedure"

[Fran]

Yep. There are a few examples here within the resident village idiots
and aspiring village idiots who should have been retrospectively aborted.

[Max]

Your post repeats itself several times. Perhaps you should check it
over before hitting "Send".

[Max]

That is not true. Catholics don't support abortion if not aborting would
kill the mother.

[petzl]

Just trying to get message across to remove the hypnotists!

[hgt]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 15:49:53 +1000, Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid>
wrote:

More likely, like I said, someone decided that it was much
more likely that someone had realised that if they claimed
that the rules came from some god or other, it was much
more likely that most would be more likely to comply.

Tho I still find it hard to credit that even in those days, all
you had to do was to claim that some god or other had
proclaimed that you had to hack the end off your kid's
dick on day 7 or whenever it is and they would just click
the heels of their sandals and whip out their knives and
start hacking away. In two different religions too.

Can't see even Billy Graham managing to get away with that.

> That way they could extract a living from them parasitically, without
> having to do any real work, which, back then, would be quite tiresome.

Plenty in those days did that with their women and still do today there.

> After that, it became self perpetuating, though I imagine plenty of
> present day priests are in it just for the power, money and status.

Can't see that myself. There isn't any real money in it for most priests
and fuck all power today. No real status either for most of them now.
Which would explain why almost all religions are desperately short
of priests now.

[Rod Speed]

But there were also vast amounts of utterly obscene slums as well at that

time.

> If you wanted workers you could count on, you had to take
> care of them and their offspring,

Most employers didnt bother, hence the slums.

> but over time, that arrangement got expensive.

It always was expensive compared with slums.

> Employees with families demanded higher wages to support their
> children, and in many cases, they formed unions to get those raises.

And so they didn't have to infest slums and watch their kids die like flys.

> So, labor costs soared.

Not convinced about that.

> in response to this, developed a new model: hire single women.

They always did plenty of that, most obviously with the clothing
industrys and with manual telephone exchanges later.

> At many
> big companies, including in the traditionally male banking sector,
> young women now make up the majority of new employees and you can see
> why they do. They work hard, they're reliable.

Not convinced about that now.

> They tend to be loyal to the companies they work for.

Or that either.

> The one downside to hiring young women is they can get pregnant.

In fact it is more accurate to say that the vast bulk of them do.

> If you're running the H.R. department at a big companie, that is the
> last thing you want. Children make your health care plan more
> expensive.

Very few have that anymore.

> Worse than that, they tend to compete with an employee's attention.

And have lots of sickys when the brats have a cold etc.

> Responding to after work emails seems less pressingto most new moms

> than putting their own kids to bed.

That's a dead giveaway that you stole this.

> That's a huge problem for big companies, so they have everyincentive to

> prevent their workers from having children.

Not even possible. In spades in this country.

> You can't say that out
> loud, of course. It would it be too obvious. Give us the best years of
> your life and in exchange we'll pay you what's effectively a
> subsistence wage in whatever overpriced urban hellscape we're based in
> and then take from you the one thing that might give your existence
> meaning and joy in middle age, which is having children.

Clearly doesn't work given that few except those who can't medically
don't have kids.

> abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

Bullshit. It should be illegal.

[Rod Speed]

He stole it from a yank, stupid.

[Rod Speed]

Fraid so.

> Catholics don't support abortion if not aborting would kill the mother.

What I said, stupid.

[Max]

What I mean is that Catholics would oppose abortion if the abortion
would kill the mother.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Just like the e=mcc chanting parasites, who are the worst parasites.
>
> Sylvia.