Birth Control

Written By: - Date published: 8:38 pm, May 8th, 2012 - 83 comments
Categories: babies, benefits - Tags: ,

At first glance it seems strange to have Sue Bradford, a former Green MP, against what is a very ‘green’ policy – free contraception.  There’s no better way of reducing human impact on the planet and climate change etc than not existing, and – advocating suicide obviously being out of order – contraception and fewer children is arguably one of the most needed policies for nature.

But she most definitely has a point.  As ever it comes down to power imbalances: a case worker taking you through how you need to get long-term contraception, in theory you have a choice, but practically..?

The question has to be: why not free / cheap contraception for everybody?  Sure, this is a penny-pinching National government so maybe just everybody with a community services card.  But if they’re worried about people going on benefits because of children then it probably should be just about everybody though…

I’m not quite sure about the right’s obsession with people (nay – women, let’s not forget this is always targeting women) having children while on a benefit.  Would they prefer that a child was had and raised for 5 years, the woman goes back to work briefly before having a second child and being on the benefit for however long?  Or is it better if they have 2 kids 2 years apart and get back to work with 3 years less on benefits in total?  Because they’re essentially advocating the first option with their myopia.

And then there’s their “breeding for a living”… It’s not impossible there hasn’t been the odd occasion where a young girl was naive and stupid enough to think that they’d be better off on a pittance of a benefit and with a child, but nobody’s going to repeat the mistake and have a second once they’ve got first-hand evidence of how much hard work mothering is.  It ain’t worth it for the lack of pay…

And if it were true that they are having children because that’s their best life option – the government should really be working on providing better options.  Jobs anyone?

(I think I might do a provocative follow-up piece on the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement‘s aims for a better society later this week…  Greenies with more than 2 kids: I’m coming after you… 😉 )

83 comments on “Birth Control ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Psycho Milt 1
    8 May 2012 at 9:06 pm

    The question has to be: why not free / cheap contraception for everybody?

    Uh, duh-uh. Well, let’s see. Because it would be very expensive? Because most of us can afford to pay for contraception ourselves? Because most of us seem capable of figuring out to put a wrapper on it without needing a WINZ case worker to explain where babies come from in words of one syllable? Because the govt isn’t liable for supporting everybody’s children? These aren’t tricky philosophical concepts…

    By all means, rail against the govt for putting it all on the women instead of the sperm donors, it’s a govt that’s richly earned the abuse. But the principle of minimising taxpayer liability for unsupported children is a sound one and has a lot to recommend it.

    • Descendant Of Smith 1.1
      8 May 2012 at 9:26 pm

      “But the principle of minimising taxpayer liability for unsupported children is a sound one and has a lot to recommend it.”

      We can totally minimise it by killing the children at benefit application.

      Anyway how are these children unsupported? – they are with their mother – oh but that’s right she’s a sole parent, a non-person, an animal.

      Only the male can provide support – stupid women not having a male to support them. What is wrong with society today?

      Maybe we could sell them to the rich – that would remove any need for state support, Friday raffles down at the local, newspapers ads –

      “Partly domesticated women, comes with small noisy attachment, sadly cast off and unwanted by previous male, somewhat soiled and abused but with a bit of spit and polish could look all brand new and shiny again.”

      • Lucien 1.1.1
        8 May 2012 at 11:04 pm

        “Anyway how are these children unsupported? – they are with their mother – oh but that’s right she’s a sole parent, a non-person, an animal.”

        If they are supported why do they need any benefits?

        • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1
          9 May 2012 at 2:08 am

          Oh stupid Righty, ‘parental support’ entails far more than just money, like social, emotional and physical components. Geddit?

        • Descendant Of Smith 1.1.1.2
          9 May 2012 at 7:14 am

          By that definition why isn’t this about all people on benefits with children and by extension those getting WFF payments?

          Clearly they are not being supported either cause they get state benefits as well.

    • QoT 1.2
      8 May 2012 at 10:06 pm

      A lot of contraceptive methods are already very cheap due to subsidies (especially with the subsidies for sexual-health-related GP appointments on top … assuming those are still going).

      My understanding is that the big thing about this policy is that it’ll cover the generally much-more-expensive, longer-term forms of contraceptives like Implanon.

      Because beneficiaries are just too stoopid to take a pill every day and we don’t want them just re-asserting control of their uteri any time they like …

      (And as far as “waaa why should I pay for someone else’s kids”, see the usual “who’s paying for your Super again?”)

      • Psycho Milt 1.2.1
        9 May 2012 at 6:43 am

        So, if we take out your personal interpretations based on the “beneficiaries good, govt bad” principle, what we’re left with is that the govt is now planning to cover the more expensive, longer-term contraceptives, but will be targeting it at reducing the number of children the govt’s financially liable for. The horror, the horror!

        • QoT 1.2.1.1
          9 May 2012 at 6:43 pm

          what we’re left with is that the govt is now planning to cover the more expensive, longer-term contraceptives, targeted at specific, less-privileged women who society has deemed shouldn’t breed, including disproportionate numbers of women of colour and women with disabilities, which is kinda creepy even if you want to ignore the word “eugenics”, coming from the poisoned chalice of the Welfare Working Group report and carrying the clear stated implication that all beneficiaries are sluts who can’t be trusted, and their daughters too

          Fixed it for you.

          • Psycho Milt 1.2.1.1.1
            9 May 2012 at 8:51 pm

            I don’t think “Fixed it for you” is synonymous with “Filled it with my personal beliefs for you.”

            • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1.1.1
              9 May 2012 at 8:56 pm

              Personal beliefs and priorities are at the core of the matter though, PM.

            • QoT 1.2.1.1.1.2
              9 May 2012 at 10:30 pm

              Dude, you’re the one who wants to divorce this policy from its context to make it look prettier.

  2. Psycho Milt 2
    8 May 2012 at 9:37 pm

    Fair cop guv. You weren’t fooled by those fairly unremarkable observations and were immediately able to spot a woman-hating Tory Bastard. You win this thread’s Ben Elton Spotting Tory Bastards in Disguise Award.

  3. Policy Parrot 3
    8 May 2012 at 11:37 pm

    Unfortunately, there are some people out there with very poor planning and foresight skills – the word ‘myopic’ comes to mind – (not always through fault of their own), and they will burden the inevitably smaller future working population that will result from such a policy with a high proportion of current (same period) funded super.

    Its weird that many on the Right tend to regard pregnancy as a choice for women. I suggest they consult their own mothers, and ask them about the night that they were planning to conceive them (Righties). Either that, or they should get laid more, and see how many times they discuss with their partner prior to intercourse that “tonight is planned as a conception event”. A little undercover investigating is what makes the world go round 😉

    • Mehere 3.1
      9 May 2012 at 1:09 am

      Policy Parrot: ‘Either that, or they should get laid more, and see how many times they discuss with their partner prior to intercourse that “tonight is planned as a conception event”.’

      I’m getting laid plenty, but thanks for the concern. My current partner is not at the stage in her life where she wants to have children. We never discuss whether “tonight is planned as a conception event” because we know it can’t happen. We just get on with it and have an evening of adult-oriented fun. That’s because she’s taken responsibility for her own fertility, otherwise I’d wear a condom. 

      I call bullshit on your assertion that “Its weird that many on the Right tend to regard pregnancy as a choice for women.” … it is a choice, the contraceptive pill has been available for over 40 years.

      • Colonial Viper 3.1.1
        9 May 2012 at 2:07 am

        That’s because she’s taken responsibility for her own fertility, otherwise I’d wear a condom.

        I guess you’ve never been to a GP’s office, they give positive pregnancy results every day to women who use contraception religiously.

        Good that she takes responsibility so the man doesn’t have to eh.

      • Fermionic Interference 3.1.2
        9 May 2012 at 10:53 am

        Arrogant much?

        The pill has had many failures whilst being used correctly and it also has a number of little kickers like grapefruit juice etc that can cause it to fail.

        To avoid personal responsibility and leave it all up to your female partner smacks of disrespect and disregard for her and her current lack of desire to become a mother.

        Lessons here:
        You’re still a fool if you don’t wrap your tool.
        & Responsibility is a two way street.

        • Mehere 3.1.2.1
          10 May 2012 at 1:53 am

          “Arrogant much?”

          Yep, but only on here. I’d get my balls served to me on a plate if I went around spouting the nonsense that I spout on here in real life.

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.1.1
            10 May 2012 at 2:01 am

            Yeah I guess that’s because your momma don’t like bullshit.

            • Mehere 3.1.2.1.1.1
              10 May 2012 at 2:25 am

              Hey, my Momma is a Winston First devotee. She’s already a dedicated follower of bullshit. Still love her to bits though, obviously.

    • jbc 3.2
      9 May 2012 at 3:29 am

      For most couples I know (yes, it generally takes two to “plan a conception event”) it is a deliberate choice. This has nothing to do with their political persuasion. I have plenty of Left friends who keep count of their children and know when enough is enough. Sometimes that is zero.

      Either they are wanting pregnancy, not wanting pregnancy, or are prepared to roll the dice and happily take responsibility for the eventuality.

      Doesn’t always work out exactly as planned, but it is no accident that we aren’t all bastard children in families of a dozen or more.

      The tripe above comparing women to animals is absurd as a counter argument. Unless your personal belief is that women are instinctively mindless breeders then that looks like a very badly drawn straw man.

  4. Mehere 4
    9 May 2012 at 12:10 am

    Pick your battles people. Labour are on a hiding to nothing by opposing this. If you have any actual human contact outside of your own middle class circlejerk then you’ll realise that this policy is universally popular amongst everyday folk. You’d be better served focussing on policies that have some traction i.e. anti asset sales. Don’t get sucked into the debate. Ride it out.

    [lprent: I haven’t seen any particular opposition from Labour to this policy apart from saying that contraception shoud be freely available and fertility is not exactly something that WINZ case officers are competent at.

    Which leads me to think that you are trying to imply that people here are all Labour party members, which most are not. Bad idea – read the about and the policy and adjust your behaviour before I boot your arse off here for stupidity. Consider yourself warned. ]

    • McFlock 4.1
      9 May 2012 at 12:14 am

      thanks for that.
      Seen polling on the issue, or are you just making shit up?

      • Mehere 4.1.1
        9 May 2012 at 12:23 am

        Nope, no official polling except for talk around the office today and the results of this Stuff poll http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6876758/Beneficiary-contraception-plan-intrusive

        • McFlock 4.1.1.1
          9 May 2012 at 12:45 am

          Oh okay, so when it’s framed as subsidising healthcare stuff readers support it.
              
          I guess we should wait until it’s being forced on people (or lose your benefit) until expressing concern. But then of course the response will be “nobody raised an issue when it was proposed”.
               
          I’d like it to be discussed before it gets that far, if it’s alright with you.

          • Mehere 4.1.1.1.1
            9 May 2012 at 1:34 am

            If you want to buy into some imagined Hollywood movie plot about this policy being eugenics by stealth then that’s your own ideological wanking on display. The truth is that most people see this as a sensible and pragmatic policy.

            • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1.1
              9 May 2012 at 2:05 am

              Its not a Hollywood play.

              Plenty of the middle class that you refer to really really believe that poor people (i.e. people poorer than them) should not be allowed to have children fullstop.

              And you’ve heard them go on about it too, I bet.

              • Mehere …
                9 May 2012 at 2:33 am

                Hey CV, I used ‘middle class’ as an insult because this site is in danger of turning into another circlejerk wankfest like Public Address which is so full of privileged white people mutually self-pleasuring themselves that it’s become unreadable.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  9 May 2012 at 8:02 pm

                  I have no idea what you are trying to say there. But it sounds greasy and unpleasant.

                  • Mehere …
                    10 May 2012 at 1:25 am

                    Hey CV, what I was trying to say in my own greasy and unpleasant way is that a blog is only as interesting as its commenters. The comments section needs to be lively, disagreeable and argumentative to entice the punters. Public Address on the other hand has become a mutual ego stroking echo chamber of white middle class wankers. Everyone agrees with everyone else. Don’t let The Standard suffer the same fate. Carry on debating, ridiculing and insulting the commenters you disagree with. That’s what brings all the boys and girls to the yard.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 May 2012 at 1:31 am

                      Thanks for your concern.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 May 2012 at 2:03 am

                      Do you really think we want approval ratings from the likes of you. Seriously, I mean.

                      Don’t let The Standard suffer the same fate.

                      You should try and stay up to date with The Std’s growth trajectory.

              • James Gray …
                9 May 2012 at 7:43 pm

                Not at all. Personally, I really really believe that everyone should be able to have however many children they want, no matter who they are.

                Also, I really really believe that everyone is entitled to their own property.

                The corollary of this, is that anyone can have as many children as they like… if they have the resources to raise and care for them appropriately.

                If they make poor decisions and are not able to care for their children, and show no signs of learning from these mistakes, how is that wrong to make that help conditional on them taking certain measures not to make their own situation worse?

                I have met people that think like this, though. I can’t stand them… Conservatives and socialists belong in the same boat as far as I’m concerned, just some other bastard who wants to tell other people what to do with themselves or their property.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  9 May 2012 at 7:58 pm

                  James Gray says that the children of poor people are “mistakes”.

                  Go away mate, you deserve a good kicking for that implication, and for your illogic.

                  By the way, workers being locked out, made redundant, having their wages cut by 30% with zero negotiation or consultation, is that still “poor decision” making in your book?

                  • James Gray …
                    10 May 2012 at 1:26 pm

                    Yes, they are mistakes. Having a child that you do not have the means to care for is highly irresponsible.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 May 2012 at 1:33 pm

                      Yes women should stay with abusive uncaring husbands as long as hubby brings home the bacon, for the good of the children you understand.

            • Descendant Of Smith 4.1.1.1.1.2
              9 May 2012 at 6:46 am

              Nah you’ve got it completely wrong.

              Free contraception is fine – this can be done via extending what health currently do.

              Linking it to the benefit system is abhorrent as is the context this has been presented in – such as making it more difficult for women who have another child on benefit and having sanctions put in place for sole parents who don’t comply with things.

              Do you think that things thinks are independent of each other – that they each exist in a vacuum?

              You’ve obviously never seen the posts here that refer to women as breeding for a business let alone listened to those on talk back or in pubs, read those on other blogs, in comments in the newspapers say the same thing.

              Sometimes a little throwing it back is useful – if those who post saying these women are breeding for are business they ARE saying they are animals.

              If you don’t like it come on here and stand up for those women and say that that is not true.

              How come you can be critical of me pointing out that that is exactly what they are saying? I make no apologies for it.

              What effect do you think those sorts of comments have on those women, their self esteem and their behaviour? It certainly ain’t a positive one.

          • Psycho Milt 4.1.1.1.2
            9 May 2012 at 6:49 am

            I guess we should wait until it’s being forced on people (or lose your benefit) until expressing concern.

            You’d think. People who want to complain something’s being forced on beneficiaries really need that something to be forced on beneficiaries if they’re not to look like imbeciles. At the moment, it’s just a fairly ridiculous slippery slope fallacy along the lines of the voluntary euthanasia one in which the state will decide when to end our lives.

            • Pete George 4.1.1.1.2.1
              9 May 2012 at 7:03 am

              Is slipperyslopism getting worse or am I just noticing it more.

              Another prevalent example is asset sales, where the scare of foreigners owning all of New Zealand is often thrown around, without any rational argument for anything like that.

              Beneficiaries can already get contraception assistance, that hasn’t exactly halted reproduction in the country and eliminated the beneficiary class. But you never know what those WINZ “clerks” will get up to.

    • Policy Parrot 4.2
      9 May 2012 at 12:21 am

      Theres no doubt of that. Thats why the entire issue was brought up. Not because it was urgent, just so that can say “looky here” while dirty deeds done dirt cheap go unpublicised. Bring up bills to put the opposition on the wrong side of public opinion – time honoured tactic.

      If this doesn’t play, next up will be laura norder with the bill to imprison indefinitely those deemed a continued threat to the community. Not that that issue isn’t important – but it needs a fair discussion – not a media sensation to overwhelm other important issues.

      • Vicky32 4.2.1
        9 May 2012 at 6:10 pm

        Theres no doubt of that. Thats why the entire issue was brought up. Not because it was urgent, just so that can say “looky here” while dirty deeds done dirt cheap go unpublicised.

        Just what I was thinking! Not one word on 3News or Radio NZ about Banks etc for days now, so it’s working…

    • rosy 4.3
      9 May 2012 at 12:31 am

      So your suggestion is that people on a blog who find it abhorrent that a group of people are singled out for long-term contraception intervention from age 16, as dictated by social welfare clerks, should simply ignore it because they’re in the minority. I’m not quite sure I agree with the logic of that.

  5. Policy Parrot 5
    9 May 2012 at 12:27 am

    “But she most definitely has a point. As ever it comes down to power imbalances: a case worker taking you through how you need to get long-term contraception, in theory you have a choice, but practically..?”

    Sounds like Wilkinsons choice re: 90 day trial period. If you don’t like it, don’t apply. Again, those who need to apply for benefit purposes will have no choice other than to not receive money.

  6. Pete George 6
    9 May 2012 at 6:31 am

    Most of the rest of the proposals are being ignored. Why are they different?

    Assistance payments would provide young parents with up to $6 an hour for 50 hours a week for their children to attend approved early childhood education services.

    That’s on top of funding for the 1155 extra early-childhood education places needed to meet the needs of parents returning to work or study.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6876758/Beneficiary-contraception-plan-intrusive

    Are those intrusive and offensive as well? Should we stand by as those options are “forced on people (or lose your benefit)” (McFlock 4.1.1.1) or “dictated by social welfare clerks” (Rosy 4.3 et al), or should those also be protested for targeting of people on benefits?

    • rosy 6.1
      9 May 2012 at 6:54 am

      See DoS 6:46 am for your answer, or the post Contraception Debate

    • millsy 6.2
      9 May 2012 at 10:54 am

      National funded ECE is probably profit making baby farms.

      We need

      a) mothers to stay home with their kids
      b) community/publicly owned NON-PROFIT childcare. Like kindergartens.

      • Vicky32 6.2.1
        9 May 2012 at 6:12 pm

        We need
        a) mothers to stay home with their kids
        b) community/publicly owned NON-PROFIT childcare. Like kindergartens.

        Agreed 100%!

    • McFlock 6.3
      9 May 2012 at 12:01 pm

      Pete,
               
      Beware of sociopaths bearing gifts – less than a year ago the generous government offering these joyful subsidies for beneficiaries was saying that it was “not quite” ready to make it compulsory. I find that concerning.
               
      Frankly, ECE, contraception and all that good stuff should be free to all. But none of it should be forced on people.

    • Treetop 6.4
      9 May 2012 at 3:59 pm

      I am not ignoring the proposal of turfing a mother out to work part time when her baby is a year old. I really cannot see any gain in this for anyone. All I see is punishing the mother and children for having a second child while on a benefit.. We (government) will give you $6 per hour for childcare). Never mind having to take your baby and youngster out in the pouring rain and cold to childcare and/or school or being up all night with a sick child.

      Do you know how hard it can be to get a place for a one year old at a $6 an hour rate?
      Do you know that day care hours are usually fixed?
      What is the mother suppose to do if her hours are changed?
      Do you want to see a mother harm her children due to being placed under constant stress?

      The government does not want to support women having anymore children while on a benefit. I would like to know what the actual cost is in having one or two extra children while on a benefit?

      Has it got to the point where this government has a unit cost on everyone. Well if they have I would like to see the unit cost on everyone. Then the real truth will be evident. I for one cannot wait until this bully government WAKES up and stops harassing single mothers/single parents with their POINTLESS Work and Income policies.

    • QoT 6.5
      9 May 2012 at 6:46 pm

      Pete, this is why people keep calling you a troll. Because you basically just argued “but if a policy package contains one good initiative then you can’t criticise any other part of it!!!!”

      I’d like to offer you a home-cooked dinner, a widescreen TV, and a kick in the nuts. The kick in the nuts can’t be assault, see, unless you also complain about the dinner and the TV.

      • Pete George 6.5.1
        9 May 2012 at 7:30 pm

        I didn’t say you can’t criticise any part of it at all. Your apparent obsession with genital violence doesn’t help your argument.

        • QoT 6.5.1.1
          9 May 2012 at 8:03 pm

          Most of the rest of the proposals are being ignored. Why are they different?

          Yeah, that ain’t code for “but shut up because some parts are good”.

          And I only keep referring to giving you a good round of Rochambo because I honestly don’t know what gets through to you beyond your own self-interest. Well, that and a girl can dream.

  7. Inventory2 7
    9 May 2012 at 6:42 am

    I’m not quite sure about the right’s obsession with people (nay – women, let’s not forget this is always targeting women) having children while on a benefit.

    Maybe it’s because you only get the DPB if you’re NOT in a live-in relationship, and people on the Right (and probably not just the right, judging by the Stuff poll) think that it’s far better for a child to be born into stable family circumstances where there are two parents…

    • millsy 7.1
      9 May 2012 at 10:53 am

      So you think women should be forced to stay in unhappy and/or abusive relationships.

      The last thing we need is your bible bashing.

      I suppose you want to recriminialise homosexuality and throw evolution out of our schools as wells.

      Earth to Inv2: The. World. Was. Created. By. Scientific. Processes. Not. Magic.

      No wonder you guys burn Harry Potter books — you dont like the competition.

    • Bunji 7.2
      9 May 2012 at 10:59 am

      Not all benefits are the DPB.

      And if your partner walks out on you when you’re pregnant with a second or subsequent child, does that make you a terrible person, for having another child while single?

      And, well, mistakes happen. Contraception isn’t infallible. But lets punish the children anyway. No mother for you during the day!

      • Vicky32 7.2.1
        9 May 2012 at 6:15 pm

        Not all benefits are the DPB.
        And if your partner walks out on you when you’re pregnant with a second or subsequent child, does that make you a terrible person, for having another child while single?

        Exactly! That’s much more common than what the right imagine…

    • QoT 7.3
      9 May 2012 at 6:47 pm

      you only get the DPB if you’re NOT in a live-in relationship, and people on the Right …think that it’s far better for a child to be born into stable family circumstances where there are two parents…

      So your assertion is that all live-in relationships are “stable family circumstances”? Because that’s kinda silly.

  9. Uturn 9
    9 May 2012 at 8:58 am

    I’m pretty sure this is another example of a discussion that doesn’t need to happen. It’s not about birth control at all. It’s about the cowardice and hypocrisy of political bullies: oppression of a weaker portion of society by the dominant party.

    It’s like the Government asking: Who should we target first, maori or immigrants?

    And then the people arguing that there are reasons why people are maori or immigrate, instead of turning round and saying,

    Hey you know what? We aren’t interested in engaging in your inane soulless immoral divisive non-debates. We set the agenda, and your corruption is top of the list and will stay there. Show us where you stole our money!

    And instead, while the people argue a negative prejudiced point, they aren’t focussed on what the immoral government is doing to line its own pockets and those of its friends.

  10. vto 10
    9 May 2012 at 10:21 am

    Why isn’t this free contraception just offered to all poor people instead of just the poor on a benefit?

    What is the justification for the distinction?

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 10.1
      9 May 2012 at 10:32 am

      That, if you are being paid by the state for doing nothing, it is fair enough for the state to impose reasonable conditions on you.

      • vto 10.1.1
        9 May 2012 at 10:37 am

        Ok, fair enough.

        So who else is receiving money from the state?

      • Bunji 10.1.2
        9 May 2012 at 11:01 am

        I didn’t think they were imposing conditions.

        And if they were, then imposing contraception just because you’ve lost your job doesn’t seem “reasonable”…

      • QoT 10.1.3
        9 May 2012 at 6:49 pm

        doing nothing

        There we go, people, the Right’s basic lack of understanding that parenting involves work.

    • Psycho Milt 10.2
      9 May 2012 at 11:46 am

      Why isn’t this free contraception just offered to all poor people instead of just the poor on a benefit?

      Answered in comment 1 above. Several of the answers contained therein are relevant, but the main one is that the govt isn’t financially liable for the children of the poor, just the children of beneficiaries. To that we can add that there are risk factors that make targeting the service worthwhile. Those may not be popular answers, but they are rational justifications for what the govt’s doing. So far the opposition doesn’t appear to have had anything particularly rational to offer.

      • vto 10.2.1
        9 May 2012 at 11:58 am

        Well Mr Milt I don’t think that is the full picture and neither does the logic make sense…

        The main justification for this is, as you say, because the government is financially liable for these people.

        I look forward the proposed euthanasia bill and associated services being offered to pensioners as a free service, following the same logic.

        And what about WFF? The government is financially liable for countless families and, following the same logic, they too should be offered this free service in the exact same manner.

        Now, who else receives money or anything else from the government. I know! Health and education services. Now, what can we push in there?

        The justification you outline mr milt is woeful and shallow and unworthy.

        • Psycho Milt 10.2.1.1
          9 May 2012 at 12:39 pm

          See? Rational isn’t a feature. For the record:

          1. The difference between offering people free contraception and offering them death isn’t lost on most people. As you point out, by the same logic the govt could offer to fund voluntary euthenasia for pensioners in an effort to reduce NZ Superannuation expenses, but it won’t for a fairly obvious reason – that difference mentioned above.

          2. What about WFF indeed? For one thing, it’s a tax credit, for another, the govt isn’t financially liable for the families receiving it, for another the addition of a child to an existing family receiving WFF doesn’t increase the govt’s WFF expenses, and last but not least, there aren’t significant risk factors involved in being born to someone receiving WFF. In short, its relevance to this discussion approximates to zero.

          • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.1.1
            9 May 2012 at 7:07 pm

            Psycho sees people in terms of money, and he sees the role of Government in terms of money, and if people are costing more money than they are making then they really aren’t worth the effort.

            • Psycho Milt 10.2.1.1.1.1
              9 May 2012 at 7:58 pm

              Did you comment just to highlight my point about irrationality? I know that logical fallacies are your stock in trade, but presumably most readers of this blog are capable of figuring out there isn’t an either/or choice between govt issuing an unlimited guarantee to support however many children a waster leaves in his wake, no questions asked, and govt applying cost-benefit analyses to individual citizens.

              • Colonial Viper …
                10 May 2012 at 12:07 am

                Except no one has been pushing for an “unlimited guarantee to support wasters and their infinite numbers of children” have they?

                You however have been loving turning people, NZers, into the subjects of cost-benefit analyses.

                With the objective being to cost the poor and to benefit the rich.

          • stargazer 10.2.1.1.2
            9 May 2012 at 9:05 pm

            for another the addition of a child to an existing family receiving WFF doesn’t increase the govt’s WFF expenses

            so the family gets more money for an additional child, paid by the government, but government expenses don’t increase? you really don’t know how working for families is calculated. each additional childs increases the WfF entitlement.

            the govt isn’t financially liable for the children of the poor, just the children of beneficiaries

            they are finacially liable to pay WfF, to families that don’t earn enough income

            there aren’t significant risk factors involved in being born to someone receiving WFF

            um, that would probably be because WfF ensures the family has sufficient income to lift them out of poverty. if we could work on other measures to remove poverty for beneficiaries – and there are plenty – then i doubt that they would be at risk either.

            and if your comments are what you classify as “rational”, then i’m glad most of the people here don’t suffer from that brand of rationality. cos it makes very little sense.

            • Psycho Milt 10.2.1.1.2.1
              9 May 2012 at 9:35 pm

              You’re right, a WFF recipient is credited back more of their tax payments if they have another child, so there is additional loss of income for the govt. My mistake. It would of course be nice if NZ occasionally got govt’s with the bright idea that perhaps paying people wages they could afford to live on would be a better bet than making them social welfare beneficiaries, but that appears to be too much to hope for.

              Still, next time you’re hanging out with the nation’s proletariat, try them out on the idea that working 40 hours a week doesn’t make them anything other than social welfare beneficiaries – be sure to wear a mouthguard though…

              …that would probably be because WfF ensures the family has sufficient income to lift them out of poverty. if we could work on other measures to remove poverty for beneficiaries – and there are plenty – then i doubt that they would be at risk either.

              I can’t decide whether to chalk this up to naivety or stupidity. Those risk factors are tied to things like being born to a single mother on a benefit, living with a male adult not your father etc, not by how many dollars are in the original parent’s pocket.

              • stargazer …
                9 May 2012 at 11:32 pm

                Those risk factors are tied to things like being born to a single mother on a benefit, living with a male adult not your father etc

                and of course poor families with a parent in paid employment, who receive WfF, are never run by single mothers, and never have a male adult who isn’t the biological father living in the household i suppose. who’s being naive and stupid here? dude, i do heaps of WfF returns, i see how these households are made up because we have to put in child support from a parent not living in the household as part of the calculations.

                and you seem so tied up in tags that you can’t seem to see the point. whether it’s a tax credit or a benefit, the end result is the government paying you to bring up your children. why should there be discrimination in access to contraception based on the way the government chooses to get you the money? and why should there be discrimination based on gender?

                and yes, working towards an economy that had enough jobs that paid decent wages would go much further towards solving social issues than this bizarrely stupid and sexist contraception policy.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  10 May 2012 at 6:41 am

                  Don’t blame me for the risk factors, they are what they are. If you’re aware of studies showing being born into a WFF-recipient family is a high risk factor for poverty and violent abuse, feel free to link to them. Otherwise – so what?

                  you can’t seem to see the point. whether it’s a tax credit or a benefit, the end result is the government paying you to bring up your children.

                  The stupidity of WFF isn’t lost on me. But the difference between working for an income and being dependent on social welfare for an income seems entirely lost on you.

                  • rosy …
                    10 May 2012 at 7:11 am

                    Being born into a family with domestic violence is a high risk factor for a life of violence – it’s also a risk factor for becoming a teenage parent. Who knew? Maybe as soon as a father ends up in court for beating his partner, his children should be targeted free contraception so the government doesn’t become liable for his children.

                    Or maybe every 25 year-old male that goes out with a 17 year-old girl should have to roll up to Social Welfare to get a supply of free condoms because a girl going out with older man is another combination that is likely to end up in a teenage pregnancy that the government becomes liable for.

                  • Descendant Of Smith …
                    10 May 2012 at 7:30 am

                    The biggest risk factor to abuse is actually having a man in the relationship.

                    The risk from abuse greatly diminishes if there is no man around to abuse the woman and the children.

                    Most abuse occurs from a male known to the family.

                    This policy won’t reduce abuse one iota.

                    Men will continue to abuse.

  11. ianmac 11
    9 May 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Future National Right hand man Colin Craig has the answer:

    New Zealand has the “most promiscuous young women in the world” and the Government should not be providing free contraception for those who choose to sleep around, Conservative Party leader Colin Craig says.

    How come I don’t know any of them?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10804591

  12. Barry 12
    9 May 2012 at 5:34 pm

    WINZ case workers should hand out contraception when doctors and nurses hand out benefits.

  13. Hateatea 13
    10 May 2012 at 1:48 am

    And the single fathers on DPB/ UB / IB / SB are being ‘offered’ vasectomies as part of the support their case workers must offer them while reviewing their files – oh you mean it is only WOMEN and GIRLS who need contraception because after all, they voluntarily impregnate themselves.  Have we an ongoing epidemic of ‘immaculate conceptions’?
     
    This attack on women by right wing conservative governments around the world is gathering impetus and is making me very nervous indeed.