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.

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.

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."

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."

On 27/06/2022 4:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 26/06/2022 8:14 pm, Max wrote:
>> 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?
>
> **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.
>

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.

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

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.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 21:56:56 +1000, JONZ <jonx@nothere.com> 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!.
>>
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

273.15/3.60=75.875

75.875-75.854=0.021

0.021*333.3...=7

On 26/06/2022 10:45 pm, Max wrote:
> On 26/06/2022 8:21 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.
>>
>
> A baby after birth can't survive on its own outside the uterus.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just trolling?

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.

On 27/06/2022 11:02 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 27/06/2022 4:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 26/06/2022 8:14 pm, Max wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> **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.
>>
>
>
> I'm not against abortions within reason but your arguments are stupid.

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?

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.
>
> 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.

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.

Ördög <newsgroup.devil@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.

In aus.legal Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@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?

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.

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

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.

   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.
>
>

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>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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........

On 27/06/2022 12:46 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.legal Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@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.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:46:11 +1000, Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> 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.
>
> 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 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 ?

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:08:09 +1000, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabefran.com> wrote:

> On 27/06/2022 11:02 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 27/06/2022 4:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 26/06/2022 8:14 pm, Max wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> **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.
>>>
>> I'm not against abortions within reason but your arguments are stupid.
>
> 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?

Its half his, fuckwit.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:41:46 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ördög <newsgroup.devil@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.
>
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

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 18:25:11 +1000, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:41:46 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ördög <newsgroup.devil@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.
>>
> All that has happened was removing a law made by SCOTUS.

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.

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.

--
Daryl

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.