11-Year-Old Rape Victim Begged for an Abortion. She Was Forced to Give Birth Instead.

First topic message reminder :

After doctors ignored eight different requests for an abortion, the baby was born weighing just over one pound and is not expected to survive.

An 11-year-old Argentinian girl raped by her grandmother’s partner pleaded with her hospital eight separate times for an abortion, advocates say. On Tuesday, at 23 weeks pregnant, she gave birth via cesarean section to a 1.3-lb baby after being denied an abortion for more than a month.

The case of “Lucia,” who is using a pseudonym to protect her privacy, has ignited the debate over abortion in Argentina, where it remains difficult to access the procedure even in cases of rape or health concerns.

Lucia first checked into the hospital in late January complaining of stomach pains, according to local news reports. She eventually revealed to doctors that her grandmother’s 65-year-old partner had sexually abused her. The doctors confirmed she was pregnant, but by then she was already 19 weeks along.

Gustavo Vigliocco, the Secretary of Health of Tucumán, a conservative northern province, initially told Argentine media that officials did not perform an abortion because the child wanted to carry her baby to term. He dismissed safety concerns around the plan, saying the pre-teen was “big in build” and weighed “more than 50 kilos."

But Mariana Paterlini of human rights organization Andhes, which filed a brief in Lucia’s case, told The Daily Beast the girl had requested an abortion eight different times—including at the criminal trial for her abuser, who is currently awaiting sentencing.

Paterlini also dismissed the state’s claims that Lucia’s mother had failed to register her consent for the abortion in a timely manner.

“She didn’t know where to send it because she doesn’t write or read, so she was not completely aware of her rights,” Paterlini said. “She talked with us, her will was public, but nobody helped her … That’s where the state failed.”


https://www.thedailybeast.com/11-year-old-rape-victim-begged-for-an-abortion-she-was-forced-to-give-birth-instead?ref=home

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:Rags is ignoring the evidence

The state clearly did not take on the many requests and already the country has poor laws on this.

Hence why its of no surpise something like this happenes in a dominantly Catholic country

As again we see poor maths by Rags

22-24 weeks is variance of the limit in most countries and this was performed at 23 weeks

https://www.government.nl/topics/abortion/question-and-answer/what-is-the-time-limit-for-having-an-abortion

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/abortion/

A month before, would have placed this very much so within the limit at 19  weeks

People need to read the story through

There's nothing wrong with my maths. My post was clearly stating my opinion - I'm not interested in your version of the law.

Your claim was inherantly incorrect, as seen

Files were submitted to the court on this which later led to not an abortion but cesarean

You gave a view on what you see as late with abortion, that is it to base your claims, ignoring the information how she did wish to have an abortion and asked 8 times

Your maths was utterly poor

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There's nothing wrong with my maths. My post was clearly stating my opinion - I'm not interested in your version of the law.

Your claim was inherantly incorrect, as seen

Files were submitted to the court on this which later led to not an abortion but cesarean

You gave a view on what you see as late with abortion, that is it to base your claims, ignoring the information how she did wish to have an abortion and asked 8 times

Your maths was utterly poor

It wasn't incorrect at all, and my maths is fine. You might think it's great to kill babies, but I don't. She asked for an abortion at 19 weeks, which IMO is late. She didn't get one because they couldn't sort out who needed to give parental consent. Read up on it before you spout off telling everyone how you know everything.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Your claim was inherantly incorrect, as seen

Files were submitted to the court on this which later led to not an abortion but cesarean

You gave a view on what you see as late with abortion, that is it to base your claims, ignoring the information how she did wish to have an abortion and asked 8 times

Your maths was utterly poor

It wasn't incorrect at all, and my maths is fine. You might think it's great to kill babies, but I don't. She asked for an abortion at 19 weeks, which IMO is late. She didn't get one because they couldn't sort out who needed to give parental consent. Read up on it before you spout off telling everyone how you know everything.

She asked at 19 weeks, which is even below your low limit for abortions, which is not late at all. In countries that supply abortion

In fact the limit ranges from 22-24 weeks, as seen

It should never even be down to parental consent, as its her body, where this child was actually raped. Another factor you fail to understand

As seen the state made many excuse and in fact parental consent was given for this

That is very clear in the article

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It wasn't incorrect at all, and my maths is fine. You might think it's great to kill babies, but I don't. She asked for an abortion at 19 weeks, which IMO is late. She didn't get one because they couldn't sort out who needed to give parental consent. Read up on it before you spout off telling everyone how you know everything.

She asked at 19 weeks, which is even below your low limit for abortions, which is not late at all. In countries that supply abortion

In fact the limit ranges from 22-24 weeks, as seen

It should never even be down to parental consent, as its her body, where this child was actually raped. Another factor you fail to understand

As seen the state made many excuse and in fact parental consent was given for this

That is very clear in the article

The laws are wrong IMO, and the limit should be much earlier. If you have a different opinion, then your opinion is wrong in my opinion. She needed consent because she's a child. I see you still haven't actually read up on the case. The consent by the mother was not considered valid because the girl was not in her care.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

She asked at 19 weeks, which is even below your low limit for abortions, which is not late at all. In countries that supply abortion

In fact the limit ranges from 22-24 weeks, as seen

It should never even be down to parental consent, as its her body, where this child was actually raped. Another factor you fail to understand

As seen the state made many excuse and in fact parental consent was given for this

That is very clear in the article

The laws are wrong IMO, and the limit should be much earlier. If you have a different opinion, then your opinion is wrong in my opinion. She needed consent because she's a child. I see you still haven't actually read up on the case. The consent by the mother was not considered valid because the girl was not in her care.

Oh so medical professionals are wrong to you, which is what you are saying.
At the end of the day your opionion should never count to the person who decides whether or not to have an abortion. As its thus then you trying to impose your beliefs onto theirs.
I did read the case thnk you very much and the courts finally agreed to the abortion, or did you not read that.
What you are trying to is defend the poor religious extremist beliefs of the state, trying to enforce their beliefs on to this child victim of rape

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The laws are wrong IMO, and the limit should be much earlier. If you have a different opinion, then your opinion is wrong in my opinion. She needed consent because she's a child. I see you still haven't actually read up on the case. The consent by the mother was not considered valid because the girl was not in her care.

Oh so medical professionals are wrong to you, which is what you are saying.
At the end of the day your opionion should never count to the person who decides whether or not to have an abortion. As its thus then you trying to impose your beliefs onto theirs.
I did read the case thnk you very much and the courts finally agreed to the abortion, or did you not read that.
What you are trying to is defend the poor religious extremist beliefs of the state, trying to enforce their beliefs on to this child victim of rape

The law makers are wrong. The opinion of several doctors mattered to that girl, and they were perfectly entitled to refuse to end the life of the baby.

I know they agreed to an abortion - I already said that. Learn to read.

It's nothing to do with my religious beliefs, it's down to decency and respect for an unborn life, which you clearly don't give a stuff about.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Oh so medical professionals are wrong to you, which is what you are saying.
At the end of the day your opionion should never count to the person who decides whether or not to have an abortion. As its thus then you trying to impose your beliefs onto theirs.
I did read the case thnk you very much and the courts finally agreed to the abortion, or did you not read that.
What you are trying to is defend the poor religious extremist beliefs of the state, trying to enforce their beliefs on to this child victim of rape

The law makers are wrong. The opinion of several doctors mattered to that girl, and they were perfectly entitled to refuse to end the life of the baby.

I know they agreed to an abortion - I already said that. Learn to read.

It's nothing to do with my religious beliefs, it's down to decency and respect for an unborn life, which you clearly don't give a stuff about.

The law is based upon the understanding of years of research by the medical profession

So your opinion holds little value, when its based on emotions and not scientific data

Well actually i do care about life, but know, we also allow laws to take life

For example the law of self defense

Or in times of war

Or how in every action you do daily, life will actually suffer, which i guess you are unaware of

Its the biggest flaw of pro lifers.

Where whilst I again am pro choice, I do think abortions are unethical. However, I have no right to decide what a women does with her body and would never force you to do the same. As that is your right, not mine. Whilst i think there should be age limitations on many aspects that could change a body, when it comes to abortions. There should never be a requirement for consent

The fact you and others never quantify, is that the moment you try to impose laws to ban abortions, you will send people down the illegal path. Which creates further complications for women using unsafe illegal practitioners

So I do not hold for one minute I am a 100% believer in pro life, as nobody can truely say their lifes do not effect other life. If you think you dont, then you are greatly mistaken. I still value human life though and understand it has limitations

I have even proposed how alternatives could be an option with a view for a future possibility of embryo transplants to people who then want to carry the fetus. In order that it is not aborted

I even stated here about a cesarean alternative method being used, but asked rightly what chance of survival would the fetus have? The chances of survial are extremely low. Hence why its down to the person carrying to decide. As at present medical science is not at a stage to provide proper alternatives and until they do. You have absolutely zero say, in enforcing your Christian beliefs on abortions onto others. So spare me the view this has nothing to do with your religious beliefs

You're just pro abortion Didge, and anti-Christian as well. In other words, you're a fan of murder and bigotry.

smelly-bandit wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

At least the smelly-bum' trollster will be proud that some equally backward misogynists  have yet again fullfilled his perverted anti-humanitarian desires...

And as with smelly' and his similarly-depraved supporters, their faux-religious-backed mission ends with the baby's birth..

True to form, neither the Argentine authorities nor smelly's odious little clique will give even the slightest damn about the welfare of either mother or child.

IF there is a "hell" in smelly's deranged parallel universe, then smelly' and all his like-minded "pro-lifers"/anti-abortionists can rest assured that they already have their seats "down there" reserved..

That's quite a rant, even for you.

I do so enjoy getting under your skin,
though you should know that when you lose your shit like this it only encourages me.

That is as good a definition of a troll as any. You enjoy posting stuff that makes people's blood boil - and their anger 'encourages' you? Hmmm you are honest! 


Guys, the secret to coping with SB, is to remember he is an attention seeker. He goes the full nine yards to ensure he gets noticed. The size and prominence of his 'proud boy' sig, for eg.

Once you understand that he craves attention, he will not annoy you's anymore. You will just shrug next time he gets provocative - you will not get too angry with him once you understand his psyche.

Raggamuffin wrote:You're just pro abortion Didge, and anti-Christian as well. In other words, you're a fan of murder and bigotry.

I am certainly anti-Paulianity beliefs,which is what most christians follow today (which is inherantly sexist and hateful of women) but back the teachings of Christ in many factors.

I am pro choice and open to alternatives

The fact you again use supercharged emotional views to class this as murder, says everything how again you emotionally compemise yourself on this debate

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:You're just pro abortion Didge, and anti-Christian as well. In other words, you're a fan of murder and bigotry.

I am certainly anti-Paulianity beliefs,which is what most christians follow today (which is inherantly sexist and hateful of women) but back the teachings of Christ in many factors.

I am pro choice and open to alternatives

The fact you again use supercharged emotional views to class this as murder, says everything how again you emotionally compemise yourself on this debate

Don't pretend that you're suddenly using logic. You never used logic in your life. You don't give a stuff about the girl, you're just anti-Catholic so you want to have a pop at Argentina.

Back on topic:

What a poor excuse  that this awful mess happened because the  mum of the 11 yo is illiterate. 

Maybe mum has special needs? [She was either too thick to notice the sexual molestation or too helpless to stop it]. Argentina like to boast that they are a modern, developed country - no one should be illiterate  - and even if they are - they should still be able to access urgent social and medical help.


This scandal shames a LOT of people.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

I am certainly anti-Paulianity beliefs,which is what most christians follow today (which is inherantly sexist and hateful of women) but back the teachings of Christ in many factors.

I am pro choice and open to alternatives

The fact you again use supercharged emotional views to class this as murder, says everything how again you emotionally compemise yourself on this debate

Don't pretend that you're suddenly using logic. You never used logic in your life. You don't give a stuff about the girl, you're just anti-Catholic so you want to have a pop at Argentina.

Like I said, emotionally compremised


Tell me Rags, when did the catholic church ever care about the child victims of rape by priests world over?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't pretend that you're suddenly using logic. You never used logic in your life. You don't give a stuff about the girl, you're just anti-Catholic so you want to have a pop at Argentina.

Like I said, emotionally compremised


Tell me Rags, when did the catholic church ever care about the child victims of rape by priests world over?

Off topic. As I said, you don't give a stuff about the child, you're just angry about Catholicism, which makes you the one who is emotionally compromised.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Like I said, emotionally compremised


Tell me Rags, when did the catholic church ever care about the child victims of rape by priests world over?

Off topic. As I said, you don't give a stuff about the child, you're just angry about Catholicism, which makes you the one who is emotionally compromised.

As seen i do care about the rape victim, as she was abused and no doubt the church hid this, as they have on many other cases of child abuse

Well considering my family are catholics, they dont get worked up as you do, when we disagree on this

They even admit the Catholic church has done many wrongs in history

Catholicisim, is just about one of the most misogynistic belief systems going

Which like within Judaism, is happy to take lives of others, if it seems their God orders this

Its the first examples we see through a concept caller Herem, that calls for genocide

I mean one of the most celebrated views, is the killing of the first born of Eygpt, when the Jews were held in slavery

So you will forgive me, when i rightly say, there is no way, that catholocism, is pro life

Jules wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

That's quite a rant, even for you.

I do so enjoy getting under your skin,
though you should know that when you lose your shit like this it only encourages me.

That is as good a definition of a troll as any. You enjoy posting stuff that makes people's blood boil - and their anger 'encourages' you? Hmmm you are honest! 


Guys, the secret to coping with SB, is to remember he is an attention seeker. He goes the full nine yards to ensure he gets noticed. The size and prominence of his 'proud boy' sig, for eg.

Once you understand that he craves attention, he will not annoy you's anymore. You will just shrug next time he gets provocative - you will not get too angry with him once you understand his psyche.

im the biggest intellectual troll you will ever meet sweatheart

you couldnt ignore me, im the mirror to your liberal values, its the trap you see.

you love to virtue signal your liberal values but when you look into the mirror you hate what you see, because what you see is what i see, and you hate me for showing it to you,

if you think im wrong about that then why does your "blood boil" when i post?? if you are so certain of your position and confident in your moral superiority then why the anger??

i dont get angry with other people, i know im right and they are wrong, its as simple as that.

there is no need for anger simply because they cant or in many cases refuse to see why they are wrong, but you getting angry tells me you already know youre in the wrong, and that simply reaffirms my values and points of view.

youre the one who has to live with yourself not me, maybe thats why youre so angry. perhaps you should develop and evolve your own set of values and morals instead of playing identity politics.

Back on topic:

What a poor excuse  that this awful mess happened because the  mum of the 11 yo is illiterate. 

Maybe mum has special needs? [She was either too thick to notice the sexual molestation or too helpless to stop it]. Argentina like to boast that they are a modern, developed country - no one should be illiterate  - and even if they are - they should still be able to access urgent social and medical help.


This scandal shames a LOT of people.

duplicate

smelly-bandit wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

At least the smelly-bum' trollster will be proud that some equally backward misogynists  have yet again fullfilled his perverted anti-humanitarian desires...

And as with smelly' and his similarly-depraved supporters, their faux-religious-backed mission ends with the baby's birth..

True to form, neither the Argentine authorities nor smelly's odious little clique will give even the slightest damn about the welfare of either mother or child.

IF there is a "hell" in smelly's deranged parallel universe, then smelly' and all his like-minded "pro-lifers"/anti-abortionists can rest assured that they already have their seats "down there" reserved..

That's quite a rant, even for you.

I do so enjoy getting under your skin,
though you should know that when you lose your shit like this it only encourages me.

That is as good a definition of a troll as any. You enjoy posting stuff that makes people's blood boil - and their anger 'encourages' you? Hmmm you are honest! 


Guys, the secret to coping with SB, is to remember he is an attention seeker. He goes the full nine yards to ensure he gets noticed. The size and prominence of his 'proud boy' sig, for eg.

Once you understand that he craves attention, he will not annoy you's anymore. You will just shrug next time he gets provocative - you will not get too angry with him once you understand his psyche.

smelly-bandit wrote:

The pro abortion lot would lobby govt and riot in the streets to prevent any new legislation that banned abortion in the event that medical technology was developed to allow the child to be transferred to some kind of artifical womb or indeed the womb of another woman who potentially couldn't fall pregnant naturally, and then allowed to live to term.

Thor wrote:Well considering a bortion never would be banned in the first place with new medical options. It would mean there is simple new options. Even if it was banned, you again are making assumtpions people would not welcome a better alternative. Though its hard to see how this is even a better alternative when the fetus is unlikely to survive using cesarian at 20 weeks

Its never been about choice really, it's only ever been about control. Women have a pathological requirement to be in control which is why they are getting super angry at male contraceptives and sexbots, and I predict civil war if the artificial womb is ever invented because it strip women of their control over death and over life and make women utterly redundant.

Thor wrote:Well its really odd, that you use control, when you are attempting to control the lives of others. You then interject some really unscientifc nonsense and quite blatant sexist babble. Claiming women have a pathological requirement to be in control. Where for most of human history, this has rarely even happened. So your predictions based on alternatives are more based on your extreme ideological mysognoistic views on por choice women

Ironically the dream preached by feminists of female empowerment by being freed from biological shackles of carrying the child would be realised.............. And women would fucking hate it.

Thor wrote:Again is this based on their views, or actually yours?
You actually have no idea, but would spread the most ridiculous and outrageous claims, that have no bearing as nobody can predict how women would react to this

No, the pro abortion lot would never tolerate where they didn't have the final say over abortion, their ideology is based on 4 words "her body her choice" and no change to that status quo will ever be allowed

What gets me, is how you have continued to ignore Madoogs original point on using this alternative option with pro lifers taking up the mantle to then care for a cesarian birth at 20 weeks. In fact you have avoided this main point throughout. To simple go on one of your hateful rants against women

Jules wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

That's quite a rant, even for you.

I do so enjoy getting under your skin,
though you should know that when you lose your shit like this it only encourages me.

That is as good a definition of a troll as any. You enjoy posting stuff that makes people's blood boil - and their anger 'encourages' you? Hmmm you are honest! 


Guys, the secret to coping with SB, is to remember he is an attention seeker. He goes the full nine yards to ensure he gets noticed. The size and prominence of his 'proud boy' sig, for eg.

Once you understand that he craves attention, he will not annoy you's anymore. You will just shrug next time he gets provocative - you will not get too angry with him once you understand his psyche.

He doesn't annoy me anyway.

I can't blame him for laughing at Wolfboy's outburst.

Jules wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

That's quite a rant, even for you.

I do so enjoy getting under your skin,
though you should know that when you lose your shit like this it only encourages me.

That is as good a definition of a troll as any. You enjoy posting stuff that makes people's blood boil - and their anger 'encourages' you? Hmmm you are honest! 


Guys, the secret to coping with SB, is to remember he is an attention seeker. He goes the full nine yards to ensure he gets noticed. The size and prominence of his 'proud boy' sig, for eg.

Once you understand that he craves attention, he will not annoy you's anymore. You will just shrug next time he gets provocative - you will not get too angry with him once you understand his psyche.

Spot on 

Thor wrote:

Jules wrote:

That is as good a definition of a troll as any. You enjoy posting stuff that makes people's blood boil - and their anger 'encourages' you? Hmmm you are honest! 


Guys, the secret to coping with SB, is to remember he is an attention seeker. He goes the full nine yards to ensure he gets noticed. The size and prominence of his 'proud boy' sig, for eg.

Once you understand that he craves attention, he will not annoy you's anymore. You will just shrug next time he gets provocative - you will not get too angry with him once you understand his psyche.

Spot on 

...puts our Russian bot into proper perspective, donnit?

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

Spot on 

...puts our Russian bot into proper perspective, donnit?  

+1

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

Spot on 

...puts our Russian bot into proper perspective, donnit?  

We got your president elected and we gonna do it again.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

...puts our Russian bot into proper perspective, donnit?  

We got your president elected and we gonna do it again.

So you are admitting to interference in US Elections

wow

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

...puts our Russian bot into proper perspective, donnit?  

We got your president elected and we gonna do it again.

Um...not elected. He lost by 3-million votes. Just maneuvered.

I mention this, not that I think you Russians didn't do it right, but to point out the United States presidency is not a democratic position.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

We got your president elected and we gonna do it again.

Um...not elected.  He lost by 3-million votes.  Just maneuvered.

I mention this, not that I think you Russians didn't do it right, but to point out the United States presidency is not a democratic position.

ahhh dee dums

are you butthurt?? poor quill

put your pussyhat on and take one of these "man up" pills for your leaky vagina

The standard of insult round here gets ever more pathetic.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Um...not elected.  He lost by 3-million votes.  Just maneuvered.

I mention this, not that I think you Russians didn't do it right, but to point out the United States presidency is not a democratic position.

ahhh dee dums

are you butthurt?? poor quill

put your pussyhat on and take one of these "man up" pills for your leaky vagina

That's intelligent. Should I make up a lot of claims that insinuate you are a pǽdophile, even though it has no bearing on the subject, and has no substantiation in fact?

Do you hope to goad me, Russ? Is that your aim? It's not working. All it tells us is, it works on you! Otherwise you wouldn't think it was effective.

Carry on proudley-boy.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:
ahhh dee dums

are you butthurt?? poor quill

put your pussyhat on and take one of these "man up" pills for your leaky vagina

That's intelligent.  Should I make up a lot of claims that insinuate you are a pǽdophile, even though it has no bearing on the subject, and has no substantiation in fact?

Do you hope to goad me, Russ?  Is that your aim?  It's not working.  All it tells us is, it works on you!  Otherwise you wouldn't think it was effective.  

Carry on proudley-boy.

You can insinuate whatever you want about me.

I would give about as many fucks as Putin does about you being all whiney about his mate Don.

I don't need to goad you Quill, you're in a constant state of being triggered all by yourself

smelly b wrote:You can insinuate whatever you want about me.

I would give about as many fucks as Putin does about you being all whiney about his mate Don.

No, you care a lot, sweetpea. I can smell it.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Jules wrote:

That is as good a definition of a troll as any. You enjoy posting stuff that makes people's blood boil - and their anger 'encourages' you? Hmmm you are honest! 


Guys, the secret to coping with SB, is to remember he is an attention seeker. He goes the full nine yards to ensure he gets noticed. The size and prominence of his 'proud boy' sig, for eg.

Once you understand that he craves attention, he will not annoy you's anymore. You will just shrug next time he gets provocative - you will not get too angry with him once you understand his psyche.

im the biggest intellectual troll you will ever meet sweatheart

you couldnt ignore me, im the mirror to your liberal values, its the trap you see.

you love to virtue signal your liberal values but when you look into the mirror you hate what you see, because what you see is what i see, and you hate me for showing it to you,

if you think im wrong about that then why does your "blood boil" when i post?? if you are so certain of your position and confident in your moral superiority then why the anger??

i dont get angry with other people, i know im right and they are wrong, its as simple as that.

there is no need for anger simply because they cant or in many cases refuse to see why they are wrong, but you getting angry tells me you already know youre in the wrong, and that simply reaffirms my values and points of view.

youre the one who has to live with yourself not me, maybe thats why youre so angry. perhaps you should develop and evolve your own set of values and morals instead of playing identity politics.

I don't get angry with you in the slightest, SB. I haven't even had time to read any of your posts till now. It's not MY blood that has been boiling - it's Andy's. Your panto villain act could NEVER annoy me.

ETA: what's with all the self praise?

Jules wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

im the biggest intellectual troll you will ever meet sweatheart

you couldnt ignore me, im the mirror to your liberal values, its the trap you see.

you love to virtue signal your liberal values but when you look into the mirror you hate what you see, because what you see is what i see, and you hate me for showing it to you,

if you think im wrong about that then why does your "blood boil" when i post?? if you are so certain of your position and confident in your moral superiority then why the anger??

i dont get angry with other people, i know im right and they are wrong, its as simple as that.

there is no need for anger simply because they cant or in many cases refuse to see why they are wrong, but you getting angry tells me you already know youre in the wrong, and that simply reaffirms my values and points of view.

youre the one who has to live with yourself not me, maybe thats why youre so angry. perhaps you should develop and evolve your own set of values and morals instead of playing identity politics.

I don't get angry with you in the slightest, SB.  I haven't even had time to read any of your posts till now. It's not MY blood that has been boiling - it's Andy's.  Your panto villain act could NEVER annoy me.

ETA: what's with all the self praise?

If you say so.

Guys, apologies for my double posts. I've tried to delete all the duplicates. Weird! Maybe it was due to having two NF windows open by mistake.