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

> On 28-June-22 2:35 pm, hgt wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 11:02:28 +1000, Fran
>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@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.

> 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.

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.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 16:39:16 +1000, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 04:33:31 +1000, hgt <tf44@nurk.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 20:21:44 +1000, Fran
>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@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.

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.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 18:27:50 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 28/06/2022 4:39 pm, Petzl wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 04:33:31 +1000, hgt <tf44@nurk.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 20:21:44 +1000, Fran
>>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@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.
>
> Your post repeats itself several times. Perhaps you should check it
> over before hitting "Send".

He stole it from a yank, stupid.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 18:29:35 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 28/06/2022 2:30 pm, hgt wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:55:39 +1000, Fran
>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabefran.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/06/2022 10:28 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 28/06/2022 9:08 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 09:03:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson
>>>>> <trevor@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
>>>>>>> <trevor@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.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> That is not true.

Fraid so.

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

What I said, stupid.

>>> 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.

On 28/06/2022 7:53 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 18:29:35 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 28/06/2022 2:30 pm, hgt wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:55:39 +1000, Fran
>>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabefran.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28/06/2022 10:28 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 28/06/2022 9:08 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 09:03:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>> <trevor@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
>>>>>>>> <trevor@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.
>>>
>>>>>  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.
>>>
>>
>> That is not true.
>
> Fraid so.
>
>> Catholics don't support abortion if not aborting would kill the mother.
>
> What I said, stupid.
>

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

>>>> 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.

Max is a Fucking Retard wrote:
====================================
>
>
> What I mean is that Catholics would oppose abortion if the abortion
> would kill the mother.
>

** GIANT HUH !!!

Abortionists must aim NOT to kill the mother.
Doing that, deliberately or recklessly, would of course be murder.

Killing the unborn is simply part of the game.
Gotta be sure it is dead before extracting it.

...... Phil

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Max wrote

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

> GIANT HUH !!!

> Abortionists must aim NOT to kill the mother.
> Doing that, deliberately or recklessly, would of course be murder.

> Killing the unborn is simply part of the game.
> Gotta be sure it is dead before extracting it.

In fact they just rip it to bits whether it is dead or not.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 19:36:51 +1000, hgt <tf44@nurk.com> wrote:

It is the wish of all religions to increase the number of their
adherents. Religion tends to be a force for social cohesion. More
cannon fodder and workers. Hence the ban on contraception etc.
Also, if the clerics can be dissuaded to marry and spawn, the assets
of churches are saved from claims from descendents.
Apply Occam's Razor to the swill.

Of course religious houses were the "welfare state" of their times, so
we all made it through.

Abortion arose to present levels when sheer survival gave way to
consumption.

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

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

Sadly your mere existence proves otherwise.
You are the example for a cancerous tumor on society (a pseudo human),
that has somehow achieved enough sentience after birth only to exploit
socially contributing real humans and also to spread toxic hard-right
bullshit propaganda wherever you turn up.

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

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
> hgt <tf44@nurk.com> wrote

> It is the wish of all religions to increase the number of their
> adherents.

That's not true. The jews even discourage non jews from becoming jews.

And a few other religions don't bother increase the number of their
adherents.

> Religion tends to be a force for social cohesion.

Bullshit when they try to rip each other's throats out.

> More cannon fodder and workers. Hence the ban on contraception etc.

There aren't many religions that ban contraception.
And most roman catholics ignore the ban now except
in the third world.

> Also, if the clerics can be dissuaded to marry and spawn, theassets of
> churches are saved from claims from descendents.

There are no possible claims from the descendants.

> Apply Occam's Razor to the swill.

> Of course religious houses were the "welfare state" of their times,

Not really, most of the first world had workhouses.

Tho it was true to some extent for 'orphans' tho
many of the inmates weren't actually orphans, just
dumped there by the father when the mother had
died or had run off etc.

> so we all made it through.

In fact the roman catholic homes for kids killed
a surprisingly large percentage of the kids.

> Abortion arose to present levels whensheer survival gave way to
> consumption.

That mangles the real story too.

In the Victorian era in england they had baby farms
with a very high percentage of the brats ending up
dead but then so do the brats of even the most
wealthy familys. Darwin lost some of his kids.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 10:05:04 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>> hgt <tf44@nurk.com> wrote
>
>> It is the wish of all religions to increase the number of their
>> adherents.
>
>That's not true. The jews even discourage non jews from becoming jews.
>
>And a few other religions don't bother increase the number of their
>adherents.

I was referring to the major ones. Not the Shakers, Tremblers, Xtian
Scientists etc. The Hasidic Jews are notorious for big families.
>
>> Religion tends to be a force for social cohesion.
>
>Bullshit when they try to rip each other's throats out.

That's for the "others" in the next country with the ''false''
religion.
>
>> More cannon fodder and workers. Hence the ban on contraception etc.
>
>There aren't many religions that ban contraception.
>And most roman catholics ignore the ban now except
>in the third world.

Nevertheless it's a big factor.

>
>> Also, if the clerics can be dissuaded to marry and spawn, theassets of
>> churches are saved from claims from descendents.
>
>There are no possible claims from the descendants.

Not now. But in the good old days? Nepotism? Simony?
>
>> Apply Occam's Razor to the swill.
>
>> Of course religious houses were the "welfare state" of their times,
>
>Not really, most of the first world had workhouses.

Before that. In Medieval times. MUST you nit-pick?
>
>Tho it was true to some extent for 'orphans' tho
>many of the inmates weren't actually orphans, just
>dumped there by the father when the mother had
>died or had run off etc.
>
>> so we all made it through.
>
>In fact the roman catholic homes for kids killed
>a surprisingly large percentage of the kids.

You watch too much TV. Many religious orders were floated to get the
feral kids off the streets. Fewer died in homes than on the streets.
The great aim was to get them taught the ABC's and arithmetic. Laws
were passed in the late 1800s to keep the brats in school 'till the
age of 14. And there were trade schools and the armed forces.
>
>> Abortion arose to present levels whensheer survival gave way to
>> consumption.
>
>That mangles the real story too.
>
>In the Victorian era in england they had baby farms
>with a very high percentage of the brats ending up
>dead but then so do the brats of even the most
>wealthy familys. Darwin lost some of his kids.

Men like to fuck; women like to cluck. Part of the process involved
getting offspring to care for the older folk. And women love to sit
in a corner & give birth; they're built for it.
And what did that have to do with it?

Peter Jerkoff wrote:
===================
>
>
> >> Religion tends to be a force for social cohesion.
> >
> >Bullshit when they try to rip each other's throats out.
>
> That's for the "others" in the next country with the ''false''
> religion.

** ???? what a dumb fob off.

It's when they are in the SAME country that violent shit happens.
Which is the case nearly everywhere.

> >> More cannon fodder and workers. Hence the ban on contraception etc.
> >
> >There aren't many religions that ban contraception.
> Nevertheless it's a big factor.

** Stupid, blatant LIE .

>
> >> Also, if the clerics can be dissuaded to marry and spawn, theassets of
> >> churches are saved from claims from descendents.
> >
> >There are no possible claims from the descendants.
>
> Not now. But in the good old days? Nepotism? Simony?
>
** Stupid, blatant LIE,

> >
> >> Abortion arose to present levels when sheer survival gave way to
> >> consumption.
> >
> >That mangles the real story too.

** The rise in abortions was mostly due to law change and new technology starting in the 1970s.
Made it seem OK, to those who follow crowds.

....... Phil

On 28/06/2022 3:49 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 28-June-22 2:35 pm, hgt wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 11:02:28 +1000, Fran
>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@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.
>>
>
> 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.

**Or, like Hillsong and Scientology, for the tax dodge.

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

On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 11:04:52 +1000, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 10:05:04 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>> hgt <tf44@nurk.com> wrote
>>
>>> It is the wish of all religions to increase the number of their
>>> adherents.
>>
>> That's not true. The jews even discourage non jews from becoming jews.
>>
>> And a few other religions don't bother increase the number of their
>> adherents.

> I was referring to the major ones. Not the Shakers, Tremblers, Xtian
> Scientists etc.

You are still wrong. Few except the xtians do much missionary activity.

> The Hasidic Jews are notorious for big families.

But don't recruit non jews at all.

>>> Religion tends to be a force for social cohesion.

>> Bullshit when they try to rip each other's throats out.

> That's for the "others" in the next country with the ''false''
> religion.

Nope, in the same country. The poms even made roman
catholics illegal at one time and burnt plenty at the stake,
quite literally.

Lots of those who migrated to america did so
because of religious persecution in england.

>>> More cannon fodder and workers. Hence the ban on contraception etc.
>>
>> There aren't many religions that ban contraception.
>> And most roman catholics ignore the ban now except
>> in the third world.
>
> Nevertheless it's a big factor.

Nope.

>>> Also, if the clerics can be dissuaded to marry and spawn, theassets
>>> of churches are saved from claims from descendents.

>> There are no possible claims from the descendants.

> Not now.

Not ever.

> But in the good old days? Nepotism?

Not much of that at all with the anglicans or other protestants.

It was only ever very common in america with the
very fringe bible bashers with their own church.

> Simony?

That had nothing to do with dependents.

>>> Apply Occam's Razor to the swill.
>>
>>> Of course religious houses were the "welfare state" of their times,
>>
>> Not really, most of the first world had workhouses.
>
> Before that. In Medieval times.

In the sense of charity, sure.

> MUST you nit-pick?

MUST you bullshit your way out of your predicament ?

>> Tho it was true to some extent for 'orphans' tho
>> many of the inmates weren't actually orphans, just
>> dumped there by the father when the mother had
>> died or had run off etc.
>>
>>> so we all made it through.
>>
>> In fact the roman catholic homes for kids killed
>> a surprisingly large percentage of the kids.

> You watch too much TV.

Nothing to do with TV, that's from docos.

> Many religious orders were floated to get the
> feral kids off the streets.

Only with the orphanages, which killed
a large percentage of the kids in them.

> Fewer died in homes than on the streets.

BULLSHIT.

> The great aim was to get them taught the ABC's and arithmetic. Laws
> were passed in the late 1800s to keep the brats in school 'till the
> age of 14. And there were trade schools and the armed forces.

Not by religions.

>>> Abortion arose to present levels when sheer survival gave way to
>>> consumption.
>>
>> That mangles the real story too.
>>
>> In the Victorian era in england they had baby farms
>> with a very high percentage of the brats ending up
>> dead but then so do the brats of even the most
>> wealthy familys. Darwin lost some of his kids.

> Men like to fuck; women like to cluck. Part of the process involved
> getting offspring to care for the older folk. And women love to sit
> in a corner & give birth; they're built for it.
> And what did that have to do with it?

The baby farms weren't done by the religioius.

Fran wrote on 28/6/22 10:48 am:

<Snip>

> :-))  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.

Oh, come on, Fran. Rod always knows exactly what he means ...... it's
just we poor mortals who have trouble making any sense of what he
types!! ;-P
--
Daniel

Rod Speed wrote on 28/6/22 10:52 am:

<Snip>

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

Ah!! So 'reams' is a synonym for 'one line' .... cause that's all you
'flushed' of Trevor's post, Rod!!
--
Daniel

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.

On 1/07/2022 10:14 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Fran wrote on 28/6/22 10:48 am:
>
> <Snip>
>
>> :-))  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.
>
> Oh, come on, Fran. Rod always knows exactly what he means ...... it's
> just we poor mortals who have trouble making any sense of what he
> types!! ;-P

Hmmm. I'm not convinced.

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.

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.

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 10:00 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?

Max wrote:
> 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?

Did I?
Telling everyone?
C'me on.You do know or should know that is really NOT the case.

But I fully admit, I am merciless towards aggressive and unrepentant
trolls, specially the 'know nothing about Australia' septic ones and
those home grown mis-educated, brain-washed/brain dead creeps who spew
mindless far-right and often religious loon propaganda into the
newsgroup rubbishing and abusing all who try to argue a more moderate
position while denying openly all facts and reality not supporting their
extremist causes.

I shall never apologies for taking a far-left's position on cultural,
political and social issues. Someone has to put up the contrasting
opinions representing the Left into the public domain which is currently
so heavily overrun by hard-right/alt-right propaganda warriors.
>
> Are you just nuts from posting in this newsgroup for so long?

YAWN! That was just a very pathetic comment coming from you.

I respond to every post on its merits mirroring the exact degree of
aggressiveness and quality (or the lack thereof) of content.

That applies to you too. If you bite me I bite back. HARD!
And I shall never apologise for that.

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

On 3/07/2022 3:18 pm, Ördög wrote:
> Max wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Did I?
> Telling everyone?
> C'me on.You do know or should know that is really NOT the case.
>
> But I fully admit, I am merciless towards aggressive and unrepentant
> trolls, specially the 'know nothing about Australia' septic ones and
> those home grown mis-educated, brain-washed/brain dead creeps who spew
> mindless far-right and often religious loon propaganda into the
> newsgroup rubbishing and abusing all who try to argue a more moderate
> position while denying openly all facts and reality not supporting their
> extremist causes.
>
> I shall never apologies for taking a far-left's position on cultural,
> political and social issues. Someone has to put up the contrasting
> opinions representing the Left into the public domain which is currently
> so heavily overrun by hard-right/alt-right propaganda warriors.

Would you like it if Labor was in power for the next 100 years?

>>
>> Are you just nuts from posting in this newsgroup for so long?
>
> YAWN! That was just a very pathetic comment coming from you.
>
> I respond to every post on its merits mirroring the exact degree of
> aggressiveness and quality (or the lack thereof) of content.
>
> That applies to you too. If you bite me I bite back. HARD!
> And I shall never apologise for that.
>

Ördög wrote on 3/7/22 10:00 am:
> 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.

If there weren't 'spontaneous mutations which are compatible with life",
we would all look exactly the same as our brothers/sisters, which, with
limited exceptions, we don't!!
--
Daniel