On 2/07/2022 12:08 pm, Ördög wrote:
> Max on his trolling tour of aus.politics.\
>
>> Ördög wrote:
>>> Max just  keeps on trolling
>>>
>>> /Autosnip all virulent trolling crap/
>>>
>>> /and snip some more manually/
>>>
>>>> On 28/06/2022 10:29 am, Fran wrote:
>>>>> That is just a bullshit strawman.  MY  'premise' (as opposed to
>>>>> your strawman claim) is that survival of the fetus depends on the
>>>>> placenta!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yawn.  You're answering your own strawman and not anything I wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> More strawman answering on your part......
>>>>>
>>>>> So?  Who, other than you, (and that idiot Max who clearly has no
>>>>> idea about human DNA) even mentioned DNA of the fetus.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human DNA and
>>>> a tumor does not?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm. I don't see Fran disputing anything about DNA.
>>> But you do!
>>>
>>> Obviously you don't understand that cancer cells also posses the full
>>> genetic info of the host with some tiny but sadly very significant
>>> point mutations that effects cell secretions, cell division and cell
>>> life longevity.
>>
>> Thanks for confirming that the DNA of a tumor is different to the fetus.
>>
> Thanks for confirming your scientific semi literacy.
>
> Point mutations are also possible in the cells of a developing fetus.
> What do you thinks birth defects and many of the spontaneous
> miscarriages are due to, eh?
>

The difference between tumor DNA and fetus DNA would be clear to any
scientist.

Why are you even suggesting they could be the same, which is what Fran
was disputing?

> Even more significantly not all point mutations are defects of importance.
>
> Please do try catching up on the science of genetics before you spew
> cooked up semi-literate pretend scientific crap supporting your own
> political bigotry.
>
> NEXT!

I bow down to your knowledge of science. I didn't know you were a
scientist.

>  >
>>   That is a huge problem for those scientists who seek
>>> immunological methods for destroying cancerous growth as they have to
>>> somehow coax human poly-clonal antibodies to attack human cells
>>> (monoclonal antibodies don't always work as they are derived from
>>> mice obtained cell cultures).
>>>
>>>>> So do explain how a male can get the fetus to term without a
>>>>> woman's body being involved?
>>>
>>> Oh, its easy ... one just have to join the political ultra
>>> conservative hard-right alternate reality brigade to make that
>>> happen... LOL!
>>>
>>
>

Petz presents the latest edition of his village idiot delusions

> Fran
>> Yep. Just a couple of nights ago, my husband was obviously totally lost
>> in thought so I quizzed him on what he was thinking. He's not a fan of
>> the US in any way other than it sometimes produces music he likes to
>> listen to. He had to spend a lot of time there when working for the
>> govt and his short summary of the place is that "It's fucked".
>>
>> Anyhoo, in expalaining what he'd been thinking about, he too mentioned
>> that decision you cite but also went on to talk about the implications
>> that decision (and other US policies and the situation in Europe) would
>> have on the world. It was not a pretty scenario he presented but I do
>> agree with him on all that he said. In short, the world is not in a
>> good position ATM. Thank God we got rid of that previous evil and
>> incompetent govt with hard times facing us.
>>
> Replaced with communist Anthony Albanese

Bullshit! Pure and simple. Even your newsgroup boyfriend said so.

> who is a multimillionaire

Bullshit! Pure and simple. Even your newsgroup boyfriend said so.

> from just keeping his rather large arse in a chair, snout and trotters
> in trough, from tax payers never worked in a real job.

Bullshit! Pure and simple. Even your newsgroup boyfriend said so.

> What's your husbands thoughts on Russia and China compared to USA.

None of your fucking business what someone not taking part in the
discussions in this forum thinks.

Your desperate attempt at pathetic goalpost shift is hereby denied!

> I agree the USA has been fucked since the days of George Washington.

Whatever you say in your fully qualified reigning village idiot status!

> Didn't think much of Trump to start with,

You didn't? Really?
Except for that deluge of endless MAGA Trump-cultist bullshit you've
kept on dumping into this newsgroup?

> but him dobbing in the fraud
> that gets people over there elected, I see as a big plus.
>
Alas you as a pathological liar (your tank, grenades, machine guns,
luxury Jacuzzi, super duper espresso machine, giant private power
generator, white peacock, 12 men fire hose and expertise in just about
every profession that was ever under discussion in this
ng...etc...etc...etc...) shamelessly admit to have great admiration for
the extent to which Trump has managed to elevate the great election lie
of his.
Quite as expected and totally understandable!

Note:
Your MAGA-Trumpist idiot sig was flushed without the need to waste
energy on responding to it.

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

On 2/07/2022 11:15 am, Fran wrote:
> On 1/07/2022 9:15 pm, Max wrote:
>> On 28/06/2022 10:29 am, Fran wrote:
>>> On 28/06/2022 1:02 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 27/06/2022 10:08 am, Fran 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?
>>>>
>>>> It's irrelevant and that argument relies on the false premise that
>>>> the fetus is part of the woman.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human DNA and a
>> tumor does not?
>
> Fuck you are dumb! I KNOW that a fetus AND a tumour BOTH have human DNA.
>
>

They have different DNA, once is a mutated cancer, the other is a normal
growing fetus which will become a baby.

Have you ever seen a tumor become a baby? I think not.

On 2/07/2022 11:24 am, Fran wrote:
> On 2/07/2022 10:38 am, Max wrote:
>> On 2/07/2022 9:53 am, Ördög wrote:
>>> Max just  keeps on trolling
>>>
>>> /Autosnip all virulent trolling crap/
>>>
>>> /and snip some more manually/
>>>
>>>> On 28/06/2022 10:29 am, Fran wrote:
>>>>> That is just a bullshit strawman.  MY  'premise' (as opposed to
>>>>> your strawman claim) is that survival of the fetus depends on the
>>>>> placenta!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yawn.  You're answering your own strawman and not anything I wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> More strawman answering on your part......
>>>>>
>>>>> So?  Who, other than you, (and that idiot Max who clearly has no
>>>>> idea about human DNA) even mentioned DNA of the fetus.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human DNA and
>>>> a tumor does not?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm. I don't see Fran disputing anything about DNA.
>>> But you do!
>>>
>>> Obviously you don't understand that cancer cells also posses the full
>>> genetic info of the host with some tiny but sadly very significant
>>> point mutations that effects cell secretions, cell division and cell
>>> life longevity.
>>
>> Thanks for confirming that the DNA of a tumor is different to the fetus.
>
> Fuck you are dumb!!!!!!
>
> He's confirming that the DNA of cells IS human but it's mutated.  The
> clue is in Ordog's first sentence "cancer cells also possess the full
> genetic info OF THE HOST"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> So dumbo, if the host that has the cancer/tumour is a human, it's a
> cancer/tumour that has HUMAN DNA.  Not duck DNA, not Babboon DNA or any
> other sort of DNA, it's human DNA.

It is a different DNA to the host, otherwise it wouldn't be a mutant tumor?

One set of cells is growing into a baby, the other is growing into a
disgusting mutant tumor. Can you see the difference, or are you totally
thick between the ears ?!

Max is trying so bloody hard

> Ördög
>> Max on his trolling tour of aus.politics
>>> Ördög
>>>> Max just keeps on trolling
>>>>> 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!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yawn.  You're answering your own strawman and not anything I wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More strawman answering on your part......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So?  Who, other than you, (and that idiot Max who clearly has no
>>>>>> idea about human DNA) even mentioned DNA of the fetus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human DNA and
>>>>> a tumor does not?
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. I don't see Fran disputing anything about DNA.
>>>> But you do!
>>>>
>>>> Obviously you don't understand that cancer cells also posses the
>>>> full genetic info of the host with some tiny but sadly very
>>>> significant point mutations that effects cell secretions, cell
>>>> division and cell life longevity.
>>>
>>> Thanks for confirming that the DNA of a tumor is different to the fetus.
>>>
>> Thanks for confirming your scientific semi literacy.
>>
>> Point mutations are also possible in the cells of a developing fetus.
>> What do you thinks birth defects and many of the spontaneous
>> miscarriages are due to, eh?
>>
> The difference between tumor DNA and fetus DNA would be clear to any
> scientist.

But since you apparently ain't one you have to rely on keep posting your
personally dreamed up bull on the subject.

> Why are you even suggesting they could be the same, which is what Fran
> was disputing?
>

I am just stating actual scientific facts about the cell-biology and
genetic material of cancer cells and a human embryo...and so was Fran.

Give it up, will you? Pick a better winnable fight on another subject
you are a better expert at than on this one.

>
>> Even more significantly not all point mutations are defects of
>> importance.
>>
>> Please do try catching up on the science of genetics before you spew
>> cooked up semi-literate pretend scientific crap supporting your own
>> political bigotry.
>>
>> NEXT!
>
> I bow down to your knowledge of science.  I didn't know you were a
> scientist.
>

Well, now you do.

I've spent years in the field of laboratory cancer research (female
reproductive cancers as well a prostate cancer) and worked at places
like the Vienna University Clinic for Chemotherapy, CSIRO and the
Australian Proteome Analysis Facility just to name a few. I have taken
courses on human hematological abnormalities (hereditary and acquired)
at Westmead Hospital and worked in pathology laboratories in Europe, in
the USA and in Sydney.

So what is your field of expertise?

>
>>>   That is a huge problem for those scientists who seek
>>>> immunological methods for destroying cancerous growth as they have
>>>> to somehow coax human poly-clonal antibodies to attack human cells
>>>> (monoclonal antibodies don't always work as they are derived from
>>>> mice obtained cell cultures).
>>>>
>>>>>> So do explain how a male can get the fetus to term without a
>>>>>> woman's body being involved?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, its easy ... one just have to join the political ultra
>>>> conservative hard-right alternate reality brigade to make that
>>>> happen... LOL!
>

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

On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 13:54:44 +1000, Ördög
<newsgroup.devil@Hell.Incorporated.biz> wrote:

>Petz presents the latest edition of his village idiot delusions
>
>> Fran
>>> Yep. Just a couple of nights ago, my husband was obviously totally lost
>>> in thought so I quizzed him on what he was thinking. He's not a fan of
>>> the US in any way other than it sometimes produces music he likes to
>>> listen to. He had to spend a lot of time there when working for the
>>> govt and his short summary of the place is that "It's fucked".
>>>
>>> Anyhoo, in expalaining what he'd been thinking about, he too mentioned
>>> that decision you cite but also went on to talk about the implications
>>> that decision (and other US policies and the situation in Europe) would
>>> have on the world. It was not a pretty scenario he presented but I do
>>> agree with him on all that he said. In short, the world is not in a
>>> good position ATM. Thank God we got rid of that previous evil and
>>> incompetent govt with hard times facing us.
>>>
>> Replaced with communist Anthony Albanese
>
>Bullshit! Pure and simple. Even your newsgroup boyfriend said so.
>
Here is a photo 1989 of his activities promoting commies.
https://ibb.co/kc3TZhW
>
>> who is a multimillionaire
>
>Bullshit! Pure and simple. Even your newsgroup boyfriend said so.
>
https://www.apumone.com/anthony-albanese-net-worth/
Name Anthony Albanese
Net Worth $10 million
Occupation Prime minister Australia
>
>> from just keeping his rather large arse in a chair, snout and trotters
>> in trough, from tax payers never worked in a real job.
>
>Bullshit! Pure and simple. Even your newsgroup boyfriend said so.
>
Name Anthony Albanese
Net Worth $10 million
Occupation Prime minister Australia
>

>> What's your husbands thoughts on Russia and China compared to USA.
>
>None of your fucking business what someone not taking part in the
>discussions in this forum thinks.
>
Fran is a lying hypocrite like you.
Those with a education are desperate to leave Hong Kong, many of the
most intelligent have now done so.
<https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/china-and-britain-made-a-promise-to-hong-kong-25-years-ago-today-people-feel-betrayed/bpp17m1c4>
http://tinyurl.com/2xwrb3d8
But as Hong Kong enters halfway into the 50-year deal, some people
believe Beijing has instead instilled "fear and doubt and uncertainty
into one thriving city".
>
>Your desperate attempt at pathetic goalpost shift is hereby denied!
>
>> I agree the USA has been fucked since the days of George Washington.
>
<reams of your stinking shit flushed where it belongs>
--
Petzl
Socialism is a philosophy of failure,
the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

On 2/07/2022 2:18 pm, Ördög wrote:
> Max is trying so bloody hard
>
>> Ördög
>>> Max on his trolling tour of aus.politics
>>>> Ördög
>>>>> Max just keeps on trolling
>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yawn.  You're answering your own strawman and not anything I wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More strawman answering on your part......
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So?  Who, other than you, (and that idiot Max who clearly has no
>>>>>>> idea about human DNA) even mentioned DNA of the fetus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human DNA
>>>>>> and a tumor does not?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm. I don't see Fran disputing anything about DNA.
>>>>> But you do!
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously you don't understand that cancer cells also posses the
>>>>> full genetic info of the host with some tiny but sadly very
>>>>> significant point mutations that effects cell secretions, cell
>>>>> division and cell life longevity.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for confirming that the DNA of a tumor is different to the
>>>> fetus.
>>>>
>>> Thanks for confirming your scientific semi literacy.
>>>
>>> Point mutations are also possible in the cells of a developing fetus.
>>> What do you thinks birth defects and many of the spontaneous
>>> miscarriages are due to, eh?
>>>
>> The difference between tumor DNA and fetus DNA would be clear to any
>> scientist.
>
> But since you apparently ain't one you have to rely on keep posting your
> personally dreamed up bull on the subject.
>
>> Why are you even suggesting they could be the same, which is what Fran
>> was disputing?
>>
>
> I am just stating actual scientific facts about the cell-biology and
> genetic material of cancer cells and a human embryo...and so was Fran.
>
> Give it up, will you? Pick a better winnable fight on another subject
> you are a better expert at than on this one.
>
>>
>>> Even more significantly not all point mutations are defects of
>>> importance.
>>>
>>> Please do try catching up on the science of genetics before you spew
>>> cooked up semi-literate pretend scientific crap supporting your own
>>> political bigotry.
>>>
>>> NEXT!
>>
>> I bow down to your knowledge of science.  I didn't know you were a
>> scientist.
>>
>
> Well, now you do.
>
> I've spent years in the field of laboratory cancer research (female
> reproductive cancers as well a prostate cancer) and worked at places
> like the Vienna University Clinic for Chemotherapy, CSIRO and the
> Australian Proteome Analysis Facility just to name a few. I have taken
> courses on human hematological abnormalities (hereditary and acquired)
> at Westmead Hospital and worked in pathology laboratories in Europe, in
> the USA and in Sydney.
>

Sorry, I always thought you were Tony Smith, the Cairns lawyer, who used
to post here.

He used to post under "Blue Heeler" and I thought he had become "Ordog".

> So what is your field of expertise?
>

I am in computing (programming).

I did Computer Science and Law at university.

>>
>>>>   That is a huge problem for those scientists who seek
>>>>> immunological methods for destroying cancerous growth as they have
>>>>> to somehow coax human poly-clonal antibodies to attack human cells
>>>>> (monoclonal antibodies don't always work as they are derived from
>>>>> mice obtained cell cultures).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So do explain how a male can get the fetus to term without a
>>>>>>> woman's body being involved?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, its easy ... one just have to join the political ultra
>>>>> conservative hard-right alternate reality brigade to make that
>>>>> happen... LOL!
>>
>

On Saturday, 2 July 2022 at 09:34:07 UTC+10, petzl wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 09:21:38 +1000, Ördög
> <newsgro...@Hell.Incorporated.biz> wrote:
>
> >Rod Speed, the Alzheimer ridden angry old fart:
> >
> >/snip/
> >
> >> Fuck subtitled anything.
> >
> >How typical of you. :P
> >Creeps like you can only write (the usual bullshit due to those angry
> >voices in your head).
> >But you have never learned to read (and understand) anything properly.
> >
> Rod Speed is the most talented informative and cluey poster here.

Petzl has a sense of humour, about which he is perfectly ignorant.
> --
> Petzl
> We know the Dumb3 are lying,
> they know they are lying,
> they know we know they are lying,
> we know they know we know they are lying,
> but they are still lying.
> "Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn"

Max wrote on 2/7/22 2:05 pm:
> On 2/07/2022 11:24 am, Fran wrote:
>> On 2/07/2022 10:38 am, Max wrote:
>>> On 2/07/2022 9:53 am, Ördög wrote:
>>>> Max just keeps on trolling
>>>>
>>>> /Autosnip all virulent trolling crap/
>>>>
>>>> /and snip some more manually/
>>>>
>>>>> On 28/06/2022 10:29 am, Fran wrote:
>>>>>> That is just a bullshit strawman. MY 'premise' (as
>>>>>> opposed to your strawman claim) is that survival of the
>>>>>> fetus depends on the placenta!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yawn. You're answering your own strawman and not anything
>>>>>> I wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More strawman answering on your part......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So? Who, other than you, (and that idiot Max who clearly
>>>>>> has no idea about human DNA) even mentioned DNA of the
>>>>>> fetus.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human
>>>>> DNA and a tumor does not?
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. I don't see Fran disputing anything about DNA. But you
>>>> do!
>>>>
>>>> Obviously you don't understand that cancer cells also posses
>>>> the full genetic info of the host with some tiny but sadly very
>>>> significant point mutations that effects cell secretions, cell
>>>> division and cell life longevity.
>>>
>>> Thanks for confirming that the DNA of a tumor is different to the
>>> fetus.
>>
>> Fuck you are dumb!!!!!!
>>
>> He's confirming that the DNA of cells IS human but it's mutated.
>> The clue is in Ordog's first sentence "cancer cells also possess
>> the full genetic info OF THE HOST"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> So dumbo, if the host that has the cancer/tumour is a human, it's a
>> cancer/tumour that has HUMAN DNA. Not duck DNA, not Babboon DNA
>> or any other sort of DNA, it's human DNA.
>
> It is a different DNA to the host, otherwise it wouldn't be a mutant
> tumor?
>
> One set of cells is growing into a baby, the other is growing into a
> disgusting mutant tumor. Can you see the difference, or are you
> totally thick between the ears ?!

.... and what if it's the DNA of the unborn baby that has mutated due to
the cancer/tumour??
--
Daniel

In news:6oLvK.94621$lHb6.42686@fx13.ams4, �rd�g
<newsgroup.devil@Hell.Incorporated.biz> typed:

> max headroom, looking for his long lost brain

>> Testimony based on hearsay is not admissible in a court of law but it is
>> admissible before a partisan Congressional committee.

>> https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/29/jan-6-hutchinson-secret-service-00043164

>> https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/06/30/cassidy-hutchinsons-bombshell-testimony-takes-another-body-blow-n586666

> FOAD lowlife gun-fucker Trumpist creep.

Sorry to disturb you with facts.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 10:50:00 -0700, "max headroom"
<maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote:

>In news:6oLvK.94621$lHb6.42686@fx13.ams4, Ördög
><newsgroup.devil@Hell.Incorporated.biz> typed:
>
>> max headroom, looking for his long lost brain
>
>>> Testimony based on hearsay is not admissible in a court of law but it is
>>> admissible before a partisan Congressional committee.
>
>>> https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/29/jan-6-hutchinson-secret-service-00043164
>
>>> https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/06/30/cassidy-hutchinsons-bombshell-testimony-takes-another-body-blow-n586666
>
>> FOAD lowlife gun-fucker Trumpist creep.
>
>Sorry to disturb you with facts.
>
Ordog is just capable of lying bullshit.
He tries to spin that a baby never leaves the womb when being murdered
--
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"

Max

> Ördög
>> Max
>>> Ördög
>>>> Max
>>>>> Ördög
>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yawn.  You're answering your own strawman and not anything I wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More strawman answering on your part......
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So?  Who, other than you, (and that idiot Max who clearly has no
>>>>>>>> idea about human DNA) even mentioned DNA of the fetus.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human DNA
>>>>>>> and a tumor does not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm. I don't see Fran disputing anything about DNA.
>>>>>> But you do!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously you don't understand that cancer cells also posses the
>>>>>> full genetic info of the host with some tiny but sadly very
>>>>>> significant point mutations that effects cell secretions, cell
>>>>>> division and cell life longevity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for confirming that the DNA of a tumor is different to the
>>>>> fetus.
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks for confirming your scientific semi literacy.
>>>>
>>>> Point mutations are also possible in the cells of a developing
>>>> fetus. What do you thinks birth defects and many of the spontaneous
>>>> miscarriages are due to, eh?
>>>>
>>> The difference between tumor DNA and fetus DNA would be clear to any
>>> scientist.
>>
>> But since you apparently ain't one you have to rely on keep posting
>> your personally dreamed up bull on the subject.
>>
>>> Why are you even suggesting they could be the same, which is what
>>> Fran was disputing?
>>>
>>
>> I am just stating actual scientific facts about the cell-biology and
>> genetic material of cancer cells and a human embryo...and so was Fran.
>>
>> Give it up, will you? Pick a better winnable fight on another subject
>> you are a better expert at than on this one.
>>
>>>
>>>> Even more significantly not all point mutations are defects of
>>>> importance.
>>>>
>>>> Please do try catching up on the science of genetics before you spew
>>>> cooked up semi-literate pretend scientific crap supporting your own
>>>> political bigotry.
>>>>
>>>> NEXT!
>>>
>>> I bow down to your knowledge of science.  I didn't know you were a
>>> scientist.
>>>
>>
>> Well, now you do.
>>
>> I've spent years in the field of laboratory cancer research (female
>> reproductive cancers as well a prostate cancer) and worked at places
>> like the Vienna University Clinic for Chemotherapy, CSIRO and the
>> Australian Proteome Analysis Facility just to name a few. I have taken
>> courses on human hematological abnormalities (hereditary and acquired)
>> at Westmead Hospital and worked in pathology laboratories in Europe,
>> in the USA and in Sydney.
>>
>
> Sorry, I always thought you were Tony Smith, the Cairns lawyer, who used
> to post here.
>
> He used to post under "Blue Heeler" and I thought he had become "Ordog".
>
I've been the "newsgroup devil" ever since I started posting to Usenet.
How long have you been in this newsgroup? I've been here since the early
2000's

Yes, I also admit I've tactically used some additional nyms to beat down
some outrageous home grown and some aggressive and mostly septic
overseas trolls, but the nym Ördög is my regular one. (note the
Hungarian spelling)

>> So what is your field of expertise?
>
> I am in computing (programming).
> I did Computer Science and Law at university.
>
Just like my son (w/o the Law component)!
>

Well, I promise to you that I won't ever pretend to be an "expert" in
these fields (nor have done so in the past).
I am a layman as far as both, law and computing are concerned, although
in computing I am quite an advanced user and have the added advantage of
utilising my son's expertise when needed.

>>>
>>>>>   That is a huge problem for those scientists who seek
>>>>>> immunological methods for destroying cancerous growth as they have
>>>>>> to somehow coax human poly-clonal antibodies to attack human cells
>>>>>> (monoclonal antibodies don't always work as they are derived from
>>>>>> mice obtained cell cultures).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So do explain how a male can get the fetus to term without a
>>>>>>>> woman's body being involved?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, its easy ... one just have to join the political ultra
>>>>>> conservative hard-right alternate reality brigade to make that
>>>>>> happen... LOL!
>>>
>>
>

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

Max

> Fran
>> Fuck you are dumb! I KNOW that a fetus AND a tumour BOTH have human DNA.
>>
> They have different DNA, once is a mutated cancer, the other is a normal
> growing fetus which will become a baby.
>
> Have you ever seen a tumor become a baby?  I think not.

Have you ever seen a still birth or any form other form of birth defect?
There are spontaneous mutations which are compatible with life and there
are ones which ain't. And that is the same at the cellular level.

Look, I do understand that you want so desperately to win this debate
here but if you do stay away from the science part. Stick to the your
"moral" (whatever that might might to you), social and legal arguments.
Of course, I also know why you have attempted to argue the science
angle: it is harder to refute than the subjective moral and social ones.

However! Progressive leftist like me or even political centrist like
Fran you will never convince of anything if you deny the women's full
autonomy over what happens to their bodies.

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

Max wrote:
/snip/

> It is a different DNA to the host, otherwise it wouldn't be a mutant tumor?
>
> One set of cells is growing into a baby, the other is growing into a
> disgusting mutant tumor.  Can you see the difference, or are you totally
> thick between the ears ?!

Could you stop arguing the science of it. Seeing so much
misunderstanding of actual science on your part really-really saddens me.

Please, please, pretty please just stick to your subjective moral
arguments, will you!

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

Daniel65

> Max
>> Fran
>>> Max
>>>> Ördög
>>>>> Max
>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yawn.  You're answering your own strawman and not anything
>>>>>>> I wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More strawman answering on your part......
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So?  Who, other than you, (and that idiot Max who clearly
>>>>>>> has no idea about human DNA) even mentioned DNA of the
>>>>>>> fetus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human
>>>>>> DNA and a tumor does not?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm. I don't see Fran disputing anything about DNA. But you
>>>>> do!
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously you don't understand that cancer cells also posses
>>>>> the full genetic info of the host with some tiny but sadly very
>>>>> significant point mutations that effects cell secretions, cell
>>>>> division and cell life longevity.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for confirming that the DNA of a tumor is different to the
>>>> fetus.
>>>
>>> Fuck you are dumb!!!!!!
>>>
>>> He's confirming that the DNA of cells IS human but it's mutated.
>>> The clue is in Ordog's first sentence "cancer cells also possess
>>> the full genetic info OF THE HOST"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> So dumbo, if the host that has the cancer/tumour is a human, it's a
>>>  cancer/tumour that has HUMAN DNA.  Not duck DNA, not Babboon DNA
>>> or any other sort of DNA, it's human DNA.
>>
>> It is a different DNA to the host, otherwise it wouldn't be a mutant
>> tumor?
>>
>> One set of cells is growing into a baby, the other is growing into a
>>  disgusting mutant tumor.  Can you see the difference, or are you
>> totally thick between the ears ?!
>
> ... and what if it's the DNA of the unborn baby that has mutated due to
> the cancer/tumour??

Hey Daniel, are you playing the "Devil's advocate here? He-he-he. ;)

Anyhow, I am greatly irritated when I see people trying to construct
crazy arguments based on their own misunderstanding of science when in
fact actually their actual aim is winning the subjective moral and
social debate on the issue of contention.

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

max headroom, looking for his long lost brain

> Ördög
>> max headroom, looking for his long lost brain
>
>>> Testimony based on hearsay is not admissible in a court of law but it is
>>> admissible before a partisan Congressional committee.
>>
/snip crap/
YAWN! Grabbing for straws.
>
>> FOAD lowlife gun-fucker Trumpist creep.
>
> Sorry to disturb you with facts.
>

You have never ever posted anything factual nor rational to Usenet in
your sorry good for nothing gunfucked life.

Get lost troll from aus.politics. FOAD!

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

Petz, the certifiable village idiot has spoken

/snip/
> Ordog is just capable of lying bullshit.

Yet, you have never been able to factually pin any lies on me, however
just about everyone in this newsgroup can recall at least a few dozen or
so varying crazy lies you have served up here during your sorry posting
history.

> He tries to spin that a baby never leaves the womb when being murdered

There is something seriously wrong with this sentence above. Can you
spot it?
Was that concocted under the influence of GoonCon3 again?

:P :P :P :P

Anyhoo!
Hey Petz, try to concentrate. This thread is about your golden showered
orange hero, Trump the Saint and the the dominating far-right ideology
he represents. Goal post shifting failed.

Your bullshit idiot Xtian fundy sig flushed w/o reading.

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

Petz presents even more of his village idiot delusions

> Ördög
>> Petz presents the latest edition of his village idiot delusions
>>> Fran
>>>> Yep. Just a couple of nights ago, my husband was obviously totally lost
>>>> in thought so I quizzed him on what he was thinking. He's not a fan of
>>>> the US in any way other than it sometimes produces music he likes to
>>>> listen to. He had to spend a lot of time there when working for the
>>>> govt and his short summary of the place is that "It's fucked".
>>>>
>>>> Anyhoo, in explaining what he'd been thinking about, he too mentioned
>>>> that decision you cite but also went on to talk about the implications
>>>> that decision (and other US policies and the situation in Europe) would
>>>> have on the world. It was not a pretty scenario he presented but I do
>>>> agree with him on all that he said. In short, the world is not in a
>>>> good position ATM. Thank God we got rid of that previous evil and
>>>> incompetent govt with hard times facing us.
>>>>
>>> Replaced with communist Anthony Albanese
>>
>> Bullshit! Pure and simple. Even your newsgroup boyfriend said so.
>>
> Here is a photo 1989 of his activities promoting commies.

Bullshit! Pure and simple. Even your newsgroup boyfriend said so.>
> Fran is a lying hypocrite like you.

Stop projecting so frantically. Nobody buys your idiot drunken
assertions any more. Not even your newsgroup boyfriend.

/snip all non sequitur, random crap and goal post shifting comments/

You, Petz dear, must be suffering from a serious attention span deficit
disorder, most likely due to your acute alcoholism (alas, you are
regularly beyond the level of GoonCon3).
>>
>> Your desperate attempt at pathetic goalpost shift is hereby denied!
>>
>>> I agree the USA has been fucked since the days of George Washington.
>>
> <reams of your stinking shit flushed where it belongs>
>
Stop imitating your newsgroup boyfriend. Re-parroting his moronic abuse
line make you look even sillier that you really are.

Your idiot sig was flushed w/o any need to respond to it.

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

In news:0e5wK.47344$Z83.29092@fx10.ams4, �rd�g
<newsgroup.devil@Hell.Incorporated.biz> typed:

> max headroom, looking for his long lost brain
>> �rd�g
>>> max headroom, looking for his long lost brain

>>>> Testimony based on hearsay is not admissible in a court of law but it is
>>>> admissible before a partisan Congressional committee.

>>>> https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/29/jan-6-hutchinson-secret-service-00043164

>>>> https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/06/30/cassidy-hutchinsons-bombshell-testimony-takes-another-body-blow-n586666

> YAWN! Grabbing for straws.

Posting citations.

>>> FOAD lowlife gun-fucker Trumpist creep.

>> Sorry to disturb you with facts.

> You have never ever posted anything factual nor rational to Usenet in
> your sorry good for nothing gunfucked life.

Ooops. Looks like you just lied again.

> Get lost troll from aus.politics. FOAD!

You first.

On 2/07/2022 2:05 pm, Max wrote:
> On 2/07/2022 11:24 am, Fran wrote:
>> On 2/07/2022 10:38 am, Max wrote:
>>> On 2/07/2022 9:53 am, Ördög wrote:
>>>> Max just  keeps on trolling
>>>>
>>>> /Autosnip all virulent trolling crap/
>>>>
>>>> /and snip some more manually/
>>>>
>>>>> On 28/06/2022 10:29 am, Fran wrote:
>>>>>> That is just a bullshit strawman.  MY  'premise' (as opposed to
>>>>>> your strawman claim) is that survival of the fetus depends on the
>>>>>> placenta!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yawn.  You're answering your own strawman and not anything I wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More strawman answering on your part......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So?  Who, other than you, (and that idiot Max who clearly has no
>>>>>> idea about human DNA) even mentioned DNA of the fetus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human DNA and
>>>>> a tumor does not?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. I don't see Fran disputing anything about DNA.
>>>> But you do!
>>>>
>>>> Obviously you don't understand that cancer cells also posses the
>>>> full genetic info of the host with some tiny but sadly very
>>>> significant point mutations that effects cell secretions, cell
>>>> division and cell life longevity.
>>>
>>> Thanks for confirming that the DNA of a tumor is different to the fetus.
>>
>> Fuck you are dumb!!!!!!
>>
>> He's confirming that the DNA of cells IS human but it's mutated.  The
>> clue is in Ordog's first sentence "cancer cells also possess the full
>> genetic info OF THE HOST"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> So dumbo, if the host that has the cancer/tumour is a human, it's a
>> cancer/tumour that has HUMAN DNA.  Not duck DNA, not Babboon DNA or
>> any other sort of DNA, it's human DNA.
>
> It is a different DNA to the host, otherwise it wouldn't be a mutant tumor?

I know you have trouble understand what Ordog wrote but I'll play with
your for a tiny while. Carry that thought of 'mutant' further. If you
can...... We're talking about humans so humans are the 'host' as
mentioned by Ordog. Remember those 2 things: Host and human. Is it
DNA from a babboon that has mutated to form the cancer? Yes or no? Is
it DNA from a duck that has mutated to form a cancer? Yes or no?

By this stage have you yet figured out that the 'host' of the cancer (ie
a human) is the source of the mutated DNA? Therefore the DNA tha thas
mutated IS human DNA.

> One set of cells is growing into a baby, the other is growing into a
> disgusting mutant tumor.  Can you see the difference, or are you totally
> thick between the ears ?!

I know that cells grow in both those things and that they both involve
human DNA.

On 2/07/2022 10:15 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Max wrote on 2/7/22 2:05 pm:
>> On 2/07/2022 11:24 am, Fran wrote:
>>> On 2/07/2022 10:38 am, Max wrote:
>>>> On 2/07/2022 9:53 am, Ördög wrote:
>>>>> Max just  keeps on trolling
>>>>>
>>>>> /Autosnip all virulent trolling crap/
>>>>>
>>>>> /and snip some more manually/
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28/06/2022 10:29 am, Fran wrote:
>>>>>>> That is just a bullshit strawman.  MY  'premise' (as
>>>>>>> opposed to your strawman claim) is that survival of the
>>>>>>> fetus depends on the placenta!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yawn.  You're answering your own strawman and not anything
>>>>>>> I wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More strawman answering on your part......
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So?  Who, other than you, (and that idiot Max who clearly
>>>>>>> has no idea about human DNA) even mentioned DNA of the
>>>>>>> fetus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human
>>>>>> DNA and a tumor does not?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm. I don't see Fran disputing anything about DNA. But you
>>>>> do!
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously you don't understand that cancer cells also posses
>>>>> the full genetic info of the host with some tiny but sadly very
>>>>> significant point mutations that effects cell secretions, cell
>>>>> division and cell life longevity.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for confirming that the DNA of a tumor is different to the
>>>> fetus.
>>>
>>> Fuck you are dumb!!!!!!
>>>
>>> He's confirming that the DNA of cells IS human but it's mutated.
>>> The clue is in Ordog's first sentence "cancer cells also possess
>>> the full genetic info OF THE HOST"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> So dumbo, if the host that has the cancer/tumour is a human, it's a
>>>  cancer/tumour that has HUMAN DNA.  Not duck DNA, not Babboon DNA
>>> or any other sort of DNA, it's human DNA.
>>
>> It is a different DNA to the host, otherwise it wouldn't be a mutant
>> tumor?
>>
>> One set of cells is growing into a baby, the other is growing into a
>>  disgusting mutant tumor.  Can you see the difference, or are you
>> totally thick between the ears ?!
>
> ... and what if it's the DNA of the unborn baby that has mutated due to
> the cancer/tumour??

Hmmm Do you mean the fetus has turned cancerous, or that the fetus has
some mutations? I don't think the latter is all that uncommon but I've
never heard of a cancerous fetus but I guess that may be possible.

On 2/07/2022 1:53 pm, Max wrote:
> On 2/07/2022 12:08 pm, Ördög wrote:
>> Max on his trolling tour of aus.politics.\
>>
>>> Ördög wrote:
>>>> Max just  keeps on trolling
>>>>
>>>> /Autosnip all virulent trolling crap/
>>>>
>>>> /and snip some more manually/
>>>>
>>>>> On 28/06/2022 10:29 am, Fran wrote:
>>>>>> That is just a bullshit strawman.  MY  'premise' (as opposed to
>>>>>> your strawman claim) is that survival of the fetus depends on the
>>>>>> placenta!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yawn.  You're answering your own strawman and not anything I wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More strawman answering on your part......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So?  Who, other than you, (and that idiot Max who clearly has no
>>>>>> idea about human DNA) even mentioned DNA of the fetus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human DNA and
>>>>> a tumor does not?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. I don't see Fran disputing anything about DNA.
>>>> But you do!
>>>>
>>>> Obviously you don't understand that cancer cells also posses the
>>>> full genetic info of the host with some tiny but sadly very
>>>> significant point mutations that effects cell secretions, cell
>>>> division and cell life longevity.
>>>
>>> Thanks for confirming that the DNA of a tumor is different to the fetus.
>>>
>> Thanks for confirming your scientific semi literacy.
>>
>> Point mutations are also possible in the cells of a developing fetus.
>> What do you thinks birth defects and many of the spontaneous
>> miscarriages are due to, eh?
>>
>
> The difference between tumor DNA and fetus DNA would be clear to any
> scientist.

Ordog IS a scientist!!!!!!! He's given you all the information needed
to figure out how and why you are wrong.

> Why are you even suggesting they could be the same, which is what Fran
> was disputing?

Learn to read for comprehension as he did NOT not suggest they are the
same!!!!!!!
In short, both Ordog and I have told you (multiple times and in multiple
ways) that the DNA (ie the genetic material) in both a fetus and a
cancer/tumour is HUMAN but for some reason you seem to have trouble
accepting that applies. Neither Ordog nor myself said it's the SAME DNA
in both a fetus and/or a cancer because we both know that is NOT
possible BUT it IS human DNA in both a fetus and a cancer/tumour.

>> Even more significantly not all point mutations are defects of
>> importance.
>>
>> Please do try catching up on the science of genetics before you spew
>> cooked up semi-literate pretend scientific crap supporting your own
>> political bigotry.
>>
>> NEXT!
>
> I bow down to your knowledge of science.  I didn't know you were a
> scientist.

There are many things you don't know and here you've demonstrated that
you don't know how to read for comprehension.

On 2/07/2022 1:57 pm, Max wrote:
> On 2/07/2022 11:15 am, Fran wrote:
>> On 1/07/2022 9:15 pm, Max wrote:
>>> On 28/06/2022 10:29 am, Fran wrote:
>>>> On 28/06/2022 1:02 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 27/06/2022 10:08 am, Fran 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's irrelevant and that argument relies on the false premise that
>>>>> the fetus is part of the woman.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you seriously disputing the fact that a fetus has human DNA and a
>>> tumor does not?
>>
>> Fuck you are dumb! I KNOW that a fetus AND a tumour BOTH have human DNA.
>>
>>
>
> They have different DNA, once is a mutated cancer, the other is a normal
> growing fetus which will become a baby.

Well finally you've figured out that it's human DNA in both.

> Have you ever seen a tumor become a baby?  I think not.

I doubt that you think at all.

On 3/07/2022 10:32 am, Ördög wrote:
> Petz, the certifiable village idiot has spoken

>> He tries to spin that a baby never leaves the womb when being murdered
>
> There is something seriously wrong with this sentence above. Can you
> spot it?
> Was that concocted under the influence of GoonCon3 again?

LOL. Poor old pretzel.

On 3/07/2022 10:00 am, Ördög wrote:
> Max
>
>> Fran
>>> Fuck you are dumb! I KNOW that a fetus AND a tumour BOTH have human DNA.
>>>
>> They have different DNA, once is a mutated cancer, the other is a
>> normal growing fetus which will become a baby.
>>
>> Have you ever seen a tumor become a baby?  I think not.
>
> Have you ever seen a still birth or any form other form of birth defect?
> There are spontaneous mutations which are compatible with life and there
> are ones which ain't. And that is the same at the cellular level.
>
> Look, I do understand that you want so desperately to win this debate
> here but if you do stay away from the science part. Stick to the your
> "moral" (whatever that might might to you), social and legal arguments.
> Of course, I also know why you have attempted to argue the science
> angle: it is harder to refute than the subjective moral and social ones.
>
> However! Progressive leftist like me or even political centrist like
> Fran you will never convince of anything if you deny the women's full
> autonomy over what happens to their bodies.
>

Why are you such a rabid, agressive lefie, always telling people to FOAD
all the time?

Are you just nuts from posting in this newsgroup for so long?