Open mike 06/06/2014

324 comments on “Open mike 06/06/2014 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. SukieDamson 1

   6 June 2014 at 6:45 am

   “We are surprised, at the decision.”

   He lied, he’s still lying. These people are always lying.

   However, I’m still voting ACT. And so is my brother.
   • amirite 1.1

     6 June 2014 at 7:07 am

     whoa, nothing but principled, eh?
     • Gosman 1.1.1

       6 June 2014 at 7:51 am

       What do you mean?
       • felix 1.1.1.1

         6 June 2014 at 8:30 am

         It means that you base your reasoning on a set of underlying truths.
         • Tracey 1.1.1.1.1

           6 June 2014 at 3:58 pm

           Lol
       • framu 1.1.1.2

         6 June 2014 at 9:09 am

         your not that dense gossie (i hope)
   • Colonial Viper 1.2

     6 June 2014 at 8:42 am

     Can you please get a few more people to vote for ACT please 😀
   • Colonial Viper 1.3

     6 June 2014 at 8:42 am

     Can you please get a few more people to vote for ACT please 😀
     • Mary 1.3.1

       6 June 2014 at 11:41 am

       And United Future.
2. swordfish 2

   6 June 2014 at 6:55 am

   A few days ago, blue leopard expressed some interest in seeing demographic breakdowns from recent poll results. And I said I’d set out some figures on Open Mike this week. But I’ve decided instead to set up a blog and present the stats there (rather than clogging up Open Mike with a huge comment full of stats that people would have to step over like a huge steaming dog turd in the middle of the footpath).

   So feel free to take a look if you’re interested here
   Blog’s called (for some reason known only to my good-self) Sub-Zero Politics.

   In the next few days, prompted by a recent question from Colonial Viper, I’ll put up some analysis of the Undecideds and the way that a disproportionate number of Left-leaning voters seem to be excluded from the final results of a number of the major public polls (I’ve already touched on this in an intro to the demographic breakdowns).
   • mickysavage 2.1

     6 June 2014 at 7:28 am

     Good stuff Swordfish.
   • lprent 2.2

     6 June 2014 at 7:38 am

     I will add it to the feed.
   • Colonial Viper 2.3

     6 June 2014 at 8:33 am

     Awesome swordfish.

     Meanwhile last night I wrote up a brief comparison with the Roy Morgan poll for the latter half of Sept 2011:

     http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-05062014/#comment-826027

     Bottom line – although the latest Roy Morgan was dire for Labour, National’s lead over Labour is a full 8 points less currently than in Sept 2011. Eg Labour was sitting at just 26.5%. Not only that, but the Greens and NZF are polling higher this time than last and the Maori Party is a full point down.

     In other words, despite Labour’s mediocre polling over the last couple of months, given how closely National won in 2011, John Key is still well on the way to being screwed.

     Labour pick your act up, stop hogging lines in the middle of the road, head left and don’t apologise for it.
     • blue leopard 2.3.1

       6 June 2014 at 11:40 am

       Copy and paste of CV’s comparison of the last Roy Morgan poll to one in September 2011:

       Latest rory[sic] morgan poll [current / Sept 2011]

       National 52.5% (+7), 57.0% (+4.5)

       Labour 29.5 (-1.5), 26.0% (-3.5)

       Greens 9% (-4.5), 7.5% (-1.5)

       NZF 4.5 (-1.5), 3.5% (-1)

       The numbers in bold are the Roy Morgan numbers from the second half of Sept 2011, with the differential in brackets the difference between the 2011 result and the latest Roy Morgan.

       End of copy and paste

       I thought the comparison you did was pretty excellent CV – very interesting angle. Seems to show a trend of National having less support than they did prior to the last election. (I presumed that you chose a poll that is a similar amount of weeks away from the election in 2011 as June is to this years’ election – but Sept seems a tad closer to the 2011 than June is to this years?)
       • Colonial Viper 2.3.1.1

         6 June 2014 at 1:16 pm

         Yes the Sept one was only 2 months out from the elections in 2011 and we are currently at 3.5 months out from the Sept elections.

         But it was what I had to hand and I thought, close enough to make the point 🙂
         • blue leopard 2.3.1.1.1

           6 June 2014 at 2:02 pm

           Ah thanks! I was wondering about that – so much so, that I went to the Roy Morgan site to see if I could find one with a closer time gap – how in the hells name does one find a specific poll on that site?

           It was way beyond my capacity (perhaps you had similar difficulties), you type in the date you wish and it just doesn’t bring up the correct result. I have had the same difficulty with finding the ‘latest poll’ on previous occasions – they just don’t come up in order at all. (I am prepared to accept this might be to do with my own failings – however I have tried quite a few ways of finding specific results on that site to no avail 🙁 )

           Anyway, one can find the numbers with the Roy Morgan long term trend chart and it looks like you have chosen a spike in support for National and a dip in support for Labour from around the required time – as your point of comparison – whilst you could be accused of data manipulation ( 👿 ) – I think this is a reasonable choice to make seeing as the polls have a regular trend of coming closer together and then separating apart between the two parties and this week’s poll is of that nature of being a spike away from one another too.
           • Colonial Viper 2.3.1.1.1.1

             6 June 2014 at 2:14 pm

             it looks like you have chosen a spike in support for National and a dip in support for Labour from around the required time – as your point of comparison – whilst you could be accused of data manipulation

             I just sprayed coffee all over my keyboard, BL. I’ll tell you why.

             I too could not find the historical poll data from the Roy Morgan website. (I suspect it scrubs them after a period of time and you have to pay for access).

             So I had to go looking elsewhere. In searching, I noticed that Curia Blog (put out by the one and only DPF) had remarked on the results of the Roy Morgan poll from Sept 2011. So that is the one I used!!! LOL
             • blue leopard …

               7 June 2014 at 12:42 am

               LOL! Glad to hear I am not the only one who has wrestled with that wonderfully informative site….not much point in gathering data if noone can access the bloody stuff – have had similar issues with Stats NZ site too.
         • Disraeli Gladstone 2.3.1.1.2

           6 June 2014 at 10:11 pm

           A quick glance at the Roy Morgan site shows that the poll you cited was an outlier (in fact the highest National poll for the entire of 2011) and that the polls on either side of the one you selected had National on 52% and 51%. In those two other polls, Labour was on 29.5% and 30.5%.

           Under yesterday’s poll: National had a 23% lead over National. On the two polls to either side of the one you randomly selected, the lead was 22.5% and 20.5%.

           So yeah, not really a great comparison you’ve got going there. The fact of the matter is to select a random statistical point and compare it with another random point is a stupid thing to do. Look at the trends (which are showing a smaller National lead, but one that is increasing again).
   • karol 2.4

     6 June 2014 at 8:57 am

     Very interesting. So, women, the young, and NZ to the south of greater Auckland, more likely to want change of government.

     I’d also like to see more of a breakdown of greater Auckland, as I think West & South Auckland are more likely to want a Green-Lab led government.
3. Bearded Git 3

   6 June 2014 at 7:01 am

   As Trotter says don’t panic with the polls. I’m still calling 31+11+7=49% to get the left home, or some close variation of this (7% is IMP).

   Three and a half months and an election campaign is a long time in politics.
   • Gosman 3.1

     6 June 2014 at 8:09 am

     7% for IMP????

     On what basis is this claim being made considering you have both the Greens and Labour on about the same or more than they got last election? For your analysis to be accurate the IMP will either have to pick up 150 to 200 thousand new voters or the Greens and Labour pick up a large numbers of center swing voters. That last point doesn’t seem probable at all at the moment and the first would be unprecedented in NZ as far as I am aware.
     • lprent 3.1.1

       6 June 2014 at 9:41 am

       It does seem like wishful thinking. They’d have to find something to really resonate with voters and I haven’t seen anything yet.

       It is likely Colin Craig has been exploring the limits of what can be done with pure money and a small audience. He got ~2.5% last election from nothing.

       In a MMP environment with a lot of competition in that leftish spectrum, it is what seems probable that:-

       • I’d be surprised if IMP gets above 3%,
       • extremely surprised if they get to 4%,
       • and I’d also be surprised if they get less than 2%.

       But hey, I just look at the numbers based on doing so for a large number of previous elections and a hell of a lot of canvassing. I also tend to largely ignore the hyperbolics in media and blogs as being essentially ephemeral in political terms. Nice and frothy, but often not making nearly as much difference as participants in them think. Quite simply there are not the required numbers of people that pissed with their leftish alternatives to cause large scale jumps for the IMP. They will have to keep pushing at it for a decade to building a larger base constituency, a party organisation, and a clear direction and space in the local political spectrum.

       2-3% is a useful step towards forming a left government.
       • Bearded Git 3.1.1.1

         6 June 2014 at 10:42 am

         Free university education….legalise cannabis…..GCSB enquiry (backing labour and Greens of course)…..and they haven’t even got started yet.

         I just put $200 on Labour having next PM on IPredict.

         And Gosman, Dunne got a few per cent on the infamous “worm” at an election not long ago.
         • lprent 3.1.1.1.1

           6 June 2014 at 10:58 am

           Dunne got a few per cent on the infamous “worm” at an election not long ago.

           2002

           That was in the wake of widespread dissatisfaction with National under Bill English vowing that they would continue the neolib agenda of the 1980s and 1990s – but in a wishy washy fashion. National got 22%, Act got about 7%, and any party that looked vaguely conservative like Dunne and NZF got major boosts as the right split their vote.

           Now you probably understand why much of the attack on Cunliffe and Labour is coming from IMP supporters?

           The problem is that the IMP hasn’t exactly bee forthcoming about how they’d pay for their policies. Tax cannabis to pay for free university education?

           You’ll find that voters are remarkably skeptical about where the money is coming from because they suspect (usually rightly) that it will come from them.
           • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.1.1

             6 June 2014 at 12:32 pm

             Now you probably understand why much of the attack on Cunliffe and Labour is coming from IMP supporters?

             Well, Bomber anyway.

             You’ll find that voters are remarkably skeptical about where the money is coming from because they suspect (usually rightly) that it will come from them.

             No matter what happens the money always comes from the populace and that includes making a few people rich.
         • karol 3.1.1.1.2

           6 June 2014 at 11:12 am

           So, essentially, so far pretty much the same policies as (some of) the Greens – maybe there will be differences in the detail? And the fact that The Greens policies sit within a wider platform of social justice, collaborative society within a sustainable environment, etc.

           The Greens have well thought out policies on these areas – taking into account practicalities of implementing them – as well as the GSCB enquiry

           Greens Drug policy

           Debt free education & progressively work towards free tertiary education.

           So IP haven’t yet produced anything that marks itself as providing anything majorly different from other parties, except maybe that Internet freedom is a priority, and that they will prioritise issues that impact on young people.
           • Bearded Git 3.1.1.1.2.1

             6 June 2014 at 11:24 am

             +1 Karol. I will vote Green. But you and lprent talk as though people vote logically. Didn’t someone’s dead pet win an election in America a few years ago.

             Just watch what IMP’s $3m comes up with in the campaign. Harre, KDC, Kumar, Hone, Sykes all smart cookies. (And see phillip below)
             • karol …

               6 June 2014 at 11:36 am

               BG, my comment didn’t address how or why people vote at all. My comment was all about the policy similarities and possible differences.

               The difference between the wider focus of parties, as indicated in my comment, may well be what influences some people’s voting behaviour.

               ie: Greens with a strong green-left integrated raft of policies; IP with a focus on the youth vote and Internet freedom.
           • Crashcart 3.1.1.1.2.2

             6 June 2014 at 11:33 am

             It does however market itself to young voters who would normally not vote. The types of voters who don’t ingage with existing parties yet may do so with Internet solely on the fact that they have branded them selves as a youthful party. With the money they have to spend they have the ability to put together the type of campeign that could appeal to younger voters.

             I doubt 7% is on the offering but I do think they will put in a very good showing.
             • karol …

               6 June 2014 at 11:39 am

               Yes. And if the IP can engage a significant proportion of previously politically disengaged people, and get them voting – we will all benefit.
       • phillip ure 3.1.1.2

         6 June 2014 at 10:59 am

         ..i think this int/mana-grouping will catch a wave of public mood..

         ..there is widespread realisation that what is happening now is not working..

         ..and that labour is not really offering that much that is that different..

         ..(and however justified or not..the greens are now too close to labour..

         ..and so share in that negative-glow..

         ..’no bottom-lines’ delivered that message to thoe waiting expectantly out here..

         ..loud and clear..

         ..and certainly not to those who internet/mana party are addressing..

         ..those in poverty/shackled by study-debt/half a million dollar houses..etc..etc..

         ..and not to mention the missing-million..

         ..and so..as is often said..timing is all..

         ..and the time/mood is right..for internet/mana to do much better than you are predicting..

         ..i understand dotcom is saying 7%..

         ..i have already called it us just below double-figures..

         ..and i think i am being conservative..

         ..both the nz party of jones..and the alliance..catching similar historical-moods-for-change..

         ..cracked 20%..

         ..so i guess..one of us will be right..on the day…eh..?

         ..but i think it will be me…eh..?

         ..there’s a wave a’ coming..eh..?

         (..and i think that many will be surprised by how much of the right vote will go to internet party..

         ..wooed by smart/clever policies..

         ..and a coherent-vision of a digital-future for nz..

         ..and laila harre will pull a huge women-vote..

         ..she won big pay increases for nurses..!..as their union-person..

         ..she is held in high respect..

         ..as i said..sub-ten is conservative..)
         • Gosman 3.1.1.2.1

           6 June 2014 at 5:18 pm

           I don’t think you understand why people vote for right leaning parties at all. It is certainly not because of some weird concept that a party is deemed modern and up with technology
           • phillip ure 3.1.1.2.1.1

             6 June 2014 at 11:31 pm

             i’m not talking about crusty old blackhearted righties like u..gossy..

             ..you’d vote for attilla the hun..if he promised u a tax cut..and to kick the crap out of the poor..

             ..im talking young techies..

             ..and it will be policies that draw them..

             ..not old left/right labels…
         • Disraeli Gladstone 3.1.1.2.2

           6 June 2014 at 9:53 pm

           I doubt any right-wing votes will go to the Internet Party now that it’s merged with MANA and has Laila Harre as leader.

           The Internet Party is definitely a left-wing party now. Which is both good (MANA isn’t necessarily be co-opted by a non-left party) and bad (the Internet Party isn’t going to take votes off National like Bomber was salivating about.)
     • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2

       6 June 2014 at 11:45 am

       …and the first would be unprecedented in NZ as far as I am aware.

       The fact that we had 800,000 people not voting at the 2011 elections was also unprecedented.
   • bad12 3.2

     6 June 2014 at 8:11 am

     Lolz looking at the track of the Roy Morgan over the past six months its all swing,swing,swing, as far as the National party % goes,

     National’s vote looks like a roller-coaster,my pick is 32-13-4 for Labour/Green/InternetMana…
     • cricklewood 3.2.1

       6 June 2014 at 8:17 am

       Wouldn’t go that far tis worth remembering that although slow he has been found guilty in our high court. The govt hasn’t messed with the judiciary and we dont have the army on the streets.
       • bad12 3.2.1.1

         6 June 2014 at 8:38 am

         Hah???, might have been a good idea to wake yourself up properly befor firing that one in from another planet…
     • Colonial Viper 3.2.2

       6 June 2014 at 8:38 am

       You think Winston will not play a role? I suspect that NZF will gain a good number of seats and if Winston is not catered for suitably by Labour the NATs will try damn hard to buy him up ASAP.
       • Chooky 3.2.2.1

         6 June 2014 at 8:46 am

         might try …but they know they wont get him!…he does not like John Key or what he stands for…and Key knows it…. the Nacts have been trying to destroy Peters for a long time
       • bad12 3.2.2.2

         6 June 2014 at 8:53 am

         Yeah CV there is a good dose of wishful thinking involved if NZFirst are not included as having topped the 5%,

         From last election, having talked up a storm encouraging the NZFirst vote as the antidote to the National can Govern alone screech i would say that what ‘tactical vote’ there was in the 2011 contest went to NZfirst,

         How to judge the size of this vote is the question, my guess being as high as 1%, i suspect NZFirst is vulnerable where the ‘tactical vote’ of 2011 will not be forthcoming this time round,

         Thus my laughable support of Brendan Who with His insipid efforts to chisel off bits of NZFirst voter base with His allegations which so far have failed to fire in any terms that could be called substantial,(but every little bit helps),

         IF, NZFirst again features in a Labour lead Government after September then we are not ‘progressing’ we are simply marking time awaiting the next right wing attack from a future National Government,

         My view is that a large swathe of the Labour Caucus pines for the exact same cozy relationship and Government it had with NZFirst during the Clark years and will be more than happy to shut the Green’s out on the sidelines along with InternetMana,

         That i would suggest is an arrangement that the majority of us here at the Standard definitely do not want as the September result…
       • Lefty 3.2.2.3

         6 June 2014 at 10:57 am

         I wonder what the relationship between Winston and Dotcom is. It could make all the difference if Dotcom funded Winston as well.
   • Cancerman 3.3

     6 June 2014 at 1:09 pm

     All MMP elections are close and can be altered by an issue or event. John Banks hanging around National might just be that event I think.
4. amirite 4

   6 June 2014 at 7:17 am

   As of yesterday, our country will be officially known as a Banana Republic of New Zealand.
5. Chooky 5

   6 June 2014 at 8:42 am

   GO GREEN!..and Jan Logie on Decriminalising Abortion!…it should never have been outlawed in the first place! Criminalisation of women for choosing to have an abortion is a crime against women!

   It is the Catholic Church which has consistently opposed women’s rights to contraception and abortion ( and in former times work outside the home and equal pay) and the rights of children ( not to be abused by priests)… this institution has been shown to be fascist, totally hypocritical and morally bankrupt again and again…

   http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/796-irish-orphans-buried-in-mass-grave-near-catholic-orphanage-historian-1.2663895
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     6 June 2014 at 8:46 am

     GO GREEN!…on Decriminalising Abortion!…it should never have been outlawed in the first place! Criminalisation of women for choosing to have an abortion is a crime against women!

     I actually find your enthusiasm for this a bit sad – what legal mechanism now ensures that the safety of the baby’s life is at least represented in this process?
     • Colonial Viper 5.1.1

       6 June 2014 at 8:57 am

       I’ll add that in many places around the world (ahem yes that includes you China, India), baby girls are significantly more likely to be aborted than baby boys.

       Who considers the womens rights of the baby girls who are disproportionately aborted?
       • Tracey 5.1.1.1

         6 June 2014 at 9:10 am

         lololololah, so deep down you ARE a feminist championing the lives of unborn baby girls
         • phillip ure 5.1.1.1.1

           6 June 2014 at 10:46 am

           viper does have a valid/logical point..tracey..

           ..that discrimination against women starts even there..

           ..and that fact only illustrates the complexities of this subject..

           ..it is never as simple..as uttered by ‘staunch’ proponents of those opposing views/belief..

           ..and an aspect of this debate that particularly grinds my gears/is a face-palm..

           ..is that many of the opponents to abortion seem to stop their heartfelt ‘caring’ for this child ..

           ..at about the time of birth..

           ..’cos out of the other side of their mouths..they/their rightwing-prescriptions mandate the stripping away of support of the likes of sole-parents etc..etc..etc..

           ..as i said..the ‘complexities’ are many..
           • weka 5.1.1.1.1.1

             6 June 2014 at 11:25 am

             I think you will find that the aborting of female foetuses is tied to gender issues in those cultures, not to availability of abortion (compare them to somewhere like Russia for instance, which has a very high abortion rate but no gender skewing). It’s highly unlikely that NZ would end up with such a skewed gender population because we don’t have those specific entrenched cultural ideas on the value of boys vs girls.

             Besides, China is now discovering the huge problems associated with having more men than women in the population, and will most likely change that. I’d guess India will do the same.
       • Chooky 5.1.1.2

         6 June 2014 at 9:29 am

         @ CV…Forced or coerced abortions of baby girls is abhorrent!..those societies are deeply patriarchal and sexist…as you well know …and human rights particularly in China are appalling! (as u also know)….i doubt whether the decision to abort a baby girl is the free decision of the woman who is valued and cherished in her society and well educated

         ….most Mothers in New Zealand and elsewhere in the Western world are delighted to know that they are having a baby girl….as are the Fathers of baby girls!

         ( in fact my partner when we were having another child hoped for another baby girl!…and was taken back when he found it was a baby boy…he thought trouble!….but we both got used to the idea after about 20 minutes!… lol.!…and certainly have no regrets)

         Abortion as feminists have always maintained is the right of the woman , potential Mother!….not the male , potential Father!… not the Catholic Church and not a sexist chauvinist fascist patriarchal society, which has over- bred the male gender and become grossly overpopulated and is spreading its problems around the world..(.eg capitalist prostitution run by businessmen….because there is an multi-million imbalance of their males to females due to sexist abortions)

         ….Of course sexist society values creating coercive and enforced abortions are abhorrent! ( that should go without saying)…just as women forced to breed is abhorrent! ( or societies where woman’s only value is/was found in her breeding more males..sic)
         • bad12 5.1.1.2.1

           6 June 2014 at 9:51 am

           i would suggest that befor any of you get anywhere near an abortion clinic to indulge in a termination you get given a free tour of such ‘clinics’ along with the joy of watching a few ‘terminations’,

           After that you could spend a convivial hour or two watching ashen faced young women, shaking to their core, stagger from the clinic a bare hour after such a termination clutching what was once the most precious thing on this planet in a little plastic bag with the tears of (joy?)rolling in unstoppable floods down their cheeks,

           i have witnessed this horror six times now in this life as i have dropped off and picked up young women from the barbaric ‘clinic’ here in Wellington,

           Each time my soul has screamed in horror at that which has been inflicted not only on the babies but the mothers as well…
           • weka 5.1.1.2.1.1

             6 June 2014 at 11:04 am

             That’s about you bad. Fair enough if abortion affects you in that way. Please don’t project that onto women.

             Let’s not pretend that abortion is inherently traumatic for all or even most women who have one. Not all women feel that the foetus is the most precious thing on this planet, and many women don’t regret having an abortion. The actual experiences of women vary hugely and right across the spectrum. Here are some of the ones to counter the ‘having an abortion is horrific’ narrative.

             http://www.imnotsorry.net/

             http://myabortionmylife.org/pages/sharing-our-stories.php

             http://bebinn.tumblr.com/stories
           • Stephanie Rodgers 5.1.1.2.1.2

             6 June 2014 at 12:16 pm

             It sounds like you’ve dealt with a number of women who had to make a very difficult decision, bad. I would simply wonder whether the difficulty and sadness they went through was solely because of the abortion, or because of the factors which contributed to them deciding that abortion was the best of a range of bad choices.

             Unless you’re saying you were involved in these women having abortions against their will, which is a very serious thing.
             • bad12 …

               6 June 2014 at 3:02 pm

               Stephanie you must be barking to even suggest that i have been involved in women having abortions against their will…
               • Stephanie Rodgers …

                 6 June 2014 at 3:46 pm

                 Right, so you’ve known women who have willingly chosen to have abortions, obviously in very difficult circumstances – but you don’t really care about those circumstances, or about why they chose abortions, you think the best thing would have been to force them to stay pregnant.

                 That’s the only logical conclusion to draw from your comments.
                 • bad12 …

                   6 June 2014 at 6:17 pm

                   🙄 🙄 🙄 , well no, i care enough to have taken them multiple times to doctors, the clinic, and, in one case, to the hospital for some form of checks required as there had been a prior miscarriage,

                   In your zeal Stephanie i would suggest you are far too willing to make shit up about other’s actions/motives to be taken seriously…
     • bad12 5.1.2

       6 June 2014 at 9:37 am

       But, but, but, those babies are ”THEIRS” CV, they are mere possessions, like toy dolls once of no more use tossed in the bin,

       Having said that i have provided transport to and from the ”turning babies into trash clinic” at Wellington hospital for more then one babies life to be terminated on the simple basis that the mothers had no other means of getting there,

       The Court cases surrounding the current Law a few years back ended in stalemate, the initial Judge at the High Court here in Wellington agreeing with the plaintiffs that the Wellington DHB were acting outside of the Law,

       The appeal, for some strange reason shifted to the High Court at Auckland,(i wont publish my view on this ‘shifting’), came down on the side of the DHB, while agreeing with the original Wellington High Court decision that the DHB had been acting outside of the Law the Judge at Auckland simply washed the Judiciaries hands of any responsibility saying that any remedy must be via the Parliament,

       My position on abortion might seem pretty weird to most, anti-abortion to the core, but, willing always to provide practical and psychological help to those who choose to end the life of their babies,(i know one who has had 6 so far),

       Such a juxtaposition of conflicting interests i simply address with the view that i will truly never face having to bring a baby into the world that is not whole-heartedly wanted,

       i would support Legislation that at the least offers far more help to mothers in the position of having babies present in their wombs that are not wanted and in the final analysis my objection is trumped by the very fact that i will never be in that position so can never truly ‘know’ the ramifications…
       • Chooky 5.1.2.1

         6 June 2014 at 10:23 am

         bad12 …

         1.)… women who have multiple abortions are not usually taking control of their fertility by using contraception…why?…do they have psychological block here?..( indoctrination not to use contraception?…or only bad girls have sex?)…i once knew a Catholic girl who would not use contraception…she had abortions…what woman her right mind would want an abortion in preference to contraception that works?!

         2.)… it would be interesting to know the race and religion and indoctrination and sex education(none?) and mental health and IQ of girls who have multiple abortions…it is not exactly a picnic in the park!

         3.)…also it is not a baby but a potential baby in the womb… for a long time it is a foetus, a potential baby…especially when terminations only happen up to 3 or 4 months

         4.)….re- “ashen faced young women, shaking to their core, stagger from the clinic a bare hour after such a termination clutching what was once the most precious thing on this planet in a little plastic bag with the tears of (joy?)rolling in unstoppable floods down their cheeks…..”( a wee bit melodramatic …. especially when you consider the alternatives)

         ….most women look like a bit of a train wreck after having a full term baby too…( have you seen any of them?)…and it is far more dangerous to the Mother to have full term baby than a medical abortion

         … I have a friend who lost his aunt to a backstreet botched abortion, when abortion was illegal….she was more than ashen faced ….she bled to death!….( my friend has never gotten over the death and sacrifice of his beautiful young aunt…or his hatred of those who prevented legal safe medical abortions)
         • bad12 5.1.2.1.1

           6 June 2014 at 11:18 am

           Chooky, i have work to do, i will get back to your points later, i will tho say that psychopath’s with a total disregard of human life can be found in the strangest of places,

           When willing to openly discuss their ”reasons” for taking the life of another, psychopath’s have a chilling ability to explain away their victims right to life,

           ”you are being melodramatic or emotional” being a perfect example…
         • minarch 5.1.2.1.2

           6 June 2014 at 12:26 pm

           This is how the abortion market/business works in the USA

           1) A baby parts “wholesaler” enters into a financial agreement with an abortion clinic in which the wholesaler pays a monthly “site fee” to the clinic. For this payment, the wholesaler is allowed to place a retrieval agent inside the clinic where he or she is given access to the corpses of children killed there and a workspace to harvest their parts. In most cases, this retrieval agent is an employee of the wholesaler. In other instances, the retrieval agent is a clinic employee who was trained by the wholesaler.

           2) The buyer – usually a researcher working for a medical school, pharmaceutical company, bio-tech company or government agency – supplies the wholesaler with a list of the baby parts wanted.

           3) When such orders are received by the wholesaler, they are faxed to the retrieval agent at the clinic who harvests the requested parts and ships them to the buyer via FedEx, Airborne or a similar common carrier.

           4) These parts are “donated” by the clinic to the wholesaler who turns around and “donates” them to the buyer. The buyer then “reimburses” the wholesaler for the cost of retrieving the parts.


           Im imagining there is similar arrangements in place here in NZ to circumvent the ethical issues of trading in baby parts..
           • Stephanie Rodgers 5.1.2.1.2.1

             6 June 2014 at 12:50 pm

             I don’t think this discussion is well served by copy-pasting ridiculous propaganda from extremist American anti-abortion websites.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               6 June 2014 at 1:16 pm

               +1
             • minarch …

               6 June 2014 at 1:34 pm

               yikes……!

               IMO a discussion about abortion is always going to go off the rails….
             • minarch …

               6 June 2014 at 1:36 pm

               so you can conclusively say this isnt true ?

               I sure hope so ,cos its pretty disturbing !
               • Stephanie Rodgers …

                 6 June 2014 at 2:56 pm

                 So hang on, you’ve copy-pasted alarmist allegations of corruption and malpractice … but now you’re saying you don’t even know if they’re true?

                 🙄
                 • minarch …

                   6 June 2014 at 3:20 pm

                   From Lovejoy: A Year in the Life of an Abortion Clinic (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1996) by Peter Korn. (p 236-237) From the author’s observation:

                   “Although the operation is over, the fetus is still a matter of concern. This patient, like most, has signed an extra consent form allowing the extracted material to be used for medical research. Rhonda, a medical assistant who also works for a biological supply company, takes the surgical tray in another room where she uses a plastic colander to strain out the blood, leaving only the separated parts of the fetus. These she places in a glass dish, taking a moment to measure one of the feet against a transparent plastic ruler to establish exact gestational age. Earlier in the day she received her regular fax detailing what body parts are needed by which researchers around the country. The researchers specify preferences for age and, in some cases, sex. Liver, spleen, pancreas, and brain are the organs most often requested…”
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 3:37 pm

                     How is that different than other surgeries? Are you suggesting that there is something corrupt about how post-surgery parts get used in medical research in general?

                     btw, re your first cut and paste, it’s generally understood that a link is provided when you take info from someone elses site. As it is, I googled a random sentence and got this prolife site,

                     http://www.lifedynamics.com/abortion_information/baby_body_parts/

                     Just so we know how to evaluate the information.
                   • minarch …

                     6 June 2014 at 3:39 pm

                     so human enough to use for experimentation

                     but NOT human enough to worry about killing?

                     cant have it bothways
                   • Stephanie Rodgers …

                     6 June 2014 at 3:51 pm

                     Many types of human tissue are used for medical experimentation. That’s got nothing to do with whether or not people have abortions.
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 4:52 pm

                     “so human enough to use for experimentation

                     but NOT human enough to worry about killing?

                     cant have it bothways”

                     what?
                   • McFlock …

                     6 June 2014 at 5:05 pm

                     so human enough to use for experimentation

                     but NOT human enough to worry about killing?

                     Who says “not worry”? As if it’s no big decision? Straw zygote, there.

                     But many things are “human enough” to use for medical experimentation: rats, mice, pigs, zebrafish… fuck, even CPR dummies

                     That doesn’t mean their “lives” are just as valuable as a person’s.
                   • minarch …

                     6 June 2014 at 5:09 pm

                     “Straw zygote”

                     Zing………..
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 5:14 pm

                     “straw zygote”

                     you are on form today McFLock
           • weka 5.1.2.1.2.2

             6 June 2014 at 1:54 pm

             “Im imagining there is similar arrangements in place here in NZ to circumvent the ethical issues of trading in baby parts..”

             What makes you imagine that?
             • minarch …

               6 June 2014 at 2:13 pm

               Because there is clearly money to be made, so IMO ethics would go out the window in Grubby old NZ

               I recall reading something about NZ clinics selling baby parts to American researchers so they can circumvent the law that ban their sale in America, Unfortunately i cant remember where..
               • weka …

                 6 June 2014 at 3:10 pm

                 NZ and the US have very different kinds of health systems, I don’t think you can assume that because something happens there it happens here.

                 “I recall reading something about NZ clinics selling baby parts to American researchers so they can circumvent the law that ban their sale in America, Unfortunately i cant remember where”

                 You will have to provide a citation for me to take it seriously. In this case I think that if you can’t find it on google, it’s unlikely to be true.
                 • minarch …

                   6 June 2014 at 3:22 pm

                   thats why i added the disclaimer of ” Unfortunately i cant remember where”

                   you think NZ is any less corrupt than the USA ?

                   IMO your fooling yourself
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 3:32 pm

                     yes, I know you can’t remember, that’s why I suggested google. Otherwise it’s just hearsay with no substance.

                     Medically and in terms of the health system, of course NZ is less corrupt than the US. The fact that we don’t have a suing culture is a big part of that.
                   • minarch …

                     6 June 2014 at 3:41 pm

                     then why does your doctor get a golfing trip to fiji if he prescribes enough of a certain drug ?
                   • minarch …

                     6 June 2014 at 3:42 pm

                     i consider it a culture of no-accountability rather than simply non-suing
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 3:47 pm

                     I agree that there are lots of dodgy practices in NZ medical practice and the health system. And probably out and out corruption in some cases.

                     Having looked at your cut and paste more closely though, I see that you are in fact just talking about the routine practice of using post-surgery body parts in medical research. I thought you were talking about the illegal sale of body parts.
                   • minarch …

                     6 June 2014 at 3:52 pm

                     yes i wasnt to clear about that

                     for me its an ethical issue rather than a legal one

                     but as we all know the law isn’t necessarily about justice
       • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2.2

         6 June 2014 at 1:13 pm

         willing always to provide practical and psychological help to those who choose to end the life of their babies

         Given what you’ve written I suspect that that “psychological help” is probably causing serious harm.
         • bad12 5.1.2.2.1

           6 June 2014 at 2:56 pm

           The fact is Draco that your willingness to comment on this ‘psychological help’ as in your opinion being ‘harmful’ i would suggest without having the slightest bit of knowledge as to what such help entails makes your comment the lowest form of knee-jerk,

           Keep it up, i enjoy being exposed to such thoughtless diatribes…
     • Stephanie Rodgers 5.1.3

       6 June 2014 at 9:38 am

       Abortion is a complex issue morally, but the simple fact is that pregnant people have the right not to be pregnant, and no one else has the right to force them to go through pregnancy.

       And I have to say that the “but what about girls being aborted?” argument is a bit of a smokescreen. The way to solve ingrained societal sexism isn’t to force a lot of women to give birth to babies they don’t want – especially when having girl babies can lead to significant, serious social, physical and economic harm to them and their unwilling mothers.
       • bad12 5.1.3.1

         6 June 2014 at 10:01 am

         There should don’t you think tho Stephanie be some personal responsibility in all this,(at the risk of sounding like an ACToid),

         The position you advocate, and, i aknowledge this puts words in your mouth that you never said and never intended simply means that woman demand the right to have unprotected sex with a total disregard for the consequences and when those consequences turn out to be not what they want, the right to terminate the life that is that consequence,

         Hell i would like the right to take an iron bar to those that annoy me or complicate my life in anyway as well…
         • karol 5.1.3.1.1

           6 June 2014 at 10:32 am

           I think most feminists argue for birth control as being extremely important priority. But, unplanned pregnancies still happen with the most responsible of people. And the sperm donor clearly has some responsibility in the initiation of the sex that leads to the conception, too.

           Illegal, and thus often highly dangerous, abortions happened extensively before the moves to (partially) legalise abortions.

           The problem with the current law is the ultimate legal gate keepers are doctors, etc. The idea of abortion being available to all women who seek them, without the requirement of a medical stamp of approval, means that the decisions are fully given to the women whose lives and bodies are at the centre of the conception and whatever follows after that.

           Of course the foetus, or child to be has no say. But they have no say in the conception, in any of the choices made that impact on a pregnancy – eg drinking alcohol or not, the kind of food the mother eats, the life circumstances of the woman and her immediate household, whether she’s treated well by those close to her or is physically abused, whether the household has the financial and physical resources, etc. ultimately the mother is likely to be most in the know about all of such factors.
           • Disraeli Gladstone 5.1.3.1.1.1

             6 June 2014 at 12:08 pm

             Exactly.

             A law change should be a two-prong change:

             A: Better sex education. More availability of birth control. Quite frankly, there’s a strong argument to making birth control free. Not only does it encourage safe sex and lower rates of abortions, even neoliberals should be able to buy into the theory that the costs of subsided birth control would be less than the cost of unplanned pregnancies.

             B: Make abortion legal and available to all women who seek them. Don’t make them have to jump through a bunch of hoops that just makes the experience even worst.

             Such a change should see safer abortions and better mental health for women who undertake them. It would also see a drop in abortion rates as safer sex is practiced.
             • phillip ure …

               6 June 2014 at 12:42 pm

               you all seem to miss one prescription to lessen the rates of abortion..

               ..that is that many women have to factor in the fact that having the child will mean they will be doomed to a life of both grinding-poverty..

               ..and of being a whipping-boy for society..

               ..sneered-at/demeaned by so many…

               ..and this brings me to another (puzzling to me) aspect of the rightwingers right-to-life arguments…

               ..their policy-prescriptions/attitudes on social welfare (i.e..’strip it away!/let them rot!) are what actually must be a contributing factor to many women deciding to abort..

               ..how can it not..

               ..so if these rightwing anti-abortionists were at all consistant in their thinking/arguments..

               ..they would support a universal basic income/access to free education..etc.etc..

               ..enough to guarantee women will not have to factor that life-sentence of poverty/struggle/deprival for both parent and child..

               ..enough to guarantee the basic dignities of ‘a good life’..

               ..if only to ‘save the life of one child’

               ..now to me..that is as clear a picture as you get at at i-max..

               ..so..do those rightwingers not see that..?..are they really unable to join those dots..?

               ..of guaranteed-poverty driving many women to abort..?

               ..thus etc etc etc..?
         • weka 5.1.3.1.2

           6 June 2014 at 10:43 am

           “There should don’t you think tho Stephanie be some personal responsibility in all this”

           I agree. All men who want to have sex with women should have reversible vasectomies.

           “The position you advocate, and, i aknowledge this puts words in your mouth that you never said and never intended simply means that woman demand the right to have unprotected sex with a total disregard for the consequences and when those consequences turn out to be not what they want, the right to terminate the life that is that consequence,”

           You must have a very low opinion about women and their ethics or what they want.
           • bad12 5.1.3.1.2.1

             6 June 2014 at 11:04 am

             weka, you must have, without you having provided any much needed contextual reference to you allegations of my low opinion of women the benefit of living on a very different planet than what i do,

             What do you think occurs when the act of sex is undertaken weka according to the laws of nature, babies are the intended result of having sex,

             That is something ie sex= a good chance of producing a baby that i would suggest 99% of us all, male and female, know one hell of a long time befor we ever get to engage in having that sex,

             As far as your pathetic suggestions about attacking the male genitalia goes how bout you lot close your fucking legs instead…
             • weka …

               6 June 2014 at 11:18 am

               Ok, so you think that women should take the full responsibility of not getting pregnant. Got that.

               “What do you think occurs when the act of sex is undertaken weka according to the laws of nature, babies are the intended result of having sex,”

               How very biblical of you bad. Humans are evolved to have sex for pleasure with or without conception ie conception is not the only ‘intended’ consequence. Otherwise we would be like all the other mammals on the planet who have estrus* instead of a menstrual cycle. For women that have a 28 day cycle there are maybe five days in which they can get pregnant. That they have sexual desire for the other 23 days demonstrates that sexual pleasure without conception is an evolutionary adaptation.

               *animals that only have sexual desire/drive when they are capapable of becoming pregnant.

               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrous_cycle
               • Crashcart …

                 6 June 2014 at 11:50 am

                 Hold the phone. You are happy for a woman to have full responsabilty for the decision to abort a child but get angry when there is a sugestion that they take some responsability for contraception as well.

                 Both men and women are responsable for the pregnancy. It was both their decision to have sex (protected or not). In my opinion the decision on whether there should be an abortion or not should also be shared (and I grant that it is just my opinion). Even if that extends to only consulting the Father and getting his opinion before the Woman ultimately make’s the choice.
                 • The Al1en …

                   6 June 2014 at 11:53 am

                   “Both men and women are responsable for the pregnancy”

                   Not the women who become pregnant because of rape.
                   • Crashcart …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:00 pm

                     Great straw man. I love the part where I said that rapests should be able to tell women to have their babies.

                     Of course because there have been rape pregnancies we should go with Weka’s idea and give all men forced removable vesectamies because there is no way you could right law to take into consideration if the pregnancy was teh result of consentual sex.
                   • Disraeli Gladstone …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:02 pm

                     But you did. Not all rape is violent and clear-cut. Under your proposed system, a battered wife who’s too scared to tell anyone has to consult and seek the opinion of her husband who’s abusing her.
                   • The Al1en …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:03 pm

                     I don’t believe it’s a straw man argument at all, but if you do, no worries.
                   • Crashcart …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:12 pm

                     DG I don’t have a system just an opinion as I clearly stated. Domestic violence and rape are no small matter yet it would appear that it was used in this case to try and make me sound extreem. When we get down to it were we to make law that it was only the womens choice then yes some women in abusive relationshi;ps may be able to sneak away and get an abortion but the mojority would still be in an abusive relationship and forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy.

                     This is more a refection on our horribly lacking attempts to end domestic violence in this country. i think it is very hard to argue that consultation before abortion would add or stop improvement in this issue.
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:37 pm

                     What do you mean by consultation Crashcart?
                 • weka …

                   6 June 2014 at 12:09 pm

                   “You are happy for a woman to have full responsabilty for the decision to abort a child but get angry when there is a sugestion that they take some responsability for contraception as well.”

                   Please show me where I have said women don’t have responsibility for contraception.

                   “In my opinion the decision on whether there should be an abortion or not should also be shared (and I grant that it is just my opinion). Even if that extends to only consulting the Father and getting his opinion before the Woman ultimately make’s the choice.”

                   Where the father is involved in a good way your second sentence makes some sense and IME most women in that situation will in fact choose to talk to the father. Myself, I think we should trust women to do what is best in the situation. If ultimately it is her choice what to do with the pregnancy, then let her also choose to what extent the father is to be involved. See the other comments about situations where that wouldn’t be ok.
                   • bad12 …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:43 pm

                     ”Please show me where i have said that women don’t have responsibility for contraception”

                     Well everywhere actually weka,

                     The demand for open slather abortion is simply the end result of women having taken no responsibility for contraception,

                     Unless of course you postulate like Stephanie below that the act of abortion is the ”taking of responsibility”

                     Killing babies,(oh that’s right we have to devalue their lives down to being Zygots or some other dehumanizing word), i would suggest is the ultimate act of refusing to face ones responsibility…
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:56 pm

                     I don’t know anyone that is demanding open slather abortion in NZ bad, so I’m afraid I don’t follow what you are on about.

                     It’s grossly ignorant to suggest that all unwanted pregnancies in NZ are the result of women not taking any responsibility for contraception. Women get pregnant for all sorts of reasons, and the one you suggest is just one.

                     I’d still like to know where I have said that women shouldn’t take responsibility for contraception (because obviously I didn’t actually say that).
                 • Stephanie Rodgers …

                   6 June 2014 at 12:52 pm

                   The pregnancy is only happening in one person’s body, Crashcart. I think that person is the only one whose opinion on the matter really counts.
                 • Tracey …

                   6 June 2014 at 4:09 pm

                   we could legislate that all men or boys having sex and not available to bring up a resulting child themselves must wear a condom, or face a sentence of imprisonment. Thats a legal mechanismcan you point me to specific laws an policy implementations which support the view that men have to take responsibility post impregnation of women, as opposed to tose who choose to of their own volition.
               • bad12 …

                 6 June 2014 at 12:57 pm

                 Rubbish weka, the pleasure in sex for both male and females is simply a biological function that ensures that we all engage in it as much as possible,

                 The more we engage in the act with a multiple of partners the more chance there is of the intended result occurring,

                 Down at such a biological level we are not far removed from a dog, rat,or tree, our mission like any virus is to simply replicate,

                 That is why even obviously intelligent Uni students also end up at the ‘clinic’ for an abortion,the fact that they despite their intelligence, went out on the piss on a Friday night met a pissed male and pregnancy was the result simply shows that the hard-wiring that compels us to replicate often trumps our modern means of organizing ourselves,

                 The urge that sent the obvious intelligent uni students out on the piss on that Friday night is probably as much to do with that primitive urge to replicate as it is to ‘going out to have a bit of fun’…
                 • Stephanie Rodgers …

                   6 June 2014 at 1:17 pm

                   The first problem with talking about “down at a biological level” is that humans aren’t dogs, or rats, and discussing reproductive health in the context of people-as-mindless-babymakers is dehumanizing. And gross.

                   The second problem is that animals have abortions too.
                   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_effect
                   • bad12 …

                     6 June 2014 at 2:40 pm

                     Pfft, so mice and maybe rats have a trigger that has them mis-carrying their offspring when in the presence of a male that isn’t the father,

                     That really provides justification for Doctors and Nurses to kill babies, and has about as much to do with a debate on human abortions as, well rocks,

                     You are suggesting then Stephanie that the conception of children has nothing to do with urges that we are all hard-wired with by genetics, ever,???

                     Discussing such things is gross and dehumanizing??? way to go Stephanie, engage in a debate and then demand to define the parameters of that debate,

                     On a scale of ”gross” and ”dehumanizing” nothing i have said in this debate can come within cooey of the ”gross” and the ”dehumanizing” that is the actual act of abortion…
                   • Stephanie Rodgers …

                     6 June 2014 at 2:59 pm

                     🙄
             • Disraeli Gladstone …

               6 June 2014 at 11:43 am

               “how bout you lot close your fucking legs instead…”

               Yeah… this is why men shouldn’t be allowed to regulate women’s bodies.
               • marty mars …

                 6 June 2014 at 11:48 am

                 I agree – that quote is the pits and shows what you really think bad12 – pathetic attitude mate.
                 • Crashcart …

                   6 June 2014 at 11:52 am

                   Any better than “All men who want to have sex with women should have reversible vasectomies” which is what he is responding too?
                   • Disraeli Gladstone …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:00 pm

                     In several different ways, it is worst.

                     First of all I read Weka’s comment as sarcasm, whereas Bad’s was either poor humour or straight up disdain.

                     Even if both Weka and Bad are being deadly serious, while both comments are quite horrible, Bad still attempts to dehumanise women as a group “you lot” and “fucking legs”, breaking them into a subset of person. Whereas Weka does no such thing.

                     So either Weka was being sarcastic or delusional. But, Bad was revealing a sexist undertone.
                   • Crashcart …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:06 pm

                     Come on DG, you can’t claim that Weka was being sarcastic and not give bad the same latatude. I personally find the idea of forcing surgical procedures on all men to be far more extreem than urging women to be restraind no mattter how offensively it was worded.
                   • Disraeli Gladstone …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:11 pm

                     I did make allowances for Bad to also being using humour. In that case, it’s just really poor humour that still reveals an underlying sexist attitude.

                     And yes, forced surgical action is abhorrent. So is the centuries old attitude toward women, slut shaming, abortions, etc etc and so on and so forth. You just find one far worst because you’ve grown used to the other.
                   • marty mars …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:14 pm

                     Well I agree with dg a bit on this one. Plus the close your legs meme is a tired yet well used line that imo shows complete ignorance.
                   • bad12 …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:19 pm

                     Crashcart, the only difference in the quotes i can see is in the choice of language,

                     The fact that the detractors above see my attitude as poor while by their silence agreeing that any man who wants to have sex should have a part of his anatomy attacked by medical violence shows a stunning lack of reasoning,

                     That in itself smacks of the psychopathic attitude involved in abortion where taking to someone with a knife is more acceptable than either abstaining, using a contraceptive,or, closing your fucking legs ala abstaining…
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:25 pm

                     Um, yes I was being sarcastic. To make a point.

                     Bad: “There should don’t you think tho Stephanie be some personal responsibility in all this…

                     The position you advocate, and, i aknowledge this puts words in your mouth that you never said and never intended simply means that woman demand the right to have unprotected sex with a total disregard for the consequences and when those consequences turn out to be not what they want, the right to terminate the life that is that consequence,”

                     Weka: “I agree. All men who want to have sex with women should have reversible vasectomies.”

                     Point: I wanted bad, or any man that thinks like him, to consider what it is like to have other people/society control what happens to their body. You can see by bad’s responses (his reaction to the idea that his genitalia might be controlled, and his ideas about women and keeping their legs closed), that there is a double standard being applied here.

                     I don’t believe that all men who want to have sex with women should have reversible vasectomies (unless they want to).

                     I believe that contraception and reproductive health information should be freely available.

                     I believe that women should have the same kind of access to abortion as they do to other reproductive health services ie it’s a health issue and barriers shouldn’t be in the way. And that it is the woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body.

                     I believe that if society wants to reduce the abortion rate it should reduce poverty, increase reproductive health education, and make contraception free and freely available.

                     I also believe that society needs to change its mores around sex so that sex is about sharing pleasure between equals. We should also promote non-intercourse sex as valuable in and of itself beyond being foreplay, especially to teens. And teach about power and how it plays out in relationships. That of course will be too radical for some here, because it requires a major shift in the culture around power, sex and gender to one of egalitarianism.
                   • marty mars …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:26 pm

                     “choice of language”

                     Your choice was deliberate and poor but I’m sure you will go down the bullshit path rather than admit it.
                   • Disraeli Gladstone …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:26 pm

                     Bad:
                     “while by their silence agreeing that any man who wants to have sex should have a part of his anatomy attacked by medical violence shows a stunning lack of reasoning,”

                     Myself in the posts directly above his:

                     “Even if both Weka and Bad are being deadly serious, while both comments are quite horrible”

                     “So either Weka was being … or delusional”

                     “And yes, forced surgical action is abhorrent.”

                     Genuine question, Bad. Can you even read? My seven years old nephew has better reading comprehension than you.
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:33 pm

                     “The fact that the detractors above see my attitude as poor while by their silence agreeing that any man who wants to have sex should have a part of his anatomy attacked by medical violence shows a stunning lack of reasoning,

                     That in itself smacks of the psychopathic attitude involved in abortion where taking to someone with a knife is more acceptable than either abstaining, using a contraceptive,or, closing your fucking legs ala abstaining…”

                     I’ve addressed in my previous comment that I was being sarcastic to prove a point (in moderation currently). You know me well enough to know that I wasn’t making a reasoned straight forward argument, so stop manipulating the conversation.

                     Abstinence is never going to work across the population for the simple reason that sharing sexual pleasure is a normal activity for the majority of humans. Contraception has failure rates. Rape is not the woman’s responsibility. That leaves us with who gets to decide on abortion access. I think society should enable women to make this a personal choice.

                     Bear in mind that the GP is suggesting that abortion be decriminalised. They’re not suggesting that women should be enabled to use abortion as a means of contraception.
                   • Crashcart …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:34 pm

                     No I don’t you can attribute my opinions to what ever you want without ever having met me. The fact is I personally think the previous comment was moreoffensive and that it was that comment that illicited Bad’s response. To then lambast him for it with no mention of the first was poor to say the least.
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 12:40 pm

                     Crashcart, I was being sarcastic. To make a point. I don’t believe that men should be forced to have vasectomies. I’ve written an explanation above which got dropped into moderation (should appear soon).
                   • bad12 …

                     6 June 2014 at 1:04 pm

                     Oh i see a couple of hours later and its, ”oh i was being sarcastic”, shall i be as dishonest as you and make the same claim about my comment that followed your little de-ball them all comment weka…
                   • McFlock …

                     6 June 2014 at 1:19 pm

                     bad,
                     condoms break, some contraceptives fail, and it’s not just the woman who should abstain. Some sex isn’t consensual, or is made on the basis of incorrect information (although sex-ed had improved out of sight compared to when I was in school, apparently).

                     I believe that, as a medical procedure, abortions should be a backstop, not the first solution to the problem of sex without reproduction, or some reproductive difficulty.

                     But what I reckon is that I’m in no place to judge anyone for making that choice, or to stand in their way by advocating for restrictions on a medical procedure that I have no business judging.

                     [edit: now let’s argue about 9/11 vaccines…]
                   • bad12 …

                     6 June 2014 at 1:45 pm

                     Mac, the woman abstaining tho is in fact the man also abstaining,(unless Lolz the prick is a real Ho with prospective mothers on His phone list)…
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 1:58 pm

                     “Oh i see a couple of hours later and its, ”oh i was being sarcastic”, shall i be as dishonest as you and make the same claim about my comment that followed your little de-ball them all comment weka…”

                     That the best you got bad? “I disagree with your points, but I have no argument against them so I’ll just call you a liar” 🙄

                     By all means, tell us know which of your comments were sarcastic rather than a true representation of you views. I am curious.
                   • McFlock …

                     6 June 2014 at 2:19 pm

                     Mac, the woman abstaining tho is in fact the man also abstaining,(unless Lolz the prick is a real Ho with prospective mothers on His phone list)…

                     So are you stating that a man should not have sex with a woman unless a)he intends to reproduce or b)has a notarised vasectomy certificate (ticket to ride, as it were)?

                     What if he fibs to his partner about either one?
                   • bad12 …

                     6 June 2014 at 3:17 pm

                     Mac no, i am saying a woman abstaining is in fact a man abstaining…
                   • McFlock …

                     6 June 2014 at 4:00 pm

                     Because if A and B do not have sex with each other, B is not having sex?
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 4:05 pm

                     Oh come on McFlock. Obviously if a woman doesn’t have sex, then the man she doesn’t have sex with is also prevented from having sex. With anyone. Therefore all that needs to happen is for women to close their legs, and men will stop having sex that results in pregnancy.

                     (yes, that was sarcasm).
         • Stephanie Rodgers 5.1.3.1.3

           6 June 2014 at 12:19 pm

           Having an abortion is taking personal responsibility, bad. It is dealing with the consequences. Just not in a way you approve of.

           Comparing abortion to “taking an iron bar” to someone is pretty irrational.
           • bad12 5.1.3.1.3.1

             6 June 2014 at 12:32 pm

             Stephanie, i would suggest that unless in the case where some form of coercion is used, getting pregnant and then demanding the right to kill the result, considering ALL the steps that are available to ensure a lack of pregnancy is irrational,

             Considering just how damn easy it is NOT to become pregnant it would seem to me to be sheer bloody mindedness that there is then a demand for the use of the ultimate sanction to be made freely available to remove what has been devalued down to the minor consequences of our prior actions,

             A case in point, a 2nd year Uni student goes out on the piss on a Friday night, meets up with equally pissed male, end result is pregnancy terminated on the basis that this wasn’t planned and it will interfere with the career as a Lawyer after the degree,

             The above aint uncommon in any way and is in my opinion as fucking irrational as me wanting the right to biff the door to door salespeople in the head with an iron bar when they disturb my plans for my day…
             • weka …

               6 June 2014 at 12:42 pm

               Are you saying that that woman shouldn’t be allowed an abortion?
               • bad12 …

                 6 June 2014 at 1:54 pm

                 Hell no weka, how could i dare say that anything getting in the way of anyone’s career is a logical reason not to kill it,

                 i mean you only have to look at where that career might have taken that woman, on to head the Supreme Court even to see how reasonable it would be for Her to snuff out such a life,

                 i have just about convinced myself that in such cases there must be a ‘greater good’ involved and that a van should have been sent round to whisk that woman off to the ‘clinic’ as a matter of compulsion…
                 • weka …

                   6 June 2014 at 2:47 pm

                   lolz, see it’s not that hard to recognise sarcasm.

                   So how would NZ legally determine which women were allowed abortions and which weren’t? You can’t have an abortion if you fuck without due care, but what if the condom breaks? Is the law student allowed an abortion then?
                   • bad12 …

                     6 June 2014 at 3:36 pm

                     weka, what if, you ‘know’ there’s a chance of the condom breaking, and only on your planet can you not have an abortion if you fuck without due care,

                     The Law student isn’t an academic question weka, the Law student X many have already partaken of an abortion simply because the interpretation of the current Law allows for it,

                     As i point out elsewhere the Court in it’s wisdom has agreed with the contention that in Wellington,(the original point where the ‘practice’ of the DHB was put befor that Court), that yes the DHB has not adhered to the Law in providing many of the abortions, but, refuses to put forward a remedy claiming that to do so is the role of the Parliament…
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 3:39 pm

                     Ok, so women using condoms aren’t allowed abortions either. How about women on the pill who get pregnant?

                     “As i point out elsewhere the Court in it’s wisdom has agreed with the contention that in Wellington,(the original point where the ‘practice’ of the DHB was put befor that Court), that yes the DHB has not adhered to the Law in providing many of the abortions, but, refuses to put forward a remedy claiming that to do so is the role of the Parliament…”

                     That would be because the court knows that in this instance the law is an ass.
             • Disraeli Gladstone …

               6 June 2014 at 12:43 pm

               A considerable amount of birth control are not 100% effective. Even a responsible person can have an unplanned pregnancy.

               Furthermore, while birth control is somewhat freely averrable, it can still be a cost. A cost that a lot of people below the poverty line may decide to forego to be able to feed their family. I suppose these people shouldn’t have sex ever?
             • Stephanie Rodgers …

               6 June 2014 at 12:56 pm

               It isn’t “damn easy” to not become pregnant. Many people don’t get good sex education. Many people can’t use different forms of contraception for health reasons. And no form of contraception is perfect.

               It really sounds like you think people should be punished for behaviour you don’t approve of by being forced to have babies. How well do you think that ends up for the babies?
               • bad12 …

                 6 June 2014 at 1:38 pm

                 ”How well do you think that ends up for the babies” a damn sight better i would suggest Stephanie than ending up as a pile of blood,guts and gore in a little plastic bag as the result of killing that baby…
                 • Stephanie Rodgers …

                   6 June 2014 at 1:51 pm

                   I sincerely doubt your tales of blood and gore are real, bad. And even if they were, it seems fairly obvious that an early abortion of an unaware clump of cells is a heck of a lot better fate than being born into abuse and neglect.
                   • bad12 …

                     6 June 2014 at 2:08 pm

                     You obviously Stephanie haven’t ever been involved in transporting women to and from an abortion clinic,

                     Admittedly i have never closely inspected the plastic bag that some of these women have left the ‘clinic’ with as the end result of the procedure, even when i have buried such remains in their garden for them,

                     So, to a certain extent you are correct, i cannot apportion what the contents are other than ”red stuff’ that looks like blood,

                     Perhaps Stephanie you think the ‘caring health system’ knowing that some women having undergone the procedure want to take the end result away with them provide a little plastic bag full of red dye for such occasions,

                     Aah yes the old abuse and neglect chestnut, who gets to apportion ‘which’ child will be born into such abuse and neglect, you perhaps???

                     The last two women i transported to and from the ‘clinic’ became pregnant within a year of the previous procedure, their material circumstances had not in any way changed,

                     One of these women i still have contact with, Her baby girl is much loved, much cared for, and that i know of, never abused…
                   • phillip ure …

                     6 June 2014 at 2:09 pm

                     i was ‘born into (benign) neglect’..

                     ..and i am grateful for that..

                     ..over yr preference for me..

                     ..and i am surprised how eagerly you don yr absolutist/god-like judgement-call cloak..

                     ..as so many in this debate/issue do..
                   • bad12 …

                     6 June 2014 at 2:18 pm

                     Point well put Phillip, knowing what occurred after my birth i am of the belief that had abortion been available to my mother back then i would not be sitting here driving the pro-lobby to distraction at this moment…
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 2:52 pm

                     If abortion had been available in the 60s I would never have been born. I’m still pro-choice, not because I believe my life isn’t worth something but because I don’t believe I am the centre of the universe.
                   • Stephanie Rodgers …

                     6 June 2014 at 3:03 pm

                     I’m highly suspicious of the idea that someone with your obvious issues about women’s sex lives and reproductive health has been in the position to “transport” women to get abortions multiple times. It’s clear from the way you write that you have no empathy for them or for the circumstances they’ve been in, and no respect for their ability to make decisions about their own health.
                   • bad12 …

                     6 June 2014 at 3:48 pm

                     What ”obvious issues” with women’s sex lives are these you speak of Stephanie,and i am ”in a position” to transport these women Stephanie because they are friends and/or associates,

                     But tell me more of ”your suspicions” Stephanie, i like a laugh and you certainly provide them,

                     i notice you have as yet chosen not to address the question Stephanie, who decides this ”greater good” Stephanie where you see abortion as a panacea to ”abuse and neglect” of children, You perhaps,

                     Empathy Stephanie, the fact that i got off of my arse to do so with a view of abortion like i hold would tend to suggest that i have empathy in fucking truckloads,

                     i sure as hell didn’t see any other way, other than catch a succession of buses and trains that they could get safely into and out of the city having undegone the procedure…
                   • Stephanie Rodgers …

                     6 June 2014 at 3:52 pm

                     bad12, you aren’t worth engaging further. 🙄
                   • marty mars …

                     6 June 2014 at 4:17 pm

                     I went with my pregnant girlfriend when she got an abortion. I sat with her and took her home afterwards – there was no plastic bag. It was sad, no one else knew. I didn’t believe (doctors eh) that I could have children but i knew in my heart that it was her decision. That is the experience that has formed my opinion.
                   • bad12 …

                     6 June 2014 at 5:24 pm

                     Stephanie, Stephanie, in that one line i see a whole shop full of fluffy toys being Tossed,

                     You’re happy to have ”doubts” and raise ”suspicions” but unhappy to say more, how very droll,

                     It is both laughable and sad that you use such a ”tactic” in what looks like to me to be an attempted denigration…
                   • bad12 …

                     6 June 2014 at 5:44 pm

                     Marty Mars, did the gurlfriend choose to take the end result of the abortion home with Her,

                     If yes, what were the remains placed in for the transport…
                   • marty mars …

                     6 June 2014 at 8:25 pm

                     The “end result of the abortion” was a woman that wasn’t pregnant so yes as I said I took her home, she was wearing clothes but I can’t really remember the colours or style or anything sorry.
                   • bad12 …

                     6 June 2014 at 9:24 pm

                     Marty Mars, are you pissed or just being deliberately stupid, if the latter part of the question posed is natural rather than of deliberation please disregard,

                     What i asked you as if you didn’t know, was did the gurlfriend take the aborted baby home with Her/You and if the answer to that is yes what did the abortion clinic provide as the mode of transport…
                   • marty mars …

                     6 June 2014 at 10:56 pm

                     I know what you asked me, and sadly in some ways I’m neither intoxicated or stupid.
             • blue leopard …

               6 June 2014 at 1:36 pm

               Considering just how damn easy it is NOT to become pregnant it would seem to me to be sheer bloody mindedness that there is then a demand for the use of the ultimate sanction to be made freely available to remove what has been devalued down to the minor consequences of our prior actions,

               The only sure fire way to not become pregnant is to not have sex. Is that what you are suggesting? For many people this is not a realistic option.

               Any other method of avoiding pregnancy is not 100% reliable. Fact.

               And when those methods fail, what do you suggest? Have the child regardless of how the woman and man feel about that child? Regardless of how committed they are toward one another? Regardless of their circumstances? Regardless of the level of responsibility that either the female or the male is capable of? Just pop the child out regardless of anything else, regardless of the life the child is likely to have?

               Or what? Leave it up to chance and give the child away?

               If this is what you believe should occur, then I posit that you believe an unhappy human life is far more valuable, more desirable, than not having a life at all.

               I think this is to over-value misery.
               I think this is to be prepared to create misery for someone.
               I don’t think this is a valid option for many women.
               • bad12 …

                 6 June 2014 at 1:40 pm

                 Gosh you have really convinced me Blue leopard, ”i don’t want this lets kill the fucking thing”…
                 • Stephanie Rodgers …

                   6 June 2014 at 1:53 pm

                   And finally we get to the core of it: bad12 just wants to call women baby-killers and punish them for making choices bad12 doesn’t like.

                   This is no basis to create law, and no justification for the law to intervene in people’s medical decisions.
                   • bad12 …

                     6 June 2014 at 2:14 pm

                     Yeah sure Stephanie and the only reason i have transported such women to and from the ‘clinic’ here in Wellington is so i can get close to the action right???,

                     It gives me an opportunity to scream baby killer to their faces right Stephanie???,

                     Your reasoning is becoming irrational Stephanie, take a break and relax, visit a clinic for an hour or two perhaps…
                   • Stephanie Rodgers …

                     6 June 2014 at 3:06 pm

                     If you really have taken women to their appointments, I feel very sorry that they had no one else to do so. From everything you’ve written you don’t seem to think of them as people.
                 • blue leopard …

                   6 June 2014 at 2:17 pm

                   Yes, Stephanie, this is what it is starting to sound like. Bad12’s summary of my comment as ”i don’t want this lets kill the fucking thing”… is hardly taking on board any of the points I raised in order to show the complexity that faces people in the situation of falling pregnant when the timing is not good….

                   Why do you help women, see what it does to them, and hold the views you do? If they are balling their eyes out – has it ever occurred to you that they might have made a choice despite knowing the likely reaction it has on them because all the alternatives seem worse to them/ and for the baby too?

                   Bad12 would be more convincing if they responded to the points I conveyed, like do you think people need to not have sex if they are not prepared to have a baby if/when their contraceptive method fails?
                   And perhaps because no contraceptive methods have a 100% success rate, therefore, you think people, need to be abstaining from sex if their circumstances are not healthy to have a baby in?
                   Do you support adoption over abortion? Why?
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 2:55 pm

                     Why argue substantively when you can just be mean?
                   • blue leopard …

                     7 June 2014 at 12:37 am

                     @ Weka,

                     Exactly

                     Am pretty surprised to return hours later and see that no attempt to engage in the points I raise has been made by Bad12, how ironic that Bad12 goes on to accuse others on the other thread re this Greens policy in not engaging in the points of debate…

                     I have to conclude that it appears you have hit the nail on the head with your above comment there, Weka.
               • phillip ure …

                 6 June 2014 at 2:16 pm

                 um..!..blue leopard..there are many many way to have sex/intimacy with no danger of pregnancy..

                 ..but surely you know that..?

                 ..if not..what can i say..?

                 ..and yr getting a bit god-like in that big call in yr second to last para..eh..?

                 ..putting the ‘abs’ in ‘absolutist’..eh..?
                 • blue leopard …

                   6 June 2014 at 2:32 pm

                   That is fine, Phillip Ure, so long as both people involved in such ‘non-pregnancy causing forms of intimacy’ have good control in not taking it further into the realms of full intercourse. If a woman or man want to be absolutely sure of not falling pregnant – it is far safer to abstain completely We are talking about situations when all the best laid plans fail – rather than the myriads of people who manage not to have an accident by such practices.

                   If the world was perfect we wouldn’t need to be discussing this ‘problem’ nor most of the other things we discuss on this site. The issue is people (and contraceptive methods) are not perfect and what occurs when the unexpected happens? What then? Bad12 appears to be positing that in this situation the baby should be had, regardless of the circumstances – I call this idea extremely irresponsible – actually moreso, than falling pregnant unexpectedly – which occurs unexpectedly – having a child, now that abortions are available, doesn’t occur unexpectedly. (yeah yeah, I know the cases where a woman has a child and didn’t know she was pregnant too).

                   re God-like
                   ??

                   Positing something is now god-like is it? What?

                   You may not like it, but this is just the type of question a woman and man have to ultimately decide when falling pregnant in poor circumstances for parent-hood.
             • McFlock …

               6 June 2014 at 2:26 pm

               The above aint uncommon in any way and is in my opinion as fucking irrational as me wanting the right to biff the door to door salespeople in the head with an iron bar when they disturb my plans for my day…

               In your opinion.
               In some other people’s opinions, a guy coming into tissue paper is a similar massacre of human life.

               Frankly, though, I think both opinions are wrong.

               And if you think that banning abortion will solve all the problems and make people “take responsibility” for their offspring, a cistern in Ireland has several hundred counter-examples to show you’re wrong.
               • marty mars …

                 6 June 2014 at 4:25 pm

                 Ka boom!

                 Great comment McFlock, although it is beyond appalling what happened in Ireland and the many other places around the world undiscovered to date.
           • Tracey 5.1.3.1.3.2

             6 June 2014 at 4:18 pm

             bad12 ” i am saying a woman abstaining is in fact a man abstaining… ”

             Another example of a belief that men are witless participants incapable oftaking responsibility

             Instead of driving women to the clinic and making judgments about their decisions and experiences, go to schools and hand out condoms to boys, lobby parliament to bring in sex education for boys and assistjng them to understand consequences…

             But most telling is you are driving these women to the clinics, not the fathers, and were they to carry for 9montgs will you take each of them in, cos it appears the father wont.
       • Bearded Git 5.1.3.2

         6 June 2014 at 10:46 am

         Agreed Stephaie. My pro-abortion but anti death penalty stance sometimes troubles me.
         • phillip ure 5.1.3.2.1

           6 June 2014 at 2:20 pm

           @..b.g..

           ..aye..!..that’s the one from ‘the left’ that puzzles me..

           ..an opposition to the death penalty..hand in hand with strong pro-abortion attitudes/stances..

           ..(i guess it’s a matter of timing..eh..?.and being ‘early’..isn’t good…)
           • Colonial Viper 5.1.3.2.1.1

             6 June 2014 at 2:27 pm

             Wait until the Right pops up saying that parents who are unable to provide for or suitably care for children shouldn’t have children, and that instead they should make greater use of contraception.
           • Stephanie Rodgers 5.1.3.2.1.2

             6 June 2014 at 3:08 pm

             There’s nothing inconsistent about it at all. Supporting abortion rights is about letting people exercise control over their own bodies. Opposing the death penalty is about the role of the State in enforcing the law.
             • weka …

               6 June 2014 at 3:13 pm

               “Opposing the death penalty is about the role of the State in enforcing the law.”

               what do you mean?
               • Stephanie Rodgers …

                 6 June 2014 at 3:55 pm

                 I mean that the question of whether the death penalty is justified depends on what role you think the State has an whether you think execution is a moral/justifiable punishment for crimes.

                 When it gets brought into a debate about abortion – which is a matter of individual choice – people like philip seem to assume that the only thing that matters in either debate is whether or not a “killing” takes place.
       • Colonial Viper 5.1.3.3

         6 June 2014 at 2:01 pm

         Abortion is a complex issue morally, but the simple fact is that pregnant people have the right not to be pregnant, and no one else has the right to force them to go through pregnancy.

         Individualistic rights which do or can cause major physical harm to others aren’t usually tolerated in our society without significant restrictions and regulation.

         And with 15,000 abortions happening per year, I don’t believe that you can say that women are being forced to go through pregnancy in NZ (and that is the way it should remain); with perhaps the exception of specific extreme cases.

         BTW there are 15,000 abortions in a year conducted in NZ. That is roughly equivalent to every single child born in Christchurch, Wellington, Dunedin and Hamilton over the same year being terminated.
         • James 5.1.3.3.1

           6 June 2014 at 2:42 pm

           I have mixed feelings about this. (yep – from a full on RWNJ)

           As a man – I dont think I can ever fully understand. I have been fortunate enough that I have not personally being in a relationship or situation that ever called for this to be an item for discussion that involved me at the time.

           On the other hand my wife had one before I met her. I can understand the reasons she did, and I know that she went into it having given it a lot of though.

           However – 23 years or so later – it still haunts her.

           The truth is – I really dont think there is a right answer. There is no one solution fits all people, every situation, every story.

           Its because of things like this that I could never get into politics – I personally could not handle the responsibility of laws like this.
           • blue leopard 5.1.3.3.1.1

             6 June 2014 at 2:47 pm

             +100 Now there is a thoughtful comment.
           • karol 5.1.3.3.1.2

             6 June 2014 at 3:02 pm

             A well considered comment, James.

             However, the issue isn’t so much as to whether individuals agreeing to the legislation approves of abortion.

             The fact is that abortions will be conducted whether they are legal or illegal, as stated on this site. But, as they say:

             While there is very little relationship between abortion legality and abortion incidence, there is a strong correlation between abortion legality and abortion safety.

             Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. Prior to Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions.

             Today, abortion is one of the most commonly performed clinical procedures in the United States, and the death rate from abortion is extremely low: 0.6 per 100,000 procedures, according to the World Health Organization.
             […]
             Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, as Guttmacher Institute explains, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa, and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America — regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.
         • blue leopard 5.1.3.3.2

           6 June 2014 at 2:46 pm

           Abortion is a very sad thing – I don’t really like commenting pro-abortion for that reason – yet find myself doing so just the same.

           One of the better ways to avoid high abortion rates is to ensure everyone has a healthy livelihood – this, I would guess is the one area that could be shifted to affect decisions re having an abortion.

           The other area is the obvious contraception education approach, however as pointed out above – these approaches do sometimes fail – and then what?

           Hence – create the circumstances where people are less likely to think they are not ready for/ capable of supplying a child with a decent life – which is the area where I would guess most of the decisions re to have or not to have are based on.

           Poverty kills in more ways than one.
         • weka 5.1.3.3.3

           6 June 2014 at 3:03 pm

           “Abortion is a complex issue morally, but the simple fact is that pregnant people have the right not to be pregnant, and no one else has the right to force them to go through pregnancy.”

           Individualistic rights which do or can cause major physical harm to others aren’t usually tolerated in our society without significant restrictions and regulation.

           And with 15,000 abortions happening per year, I don’t believe that you can say that women are being forced to go through pregnancy in NZ (and that is the way it should remain); with perhaps the exception of specific extreme cases.

           I think that misses the point CV. If the law were being applied the way that it was written, then women would be forced to go through pregnancy. In some places in recent decades abortion access has been very difficult, so it would be fair to say that in those places women took unwanted pregancies to term against their will.

           So what we have is law that is badly written. What’s being proposed is to change the law so that it better reflects actual practice and the mores of the day, and at the same time shifts the gate keeping from doctors to pregnant women. In the same way that if I needed to have any other kind of medical procedure, I wouldn’t need the permission of two certifying doctors, I would just go to the doctor who performed the actual procedure.
           • Colonial Viper 5.1.3.3.3.1

             6 June 2014 at 3:18 pm

             In the same way that if I needed to have any other kind of medical procedure, I wouldn’t need the permission of two certifying doctors, I would just go to the doctor who performed the actual procedure.

             Plenty of common medical procedures require you to go through your GP first and get sign off there, before you then go to see the specialist/surgeon who will take their own independent view on what should happen next.
             • weka …

               6 June 2014 at 3:27 pm

               No, they require a referral, which is a different thing legally. In NZ if you can afford it you can pay a private consultant without a GP referral ie the referral process is about policy and how the system has been set up, it’s not a enshrined in legislation. You cannot get an abortion legally unless two other medical doctors, in addition to the GP and the surgeon, certify that you are entitled. This is about legal entitlement and how that gets policed, it’s not about how the system is set up to manage the pragmatics of entitlement like for most other healthcare ie I don’t have to get two separate doctors to grant entitlement to health care.

               The other difference is that most medical procedures don’t get evaluated morally by the GP, but this happens frequently with abortions, which will be why the GP is also wanting to write the law to compel GPs to give adequate referrals if they are unwilling to provide health care.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 6 June 2014 at 4:15 pm

                 Well, I think the termination of a pregnancy requires additional, more thorough regulatory and professional oversight compared to going private and paying for an MRI, shoulder reconstruction or mole removal.
                 • weka …

                   6 June 2014 at 4:59 pm

                   Try comparing it to other significant outpatient surgeries, say tubal ligation, colposcopy/cervical biopsy, or a D and C, and then tell me why it requires more regulation and professional oversight?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     6 June 2014 at 6:03 pm

                     because the termination of human life should not be a streamlined, expedited event.
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 11:58 pm

                     I would agree if you were saying it shouldn’t be a casual thing, but expedited and streamlined sound appropriate to me. The earlier the termination the better, and the easier it is for the woman, the less stressful, the better. Why would you want to make it drawn out and difficult?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     7 June 2014 at 1:14 am

                     The earlier the termination the better, and the easier it is for the woman, the less stressful, the better. Why would you want to make it drawn out and difficult?

                     Because an action as heavy and serious as the taking of a healthy viable human life by the state should never be convenient, easy or expedited.
                   • McFlock …

                     7 June 2014 at 1:40 am

                     A “healthy viable human life”. How many abortions do you believe that applies to, as opposed to e.g. a foetus with no brain?

                     That’s one of the things that gets me – if you had a decent moral argument you wouldn’t need to refer to e.g. a 12-week foetus as a “baby” (by that logic you’d call a neonate an adult) or ignore that many abortions are medically necessary.

                     You think abortion is morally equivalent to murder, fair enough. If that were the case, you wouldn’t need to be so loose with language or focus solely on an unknown number of discretionary contraceptive abortions (for want of a better term).
         • Stephanie Rodgers 5.1.3.3.4

           6 June 2014 at 3:17 pm

           Your argument is baseless. You can’t say whether the current number of abortions performed in NZ is “enough” or proves women aren’t forced to go through pregnancy unless you know how many unwanted pregnancies there are.

           It’s like saying “a million dollars was spent on surgery last year! Obviously people aren’t on waiting lists!” without understanding how much surgery costs or how many people need surgery.
           • Colonial Viper 5.1.3.3.4.1

             6 June 2014 at 3:43 pm

             To my mind ~60 abortions performed per working day is a lot, and it is also apparently slowly trending downwards over time, suggesting to me that there is not a large unmet demand out there. You think differently?

             Your argument is baseless.

             You’re welcome to put forward your own statistics or estimates for how many women have been forced to go through with a pregnancy.
             • weka …

               6 June 2014 at 3:56 pm

               That doesn’t have anything to do with what you said before though. Which was that 15,000 abortions = no women in NZ are forced to give birth (due to unavailability of abortion services). I agree 15,000 is too many, but that doesn’t tell us anything about the women who couldn’t access an abortion because of the way the law is written.

               Here’s an overview of some of the issues,

               http://capitalismbad.blogspot.co.nz/2006/05/abortion-access-in-new-zealand.html

               That’s from 2006 and things have changed since then eg the DHB covering Southland has changed hiring and admin practices so abortions can be performed in the hospital there. That’s a huge change from the says when women couldn’t even access a certified consultant. Southland’s not the only area with that history.

               If the DHBs are changing practice, the law should be changed to match what is needed.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 6 June 2014 at 4:03 pm

                 I didn’t say “no women” were being forced to go through with their pregnancies, I did say that there would be extreme cases where that happened, maybe a few percent of the total (complete guesswork).
                 • McFlock …

                   6 June 2014 at 4:29 pm

                   a few percent of the 65000 babies born each year? That’s 3,150 forced pregnancies a year.

                   at guesswork
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     6 June 2014 at 4:40 pm

                     well something should definitely be done about that McFlock. Perhaps making abortion easier to access will result in an additional 3,150 abortions, by your count?

                     BTW you’re 10% out, only 59,000 live births last year
                   • McFlock …

                     6 June 2014 at 4:58 pm

                     perhaps.

                     But maybe if we stopped being so obsessed with what women (in particular) and men do with their genitals, and provided all sexual health and contraceptive needs in a professional and humane way, the unwanted pregnancy rate would go down.

                     btw, birth rates have bounced about a bit in the last ten years, but my math was way off – should have been 1950 not 3150.
                     But my silicon difference engine says 59,000 births @ 3% is 1770. Doy you really think moral arguments are made by quibbling over numbers? Even if it were 1,000 unwanted pregnancies forced to term, is that acceptable?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     6 June 2014 at 5:39 pm

                     But maybe if we stopped being so obsessed with what women (in particular) and men do with their genitals, and provided all sexual health and contraceptive needs in a professional and humane way, the unwanted pregnancy rate would go down.

                     Sure. No argument there. So why does the GP policy centre around the liberalisation of abortion law instead of putting a bit more emphasis on what you suggested?

                     Doy you really think moral arguments are made by quibbling over numbers? Even if it were 1,000 unwanted pregnancies forced to term, is that acceptable?

                     To be clear, in your morality
                     – terminating 1000 unwanted babies is the moral choice?
                     – whereas having 1000 unwanted babies delivered to full term is the immoral one?
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 6:32 pm

                     “So why does the GP policy centre around the liberalisation of abortion law instead of putting a bit more emphasis on what you suggested?”

                     Probably because it’s a policy on abortion not contraception, and they already have contraception covered in their women’s policy,

                     A. Contraception
                     Good access to contraception gives women more freedom to plan their lives, and reduces the rates of abortion and unwanted pregnancy. Because different forms of contraception and sterilisation have different side-effects and other associated issues, individuals and couples should be able to choose the form of contraception that is best for them.

                     Women have the right to be informed and to have access to safe, effective, and affordable contraception, and the right to culturally appropriate health care services.

                     The Green Party will:

                     Improve access to culturally appropriate information about different contraceptive methods

                     Ensure costs and waiting lists are not a barrier to accessing appropriate contraception in New Zealand.

                     Ensure accessibility of Family Planning Clinics throughout New Zealand.

                     https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/womens-policy-valuing-women

                     You will probably find more in other policies too,

                     https://www.greens.org.nz/healthyfutures

                     https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/health-policy

                     To be clear, in your morality
                     – terminating 1000 unwanted babies is the moral choice?
                     – whereas having 1000 unwanted babies delivered to full term is the immoral one?

                     You didn’t quite get that right. The ethical thing to do is give women sovereignty over their bodies (ie don’t force them into pregnancies and birth) AND take actions that reduce the need for abortion.
                   • McFlock …

                     6 June 2014 at 8:05 pm

                     see weka’s response, CV.

                     Who are you or i to decide what the least-bad moral/ethical/personal choice is for someone else to make?

                     This isn’t a case of “cake or death”. There are no winners.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     7 June 2014 at 1:19 am

                     Who are you or i to decide what the least-bad moral/ethical/personal choice is for someone else to make?

                     With personal freedom comes personal responsibility. You want to ensure personal freedoms are protected for the adult – fine. Where does the personal responsibility come into it, and who has the responsibility to advocate for the one party who is totally powerless and voiceless here – the unborn baby.
                   • McFlock …

                     7 June 2014 at 1:32 am

                     Where does the personal responsibility come into it, and who has the responsibility to advocate for the one party who is totally powerless and voiceless here – the unborn baby

                     Nice stump speech. The essential premiss of an “advocate” is that someone other than the woman is in the best place to judge what’s best for the “baby” as well as herself.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     7 June 2014 at 1:46 am

                     Without doubt, any sincere advocate for the interests of the unborn baby probably cannot be a person who wants the life of that baby terminated, stat.

                     Nice stump speech.

                     Significant personal freedoms require an expectation of commensurate personal responsibility. If you think that principle would be popular and understandable enough to make it into a stump speech, I would agree with you.
                   • McFlock …

                     7 June 2014 at 1:57 am

                     Without doubt, any sincere advocate for the interests of the unborn baby probably cannot be a person who wants the life of that baby terminated, stat.

                     Next we’ll be having the euthenasia debate…

                     Significant personal freedoms require an expectation of commensurate personal responsibility.

                     Not if that freedom is a right. If it’s a right, it’s nobody else’s business what you do with that freedom.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     7 June 2014 at 2:09 am

                     There’s no such thing as an immutable, unconditional right to take the life of another human being.

                     And yes, there are continuities with the euthanasia debate.
                   • McFlock …

                     7 June 2014 at 2:16 am

                     There’s no such thing as an immutable, unconditional right to take the life of another human being.

                     There you go with the loose language again.
                     If “another human being” is debateable, it comes down to power over one’s own body.

                     If “another human being” is 100% correct, it comes down to self defense, euthanasia, forced pregnancy, and whether the woman is the best judge of medical decisions to be made for her and the blob (see what I did with that last bit?). She is, by the way.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     7 June 2014 at 2:21 am

                     I like the way you silenced, disempowered and de-humanised “the blob” in order to establish the human right to facilitate it’s death. Well done mate.
                   • blue leopard …

                     7 June 2014 at 2:23 am

                     I really don’t get your logic here, CV – how can a woman not take responsibility when pregnant? How is it not taking responsibility if she decides to terminate the pregnancy due to believing her circumstances/she is incapable of providing a decent life for the unborn child. Do you think it is more responsible to have the child regardless of her circumstances?

                     Is it possible to have a fair law that would provide someone other than the pregnant person an unconditional, immutable right to tell that person what can and cannot be decided about their own body and life?

                     If you believe it is killing a human to terminate a pregnancy, then surely the woman suffers the consequences of this action on a metaphysical level. Or do you think she should go to jail for such an action as well as suffer the consequences on other levels? That she is a danger to society because she terminated her pregnancy?
                   • McFlock …

                     7 June 2014 at 2:34 am

                     I like the way you silenced, disempowered and de-humanised “the blob” in order to establish the human right to facilitate it’s death. Well done mate.

                     yeah, completely intentional.

                     I figured your calling a cluster of cells without a brain, lungs, CNS, or a myriad of other human characteristics “baby” and “human” needed a bit of balance.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     7 June 2014 at 2:44 am

                     If you believe it is killing a human to terminate a pregnancy, then surely the woman suffers the consequences of this action on a metaphysical level. (1) Or do you think she should go to jail for such an action as well as suffer the consequences on other levels? (2)

                     1) Yes. But the metaphysical consequences are not just at her level. The entirety of the society and the country suffers metaphysical consequences as well.

                     2) Prison has not been on the cards in this discussion, I would not support this in the slightest, not sure why you bring it up now.

                     How is it not taking responsibility if she decides to terminate the pregnancy due to believing her circumstances/she is incapable of providing a decent life for the unborn child. Do you think it is more responsible to have the child regardless of her circumstances?

                     The “responsibility” that I refer to is of that due to the baby.

                     I have no problem with a termination proceeding once sufficient practical and viable options for safeguarding the baby’s life have been thoroughly considered and ruled out.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     7 June 2014 at 2:51 am

                     McFlock – yes I know the drill, it has been well worn both in antiquity and in recent history: dehumanise, disregard, dispose.
                   • blue leopard …

                     7 June 2014 at 1:38 pm

                     @ CV

                     Prison has not been on the cards in this discussion, I would not support this in the slightest, not sure why you bring it up now.

                     I mention jail because if you want a regulation that ensures the foetus’ ‘rights’ are considered , then what are the consequences of not meeting these regulations? Jail? A financial penalty? What?

                     Yes. But the metaphysical consequences are not just at her level. The entirety of the society and the country suffers metaphysical consequences as well.

                     Cool, perhaps she can be done for crimes against humanity 😆

                     Actually with a Buddhist influenced background, I agree that there would be metaphysical consequences for the country/society – however there are also metaphysical consequences for the country if the country has laws to force women to have children against their wish too.

                     Isn’t it a better approach in dealing with this complex issue that ‘the country’, where they can, removes the conditions that lead to the likelihood of the women (or and man) making this sad decision in the first place.

                     As I suggested earlier – poverty issues are a factor, including financial position (you might not be in poverty, however may rely on both partner’s income to keep afloat).

                     I really do think that you are making an assumption that women don’t consider the life of the potential child when they decide to terminate a pregnancy.

                     Have you considered that regardless of whether laws or regulations exist to ensure that is the case it is fairly impossible for a woman not to consider the consequences for the fetus. I hope that you can see that just because a women chooses to terminate a pregnancy it doesn’t follow that this consideration has not been taken into account. It is more likely that she can see sad/difficult circumstances already existing or arising from pursuing the pregnancy that she chooses such a course of action – not because she hasn’t considered the life of the fetus.
             • Stephanie Rodgers …

               6 June 2014 at 4:09 pm

               I’m not going to make up numbers off the top of my head to substantiate your argument.

               NZ Family Planning has theorised that one reason for the downward trend in abortions has to do with increased availability of effective long-term contraceptives. The thing is, if you already had difficulty accessing abortion, you’d probably also have difficulty accessing contraceptives like Implanon. So there’s no reason to make an assumptions about the “unmet demand” for abortion services.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 6 June 2014 at 4:23 pm

                 Are you telling me that we don’t actually know how big the problem of unmet demand for abortion services is, and don’t have any way of quantifying how much of an issue it is in the community?
                 • weka …

                   6 June 2014 at 4:47 pm

                   Someone could do the research. Or we could take the word of social workers, counsellors, doctors, nurses, Family Planning, women’s groups and other people who have been working in the field for decades that there is an issue.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     6 June 2014 at 5:43 pm

                     Or we could take the word of social workers, counsellors, doctors, nurses, Family Planning, women’s groups and other people who have been working in the field for decades that there is an issue.

                     So its been a recognised major issue for several decades, but none of those professionals have researched or quantified it?
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 9:06 pm

                     Not sure where you are going with this to be honest. We know that women have been denied abortions in the past at least because in places like Southland the DHB (or its predecessor) refused to hire surgeons who would do abortions, or even certifying consultants. At one time women had to go to Dunedin or Christchurch and lie about their address to get an abortion in that DHB. To do that was logistically tricky and not possible for all women and so some women didn’t get abortions.

                     Or maybe you think that I am just making all this up?
                   • Stephanie Rodgers …

                     7 June 2014 at 12:13 am

                     Or we could take the word of social workers, counsellors, doctors, nurses, Family Planning, women’s groups and other people who have been working in the field for decades that there is an issue.

                     +1
               • lprent …

                 6 June 2014 at 4:46 pm

                 NZ Family Planning has theorised that one reason for the downward trend in abortions has to do with increased availability of effective long-term contraceptives.

                 Having the morning-after-pill has probably helped a lot as well. It has probably reduced the simple “that was a mistake and what the hell do I do now apart from wait” in favour of a morning-after run to the doctor for a bit of a lecture and some irritating side-effects.

                 The ones that are generally left are largely genuine mistakes, lack of sex education, hopeful optimists, and the ones that get through the contraceptives (there is always a percentage that do).
                 • Stephanie Rodgers …

                   7 June 2014 at 12:16 am

                   And there’s always people like Katherine, who are completely let down by our health system …
                   http://thewireless.co.nz/themes/free/an-unresolved-issue
                 • McFlock …

                   7 June 2014 at 12:18 am

                   ISTR there are also a fair number of unwanted but medically-required abortions, particularly the later term ones.

                   It’s those people I feel especially sorry for, having to run the gauntlet of god-botherers on clinic days.
         • Tracey 5.1.3.3.5

           6 June 2014 at 4:28 pm

           can you post tge statistics about the fathers of the 15,000 women? We collect them right? We legislate to ensure fathers take responsibility for pregancies they contribute to right? Can you post the percentage of fathers who offered to bring up their child instead of the mother having an abortion?

           We dont even take seriously unpaid child support payments from fathers…

           Wome.n know that an unplanned pregnancy and its consequences are entirely theirs
           • Colonial Viper 5.1.3.3.5.1

             6 June 2014 at 4:38 pm

             Hi Tracey

             So has the GP created a complete package with additional complementary proposals to

             1- Collect statistics about the fathers involved with those 15,000 women? (this would involve women having to fill out more forms and be asked more questions)
             2- Legislate to ensure fathers take responsibility for the pregnancy with those women?
             3- Encourage fathers to offer to bring up their child instead of the mother having an abortion?

             No? Bit of an oversight there was it?
             • Tracey …

               6 June 2014 at 4:46 pm

               so, that is a no then.
             • weka …

               6 June 2014 at 4:49 pm

               “No? Bit of an oversight there was it?”

               Only if you think women shouldn’t have reproductive freedom and should be forced to be pregnant and give birth against their will.
               • Tracey …

                 6 June 2014 at 5:19 pm

                 cv dodged the questions put to him.
                 • weka …

                   6 June 2014 at 5:31 pm

                   yes. I can kind of understand, because if he comes out and says his views on abortion directly he’s likely to get more criticism than say minarch or even bad. Plus he’s had some bad experiences here debating women’s issues. Myself, I think it would work better to be upfront rather than deflecting or implying without really saying. Less aggravating in the long run.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     6 June 2014 at 5:50 pm

                     Oh, very cute weka.

                     Focussing on the substance instead of the innuendo, it’s clear that the GP policy announcement does nothing for encouraging men to take more responsibility for unwanted pregnancies (which Tracey believes to be important) – in fact totally the reverse in that its quite likely going to make men even less responsible – yet you are cheering it on despite its severe imbalances.

                     Only if you think women shouldn’t have reproductive freedom and should be forced to be pregnant and give birth against their will.

                     And who exactly advocates for the voiceless, powerless, unborn child in your scenario?

                     And if you push for greater reproductive freedom, what are your views on greater reproductive responsibility to go alongside that greater freedom?
                   • weka …

                     6 June 2014 at 6:50 pm

                     I’d be interested to hear your ideas on how a political party could develop policy that encourages men to take more responsibility for unwanted pregnancies. Do you mean once contraception has occurred?

                     “And who exactly advocates for the voiceless, powerless, unborn child in your scenario?”

                     The woman who has it in her body of course. And society at large, which balances the human rights of women against the potential rights of the undeveloped foetus, as well as with how different people feel about the death of foetuses eg via different rules around different stages of pregnancy.

                     The main problem for prolife progressives is that there really is no way around the the fact that being anti-abortion cuts across women’s human rights in ways that other humans just aren’t subjected to.

                     That was the point of my comment men who want to have sex having to have vasectomies – to get men to consider what it’s like having the state interfer in your body to that extent. Except the comparison between having a vasectomy and 9 months of pregnancy, birth and then recovery (esp if you don’t keep the baby) is not really a meaningful comparison.
                   • Tracey …

                     6 June 2014 at 7:52 pm

                     Weka

                     You are confused. This is not about the part men play in abandoning women to the consequences of unwanted pregnancies its about impressing on women the value of the “life” they are incubating on behalf of the potential men of the world, oh and any baby girls that are born when its not a baby boy… And its not about legislating mens behaviour or responsibilities or even enforcing child maintenance payments.. Its about evil women choosing to through stress and mental anguish, and physical pain for the hell of it. I hope that helps.
                   • Stephanie Rodgers …

                     7 June 2014 at 12:20 am

                     CV: Yes. Shockingly, the Green Party policy to change a law which overwhelmingly affects women doesn’t mention men. Shock!

                     (Note: not all women can get pregnant; not everyone who gets pregnant is a woman.)
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     7 June 2014 at 1:34 am

                     CV: Yes. Shockingly, the Green Party policy to change a law which overwhelmingly affects women doesn’t mention men. Shock!

                     So what about all the fancy talk about ensuring fathers play their role in minimising abortion, are responsible with contraception, are present to help raise/pay for the child, are encouraged to give the mother more options and support, is that all just talk then?

                     Because when it comes down to formalising the rules and regulations around abortion, you don’t appear to see any substantial role or responsibilities for the father to fulfil. As you say, Fathers are completely ignored in this policy, they can walk away with no formal role to play, they don’t even rate a mention, and that appears to meet your expectations as best practice.

                     Actually, now that I consider your position, I’m pretty sure that a lot of surprised and unplanned fathers out there will be completely fine with this state sanctioned abdication of their responsibilities.
           • phillip ure 5.1.3.3.5.2

             6 June 2014 at 6:04 pm

             @ tracey,..

             “.. Can you post the percentage of fathers who offered to bring up their child instead of the mother having an abortion?..”

             well..i can put my hand up for that poll…

             ..and that is what i did/have done..

             ..and so it came to pass..
             • Tracey …

               6 June 2014 at 7:54 pm

               So, like cv, you cant point to those stats either.
               • phillip ure …

                 6 June 2014 at 8:18 pm

                 no..just passing on a personal experience..

                 ..one you seem to claim doesn’t happen..

                 ..i am just showing you it does..

                 ..and i am unsure what (churlish) point you are trying to make with yr rejoinder..

                 ..but along with guaranteed economic-security for impending mothers..

                 ..i feel more note need to be taken that there are three actors in this life and death drama..

                 ..not just one..

                 ..there are the mother..the father..and the child..

                 ..and i feel that fathers/males should receive more encouragement/support to take on that (often thankless/lonely..but also so so rewarding) role..that i did..

                 ..(as it is..the women at work and income seem to dislike men doing this role..and treat them shittier than they do women..

                 ..you’d think a male wd at least get equal treatment..but that has not been my experience..(but that for another day..)

                 ..and i also feel that adoption should also be offered as a viable option..

                 ..in short..i think any abortion should be a last resort..

                 ..and only entertained after every other option is considered/offered/made easy..

                 ..rather than now..where abortion is pretty much the first/only option..

                 ..i cant get past the the fact that those 15,000 terminations are 15,000 unrealised lives..

                 ..and that is sad..

                 ..and all those above options should be made easy..

                 ..in an attempt to lower that number..

                 ..and some here may scoff..but i have known women haunted/scarred by having chosen abortion..

                 ..for what in hindsight.can often be seen to be slight/temporary reasons..

                 .and that too is fucken sad..
         • Tracey 5.1.3.3.6

           6 June 2014 at 4:39 pm

           If 15,000 women per year seek abortions because

           A. They have been raped, or
           B. They risk serious mental health issues, including suicide, if they carry the baby to term

           do you think they should be denied the abortion
           • Colonial Viper 5.1.3.3.6.1

             6 June 2014 at 4:44 pm

             If they meet all relevant regulatory and medical criteria, they should certainly receive the procedure.
             • Tracey …

               6 June 2014 at 4:48 pm

               is that humanitarian or unhumanitarian?
               • Colonial Viper …

                 6 June 2014 at 5:57 pm

                 on the balance, it would certainly still be humanitarian.
             • weka …

               6 June 2014 at 5:01 pm

               “If they meet all relevant regulatory and medical criteria, they should certainly receive the procedure.”

               I take it that you think DHBs are contravening NZ law and should be stopped then.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 6 June 2014 at 5:55 pm

                 Hey weka. Government agencies should not be acting outside the law. Either change what they are doing, or change the law to match what they are doing.
                 • Tracey …

                   6 June 2014 at 8:05 pm

                   Truly, i think you highly under estimate what the majority of those 15,000 women go through prior to their decision, during the process and afterward to glibly suggest no one is advocating on behalf of unborn babies.

                   I thought i was pregnant when i was 21. I had not had a period for over 5 years and my partner did not use a condom and i was not on the pill. I didnt know if i were pregnant or not. I got a period some 8 weeks later. I worried, alot. I told no one.

                   I dont believe in abortion for myself. I considered it then, if i had been pregnant buy i dismissed it as an option. My law degree would have stopped and my life changed beyond recognition.

                   I know a few women who have had abortions. A terrible, heartbreaking time for them. Some had partners, none had a partner who wanted to father the child. Some offered money for an abortion.

                   I believe most women in this situation absolutely think about the possible human they may be having or terminating.

                   Yes, i believe a father should have a say… But would love to see the stats on single fathers bringing up a child after a mother took it to term instead of aborting.

                   As for your comment that the gp arent proposing legislation to address male responsibility etc its a red herring. That comment was a direct response to a notion you raised about having to legislate for abortion cos of the sanctity of human life…

                   But you left out that you just meant to legislate female behaviour, cos you dont see a need for controlling male behaviour and not by legislation. If you do, you have hidden it well in this thread.
   • The Al1en 5.2

     6 June 2014 at 10:31 am

     A woman’s right to choose. The end.
     • Chooky 5.2.1

       6 June 2014 at 10:46 am

       +100…smile…GO GREENS…the feminist humanitarian Party!…as well as the ecological Party

       and as an aside the Catholic Church is declining in the West where women are well educated and have hard fought for equality of opportunity…it is only gaining traction in Central America , Asia and Africa ….where women are way behind in human rights

       …i might also venture the comment that ecology and the ecological health of the world depends on the emancipation of women around the world and their rights to control their fertility…overpopulation and Yin-Yang imbalances in genders does nothing for the problems that now face the world …ie of global warming and human rights and peace
       • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1

         6 June 2014 at 2:31 pm

         +100…smile…GO GREENS…the feminist humanitarian Party!…

         Feminist no doubt but I myself wouldn’t generally class terminating pregnancies as a “humanitarian” activity.
         • weka 5.2.1.1.1

           6 June 2014 at 3:14 pm

           How is the GP class terminating pregnancies?
         • Stephanie Rodgers 5.2.1.1.2

           6 June 2014 at 3:26 pm

           Actually, allowing families and women in particular to determine the number and spacing of their children through family planning, including contraception and abortion, is a hugely humanitarian act which benefits entire communities. That’s why the United States’ “global gag rule” on aid funding for organisations which provide abortion services is so horrible.
           • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1.2.1

             6 June 2014 at 3:54 pm

             So you would also categorise abortion as a humanitarian act? I would not.
             • weka …

               6 June 2014 at 4:02 pm

               In cultures that live within their means and don’t practice resource overshoot, abortion and infanticide are part of the ways of managing population. If there is not enough to eat, killing a child means that other children will live, then while disturbing it can still be humanitarian. In that instance abortion is preferable to infanticide. I’m not suggesting that that equates to the NZ situation, but I am curious how you think this will play out when we are back in a situation of such resource depletion.

               I don’t think abortion per se is humanitarian, but I do wish we would stop talking about abortion as if it were all one thing and ethics and morals could be applied across the board as if it were all one thing.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 6 June 2014 at 6:12 pm

                 but I am curious how you think this will play out when we are back in a situation of such resource depletion.

                 The Seige of Leningrad is instructive.
                 • weka …

                   6 June 2014 at 6:26 pm

                   I don’t know what that means.
             • Stephanie Rodgers …

               6 June 2014 at 4:10 pm

               Um … good for you?
             • greywarbler …

               6 June 2014 at 6:45 pm

               Surely CV your objectivity would allow you to view the option of abortion without criminalising the pregnant woman a humanitarian action? I

               If most of the abortions, were carried out for approved reasons without criminalising the woman that would be humanitarian and the subset of women with regular repeat abortions would have to have a course of long-effect contraceptives.

               This isn’t what ardent abortion supporters want but at least 90% of the women wanting abortions would not meet barriers after a counselling session by an appropriate person that ensured that the woman had not been pressured by others.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 7 June 2014 at 1:58 am

                 Hey GW. I have no problem with a significant rewrite of that section of the crimes act for the purposes of clarity, ensuring that legitimate and appropriately conducted abortion is in no way considered a criminal activity.

                 If most of the abortions, were carried out for approved reasons without criminalising the woman that would be humanitarian and the subset of women with regular repeat abortions would have to have a course of long-effect contraceptives.

                 I have no issues with your suggestions here being explored and fully discussed.

                 I’ll tell you one thing which is fucked. The liberal Left getting all steamed up about parents who discipline a young child with physical force, who defend the anti-smacking legislation tooth and nail, but simultaneously think that the termination of that same child just 3 years earlier should be fast, streamlined and efficient.
                 • greywarbler …

                   7 June 2014 at 2:12 pm

                   Thanks for reply CV.

                   It is true that abortion is a serious matter. Any woman who finds herself pregnant does not consider it a light-hearted matter. In fact at one time when there was much poverty and no way of preventing pregnancy, women might have a baby each year. And that was no light-hearted matter with perhaps a family growing towards double figures, if disease had not struck them down. Apparently going into a convent was an attractive future for some women, so as to avoid this serious difficulty.

                   Now we have contraceptives, but human nature sometimes results in not using the methods available for various reasons. There are about 500 chances in a woman’s life to have an egg fertilised. Each one not fertilised goes with its blood and bodily changes. And with a sigh of sadness if trying to become and stay pregnant, or with a sigh of gladness that there isn’t a baby this time bringing its demands of a lifetime of duty and service to someone not ready for this, or who is already coping with other children beyond their capacity.

                   We are fertile with no set seasons for productivity, and that requires cool human intellectual management of what is an instinctive animal activity. Unless that is understood, and the burden bodily and socially that fertility places on females, the fair and reasonable and right answer to abortion is hard to formulate.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     7 June 2014 at 2:31 pm

                     No issues with your comments. And from the political/electioneering angle the Greens could have been much smarter.

                     They could have introduced these abortion liberalisation reforms as part of a complete package overhauling and modernising access to contraception, sex education, supporting vulnerable women who have had multiple abortions, further developing adoption options, and economic assistance to ensure that mothers do not feel that they have to terminate their baby mainly for financial reasons – and ensuring (enforcing if necessary) that fathers play their full role in supporting those mothers.

                     This would have provided the electorate with a complete and interlocking package of improvements and reforms.

                     Too late for that now.
                   • greywarbler …

                     7 June 2014 at 3:44 pm

                     Yes CV you again show wise political and ethical considerations. Abortion is something to limit but women as well as their foetuses need consideration and help after pregnancy starts.
       • minarch 5.2.1.2

         6 June 2014 at 2:34 pm

         IMO overpopulation is a myth

         theres plenty of resources to go around, its greed thats the problem , not people..

         Urban-overcrowding however is a different story,
     • Murray Olsen 5.2.2

       7 June 2014 at 12:21 am

       That’s pretty much what it comes down to for me.
       Do I like abortions? No.
       Do I want to have sex with other men? No.
       Does this mean I should be making these very individual decisions for other people? No.
6. framu 6

   6 June 2014 at 8:45 am

   heard jamie whyte on RNZ this morning

   good god! – a mix of rank stupidness and foolish semantics

   the guy couldnt even get his head around why he as the leader of act should be concerned that their one and only MP is still in parliament after being found guilty.

   Note: not that he was making an argument re: due process, it was that he was fumbling, mumbling and appeared to not even comprehend what the question was or why he was even being asked.

   He couldnt even make a coherent argument in any way shape or form – because he genuinely didnt understand the questions

   it seems he sees banks and act 2014 as exisiting in a time and place different to him and act 2015 – ergo its nothing to do with him, but he still supports him

   for a professor of philosophy it was a joke. Any act supporters should be deeply ashamed at the moron leading their party
   • Rodel 6.1

     6 June 2014 at 9:58 am

     There once was a philosophy professor at Canterbury University (can’t remember his name) who would give prolonged speeches at council meetings and the rest of the council members knew that given enough time he would often end up arguing for the opposite of his original thoughts. Act’s Dr Jamie White sounds similar.
   • greywarbler 6.2

     6 June 2014 at 10:16 am

     Concerning Jamie White being a Prof of Philosophy. Philosophy to my mind, can be like economics. You take a position and argue as to its ability to withstand criticism. It’s a mind exercise. Doesn’t actually mean that it bears any relation to real life as we experience it.

     http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-strangest-philosophies.php

     http://listverse.com/2013/04/15/10-mind-blowing-theories-about-the-universe-and-reality/

     Wikipedia has a list A to Z
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies
     • Steve Reeves 6.2.1

       6 June 2014 at 10:46 am

       Jamie Whyte was never a professor, btw.

       Research fellow for three years then (temporary) lecturer.

       Which better explains that awful interview 🙂
       • greywarbler 6.2.1.1

         6 June 2014 at 11:05 am

         That fellow Jamie didn’t go very deep in his research!
     • minarch 6.2.2

       6 June 2014 at 12:32 pm

       they left off objectivism…
     • Rodel 6.2.3

       6 June 2014 at 9:53 pm

       gw
       “… Doesn’t actually mean that it bears any relation to real life as we experience it.” That’s my point about White’s meandering discourse.
   • phillip ure 6.3

     6 June 2014 at 10:35 am

     ..settle framu..!

     ..whyte is the cream of the right..!

     ..he is their brightest/best hope..!

     ..and a mumble-fucking rand-ite numpty he might be..

     ..but..i mean..have you seen/heard their actual candidate..?

     ..that callow young chap who keeps scaring epsom locals by jumping out from behind hedges at them..?..squeaking that he is ‘from act’..?..)

     ..(he put out a video of it..it’s possibly on the act website..)

     ..i mean..what can you say..but…whoar..!

     ..so..in summary..

     ..in the right corner..we have jamie ‘just-do-nothing-about-climatechange!’ whyte..

     ..and that e.t.-impersonator leading the christine rankins of this world..

     ..as i said..whoar..!..eh..?..
   • Cancerman 6.4

     6 June 2014 at 1:37 pm

     I think you will find that many ACT (Epsom voters) supporter will be very disappointed with ACT and won’t accept this. However they aren’t really ACT voters and are disassociated between John Banks and ACT. They themselves see him as a National MP. More effort needs to done by the left to hold the ACT party responsible for John Banks as opposed to addressing this question to John Key, as this is a prime opportunity to see the end of ACT.
   • srylands 6.5

     6 June 2014 at 1:44 pm

     “it seems he sees banks and act 2014 as exisiting [sic] in a time and place different to him and act 2015”

     I should bloody hope that he sees things that way. Banks and that twit Brash wrecked the Party.

     Jamie’s response should be blunt. It should be like Banks has never happened.
     • McFlock 6.5.1

       6 June 2014 at 2:13 pm

       lol

       ACT has always been at war with Eurasia…
     • framu 6.5.2

       6 June 2014 at 3:19 pm

       “Jamie’s response should be blunt. ” – yes but it wasnt – it was a mumbling train wreck

       note: its not that i disagree with his argument – its that he couldnt even make one.
       Thats your saviour? HA HA HA HA

       and the bit your avoiding is this – whyte is the CURRENT leader and banks is the CURRENT mp – therefore whyte is being a simpleton if he thinks he doesnt have to be involved

       are you a simpleton?

       “I should bloody hope that he sees things that way”

       looks like it – enjoy the slow train to stupid down, jamie whyte will meet you on the platform
     • Murray Olsen 6.5.3

       7 June 2014 at 12:11 am

       The Randite school of falsification. John Banks always has been, and never was an ACT MP.

       I think SSLands is an unsuccessful AI bot, or a not overly bright 11 year old.
7. felix 7

   6 June 2014 at 9:08 am

   I note that John Key stands by his backing John Banks and still insists that Banks is honest.

   Bugger the High Court, eh?
   • s y d 7.1

     6 June 2014 at 11:11 am

     Been there before I think felix….

     Sackur: Yeah but he’s a (whatever), it’s based on research, it’s not an opinion he’s plucked from the air.

     Key: He’s one (whatever) and like lawyers, I can provide you with another one that will give you a counterview. Anybody who goes down to New Zealand and looks at our….. credentials, and looks at New Zealand, then I think for the most part, in comparison with the rest of the world, we are 100% pure
   • Disraeli Gladstone 7.2

     6 June 2014 at 11:46 am

     “Psst, Banks has only been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The way I see it is that there’s a whole lot of unreasonable doubt that I can rely on. Psst.”

     It’s only a matter of time until Key says something like this.
   • Cancerman 7.3

     6 June 2014 at 1:46 pm

     Two thing felix.

     John Key can’t actually do anything other than say he is disappointed with John Banks and will rely on the Maori Party to finish parliment before the election. He won’t do this. He will hope it dies down and say it another party matter.

     Secondly in everyone attention being on John Key and National the ACT Party gets to create a distance. For example why last night were both John Key and Gerry Brownlee interviewed on John Banks but not Jamie Whyte or David Seymour. If they aren’t attacked now for their moral laziness they can create the perception that they are new and had nothing to do with John Banks and may still win Epsom based on this perception. This is what Jamie Whyte was lamely doing on the Radio NZ this morning. Jamie Whyte and David Seymour need to be dragged through the coals on this so come election time ACT is so discredited even Epsom voters can bring themselves to tick the box. Also National will still suffer but much more attention, starting on the blogs, needs to be on Jamie Whyte and David Seymour. Less so on National as it won’t have such an effect, and they can say “its not our party.

     Don’t maybe miss this opportunity to get rid of ACT everyone.
     • framu 7.3.1

       6 June 2014 at 3:24 pm

       yep

       “This is what Jamie Whyte was lamely doing on the Radio NZ this morning.”

       he wasnt even doing that – im surprised he can get his pants on the right way based on that steaming turd of an interview 🙂
   • Tracey 7.4

     6 June 2014 at 4:42 pm

     but only “pretty” honest.
   • Murray Olsen 7.5

     7 June 2014 at 12:15 am

     That’s only under NZ laws. Key can find others. Actually, for a PM to contradict a judge like this shows an absolute contempt for the rule of law, or perhaps a total lack of understanding. While I think judges often get it wrong and there is a lot that needs fixing with our injustice system, I am not PM. I don’t have conventions to follow.
8. phillip ure 8

   6 June 2014 at 9:47 am

   (this one is interesting/relevant..and is about america..but is also about here..)

   http://whoar.co.nz/2014/a-simple-solution-to-americas-woes-huge-raises-ed-cd-someone-forward-this-to-those-who-need-to-see-it-ta/

   (excerpt..)

   “….and that fact just shows up the ideological-blinkers/blindness of the right..

   (funny story..!..often ‘businessmen’..their ideological desires to make the lives of the worst off even more dire/miserable..seemingly over-riding their ‘business-sense’..)
   • Draco T Bastard 8.1

     6 June 2014 at 2:22 pm

     It would have been easier if, instead of link whoring*, you just provided a link to the article.

     Mike Treen has a bit to say on wages in NZ over the same time period:

     What is revealed is that by the mid 90s real wages had declined at least 25%. There has been no recovery since then and real wages remain 25% below their 1982 peak.

     It seems that our wages declined by 25% before leveling off and so much for wages going up in line with productivity:

     Of course we were also told that if the cake was grown we would all benefit. A little pain now for the riches to come. Productivity has increased by 80% between 1978 and 2008. So real wages are 25% lower but our output is 80% higher.

     Yeah, the people who are benefiting from the psychopathic economic system that was installed by the 4th Labour Government are the owners. Most of the rest of us are significantly worse off.

     And, no, I didn’t bother reading your page as I couldn’t be bothered trying to work out what you were saying and what you were quoting.
     • phillip ure 8.1.1

       6 June 2014 at 3:32 pm

       have you tried chammomile tea..and a wee lie-down..?

       ..some swear by that for a shitty-liver..eh..?
9. phillip ure 9

   6 June 2014 at 10:13 am

   (one for the chart-freaks amongst us…fill yer boots..!..)

   “..How the Recession Reshaped the Economy, in 255 Charts..”

   http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/05/upshot/how-the-recession-reshaped-the-economy-in-255-charts.html?_r=1
10. phillip ure 10

    6 June 2014 at 10:26 am

    whoar..!

    ..in an ‘historic-move’..the european central bank has ordered ‘negative-interest-rates’..

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/european-central-bank-imposes-negative-rates-on-banks-in-historic-move-9494027.html

    ..that european economy is clearly still one very sick puppy..
11. Steve Reeves 11

    6 June 2014 at 10:44 am

    Wow!!!!

    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/05/guardian-launches-securedrop-whistleblowers-documents
12. greywarbler 12

    6 June 2014 at 10:51 am

    What can one say? Incredible that men can be taking such a callous, unprincipled attitude to females in any country. India should be ashamed, but probably won’t be. And it won’t be just sex, there’s likely to be money or advantage, revenge or punishment in the equation somewhere if one looks at the backgrounds of these attacks.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11268684
    An Indian minister from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling party says rape is “sometimes right, sometimes wrong”, amid mounting public anger over sex attacks against women….
    The minister also defended the government of northern Uttar Pradesh state, which has been the target of global outrage since the gang-rape and murder of two girls in the village of Katra Shahadatganj last week.
    “This is a social crime which depends on men and women. Sometimes it’s right, sometimes it’s wrong,” Gaur, of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), told reporters.
    • Murray Olsen 12.1

      7 June 2014 at 12:27 am

      Tony Abbott said that women don’t have an absolute right to say “no” to their husbands. I can’t see how that’s qualitatively different to what the Indian politician has said.
13. northshoreguynz 13

    6 June 2014 at 11:02 am

    Gordon Campbell on the money as usual.
    http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2014/06/06/gordon-campbell-on-the-john-banks-verdict/
14. joe90 14

    6 June 2014 at 11:05 am

    .
    Ain’t technology great.
    //

    Newly disclosed court documents provide new insight into the domestic use of one particularly creepy surveillance technology: stingray cell phone sniffers. The devices act like cell phone towers, forcing all phones within range to connect to them instead of to the phone company’s towers, enabling law enforcement to track people’s locations and even intercept their cell phone traffic. Police departments, the Department of Justice, and the corporation that manufactures the stingray, Harris Corporation, have gone to great lengths to keep secret how often and in what ways law enforcement has been using the tool domestically.

    http://privacysos.org/node/1427
    • Colonial Viper 14.1

      6 June 2014 at 8:21 pm

      Kiev authorities used this technology to identify every phone number in the protest crowd.
15. Bearded Git 15

    6 June 2014 at 11:15 am

    Toby Manhire excellent on climate change in Herald today. It’s here:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11268821

    (Incidentally Herald opinion piece on coat-tailing good today too.)
16. phillip ure 16

    6 June 2014 at 1:24 pm

    i just joined spotify..(i’m a pandora man..myself..)

    ..so i cd listen to a free streaming of the (jimmy page) re-mastered led zeppelin i..ii..and iii

    ..and i gotta say..

    ..fucken-awesome..!

    ..i am on track three of 1..

    ..and already pinned to the wall..
    • minarch 16.1

      6 June 2014 at 2:21 pm

      heres one for the “smokers”
      • joe90 16.1.1

        6 June 2014 at 2:35 pm

        This will make the “smokers” see green too.
        • phillip ure 16.1.1.1

          6 June 2014 at 3:40 pm

          heh..!..i bookmarked that one..

          ..ready/waiting for the law-change..
          • minarch 16.1.1.1.1

            6 June 2014 at 4:31 pm

            mate F**k them AND their laws

            Im bubbling on regardless 😉
17. minarch 17

    6 June 2014 at 2:44 pm

    double trouble bubble 🙂

    good medicine !
    • phillip ure 17.1

      6 June 2014 at 3:45 pm

      chrs 4 that doco-heads-up..good stuff..!

      ..i have put it up @ whoar..
18. karol 18

    6 June 2014 at 3:41 pm

    Cost of the royal visit to tax payers = $1mill+

    Defense force costings for flights provided not yet released:

    Personnel: $425,000

    International travel: $102,000

    Domestic air travel: $81,000

    Accommodation, meals and other travel related costs: $132,000

    Vehicle hire: $108,000

    Government hospitality: $89,000

    General operating costs (including security): $98,000

    Total:$1,035,000
    • Tracey 18.1

      6 June 2014 at 7:40 pm

      Cant think of anything useful it could have been spent on, can you?
19. One Anonymous Bloke 19

    6 June 2014 at 3:49 pm

    Communists Terrorist sympathisers at Vodafone defy government authority, threaten civilisation as we know it.
    • weka 19.1

      6 June 2014 at 8:42 pm

      I don’t get it. Hasn’t the state been able to wiretap phones since the tech was available? What’s different about this?
20. Rosie 20

    6 June 2014 at 3:50 pm

    Baby earthquake in Wellington at 3.48pm?
    • karol 20.1

      6 June 2014 at 3:56 pm

      Reported as 5.1 centred near Ohakune.
      • Rosie 20.1.1

        6 June 2014 at 4:13 pm

        Thanks karol. Not my imagination then, good.

        No great shakes, thats good too.

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10128151/Earthquake-strikes-central-NZ
        • bad12 20.1.1.1

          6 June 2014 at 5:36 pm

          Not felt out in Wellington’s east Rosie…
21. Tiger Mountain 21

    6 June 2014 at 4:14 pm

    IMP short list of candidates not old and left or ex Alliance.
    https://medium.com/@InternetParty/internet-party-candidate-shortlist-31d32b9f28cc
    • weka 21.1

      6 June 2014 at 7:28 pm

      hopefully a post will go up on ts.
    • karol 21.2

      6 June 2014 at 7:40 pm

      Thanks. Fresh, interesting and diverse list. Should bring in some new energy and talents to the political arena. From the info so far, it’s not possible to tell which of them will be the most effective in politcs. I guess they need to get ut there, do some campaigning, interviews, debates,etc.
    • marty mars 21.3

      6 June 2014 at 7:46 pm

      Thanks TM that makes great reading – looking good.
    • veutoviper 21.4

      6 June 2014 at 7:55 pm

      Thanks TG for the list. The IP are holding a final selection meeting tomorrow in Auckland from midday to 6pm to finalise the list down to 10 candidates, I understand. The IP Twitter feed says that this will be live streamed but not sure of the details as this is not stated on Twitter. But I understand that the meeting is open to both members and the public (by ticket) but only members get to vote on the candidates via an app.

      The list is impressive – although it made me feel really old! Very diverse in every aspect, and sxciting even to an old baby boomer!
22. Tracey 22

    6 June 2014 at 5:33 pm

    The herald, hard copy, today didnt put banks on the front page, they put his wife and mrs dotcom.. WTF??!!!??
23. bad12 23

    6 June 2014 at 5:34 pm

    IF i heard this right on the wireless,(RadioNZ National), at 5.30, Vodaphone is about to release information about State agencies from a lot of countries spying on their citizens,

    Am not sure when this is going to occur, should be interesting…
24. Tracey 24

    6 June 2014 at 5:52 pm

    thanks for tnis tiger
25. Ron 25

    6 June 2014 at 7:57 pm

    Latest Roy Morgan looks bad, hopefully things will track up once policies start getting traction.
    • McFlock 25.1

      6 June 2014 at 8:12 pm

      the greens are a campaigning party, and labour will probably do a bit better thi time around
    • Colonial Viper 25.2

      6 June 2014 at 8:19 pm

      As i recently mentioned, the gap between Labour and National is a good 8 points narrower than Sept 2011.
    • bad12 25.3

      6 June 2014 at 9:43 pm

      Have a look at the National Party trend Ron, its all over the place, zooming up and down 5% over any given 3 Roy Morgans,over a 12 week period its a roller coaster,

      Lolz, at worst we might have to cross our fingers and hope election week occurs at the happy convergence of a zooming down point, that is intended as /sarc…
26. karol 26

    6 June 2014 at 9:21 pm

    Read it and weep. An elderly Brit guy from a poor mining background, looks back on his lifetime that saw the rise of the NHS (and hopes of a better, more inclusive society), and then it’s fall.

    Eulogy to the NHS.
    • swordfish 26.1

      6 June 2014 at 11:50 pm

      Thanks, karol. Packs a powerful punch. And the British Medical Association opposed it every step of the way through the 1940s. Meanwhile, the Cameron Government’s not just rivalling but actually surpassing Thatcher.
27. You_Fool 27

    6 June 2014 at 9:23 pm

    Early days yet, but for anyone interested a friend and I are starting a blog and podcast on the upcoming Football World Cup. Posts on Tuesdays and Fridays, with podcasts on Sundays. Our first posts are up, and first podcast will be going up this sunday

    http://9642-comic.tumblr.com/
    • swordfish 27.1

      6 June 2014 at 11:29 pm

      Cheers, Y_F

      Definitely interested. The Beautiful Game at its most beautiful (and, occasionally, most ugly :wink:). The excitement’s building at our house…(well, for me anyway)…
28. RedBaronCV 28

    6 June 2014 at 10:24 pm

    Is it just me wondering why both vodafone and PWC feel compelled to build big new office blocks in ChCH far exceeding any business they may have in the area?. Has Mobie or some one else tossed them a subsidy. If it looks to good to be true … then it probably is
29. xtasy 29

    7 June 2014 at 1:22 am

    The ONLY solution is REVOLUTION, but too few in NZ Aotearoa get it, they rather settle for a private deal with the paymaster and shut up.

    We may need more Indian miners to work the coal mines for a dollar a day to “compete”, I suppose, before the brain washed finally wake up..

    Lots of mercenaries here, and traitors of their own, that keeps the Nats in power.

    SHAME on YOU.
30. xtasy 30

    7 June 2014 at 1:53 am

    Some do not like the conformist anglo saxon media savvy version, here is another one by Thievery Corporation:

    Take a step out of the usual boredom and conformity, you deserve MORE freedom, and that can well be social.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS