Open mike 30/08/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, August 30th, 2015 - 188 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

188 comments on “Open mike 30/08/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. The Chairman 1
    30 August 2015 at 6:47 am

    Mum ‘vowing’ to change law around teenage abortion

    A mother whose daughter’s school organised an abortion for the teenager without parental consent is petitioning parliament for a law change to prevent it happening again.

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/-she-is-still-a-child-mum-vowing-to-change-law-around-teenage-abortion-q07846.html?autoPlay=4446386269001

    • sabine 1.1
      30 August 2015 at 6:54 am

      No where does Mum blame herself for not having a relationship with her daughter that would allow the girl to come home and say the dreaded words “Mum, I am pregnant”. And yes, i think for a great many girls this is/was the most dreadful thing they could say to their parents, and this girl choose to have an abortion by herself with the aid of her school rather then talk to her mother.
      No law can change such a broken relationship,

      Parental Notification laws, good for the parents, crap for the kids that are stuck in Families were children are viewed as chattel, and girls are to be virginal and pure until married.

      • The Chairman 1.1.1
        30 August 2015 at 7:39 am

        It’s only natural a young teen would be afraid to tell their parents, therefore I wouldn’t rush in and blame the mother and automatically assume their relationship was broken.

        A life was unnecessarily taken with a young girl and her family having to live with the consequence of that.

        This is a major decision which many would deem to large for a child to make.

        • miravox 1.1.1.1
          30 August 2015 at 8:29 am

          Sorry The Chairman – I can’t agree with that view. There are way too many dysfunctional/abusive family relationships out there to legislate that parents must be advised of a pregnancy without the say-so of the girl. Especially given that teen pregnancies are correlated with family dysfunction/abuse. This is a different situation to it being natural to fearful about telling parents difficult news.

          It’s of absolute importance that the girl has the necessary support to make a decision about abortion or whether to continue a pregnancy. It’s not important where that support comes from, despite it being hurtful to her parents. It’s up to them to let that go for the sake of their daughter. If they can’t it simply adds to the impression that it was right to go with the girl’s decision to with-hold the information in the first place.

          Disclaimer – When I was 15 I made the ‘decision’ to have my child by hiding the pregnancy until it was too late for anything but go through with it, but I would never, ever have told my mother (one of those dysfunctional families, you see – back in the day I couldn’t tell anyone without the fear of her being informed). Not a great way to go about making decisions like this. And as for hidden pregnancies – my heart goes out to these girls who give birth alone, and their often dead babies.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.1
            30 August 2015 at 8:49 am

            +1

          • The Chairman 1.1.1.1.2
            30 August 2015 at 8:53 am

            A child coming from a dysfunctional abusive home would be in a less state of mind to make a rational decision.

            Parents need to be part of the decision making process. Otherwise we end up with cases like this (where the mother was happy to raise the child but the avenue was never explored as she was not even informed).

            • miravox 1.1.1.1.2.1
              30 August 2015 at 9:03 am

              I don’t think you understand the will and rationality of pregnant young girls from dysfunctional abusive families, The Chairman. Please forgive my assumption if I’m wrong about that.

              In my opinion parents are often the last people who should be involved in this sort of decision-making if the girl does not want that. She has reasons, usually rational, for her judgement. Btw, my mother would have happily raised my son as well, and ruined his and my life in the process.

              • The Chairman …
                30 August 2015 at 9:54 am

                A dysfunctional abusive home can negatively impact a child’s school work let alone their rational to make such a major call.

                I know of one lady that is still struggling to get over he abortion today, saying she was far too young to make a rational call.

                At the time, she felt she got the right advice and was doing the right thing.

                • weka …
                  30 August 2015 at 10:05 am

                  “I know of one lady that is still struggling to get over he abortion today, saying she was far too young to make a rational call.”

                  You seem to be assuming that if a young woman is forced to tell her parents then there will be better outcomes. What makes you think that?

                  As I point out below, in NZ women, including girls, can’t get an abortion without seeing at least 2 doctors and a counsellor. They’re legally not allowed to make the decision on their own.

                  • Stephanie Rodgers …
                    30 August 2015 at 10:18 am

                    I understand that our law also allows for doctors to determine if a young pregnant person doesn’t have the mental capacity to make an informed decision.

                    The simple fact is the vast majority of young pregnant people who seek abortions will talk to a trusted adult. That sometimes won’t be a parent.

                    And the other simple fact is that sometimes we regret decisions we make. That doesn’t mean they were the wrong decision, or that we shouldn’t have been given the choice to make it.

                  • The Chairman …
                    30 August 2015 at 10:55 am

                    In this case the abortion may have been averted, resulting in saving a young life. Which a number of us would consider a better outcome.

                    The debate is not about whether or not they are consulted, it’s whether parents should be informed and their in put considered.

                    • weka …
                      30 August 2015 at 12:15 pm

                      You have no way of knowing if the parents being involved would have bettered or worsened the outcome. You also have no way of knowing the impact on anyone of the girl being forced to give birth. That you consider the survival of the foetus to be more important than anyone else’s wellbeing tells us exactly where your priortities are, and thankfully the law protects me and other women from people like you who would throw us under a bus for the sake of ideology.

                    • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                      30 August 2015 at 3:23 pm

                      Yet for a whole year after the abortion she was unable to talk to her mother or father about it.

                      Why was that?

                      Her daughter attempted suicide as a result….

                      ….of her dysfunctional parental relationship and the internal guilt foisted upon her by her religious and do as I say not as I did, anti-pre-marital sex, anti-abortive parents.

                      You don’t know why she attempted suicide any more than I did – what is clearly apparent though is that she was not able to talk to her parents about what was happening with her.

                      The picture you keep trying to paint is one of a high-level functioning nurturing parent-child relationship when the evidence – couldn’t tell my parents I was having sex, couldn’t tell my parents I was pregnant, couldn’t tell my parents I had had an abortion paints the opposite picture.

                      BTW dysfunction does not equal poor (or poor and brown for that matter).

                    • The Chairman …
                      30 August 2015 at 4:04 pm

                      Pull your head in, Weka.

                      You are making some rather wild allegations.

                      Lets deal with them one by one.

                      I didn’t claim I know what the outcome would have been.

                      I clearly stated: In this case the abortion may have been averted, resulting in saving a young life. Which a number of us would consider a better outcome. Do you not agree?

                      You are the one claiming I consider the survival of the foetus to be more important than anyone else’s well-being. I haven’t claimed or implied that.

                      And of course the assertion is completely incorrect, thus you haven’t got a clue what my priorities are.

                      You don’t need protecting from me. However, I’m beginning to feel people may need protection from you.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 August 2015 at 4:30 pm

                      I didn’t claim I know what the outcome would have been.

                      actually, you did:

                      I clearly stated: In this case the abortion may have been averted, resulting in saving a young life.

                      That’s your assumption.

                    • weka …
                      30 August 2015 at 5:33 pm

                      “I didn’t claim I know what the outcome would have been.”

                      Yeah, you did. You said that if the abortion had been prevented the outcome would have been better.

                      “I clearly stated: In this case the abortion may have been averted, resulting in saving a young life. Which a number of us would consider a better outcome. Do you not agree?”

                      No. I don’t have any way of knowing what should have happened. Keeping the child might have been a disaster. I support women to make the choice, not outsiders.

                      “You are the one claiming I consider the survival of the foetus to be more important than anyone else’s well-being. I haven’t claimed or implied that.”

                      You have implied that, when you say that not having an abortion is the better outcome. Better even if the young woman’s life is destroyed.

                      “And of course the assertion is completely incorrect, thus you haven’t got a clue what my priorities are.”

                      I think we’ve all got a pretty good idea by now what your priorities are.

                      “You don’t need protecting from me. However, I’m beginning to feel people may need protection from you.”

                      🙄

                      You seek to change a law that would have serious negative impacts on women. So yes, we need protection from that.

                    • weka …
                      30 August 2015 at 5:35 pm

                      Yet for a whole year after the abortion she was unable to talk to her mother or father about it.

                      Why was that?

                      Yep. The lack of the young woman’s voice is evident, and suggests that none of us know what happened or should have happened. Without the young woman’s voice how can we know what is true in the story presented in the article?

                    • The Chairman …
                      30 August 2015 at 8:17 pm

                      Hey Weka

                      Can’t you see the difference in the two statements below?

                      I clearly stated: In this case the abortion may have been averted, resulting in saving a young life. Which a number of us would consider a better outcome.

                      You said I stated if the abortion had been prevented the outcome would have been better.

                      Additionally, you were asked whether you considered averting an abortion and saving a young life a better outcome. I wasn’t asking your opinion on the outcome of their life.

                      “You have implied that, when you say that not having an abortion is the better outcome. Better even if the young woman’s life is destroyed.”

                      Again, not my words, hence that wasn’t what I was implying (see above).

                      Serious question for you, do you have a comprehension difficulty that I should be aware of?

                      Or do you always try spinning things in an attempt to score points?

                      I’ve already told you my position and again it’s not what you have implied.

                      I’ll leave it to you to explain why you continue to spin crap and imply otherwise.

                    • weka …
                      30 August 2015 at 10:40 pm

                      I think you are playing games. I can’t be bothered trying to figure out what you are on about seeing as how you’ve had ample opportunity to explain it differently so I can understand but have chosen not to.

                      Look to your own communication skills, not mine.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 August 2015 at 12:17 am

                      TC: In this case the abortion may have been averted, resulting in an unwanted child, beaten and neglected by the boyfriends of a teenage mum who turned to drugs after being thrown out and ostracised by her family and church, and then thirteen years later the kid goes to prison for manslaughter when a dairy robbery goes wrong and a husband and father is killed. Which a number of us would consider a worse outcome. Do you not agree?

                • miravox …
                  30 August 2015 at 4:48 pm

                  “A dysfunctional abusive home can negatively impact a child’s school work let alone their rational to make such a major call”

                  It certainly can affect a child’s schoolwork. And the people that created that family should be involved in the decisions about the creation of the next generation? I fail to see the rationality there.

                  The inability to do school work, because of the negative impact of outside influences on the other hand, has nothing to do with a person’s intelligence or rationality.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.2.2
              30 August 2015 at 9:33 am

              A child coming from a dysfunctional abusive home would be in a less state of mind to make a rational decision.

              Unless the child had gotten better advice from a trusted third party which this one did.

              Parents need to be part of the decision making process.

              No, really, they don’t. This is because parents often don’t have the information needed to make that decision for the child because a) they’re not the child and b) they’re often running on outdated information that they learned as a child

              • The Chairman …
                30 August 2015 at 9:40 am

                Advice like this?

                https://youtu.be/Rpmh4SSq2xE

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  30 August 2015 at 10:04 am

                  http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/07/14/conservatives-everywhere-swear-this-new-secret-video-proves-planned-parenthood-is-evil-video/

                  There’s only one problem with this – the conservative right has been making these attempts for years. They are hoping to sensationalize the facts enough with reporting like this in a bid to further the debate on abortion.

                  That video just seems to be more of the same BS that has been used by the RWNJs to attack, well, pretty much everybody that they disagree with.

                  • joe90 …
                    30 August 2015 at 10:17 am

                    Planned Parenthood commissioned an independent review of the videos and the conclusion – yet another dishonest smear campaign waged by unhinged, deceptive anti-choice arseholes.

                    A thorough review of these videos in consultation with qualified experts found that they do not present a complete or accurate record of the events they purport to depict.
                    Each release by CMP contained a short edited video, between eight and fifteen minutes in length, that intercuts clips from the undercover recordings with other content, and a “full footage” video that claims to provide the raw, unedited footage of each interview. A video forensics expert, a television producer, an independent transcription agency, and Fusion GPS staff reviewed this material. While these analysts found no evidence that CMP inserted dialogue not spoken by Planned Parenthood staff, their review did conclude that CMP edited content out of the alleged “full footage” videos, and heavily edited the short videos so as to misrepresent statements made by Planned Parenthood representatives. In addition, the CMP transcript for the “full footage” video shot at Planned Parenthood’s Gulf Coast facility in Texas differs substantially from the content of the tape.
                    At this point, it is impossible to characterize the extent to which CMP’s undisclosed edits and cuts distort the meaning of the encounters the videos purport to document. However, the manipulation of the videos does mean they have no evidentiary value in a legal context and cannot be relied upon for any official inquiries unless supplemented by CMP’s original material and forensic authentication that this material is supplied in unaltered form. The videos also lack credibility as journalistic products.

                    Here’s the report

                    (bolding mine)

                  • The Chairman …
                    30 August 2015 at 2:58 pm

                    Seeing you call BS is disappointing, but that’s your prerogative.

                    I thought the profit motive may have stricken a chord.

                    Nevertheless, at least you viewed it, thus got another perspective of whats going on.

                    Where you position yourself is totally your call.

                  • The Chairman …
                    30 August 2015 at 4:20 pm

                    Ha, again you disappoint me. Surely you know non profits actually make a profit?

                    http://smallbusiness.chron.com/make-money-nonprofit-organization-935.html

                    And here is evidence to the contrary

                    https://youtu.be/MjCs_gvImyw

                    • joe90 …
                      30 August 2015 at 4:39 pm

                      And here is evidence to the contrary

                      That’s no evidence, that’s video heavily edited by unhinged, deceptive anti-choice propaganda arseholes misrepresenting statements made by Planned Parenthood representatives.

                      .

                      The Center for Medical Progress argues that these videos show the organization was selling fetal tissue for profit — which is, to be clear, a crime. But abortion clinics are allowed to receive compensation for any time spent procuring fetal tissue — for example, the extra time a staff member has to spend getting consent to donate or the work a lab technician does identifying specific types of tissue. Planned Parenthood says this is all the videos show, and for the most part they’re right.

                      It’s routinely the fake buyers, not Planned Parenthood, who move the discussion toward money. When Planned Parenthood officials are asked about their motivation, they talk about fetal tissue donation as a real, positive good that could lead to medical advancements. They talk about patients who request these types of services, who like the idea of something productive coming out of their decision to terminate a pregnancy.

                      http://www.vox.com/2015/8/13/9140849/planned-parenthood-videos-unedited

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      30 August 2015 at 5:02 pm

                      So, you show a video that’s proven to be BS. Figuring that that line didn’t work you then show another video made by the same people that’s also BS…

                      Yeah, I think you need to accept that the people attacking Planned Parenting are just outright liars. It may prevent you from proving that you’re fucken idiot.

                      Of course, indications from this thread are that you want to believe all the lies because of your forced birth ideology which makes you not only a fucken idiot but a authoritarian fucken idiot.

                    • The Fairy Godmother …
                      30 August 2015 at 5:10 pm

                      All this is a load of nonsense TC. Even from a biblical perspective your point of view is plain wrong. All this crap about forced birth is really an emotional way of misleading Christians to support extreme right wing groups such as the Republicans in the US. The Bible does not regard a foetus as fully human until it is born. The mother is more important. Read the following link for more info if you dare. This kind of nonsense just puts people right off Christianity. I am a Christian and I believe it is up to the mother to decide and noone should force her to carry through with a pregnancy.
                      http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/blog-home/abortion

                  • The Chairman …
                    30 August 2015 at 5:36 pm

                    The last video has not been shown to be BS and it clearly speaks for itself.

                • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                  30 August 2015 at 10:06 am

                  You’re turning into tosser territory now.

                  Whatever the truth of what she is saying trying to compare a US revenue driven profit-making health system with what happens here is a nonsense.

                  I’ve never met a pro-abortionist in New Zealand who would, even with the biggest stretch of imagination, view abortion as a method of generating revenue.

                  • weka …
                    30 August 2015 at 10:13 am

                    +1 Might have reached the end of reasoned debate today.

                  • The Chairman …
                    30 August 2015 at 10:27 am

                    Best you do some research.

                    Planned Parenthood are affiliated with NZ Family Planning.

                    http://www.ippf.org/our-work/where-we-work/east-and-south-east-asia-and-oceania/new-zealand

                    • weka …
                      30 August 2015 at 12:12 pm

                      Please show how that video is relevant to the situation in NZ. That Planned Parenthood in the US and FP in NZ both belong to the same international organisation isn’t enough. You need to demonstrate that what that particular video is saying applies here. For instance, are you suggesting that NZ FP runs as a profit-making business whereby it ensures that it generates income from abortions? When you’ve told us the actual connection and the point you are trying to make (apart from ‘abortion is bad’), I’d like some evidence.

                      AFAIK there is maybe one Family Planning clinic in NZ that provides abortions. All FP clinics do do counselling and referrals. If you have any evidence that FP don’t provide professional, compassionate services that offer women access to all options, I’d like to see that right now. Otherwise your argument is an outright lie.

                • weka …
                  30 August 2015 at 10:07 am

                  “Advice like this?”

                  How does that relate to NZ?

                  • The Chairman …
                    30 August 2015 at 10:32 am

                    See above.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      30 August 2015 at 11:01 am

                      And I’m still calling BS on that video. As I said, it’s looks more like planned lies from the RWNJs than actual fact.

                  • The Chairman …
                    30 August 2015 at 2:43 pm

                    Being affiliated highlights they have similar aims and objectives.

                    In 2013 the President of Planned Parenthood was a primary keynote speaker at a NZ Family Planning conference.

                    While remains in NZ are largely incinerated and not on sold, funding largely comes by from of the NZ taxpayer. Therefore, the more abortions they undertake and services they provide the more funding they can attempt to seek.

                    Abortion is bad is not the point being made here, that’s a potshot you’ve fired off.

                    Labour’s justice spokeswoman Jacinda Ardern said there was no question that current practice had failed the family at almost every step.

                    “The things that are meant to happen in the system didn’t happen for your daughter…she should never have been coerced, she always should have been given options and access to trained counsellors.”

                    Ms Ardern said GPs who had spoken to the committee on the issue said they worked very hard to convince a young woman to bring in her parents in such a situation, but this didn’t happen in this case.

                    National MP Jono Naylor said counsellors had told the committee that best practice was to counsel young women to involve their family, unless they judged that such advice could harm the teenager.

                    Mr Naylor said that did not appear to have happened in the case of Mrs Kieft’s daughter, and the system had failed.

                    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11503837.

                    • joe90 …
                      30 August 2015 at 2:54 pm

                      Being affiliated highlights they have similar aims and objectives.

                      These similar aims and objectives are?……

                    • weka …
                      30 August 2015 at 4:55 pm

                      You’re being disingenuous TC. Here’s what Ardern also said,

                      Ms Ardern said GPs who had spoken to the committee on the issue said they worked very hard to convince a young woman to bring in her parents in such a situation, but this didn’t happen in this case.

                      Doctors had also reported of seeing young women who had been harmed when their family found out they were pregnant, Ms Ardern said.

                      “So this is what we’ve got on the one side, on the other side we have got stories like yours. So we are trying to balance those two things.”

                      You can’t tell from that article what happened to the girl. You also can’t tell why the girl didn’t tell her family, but there is no evidence to suggest that the system prevented her.

                      You appear to be saying that FP in NZ is making money from foetuses. I’d like you to back that up.

                      You also appear to be saying that FP in NZ are in general unprofessional in their counselling and referral work. I’d like some evidence of that please. (If the report is correct that she didn’t get offered post-abortion support, then that clinic needs to investigate what happened and make changes, but we don’t have actual evidence of that).

                    • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                      30 August 2015 at 5:14 pm

                      Jono Naylor the National MP who had a stated position prior to being elected as thus:

                      Naylor said he did not see a need to change abortion laws.

                      “It’s already too easy for young people, or anyone to have an abortion.”

                      And of course he is already considers fetuses to be unborn children, thinks abstinence based sex-education should be a priority, and is pro-parental tittle tattling.

                      http://valueyourvote.org.nz/2014-general-election/candidates/jono-naylor

                  • The Chairman …
                    30 August 2015 at 3:15 pm

                    You should know how the game is played. Whistle-blowers are often criticized and have their credibility questioned, regardless how much merit they have.

                    Abby Johnson has shared her insights into their aims and objectives.

                    • locus …
                      30 August 2015 at 5:29 pm

                      Abby Johnson has shared her insights into their aims and objectives

                      “Insights” ah what a nice word full of gravitas….. it almost makes it sound like you respect this person’s proven lies

            • Descendant Of Sssmith 1.1.1.1.2.3
              30 August 2015 at 9:35 am

              Yeah cause in a weird sort of way we champion the grandparents raising their grand-children and vilify the daughters who got pregnant.

              Mum’s a hero and the daughter – well you can pick whatever disparaging euphemism you like.

              Even now Mum’s fighting the good fight – sacrificing herself for her daughter.

              Taking on the power of the state by telling her daughter’s story.

              I love how she just so wanted her daughter to not make the same “mistakes” she made, how her own guilt about her own abortion- aided and exacerbated by the church no doubt – drives her to this end.

              The religious imposition of guilt would drive more to seek an abortion than any other reason I know of. That’s the whole irony of that type of position.

          • Molly 1.1.1.1.3
            30 August 2015 at 10:05 am

            +1. A concise and considered reply, even without your personal story.

            Thanks for writing it.

        • sabine 1.1.1.2
          30 August 2015 at 8:33 am

          Well, I can tell you from experience that girls at 15 are sexually active whith many ending up pregnant, and ending that pregnancy with an abortion.

          I can tell you also that most of them will go to their parents and speak to them about it, or they go to another person of trust and speak to them maybe to mediate with parents.

          I can also tell you that already there is have a life being damaged with an unwanted pregnancy, namely that of the unwilling mother.

          I can also tell you that if that girl would have spoken about her mother that she was sexually active the mother could have prevented the pregnacy herself by getting her daughter on the pill, and getting the sexual active boy (and I hope that the sex was consentual) a hundert box of condoms to prevent any sexual transmitted diseases and babies.

          So I would assume as the mother is a devout babtist and heavily involved in the Pro Life Movement, aka the Forced Birth Movement, her daughter would have been raised on a steady Sexual Abstinece Diet and Purity till marriage ..the day the father hands you over to your husband.
          Now the girls needs to admit to Mum that she a. has had sex, b. has lied to everyone in the congregation about not having sex before marriage, c. gotten herself pregnant, d. does not want the baby.
          I can see why she did not want to speak to Mummy dearest.

          Not one mention of how this pregnancy could have been prevented if the Girl could have had a. science based sex ed, b. access to reproductive choices such as the pill or plan b, and the same counts for the boy that fathered the child.

          No the Mum should go home for a moment and reflect, why did my daughter did not trust me enough to come home and speak to me about the pregnancy and the choices she has.

          And she might also ask herself what this law would do to girls that have gotten themselves pregnant with their fathers, stepfathers, uncles, cuzzies, brothers or even priests baby. …..Oh yea….i forgot these things don’t happen, or if they happen its the fault of no-one but the devil, and an un-born lifesaka the zygote trumps the life of the mother anytime.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.2.1
            30 August 2015 at 8:56 am

            +1

          • The Chairman 1.1.1.2.2
            30 August 2015 at 9:06 am

            You can assume and tell me whatever you want, but can you substantiate your assertions and assumptions?

            Contraceptives are known to fail, thus are not a foolproof solution.

            Informing parents doesn’t necessarily mean abortions wouldn’t be done.

            • weka 1.1.1.2.2.1
              30 August 2015 at 9:11 am

              But it would make them harder to impossible to access for some girls. Why would you want that?

              • The Chairman …
                30 August 2015 at 9:35 am

                Making it harder to impossible all depends on if and how the law is amended.

                • weka …
                  30 August 2015 at 10:12 am

                  How so? You think that if the parents have to be notified that some girls aren’t going to be forced to go through with the pregnancy?

            • Descendant Of Sssmith 1.1.1.2.2.2
              30 August 2015 at 9:24 am

              Stopping legal abortions doesn’t mean abortions won’t be done. You must have little understanding of the history of back-street abortion.

              Telling young people to abstain from sex has a pretty high failure rate – even among the people doing the telling eg Briston Palin.

              Not giving young people sex-education has a pretty high failure rate.

              Religious guilt has a pretty high failure rate.

              I guarantee contraception has a lower failure rate than any of those methods.

              New Zealand is just full of families with 8 or 9 or 11 or 12 kids. Used to be quite common in my grandparents day.

              Now it’s almost exclusively the domain of the religious.

            • Sabine 1.1.1.2.2.3
              30 August 2015 at 10:03 am

              Can you substantiate your claim that an innocent life (that of the mother) would not have been harmed by having a child?

              Can you substantiate that your claim that the girl would have gotten the abortion she obviously wanted if she would have spoken to her mother, taking into account her mothers religious believes and her Pro Un-born Life stance?

              Can you substantiate your claim that contraceptives would not have prevented an unwanted pregnancy?

              Can you substantiate your claim that this pregnacny would not have prevented had the father of this pregnancy worn condoms?

              Wikipedia on the effectiveness of contraception
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

              http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm

              some reads on teenage pregnancyd
              http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/graph/30862/teenage-pregnancy-international-comparisons

              http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X14003875

              but maybe you are a proponent of the back alley abortions, cause all the sperm is sacred and all the unborn babies must be born, and the incubating vessel aka the mother will have no say in it. Cause….women.

              http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/13/paraguay-11-year-old-gives-birth-abortion

              ” An 11-year old girl who became pregnant after being raped by her stepfather and was denied an abortion by Paraguayan authorities has given birth, in the culmination of a case which put renewed focus on Latin America’s strict anti-abortion laws.

              The girl, known by the legal pseudonym “Mainumby”, gave birth to a girl weighing 3.55kg (7.8lbs) at the Reina Sofia maternity hospital, a facility run by the Red Cross in Asunción, Paraguay’s capital.

              The baby was delivered by Caesarean section as a natural birth was judged to be too dangerous.”

              essentially this girl would have died without a cesarean or an abortion. But hey maybe its better for both, mother and child to die, then have an abortion.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion

              “Incidents in the U.S. after 1973[edit]
              In 2005, the Detroit News reported that a 16-year-old boy beat his pregnant, under-age girlfriend with a bat at her request to abort a fetus. The young couple lived in Michigan, where parental consent is required to receive an abortion.[24][25][26] In Indiana, where there are also parental consent laws, a young woman by the name of Becky Bell died from an unsafe abortion rather than discuss her pregnancy and wish for an abortion with her parents.[27][28]”

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/03/back-alley-abortions_n_5065301.html

              And here is a lovely wikipedia that lists all the very youngest mothers by age.

              the youngest was barely seven.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

              You could look at all of this, and realise that often parents are not helpful but rather the reason for a pregnancy. But you could also put your fingers in your ears and go lalalala, kumbaya all is well.

              • The Chairman …
                30 August 2015 at 10:42 am

                Ha, I didn’t make those so called claims. Strawman much?

                • Sabine …
                  30 August 2015 at 11:24 am

                  my answer that you now call a straw man relates to this from you:

                  “You can assume and tell me whatever you want, but can you substantiate your assertions and assumptions?

                  Contraceptives are known to fail, thus are not a foolproof solution.

                  Informing parents doesn’t necessarily mean abortions wouldn’t be done”
                  ———————————————————————————————–
                  you throw up the concern that contraceptive may fail…..i just provided some back ground data to your statement.

                  you throw up the concern that by speaking to a parent a girl may still have an abortion…..or may not…..and I just provide a few links to what happened in the /States where parental notification has become law.

                  You have so far not addressed the issue of sex ed, but linked to a baloney defunct “Planned Parenthood is evil’ by a group that is less then savory.

                  ————————————————————————————————-

                  I just hope that you lobby our current government for more money to be spend on teenaged mums and their children, that more money will be made available to house these currently homeless pregnant ladies in Auckland, that more money will be made available for schools that will allow teenaged Mums to come with their children, that you will also lobby the government to very aggressively to follow up on child support payments from the fathers and if that means that a teenaged boy will have to leave school to support the child he fathered then so be it.

                  Oh, and of course you will have no issue adopting a few of these children and raise them like your own.
                  Or are you advocating the return of the Magdalene Sisters and their their laundry places?

        • Psycho Milt 1.1.1.3
          30 August 2015 at 8:59 am

          A life was unnecessarily taken…

          A life was taken? Who died?

          Sometimes, parents facing unpleasant consequences of their own crap parenting want the government to Do Something About It. It doesn’t mean the government should indulge them.

          • The Chairman 1.1.1.3.1
            30 August 2015 at 9:19 am

            The child prevented from being born.

            Sometimes Government get laws wrong, therefore it’s up to Government to consider public submissions and if need be, amend the law.

            • Psycho Milt 1.1.1.3.1.1
              30 August 2015 at 10:42 am

              The number of people who could have been born if their prospective parents hadn’t taken steps to prevent it is orders of magnitude greater than the number of people who’ve ever lived. None of them “died,” and it’s not the government’s business to try and ensure that those countless billions do actually get born.

              • The Chairman …
                30 August 2015 at 11:05 am

                Nevertheless the abortion robbed them of their life, hence the statement a life was unnecessarily taken.

                Government has a social responsibly, they create laws and are known to amend them from time to time, of course it’s their business. No one else can amend the law.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  30 August 2015 at 11:45 am

                  They create laws alright, including ones they’ve no business creating, like ones trying to ensure people don’t act to prevent their sex acts producing children. Unfortunately, those who consider other people’s decisions theirs to interfere with make amending those laws difficult.

                  As to “robbing” people of their lives, I’ve “robbed” maybe a good dozen potential children of their lives just by rolling on a condom. No-one, including the government, is likely to spend any time wailing and gnashing their teeth over this murderous tragedy.

        • weka 1.1.1.4
          30 August 2015 at 9:10 am

          “A life was unnecessarily taken with a young girl and her family having to live with the consequence of that.”

          The implication there is that had the girl told the mother, the mother would have prevented the abortion. That’s in direct opposition to the intention of the law, which allows women to have abortions under certain circumstances. The mother is suggesting that the law support that this right be applied selectively depending on what family you are born into. Imagine if other health care were legislated and managed that way.

          • The Chairman 1.1.1.4.1
            30 August 2015 at 9:30 am

            We’re talking about teenage girls, not adult women.

            The intention of the law that basically allows children to make such a call is exactly what is in contention.

            • weka 1.1.1.4.1.1
              30 August 2015 at 9:37 am

              Any female of childbearing age has a legal right to abortion services under certain circumstances. You are suggesting that access to that be limited for some females depending on what family they were born into. That’s why the law allows abortions for girls without parental consent, to prevent them from being prevented access to healthcare.

              There is bugger all difference between someone who is 15 years 8 months and 16 years.

              The main argument I see in not allowing girls access without parental consent is to try and reduce abortions. Why not just be honest about that?

              • weka …
                30 August 2015 at 9:55 am

                There is bugger all difference between someone who is 15 years 8 months and 16 years, so the whole adult/child thing doesn’t wash. Also to get an abortion in NZ you have to see at least 2 doctors and a counsellor and explain yourself, so it’s not like girls are making decisions on their own.

                • Sabine …
                  30 August 2015 at 10:13 am

                  girls that have sex out of wedlock should bear the shame if they have an unwanted pregnancy.
                  Simple as that. If we follow religious doctrine that sex is for procreation only, and sex for pleasure and fun is evil, than any girl/women that gets pregnant is to carry this pregnancy to term and a. either raise the child, or b. give it up for adoption.
                  No matter how much harm a nine month pregnancy may does to the mother, no matter how much harm delivery might do to the mother, no matter if the mother is able to financially support herself during pregnancy/delivery and then is financially and emotionally able to take care of the child once born.

                  And under no circumstances is a women ever able to take the decision to abort a child because women are . a. emotional, b. hysterical, c. scatterbrained, d. heartless, e. slutty, f. not trust worthy…..insert your own reasoning here.

                  Hence why she has to see 2 doctors and a counselor and explain herself over and over again. Because its not only girls that have to see 2 doctors and a counselor its women aswel.

                  I especially like how the poster is discounting contraceptives and does not mention sex ed at all.
                  Cause the only way to never get pregnant is by abstinence only, and then once married, baby after baby, cause contraceptives might cause spontaneous natural abortions.

                • The Chairman …
                  30 August 2015 at 10:17 am

                  Have you ever considered some believe 16 is still to young to make such a major call?

                  Moreover, 2 doctors and a counsellor is insufficient?

              • The Chairman …
                30 August 2015 at 10:10 am

                I’m advocating for the parents to have the right to be informed.

                How that is structured into the law and how that impacts the consent process is yet to be seen.

                For example, the Government could decide to inform parents and make them come before a panel to consider their input.

                Do I value life? Of course. Just as I accept there are circumstances warranting an abortion.

                • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                  30 August 2015 at 10:27 am

                  “I’m advocating for the parents to have the right to be informed.”

                  Nah now you’re just minimising what you’re advocating in order to appease or to appear reasonable.

                  Look at that shitty video you posted or your comments about a “life” being taken.

                  You’re advocating for far more than parents right to be informed.

                  • The Chairman …
                    30 August 2015 at 11:11 am

                    Rubbish.

                    Seems your argument has run out of puff. You are now playing the player and not the ball.

                    • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                      30 August 2015 at 11:49 am

                      “Just as I accept there are circumstances warranting an abortion.”

                      Elucidate.

                      Under what circumstances do you consider an abortion to be warranted?

                  • The Chairman …
                    30 August 2015 at 11:11 am

                    Rubbish.

                    Seems your argument has run out of puff. You are now playing the player and not the ball.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  30 August 2015 at 10:55 am

                  I’m advocating for the parents to have the right to be informed.

                  But the evidence is that the parents shouldn’t have that right as it could cause serious harm to the young women who find themselves pregnant.

                  How that is structured into the law and how that impacts the consent process is yet to be seen.

                  The law is there to protect people, not to cause them harm.

                  • The Chairman …
                    30 August 2015 at 11:17 am

                    If there is evidence that informing parents will lead to serious harm in certain cases, an amendment must consider protection for this.

                    The law in this case didn’t protect the unborn child, thus the call for a rethink.

                    • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                      30 August 2015 at 11:40 am

                      FFS in no case where an abortion is carried out is “the unborn child” as you put it is protected.

                      What you’re asking is that the state now involves an assessment of the family in order to determine whether serious harm would occur.

                      Cool.

                      There’s evidence that the family is highly religious and having a child out of wedlock will bring shame and embarrassment on the family. The impact on the daughter will mean that she will be assuaged by guilt and that if she has the baby she will be constantly reminded that she bought this shame on the family.

                      Or Mum will raise this child and will constantly remind her daughter that she is doing this because her daughter sinned and ruined not only her life, but her mothers.

                      Or that Uncle Fred is the father.

                      Or whatever scenario…..

                      There’s consequences also about putting the family further under the microscope to assess whether serious harm will occur.

                      One would actually be pretty sure that it’s better to assess that based on the current process rather than actually involve the family further.

                      Unless you somehow think that these young people just make shit up to get an abortion.

                      What are you going to do when those types of assessments find that actually having the child will harm the potential mother? What support will you throw around the family who have been formally assessed as likely to cause harm? How will you deal with the ramifications of that?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      30 August 2015 at 12:02 pm

                      The law in this case didn’t protect the unborn child,

                      There’s no such thing as an “unborn child” as prior to birth what we have is a foetus that cannot survive outside of the womb and thus, by definition, also isn’t living.

        • Bill 1.1.1.5
          30 August 2015 at 11:46 am

          Your bias…

          A life was unnecessarily taken…

          and then in a comment further down

          resulting in saving a young life.

          Both those statements can only refer to a person: someone alive who is then killed. But abortions don’t kill people.

  2. Tony Veitch 2
    30 August 2015 at 7:31 am

    A transcript of a small part of the interview with Robert David Steele, a video link featured on yesterday’s Open Mic

    Interviewer: Briefly, what is your major criticism of the TPP?

    Steele: Well, first of all the TPP has a number of secret provisions which essentially give corporations to power to overrule the laws of member states. It basically screws workers, it screws benefits, it screws insurance, it screws true cost economics. It is, unfortunately most people haven’t had the chance, nor have the Senators had the chance nor the representatives, to read or see the secret provisions. But Wikileaks has done a major public service, its released a lot of this stuff and anybody reading this understands very clearly the TPP is a form of coup d’état. It is a betrayal of public trust and in a properly run country . . . and I want to pause here because I want to say this in a very measured way . . . in a properly run country, Barak Obama should be impeached for offering the TPP to Congress for passage.

    Well, there’s a thought! Can you impeach a prime minister?

    That aside, there are only two conclusions to draw from the above: either Groser etc. are incredibly incompetent negotiators, or their actions, and those of the executive of this government, are sinister!

    • Draco T Bastard 2.1
      30 August 2015 at 9:13 am

      well, treason is still on the books:

      incites or assists any person with force to invade New Zealand

      The TPPA is against the will of the people and will allow invasion and rule by the corporates so that could possibly be stretched to apply.

      Then there’s the corruption aspect of the Saudi Sheep Deal (Maybe difficult as was McCully that actually did it but the PM should have known):

      105F Trading in influence

      Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees or offers to accept or attempts to obtain, a bribe for that person or another person with intent to influence an official in respect of any act or omission by that official in the official’s official capacity (whether or not the act or omission is within the scope of the official’s authority).

      Then there’s his misuse of the OIA act:

      Every one person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who, without reasonable excuse, sells, transfers, or otherwise makes available any document knowing that—
      (a) the document was altered, concealed, or made, in whole or in part, as a reproduction of another document; and
      (b) the document was dealt with in the manner specified in paragraph (a) with intent to—
      (i) obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
      (ii) cause loss to any other person.

      Considering his lies there’s probably numerous laws that he’s broken that would result in him leaving office permanently. We just need to find those laws and manage to have the scum charged.

  3. Descendant Of Sssmith 3
    30 August 2015 at 8:03 am

    “A life was unnecessarily taken with a young girl and her family having to live with the consequence of that.”

    Ignoring any philosophical argument about defining “life” – really how do you know that?

    You can only speculate on what may have happened had she gone through further with the pregnancy. A whole range of possibilities exist from miscarriage, dying in child-birth, to being beaten and abused by the father of the child, to raising the child on DPB and having to live with the opprobrium of the right wingers for the rest of her life, to the child being raised by her parents because the child could not cope, to getting married to the father and the child being raised in a loving, caring relationship.

    You have no idea what may have gone on to happen.

    I’m well aware of situations where parents have found out and prevented the abortion, the baby born and both mother and child live in a miserable existence – particularly in one case where the child’s father turned out to be of a different race.

    There’s no right or wrong here but I do agree with the parents in that there should have been more follow up and support post-abortion, if that didn’t actually occur.

    The bigger issue in my view is the societal attitude towards young people having children. The notion that it ruins their lives, the notion that young people breed for a business, the continual parsing of sole parents as bludgers.

    If we made young people having children a positive experience then maybe we might get fewer abortions. That would mean having to deal with reality though. You know the reality that young people will have sex and some of them will get pregnant.

    • The Chairman 3.1
      30 August 2015 at 8:40 am

      Barring compilations leading to death, a life was indeed taken.

      How that life would have turned out is pure speculation.

      Follow up after the fact is akin to placing an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

      • Descendant Of Sssmith 3.1.1
        30 August 2015 at 9:09 am

        And the person who is pregnant is in a much better position to judge her own circumstances than either you or I.

        Whatever her decision she should have been supported by her parent/s once they found out.

        • The Chairman 3.1.1.1
          30 August 2015 at 12:15 pm

          Failing to inform her mother robbed her (and her child to be) of exploring the avenue of her mother caring for the child. Perhaps resulting in saving a life.

          Therefore, surely we should be considering how we can keep that avenue open?

          Although disappointed and regretting more wasn’t done, who’s to say her mother isn’t supporting her decision?

          • weka 3.1.1.1.1
            30 August 2015 at 12:18 pm

            “Failing to inform her mother robbed her (and her child to be) of exploring the avenue of her mother caring for the child.”

            No, it didn’t. The whole point about this that you don’t seem to get is choice. The girl chose not to tell her parents. If having her mother adopt the foetus was an option for the girl, what makes you assume she didn’t consider it and decide it was a bad choice?

            • The Chairman 3.1.1.1.1.1
              30 August 2015 at 12:33 pm

              Of course it did.

              The mother was more than willing. However, she was never informed, thus her daughter wasn’t fully informed when making her choice. She wasn’t aware of her mothers position and willingness to help.

              • weka …
                30 August 2015 at 12:56 pm

                citation needed for that please.

                • The Chairman …
                  30 August 2015 at 5:05 pm

                  Really?

                  It was the crust of the story. The mother wasn’t informed, but was willing to care for the baby if had been.

                  However, seeing as the daughter didn’t inform her mother, she wasn’t aware of her mother’s position and willingness to help.

                  • weka …
                    30 August 2015 at 5:40 pm

                    that’s not logical. The girl might have understood that her mother would raise the child, but chose to have an abortion anyway. If you have some evidence to contradict that, please post it.

                    • The Chairman …
                      30 August 2015 at 5:47 pm

                      Again it’s the crust of the story. Offhand, it’s in the first link (TV1).

                      If the daughter had known the mother believes the outcome (abortion) may have been averted, hence is pushing for the law to be amended.

                    • weka …
                      30 August 2015 at 10:36 pm

                      You still don’t get it. Unless we heard from the young woman we have no idea why she didn’t tell her mother, or what she thought/didn’t think her options are. In the absence of that you are making stuff up, or willing to take the perspective of someone who is not the pregnant person but has a vested interested (in multiple ways) in preventing the pregnant person from having choice. THAT is why we have the law that we do, to stop younger, vulnerable women from having their choice taken from them.

              • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                30 August 2015 at 1:14 pm

                So the mother had 17 years of raising her child to convey to her that if she ever got pregnant that it would be OK and that she would be very supportive and help to raise her grandchild but didn’t do so.

                Man I had those discussions with my children when they were 7 or 8 at the latest.

                Maybe the mother should have had those discussions before her daughter got pregnant – they’re not really difficult discussions.

                • weka …
                  30 August 2015 at 1:30 pm

                  +1

                  And I know a family where the girls were told when they hit their teens that if they ever came home pregnant they’d have to leave home. A law that says they should tell their parents? yeah right.

                • The Chairman …
                  30 August 2015 at 5:09 pm

                  Perhaps she didn’t want to encourage her becoming pregnant at such a young age.

          • Descendant Of Sssmith 3.1.1.1.2
            30 August 2015 at 12:28 pm

            That you would even liken the decision that young woman (she’s not a girl by the way once she reaches puberty) made to theft says a lot about how you view the daughter as a possession of the parents.

            There’s a difference between parental responsibility and ownership.

            • The Chairman 3.1.1.1.2.1
              30 August 2015 at 5:17 pm

              I didn’t liken the teen’s decision to theft. I highlighted she was robbed of the avenue to make a fully informed choice.

              • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                30 August 2015 at 5:32 pm

                rob
                verb
                past tense: robbed; past participle: robbed

                take property unlawfully from (a person or place) by force or threat of force.

                • The Chairman …
                  30 August 2015 at 5:57 pm

                  Unlawfully? Well the system did fail her every step of the way.

                  • miravox …
                    30 August 2015 at 6:10 pm

                    According someone who is not her …

                  • locus …
                    30 August 2015 at 6:27 pm

                    The Chairman – i’d like to ask you

                    as you appear completely unswayed in your beliefs on this topic – despite the deeply concerned, intelligent, passionate, reasoned, and personally experienced writers responding to you –

                    why do you feel that you have to go on and on and on and on?

                    Is it to:
                    a) influence others to forego reason?
                    or
                    b) heroically stand against all ‘unbelievers’?

                    Of course you do have a right to defend your beliefs – but really….. have you not acquired a sliver of understanding of why you might be wrong on this?

      • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2
        30 August 2015 at 9:18 am

        Barring compilations leading to death, a life was indeed taken.

        No, it wasn’t. When a foetus is incapable of living without the mothers biological support then it is not alive.

        • Sabine 3.1.2.1
          30 August 2015 at 10:15 am

          women become incubators the moment that they get pregnant. with no say or aganda, cause fetus will over ride any human rights the incubator has enjoyed before pregnancy.

          this is essentially what Pro Life boils down to. Forced Birth.

        • Karen 3.1.2.2
          30 August 2015 at 10:27 am

          +1 Draco
          It is up to the pregnant woman to decide whether she wants to continue with her pregnancy, nobody else. The foetus is not a “life” unless it is capable of surviving outside the womb.

          It is also up to her to choose who she should confide in before discussing the options and getting the statutory agreement from two doctors.

          The fact that her mother has gone public with her daughter’s story indicates to me why this girl sought help elsewhere.

          • The Chairman 3.1.2.2.1
            30 August 2015 at 12:27 pm

            Most would agree it is up to the pregnant woman to decide. However, the contention here is with young teens.

            In her effort to draw attention and get the law changed she had little choice but to go public.

            • Descendant Of Sssmith 3.1.2.2.1.1
              30 August 2015 at 12:33 pm

              Nope she had plenty of other choices. Some of them involved thinking.

            • Sabine 3.1.2.2.1.2
              30 August 2015 at 1:34 pm

              The attention seeker here is Mother dearest that clearly does not care a lot about the wellbeing of her daughter considering that she drags the decision of her daughter through the mud. It says a lot about Mother dearest that she has not issue to make public in a national News Paper the decision her daughter took. I actually have pity for the daughter.

              You know what her mother just did? She publicly shamed her daughter for a. having sex, b. getting pregnant, and c. for having an abortion.

              I hope that somewhere around this girl is/are some adults that will help her to get away from this “Mother”.

          • RedBaronCV 3.1.2.2.2
            30 August 2015 at 12:41 pm

            Thank you Karen for raising the obvious. I am not surprised that this mother wasn’t told. She’s acting like she owns her daughter.

            She has no idea of personal boundaries and has no hesitation about discussing her daughter’s personal business in public – in such a way that no doubt the daughter can be identified by the community around her. What ever is going on the glare of publicity is unlikely to be helping.

            What right does she have to further abuse her daughter in this way , particularly if she is struggling to cope at some level. There is usually a provision when these sorts of submissions are made at parliament for a level of privacy – so the MSM story was actually deliberate.

            As for “the chairman” have you ever considered, apart from all the reasons given above, that a good number of parents would demand their daughters had an abortion regardless of the girl’s wishes.
            Can’t have that public shame you know. (sarc)

        • The Chairman 3.1.2.3
          30 August 2015 at 12:18 pm

          Yes, it was.

          That fetus would have developed into a child. And that child’s life was taken when the fetus was aborted.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.3.1
            30 August 2015 at 12:52 pm

            And that child’s life was taken when the fetus was aborted.

            No it wasn’t as it didn’t have one.

            • The Chairman 3.1.2.3.1.1
              30 August 2015 at 3:41 pm

              The abortion prevented that life eventuating.

              • McFlock …
                30 August 2015 at 4:15 pm

                so there was never a living thing from which life could be taken.

                • The Chairman …
                  30 August 2015 at 4:23 pm

                  No, it was as a result a life was taken.

                  • McFlock …
                    30 August 2015 at 4:37 pm

                    But taken from nobody, because they never existed.

                    You can’t take anything from imaginary people.

                    • The Chairman …
                      30 August 2015 at 5:24 pm

                      You can’t take anything from imaginary people, but you can abort a pregnancy. Thus, prevent a baby being born, which was the life that was taken.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 August 2015 at 5:38 pm

                      So if I apply for a job, and someone else is chosen, should I have the successful applicant charged with the theft of the money I would have made if I’d gotten the job?

                      Or is it the employer who is culpable?

                    • The Chairman …
                      30 August 2015 at 8:49 pm

                      Your analogy is not even close. Care to try again?

                    • McFlock …
                      31 August 2015 at 12:01 am

                      True.
                      But I’m having difficulty inventing imagined wrongs against people who do not exist.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                30 August 2015 at 4:35 pm

                Which is a different argument from taking a life that didn’t exist. Should that potential be allowed to develop? That’s not up to us or anybody else but the women making the decision.

                • The Chairman …
                  30 August 2015 at 5:28 pm

                  Being pregnant generally implies a life is on the way. Which is the life I’m implying has been taken away.

                  The contention is young teens are making the decision.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    30 August 2015 at 6:07 pm

                    Which is the life I’m implying has been taken away.

                    Except, as McFlock has already pointed out to you, you can’t take away that which doesn’t exist.

                    The contention is young teens are making the decision.

                    They’re quite capable of making decisions. It’s people like you who prevent them from making decisions and building the self-confidence from doing so that leaves us with people in their 20s that won’t make decisions.

                    • The Chairman …
                      30 August 2015 at 8:31 pm

                      Would you allow a young child to call all the shots in their life?

                      Of course not. Why? Because they are to young and lack the experience and knowledge required to deal with the major ones.

                      I’m not advocating preventing them from making decisions overall.

                      As explained to McFlock, you can abort a pregnancy. Thus, prevent a baby being born, which was the life that was taken.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      30 August 2015 at 8:51 pm

                      Would you allow a young child to call all the shots in their life?

                      1. We’re not talking about a young child but a young woman
                      2. She’s being assisted by other adults

                      I’m not advocating preventing them from making decisions overall.

                      Yes you are. You insisting that the decisions get left to the parents whether they be abusers or not, whether they have the best interests of the young adult or not or even have the best information or not. In general in cases like this I suspect the parents are often the worst people to go to.

                      As explained to McFlock, you can abort a pregnancy.

                      No, you just kept asserting the same bullshit that had already been shown to be bollocks. As you just did again.

                    • The Chairman …
                      30 August 2015 at 9:40 pm

                      The point you missed was we generally allow decisions to be made relative to age, hence the reference to the young child analogy .

                      This teen wasn’t assisted. She was failed every step of the way, which begs the question, how widespread is this?

                      I’m not insisting that the decisions get left to the parents whether they be abusers or not, whether they have the best interests of the young adult or not or even have the best information or not. What rubbish (see my position posted above).

                      And no. I’m merely correcting your ongoing flawed assertions.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 August 2015 at 12:04 am

                      You are, however, insisting that the teenager has no control over who is informed about a pregnancy she doesn’t want.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      31 August 2015 at 6:50 am

                      The point you missed was we generally allow decisions to be made relative to age, hence the reference to the young child analogy .

                      I understood your othering but:
                      1. She’s a young adult, not a child
                      2. We also allow and encourage young adults and even children to go to any adult for help. Your insistence that it must be the adults is part of the problem of abusive households that we’re trying to solve

                      This teen wasn’t assisted. She was failed every step of the way, which begs the question, how widespread is this?

                      No, she was assisted and she was not failed. Things may not have gone perfectly but she wasn’t failed. Again, the problem is your insistence that the parents be involved.

                      I’m merely correcting your ongoing flawed assertions.

                      You’re the one making flawed assertions. I’ve backed up what I’ve said.

          • Karen 3.1.2.3.2
            30 August 2015 at 3:24 pm

            The arguments from the Chairman have reminded me of a Monty Python song:

            • The Chairman 3.1.2.3.2.1
              30 August 2015 at 3:32 pm

              Don’t worry about Monty, Karen.

              Spend a little time looking into the background of Family Planning, population control and eugenics.

              • joe90 …
                30 August 2015 at 3:42 pm

                Spend a little time looking into the background of Family Planning, population control and eugenics.

                You really should look into the dishonest smearing of Planned Parenthood by unhinged, deceptive anti-choice arseholes.

                /

                .
                But on to the truth about Margaret Sanger.

                Sanger was pro-birth control and anti-abortion. This may surprise you, considering that Planned Parenthood opponents frequently accuse Sanger of erecting abortion clinics in Black neighborhoods, a practice they claim the organization continues to this day.

                But this is simply not true.

                Sanger opposed abortion. She believed it to be a barbaric practice. In her own words, “[a]lthough abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.” Her views are, ironically, in keeping with the views of many of the anti-choicers who malign and distort her legacy.

                http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/08/20/false-narratives-margaret-sanger-used-shame-black-women/

  4. Paul 4
    30 August 2015 at 8:11 am

    Alcohol.
    The drug that New Zealand refuses to tackle.
    Due to the power of the liquor industry.
    With costs that the industry does not pay for.
    Costs that society pays for.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/282783/ashburton-police-break-up-second-public-brawl

    And we ram through laws to make drinking ever easier while pushing back laws to give parents paid parental leave.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      30 August 2015 at 9:24 am

      And we ram through laws to make drinking ever easier while pushing back laws to give parents paid parental leave.

      The difference is that someone will be able to make a profit from the sale of the alcohol and possibly even the damage done to society afterwards whereas no one will be able to make a profit from a woman staying home to look after her child.

  5. Gael 5
    30 August 2015 at 8:52 am

    Would someone please take a moment to tell me why floating mortgage interest rates here are now back up to 6.75 when our ocr is circa 2.35%..and uk floating mortgage rates are 1.25%… is it pure profit taking by banks…. or hedging against coming ‘economic perfect storm’ plus el nino drought predictions? Many thanks.

    • dv 5.1
      30 August 2015 at 9:00 am

      ANZ 6.24%
      Japan ca 1%

    • Reddelusion 5.2
      30 August 2015 at 10:39 am

      As Nz don’t save enough banks borrow a lot offshore to fund montages. The rate reflects these costs and and banks margin ( which is not major component of rate) Say a banks margin is 1pc of the 7pc,, it only takes15pc of loans to default for banks to be loosing money , hence capital adequacy controls. The media beat on about banks profits however they reflect a huge asset and liability base, where return on capital is not over the top, while a stringent focus on credit risk is essential

      • Descendant Of Sssmith 5.2.1
        30 August 2015 at 6:30 pm

        Yet when I worked for Westpac it was well talked about internally that their was a 1% premium on NZ rates compared to Australian rates.

        At the time if you took the inflation rate in both countries and then compared the gap between the interest rates and the inflation rate eg the difference, there was always at least a 1% greater margin in NZ rates.

        NZ was always seen as a bit of a cash cow for Oz. Lower overheads as well.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.2.2
        30 August 2015 at 7:03 pm

        As Nz don’t save enough banks borrow a lot offshore to fund montages.

        Montage?

        Of course, it’s all a load of bollocks. Foreign money can’t actually buy NZ goods and services (it’s not legal tender) and so borrowing offshore doesn’t actually provide any ‘capital’ and then there’s the fact that the local banks just create the money whenever they make a loan anyway and so do the foreign banks.

        The media beat on about banks profits however they reflect a huge asset and liability base, where return on capital is not over the top,

        Any return to capital is, as a matter of fact, excessive. Anything above 0 is. As the bailouts of the financial system proved, the banks don’t carry any risk and neither do the lenders.

  6. Gael 6
    30 August 2015 at 8:59 am

    Wish rest of nz would apply same rules as invercargill re alcohol… all alcohol is purchased through ILT who owns all four (yes four for the city) bottle stores and most of the pubs and hotels. All nett profits go back to the community down here. There is no alcohol for sale in supermarkets or dairies.

    • les 6.1
      30 August 2015 at 9:12 am

      similar to West Auckland….where the Liquor Trust is a huge gravy train for the old boy network,complete with a blackout on individual sinecures….!

      • Ad 6.1.1
        30 August 2015 at 1:13 pm

        Because Trusts can’t make a profit?

      • millsy 6.1.2
        31 August 2015 at 12:02 am

        Crusty old blazer wearing gin drinking Rotarians who sit upon a mountain of public money, yet dish it out for middle class hobbies. Time for a new broom next year to sweep then all out and for some progressive ideas to be implemented.

    • Paul 6.2
      30 August 2015 at 9:19 am

      Supermarket lobby is massive

  7. Paul 7
    30 August 2015 at 10:31 am

    Bernard Hickey’s article is a must read.
    There will be a major crash.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11504932

    • greywarshark 7.1
      30 August 2015 at 7:31 pm

      Thanks Paul. The article is very clear and easy to read. But not to think about.

  8. joe90 8
    30 August 2015 at 11:07 am

    Building walls to keep people out.

    .

    After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, for a while it seemed like border fences and barriers were a thing of the past in Europe. Many on the continent hoped for a new era of integration and receptivity. It didn’t happen. Instead, various pressures have led Europe to adopt wall-building projects that would make Donald Trump proud

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/08/28/map-the-walls-europe-is-building-to-keep-people-out/?

  9. millsy 9
    30 August 2015 at 11:40 am

    Good to see that you think it is OK for parents to disown/kick out/beat their daughters for falling pregnant.

    How very progressive of you.

    BTW Hilary Kleift is heavily involved with the Baptist Church and the anti-abortion movement, but our media is too useless to publicise that fact.

    • The Chairman 9.1
      30 August 2015 at 8:39 pm

      “Good to see that you think it is OK for parents to disown/kick out/beat their daughters for falling pregnant.”

      Feel free to show me how you came to that flawed conclusion. It’s not what I’m advocating.

      I’m hoping we can find a way to better balance the benefits of parents knowing against the negatives you described, in the hope we can save some young lives going forward.

      • millsy 9.1.1
        30 August 2015 at 11:32 pm

        The reality is, that a lot of parents react negatively to their daughter having sex and falling pregnant. So they kick them out on the street, or worse.

        Our brothels, prisons and shelters are full of women who were disowned by their parents.

  10. millsy 10
    30 August 2015 at 11:43 am

    That post above was intended for Chairman. .

    • Visubversa 10.1
      30 August 2015 at 12:44 pm

      There is never any point in arguing with a forced birther. There are no depths to which they will not sink. Doctored videos, lies, terrorist threats, and even murder. All in the name of these mythical “children” for whom they do not give a toss once they are born. Their “pro-life” proclamations extend only as far as wonen’s uteri – most of them are pro the death penalty and pro war.

      • Anne 10.1.1
        30 August 2015 at 6:32 pm

        …most of them are pro the death penalty and pro war.

        and Climate Change deniers.

        • McFlock 10.1.1.1
          30 August 2015 at 7:03 pm

          I think it was a comedian called Jimmy Tingle who commented that george HW bush was anti-abortion and pro death penalty: “I guess it’s all in the timing, eh George?”

        • The Chairman 10.1.1.2
          30 August 2015 at 8:43 pm

          I’m no forced birther. Nor am I pro death penalty, a climate change denier, or pro war.

          • Anne 10.1.1.2.1
            30 August 2015 at 9:18 pm

            My comment was nothing to do with you. Just a general observation in reply to Visubversa. I haven’t been following the debate. Too busy.

            • The Chairman 10.1.1.2.1.1
              30 August 2015 at 9:45 pm

              That’s fine, Anne. It gave me the opportunity to set the record straight.

              There seems to be a bit of mud slinging coming my way.

  11. greywarshark 11
    30 August 2015 at 11:57 am

    About big finance and business. I heard something on Radionz about a rort involving $600 million. So googled for $600 million rort international and there is a page about big money transactions.

    Here is the item I heard about the rort of Malaysian PM and $600 million. This is indicative of how political leaders everywhere are trying to personally advantage themselves. At one time this was something from lesser countries.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/29/malaysians-stage-mass-protest-for-pms-resignation.html
    The Malaysian leader has weathered weeks of attacks since it was reported that investigators probing the management of debt-laden state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) had discovered the unexplained transfer of more than $600 million.
    Protesters hope to spark a people’s power movement forcing Najib out, but political analysts doubt he will be toppled.

    Then further down the page under $600 million – which seems a popular amount to be dealing in!
    The first one is brief details for cognoscenti and carries this warning “Remember that CFDs are a leveraged product and can result in the loss of your entire deposit. Trading CFDs may not be suitable for you. Please ensure you fully understand the risks involved. ” so don’t complain if you lose all your holiday money.

    Schlumberger Limited said it will merge with oilfield equipment maker Cameron in a stock and cash transaction valued at $12.7 billion that will create the world’s largest oil-field services company.

    Pixar’s latest animated feature Inside Out is continuing to go from success to success.
    After topping the UK box office last weekend and battling with Jurassic World for the top spot in the US earlier in July, Disney’s Pixar now has more to celebrate as Inside Out passes the $600 million worldwide box office mark.

    Local politicking – easy-peasy??:
    A decade ago, sister towns of West Baden Springs and French Lick (located one mile apart) were in trouble. Jobs were scarce, local shops were closing, and the younger generation was moving away for better opportunities and a brighter future. Locals were not naïve, they knew they had a problem. For years, citizens would caravan to the state capitol in Indianapolis to ask for help. Their goal: to convince politicians to grant a gambling license to a developer who would rebuild and restore French Lick Resort….
    Geneva Street, a feisty, red-headed beautician in French Lick, was one of the most vocal supporters. In a deft move, she realized State Senator Larry Borst, a practicing veterinarian, was the logjam. So, she made an appointment for her dog to receive a check-up with veterinarian Borst.
    “It was inventive and effective,” stated Saunders. “Although Senator Borst probably felt hoodwinked by the ruse, it worked.”
    With a gaming license in hand, the challenge now lay to find a steward, with deep enough pockets and resolve, to rebuild the resort.

    Yesterday, Bloomberg reported that the biggest American producer of coking coal, Alpha Natural Resources, could file for bankruptcy as soon as Monday.
    Competitor Walter Energy filed for bankruptcy earlier this month, and several others have done the same this year.
    Now, two companies are so pressed by ten-year-low coal prices, that they have agreed to sell their jointly-owned Australian coking mine for A$1 ($US0.73). Coking coal, also known as metallurgic coal, is used for steel production.

    Then there are airline profits and problems. Qantas has found Jetstar in NZ useful in boosting its turnaround profit. Yet Air NZ can’t wait to drop the regions and that allows Jetstar to achieve a greater share of our domestic market, at a time when the media have a heading that shares are going down as the international economy sags.
    And with our lack of sharp concern for our balance of payments, our strategy is lax about more of the domestic earnings being sucked out of NZ to Australia and beyond!

    Qantas has turned around a massive loss to report its biggest profit since before the global financial crisis.
    The airline reported earnings before tax and one-time items of A$975 million in the year to June 30, compared with a A$646 million loss a year earlier.
    The airline attributes the spectacular turnaround to its successful transformation programme, which saw thousands of staff laid off and costs slashed, A$600 million in lower fuel costs helped by hedging, depreciation savings from international fleet impairment and higher revenue per available seat kilometre.
    Chief executive Alan Joyce said the bounce back into the black was one of the most spectacular in Australian corporate history. There were record results for Jetstar, which was now making a profit in New Zealand, the airline’s loyalty scheme and freight operations.

    Google Air NZ annual profit to get interesting coverage.
    Air New Zealand has posted an annual profit of $327 million, up 24 per cent, and expects earnings to grow significantly. The growth in earnings was driven by capacity growth and strong demand, along with cost efficiencies and lower fuel prices, the airline said.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/71456978/air-new-zealand-posts-record-annual-result

    Air NZ shares dive despite soaring profit
    Concern about Air New Zealand’s ability to profitably fill capacity increases as economies weaken and competition increases has weighed on its shares.
    http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=212249

    Air NZ shares fall, analysts query capital return strategy
    Following this year’s result, analysts covering the stock have bumped up their expected 2016 earnings based on jet fuel savings, 11 percent capacity growth, and a stronger contribution from its 26 percent stake in Virgin Australia. That’s partly offset by concern about new competition including Jetstar on regional routes, Chinese airlines, and from Qantas alliance partner American Airlines on trans-Pacific flights.
    http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/ef9fe9f6/air-nz-shares-fall-analysts-query-capital-return-strategy.html
    edited

  12. Draco T Bastard 12
    30 August 2015 at 12:12 pm

    A long time ago I wrote this calling for better information to be available for people to make decisions. It also calls for the effect of those decisions to be shown on the real economy and for those decisions to be made real.

    Now somebody has put together this which does the first part which is going to go a long way to getting the rest going as well.

  13. swordfish 13
    30 August 2015 at 1:06 pm

    Oh dear, the news just gets worse and worse for the Blairites in Britain.

    They’ve expended a good deal of energy portraying Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters as little more than a cadre of Posh, out-of-touch Trots and affluent Islington drawing-room liberals.

    Turns out that research by pollster YouGov reveals Corbyn’s supporters are actually closer (than those of the other 3 leadership candidates) to the UK demographic average in 3 out of 4 indicators.

    The supporters of self-identified Blairite candidate Liz Kendall are more likely to be affluent, upper-middle class and in professional, well-healed occupations. Corbyn’s support base is much more a mix of working and lower-middle class, in tune with the wider British electorate.

    Household Income over 40k
    Great Britain 27%
    Corbyn Support 26%
    Burnham Support 29%
    Cooper Support 32%
    Kendall Support 44%

    Social Grade A/B
    Great Britain 35%
    Corbyn Support 36%
    Burnham Support 40%
    Cooper Support 48%
    Kendall Support 65%

    Voted Lib Dem in 2010
    Great Britain 15%
    Corbyn Support 18%
    Burnham Support 9%
    Cooper Support 9%
    Kendall Support 10%

    The only measure where Corbyn supporters were further (than those of the other candidates) from the GB average was their preference for social media over the MSM.

    Social Media a main source of News
    Great Britain 32%
    Corbyn Support 57%
    Burnham 39%
    Cooper 41%
    Kendall 38%

    • Ron 13.1
      30 August 2015 at 8:57 pm

      We do live in exciting times.

    • millsy 13.2
      30 August 2015 at 11:56 pm

      Tony Blair again launches a plea for Labour voters to vote for a leader that will dial back public spending to pre Crimean war levels, as opposed to the Tories who want Walpole era spending levels.

  14. Descendant Of Sssmith 14
    30 August 2015 at 1:26 pm

    I’ve seen more sensible commentary around abortion on this site, including today, than almost anywhere else I can think of.

    From personal stories, to debunking bull-shit, to presenting logical challenges to what is being said it is heartening to see such a diverse range of people supporting the choice of women to make their own decisions, based on their own individual circumstances.

    Thanks. I feel uplifted today.

  15. Descendant Of Sssmith 15
    30 August 2015 at 1:42 pm

    Yet another business collapse owing hundreds of thousands to IRD.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/71481959/failed-property-developer-puts-a-ring-on-it

    It seems that many of these failed business owing millions of $ have histories of not paying IRD before their collapse.

    Surely this is a pretty good indicator of firms in trouble and non-payment should be a matter of public record when it occurs, not waiting til the total collapse of the business.

    I still argue for a much simpler tax system where there’s a low rate of tax on gross income (before expenses) which would both broaden the tax base and make collection at the point of sale direct to IRD possible for all but cash and cheque sales.

    Even without including fraudulent issues around taxation it seems that the collapsed business value of non-paid legitimate tax must run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Add non-paid PAYE payments and non-paid student loan payments into the mix and the missing amounts must be enormous.

    I know from personal experience that if you can show that your employer deducted your student loan payments from your pay but didn’t pay them to IRD then the tax-payer picks up the tab. Yet another employer subsidy.

  16. joe90 16
    30 August 2015 at 2:25 pm

    A sliver of light?.

    .
    Crimes of hate

    The July 31 murders in Duma and at the gay pride march were not ordinary homicides. They were moral arguments: Yishai Schlissel’s moral obsession with overly happy gays and the “price tag” movement’s fleet-footed moral flanking maneuver in punishing Israel by allegedly burning Palestinians. Two simultaneous climaxes of Jewish extremism, two moments of Jewish spiritual pathology that were seen by many Israelis, from far-left to far-right, not as criminal aberrations but as signals of a possibly grim future.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-blood-of-summer-and-our-collective-sins-of-omission/

    .
    The author follows up.

    .
    http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-letter-to-those-fuming-that-im-a-leftist/

  17. Shane Le Brun 17
    30 August 2015 at 3:42 pm

    For Weka et al who support Medical Cannabis, tune in to Tv1 tonight at 7pm.
    for a preview….
    http://yournz.org/2015/08/30/mother-admits-giving-daughter-medicinal-cannabis/

  18. Heather Grimwood 18
    30 August 2015 at 3:44 pm

    Mmmm! Many years ago I lost a classmate to a backstreet abortion…and no need to talk about an 11 yr old from South America when this has even to my knowledge happened in NZ .
    Linked ethically is the suicide of a N.Z.schoolboy who went to his spiritual “guide” for help with his newly- realised homosexuality only to be told to go and sin no more.
    I assure you, these families are no more or I would not be exposing these facts.

  19. maui 19
    30 August 2015 at 5:39 pm

    Apart from the Greenpeace protest, tonight Parliament will have the most attention focused onto it for the year I reckon, when the All Blacks are announced there. Sad state of affairs, especially when you’re not a huge rugby fan.

  20. maui 20
    30 August 2015 at 6:16 pm

    On 3 news tonight, Kelvin Davis and another Labour MP attending a fundraiser for a charter school. Labour policy is against charter schools. Their party needs to make sure that none of their MPs does anything controversial like this. Such easy pickings for the media to imply that Labour are not ready for Government.

    • millsy 20.1
      30 August 2015 at 11:36 pm

      Christ all bloody mighty.

      Is it too much to ask that Labour MP’s should show some backbone and support the continual public provision of education/schooling as a service?

  21. Im Right 21
    31 August 2015 at 10:09 pm

    C’mon guys, no post on 2 Labour MP’s defying leader and heading to a Charter School fund raiser?…lol, guess the obvious is better to leave slone that look head on eh?

    Let me guess, you guys have one of 3 ‘excuses”:
    1: They are there for their constituents, as unlike leader…they actually had someone that voted for them (Kelvin Davis)
    2: they were excising their democratic right (pun intended) to do as they wish.
    3: It’s Whanau!, as it’s Maori MP’s and shhhh it’s their rite to do as they wish as culture out wins leader of the party 🙂

    Now….if thus were National MP’s going against Key, OMG it’s National are collapsing and all are against Key and he will be knifed and a new leader soon, LOL georgeous!

    On a serious note…I DO believe in a strong opposition, and still having McCarten employed as a stratagem and a ‘bunker war office head’ really is killing and making 2017 a walk over! worst result in 92yrs last election and Matt still employed….beggars belief and long may he continue in that role (to me, Little is a Union man, McCarten is a union man, that owes $150K for not paying his workers Kiwi Saver contributions nor tax….ummmmm)

    [lprent: I suspect that is
    1. defamatory
    2. incorrect
    3. earned you a permanent ban unless you can provide proof from a reputable source or apologise. See the policy of ‘asserting facts’.
    4. bye bye. I will keep you on moderation for 2 days before putting you in the lying arsehole club along with the other lusers who are too stupid to comment here. ]