- Date published:
6:00 am, May 7th, 2022 - 85 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
From the "Whoops I did it again file." It looks like the Russians have lost another ship. This time one of their most modern frigates, the Admiral Makarov.
Insanity has been defined as the act of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. First, it was the Moskva which came within range of Ukrainian missiles. Then it was two patrol boats close to shore taken out by a Ukrainian drone. And, again, the Russians sent the Makarov close to shore to a similar location within the range of Ukrainian neptune missiles again. I wonder if they will keep up the insanity and send another one close to shore.
Thus far, the verified toll against the Russian navy in the Black Sea has been:
1 x landing ship, 2 x patrol boats, 1 x Cruiser, 1x frigate.
All this from a country that doesn't have a navy.
Isn’t it ironic…🎶…that the ship was named after Ukrainian born naval innovator Admiral Stepan Makarov who pioneered research into preventing warships from sinking.
The crew of RTS Moskva (121) was blind to and not ready for the Ukrainian missile attack that sank Russia’s Black Sea flagship, according to a new analysis of the April 13 strike reviewed by USNI News.
The review of images following the strike of the two Neptune anti-ship missiles from open-source naval analyst and retired Navy Capt. Chris Carlson told USNI News that the guided-missile cruiser did not have its fire control radars activated and could not see the threat from the two sea skimming weapons.
In the photo of Moskva after the strike, the radars “are in their normal stowed position,” Carlson told USNI News on Monday.
“If you look at the pictures of Moskva, when she’s just dancing around going from place to place, or she’s anchored as a showboat, those directors are all facing aft every time,” he said.
Is Sinn Fein getting the majority in the Northern Ireland Parliament the equivalent of the Maori Party getting the majority in the New Zealand Parliament?
Local elections 2022: Tories lose hundreds of seats to Labour and Lib Dems; Sinn Féin set to become largest party in NI elections – live (theguardian.com)
There's some real fun in some of these results today.
The bloody people have stolen our election!
Not unless the Maori party has a murderous, bank robbing military wing.
Northern Ireland's two biggest parties Sin Fein and the equally murderous DUP had military wings.
Whoever wins I'll doubt theyll win a majority more likely a plurality but whoever wins .. I hope there's calm and understanding not bloodshed.
Their government MUST be a power sharing between the 2 largest parties.
Having the most seats just means Sinn Fein is is first minister while DUP is the deputy position for government
Still way short of a majority in 90 seat parliament as they may have 27 seats or so.
OK. The gist of this post is simple. If we do not add water capturing earthworks to our catchments we can expect to be left high and dry. No groundwater flow = no hydro power.
I'm quite sick of repeating myself on this, but I will continue. Also, TOLD YOU SO.
The rain cycle used to be that that lost to sea was equivalent to that gained from rain. Now the rains arrive less frequently, and more severely. That lost to sea is continuously increasing. That captured on land is continuously decreasing. It is a compounding problem that arrived very fast since predictions made only a few years back.
How hard is it to admit we can't manage land properly, and correct it.
Get this in your thick government heads or we shall certainly face disaster the likes of which we are utterly unprepared for.
And have a great weekend, HA!
NZ is so complacent about water. We think it's always going to be there no matter what we do. This is some kind of stupid really, given we have the science and history to understand the dynamics you are referring to.
For French specialists: does unifying the French left into a bloc give Melenchon a shot at being Prime Minister?
France: Socialist Party joins leftist coalition against President Emmanuel Macron | News | DW | 06.05.2022
Sadly the left in france will splinter at some time again, so i guess no.
Macrons party is also forming a coalition with other centre right parties too
Insoumise only strong in the Paris region and 2 other low population places .
I dont think forming an election alliance committs them to a parliamentary bloc after the election
Yeah, I know, they're committing crimes but good on them.
I live in a part of Auckland where they are prevalent. Nothing incenses me more than SUVs dominating the streets, the parking lots and generally making life miserable for other road users – not to mention the environmental damage.
Yes those awful SUVs are really the ultimate in self-centred stupidity. They make driving for others risky and unpleasant. They take up too much space and reduce visibility . Worse, it seems from the way drivers often use them, their main purpose is to bully others by tail-gating and dangerous exits from side streets etc.. However, I don't think letting down tyres is a good idea – likely to make them worse!
How might it make them worse, Jan?
By developing 'righteous indignation' and a desire for payback
I agree. thoroughly informal and anecdotal surveys while travelling up and back to Otaki regularly indicate that they are:
Then don't get me started on my partner's view that they are penis extensions for inadequate males…he puzzles over the irony of making a penis extension the 'family' car so the female partner has to collect children from city based sport, activities driving these vehicles.
I am a driver who has worked on the roads for over 26 years. My observations are that there are two main types of people on the road who don't care a monkeys about safety, courtesy, respect for road rules and just plain commonsense – those who drive black cars and those who drive large overpowered SUVs.
I quite agree. What amazed me, watching as I did the whole of the convoy arriving in Wellington for the protest, was how many of these utes/SUVs were in it driven mainly by the scowling demographic that I believe is behind the 'pretty communist' and other misogynistic thoughts/ideas.
Then I look at the tradies I use with their fit for purpose sign written trade vehicles that are much more practical than utes with low canopies. They have no place in towns and cities.
My farmer bro in law believes in many lowland farms they have no place either. On his lowland Southland farm he used a combo of tractor and ancient old station wagons for all his farming ops. Yet the people who rent most of the land as a dairy run-off to a man, and they mostly are all men, need SUVs, Utes to work on the same land. Most have legs just painted on as well.
Vanity not need accounts for much of the growth of Utes/SUVs.
In the Wellington they park right on the street corners and to see the road around them you need to get right out sometimes into the face of oncoming traffic.
Perhaps they could blitz just with the leaflets rather than letting down the tyres tho' I do/did snicker at the thought of the scowling ones being forced to deal with a flat tyre.
… watching as I did the whole of the convoy arriving in Wellington for the protest, was how many of these utes/SUVs were in it driven mainly by the scowling demographic…
So. Those activists were not concealing their faces? Not hiding behind anonymity or a silly pseudonym? For "security reasons" ?
Your anti-SUV saboteurs lack the courage of their convictions. Cowards.
I don't understand this at all so whatever point you are making is lost on me.
I was able to watch the arrival in slow motion as it were and did not expect to see masked people in their cars.
I made comment at the time about these surly Ute drivers in the convoy, usually by themselves, a few with an equally surly mate. Of course at that stage we thought they were all going to make a protest, make a point then away again. As it is now whatever point they were making, and it become very difficult to find a common cause, is remembered only by a riot, fires.
I have no idea whether those letting tyres down were masked, or had a pseudonym.
And still the PM is subjected to macho posturing and innuendo.
I have no idea whether those letting tyres down were masked, or had a pseudonym.
You didn't actually read the article Anne linked to? Then of course you would not have understood what I was referring to.
You decided to bring up the Freedom protest and you chose comment on the scowling ute/SUV drivers you observed as these anti-mandate activists rolled into Wellington. Clearly you could see their faces.
I know some of those people. All are fully committed to the mission, and none would use a false name or hide behind a stupid sounding organisation. Up front and in your face. At least you know who you are dealing with..or perhaps you prefer…
…the activists who let the SUV tyres down who were too cowardly to do so out in the open, and hid behind silly names.
Anonymous activism? Worthless.
(Oh, an as an aside…very seldom, as you will have noticed, did any of the 'river of filth' wear medical masks or face coverings of any kind. 'Filth' that they were.
Only on that last day did there suddenly appear men wearing various full face masks, designed more to conceal their identity rather than protect against viruses or police pepper spray. These were the guys filmed near the first tent that caught fire. No one recalled seeing these guys in the Freedom Village until that morning. Funny that.)
I did read the article.
My comment built on the SUV part. I was amazed by the number of SUV/Utes etc in the convoy. The demographic riding around in Utes/SUVs here in Wellington is much of the same, scowling late 30s/40s males. So I was surprised to see them in the convoy until I realised that they were the anti PM brigade/anti women, rather than strictly anti vax, coming along – the ones that had the 'pretty little communist' type placards in the Groundswell convoys.
So good on them up in Auckland. They have got publicity and they may get a conversation going.
The depth of feeling about vehicles that are unsuitable for city/town traffic is not one that country dwellers will be really aware of. They make getting around much more difficult as sight lines are impeded for other traffic and pedestrians.
So I'm not interested in masks except to studiously wear one, respect others who do, avoid situations or people who do not. I am not interested in who did what in the protest.
In fact the protest and the whole anti vax is the stuff of irrelevance and yawn making to me, now. If I think about the protest at all it is to wonder how NZ got caught up in manufactured protests from overseas and I sometimes indulge in idle speculation about the finances, and 'dark' people behind it. We needed a public health response to a pandemic. We got one. The majority went along with it, some did not.
We have to deal with climate change, it is with us forever. Drawing attention to it is what the SUV protestors and the ones at the Southland coal mine are doing, on my behalf, as a 'ginger' group.
I realised that they were the anti PM brigade/anti women, rather than strictly anti vax, coming along – the ones that had the 'pretty little communist' type placards in the Groundswell convoys. Evidence of this?
…to wonder how NZ got caught up in manufactured protests from overseas err…you do realize that the Tyre Extinguishers are a proud overseas organisation?
How is it that its acceptable for Kiwis to join in protest actions that originate overseas, such as Black Lives Matter, Me Too, Extinction Rebellion, Greenpeace etc…but not in protest action that happens to also have activists in other countries… that is centered around draconian government laws that effectively force people to take an experimental pharmaceutical product with known performance issues and very real adverse effects for far too many people?
For a disease that failed to reach the projected case fatality rates forecast by the modellers?
Closing our borders helped reduce our case load and fatality rates…the so called 'vaccines'…not so much. Double and triple jabbed folk are getting infected at a higher rate than the unvaccinated. An awful lot are still getting sick and still ending up in hospital…at rates not much lower that us filthy unvaxxed, and people jabbed and unjabbed, are still dying with, but not necessarily of Covid.
A Health Ministry, truly committed to Medical Science, would have initiated a study comparing outcomes between eligible unvaccinated and eligible vaccinated. Like the Pfizer Trial… but this time doing an actual Long Term study.
Good that the whole thing is an irrelevance to you now…for some of us the unjustified discrimination still impacts our lives, every day.
Yeah, I know, they're committing crimes but good on them.
Protestors taking such action clearly don't have much between their ears.
We've never had so many EVs in New Zealand or around the world. Yet climate change continues to worsen. The more EVs we buy, the worse climate change gets!
Deflating the tyres of SUVs will have zero effect on climate change, as will buying an EV. We need better protestors.
Interesting further information from the author of a link I posted yesterday….
"We owe thanks to Interest.co. for journalistic bravery.
This article was sent to Newsroom – no acknowledgement, not even a ' no thanks'.
It was sent to Kim Hill, Kathryn Ryan, Bryan Crump and Jim Mora – collectively the journalism end of RNZ. I'm picking there will be no reply, and no coverage (will edit this post should that happen).
My question to all those folk, is this: If this article contains the truth of our predicament (rebuttal invited); how do we describe journalism which avoids the topic? What, indeed, is the difference between silence and falsehood-peddling?"
Thanks for posting Pat. Our media simply ignore some stories. It's not good
Thought experiment: what would happen if NZ grew most of its own food? Not coffee or chocolate or vanilla, but our staples and seasonal produce. We could still export what we we could produce sustainably and regeneratively that we didn’t need. For the experiment assume that enough people were ok with this because they understood the urgency of climate action, and food security, so it didn’t prompt political outrage. Eg maybe we’d had a year of many crop failures globally.
are the issues here mainly trade agreements? Perceptions of government policies interference?
We already do….around 20% of food products are imported, though that may be increasing.
I don't think that it's predominantly trade agreements or government policies preventing people eating home-grown. It's that other countries grow X crops cheaper/better and the economics of shipping them here is viable. And that Kiwis want to eat X crops.
For example, while it's technically possible to grow bananas in NZ (Far North) it's not an ideal climate for them. While Queensland and/or Fiji are ideal banana-growing climates. [And, while Fiji may have cheaper labour, I don't think Australia does – so that's not necessarily a factor]
Growing crops in ideal climates is both quicker and cheaper – and they often taste better (Italian tinned tomatoes are way tastier than kiwi ones). And, while there is a cost of shipping them to NZ – it clearly doesn't outweigh the cost of growing them here.
NZ could live on what we grow. But our choices at the supermarket/greengrocer would be a lot more limited; and probably more expensive (NZ olive oil is way more expensive than Italian, for example)
It's not just the fancy flavourings. Think rice, wheat flour (NZ wheat isn't good for baking), sugar, etc.
…while it's technically possible to grow bananas in NZ (Far North) it's not an ideal climate for them … Commercial banana growing is a thing up here. Bonza
Smaller fruit than the inferior tasting Cavendish variety, the things grow like weeds up here. Our Misi Luki plants have been in for 18 months, and each of the original three plants have large bunches of fruit. Other than removing the excess daughters, (which transplant really well) they get next to no attention. I have papaya trees, (grown from seed) and I'm just beginning to cover them with frost cloth on cold nights. Some commercial blueberry growers up here (often grown in high gro tunnels) are pulling out the blueberries and planting papaya.
We also have coffee growing up here….so its not all avos and citrus.
Much of the produce is sold at Farmers Markets…these guys are not big enough to take on the supermarket duopoly in order to get a fair price.
Bananas grow and fruit all over the show…Whanganui, Gisborne.
Climate change…if we can't beat it…
Well, Rosemary – you live and learn!
I had no idea that commercial banana plantations were a thing up north.
How about sugar cane? IIRC it needs roughly the same climate as bananas – but it may need a bigger area in order to be commercially viable.
I have bananas and sugar cane growing in Riverton 🙂
Good Lord! Outdoors? Or in some form of climate control?
I'd have thought that frost would be a killer for both of them.
In a big tunnel house and out of doors as well. Frost certainly can set them back 🙂 but we have few if any frosts (we're southern but we're coastal). My out of door bananas are Cook Island plantains which are pretty hardy. I have misiluki (Samoan bananas) and others growing in the tunnel house.Thai ginger (galangal) grows readily outside here and has done for many years. Under the cover of plastic, it booms! I have Amarillo fruiting under cover. The plants are 3 or 4 metres tall. Lemons and grapefruit. Fruiting cherry guava, fig, Elephant grass, 5 metres tall (higher than an elephants eye 🙂 Brugmansias throughout the garden. Many of these plants look "scrappy" during the winter months, but bounce back strongly.
That is so cool. I'd love to see it!
You are most welcome to visit. If you are unable to do so, we have a short-film by Happen Films about to be released – I'll let you know when. As well, there is this: An invitation for wildness – our first film about our forest-garden, you might enjoy 🙂
It's worth it.
so there would be no international pressure if a NZ government tried to transition us to eating mostly from what we grow ourselves?
Well, you'd have to define how you'd envisage the 'government transition'.
If they use tariffs to make imported goods more expensive, then you'd fall foul of a whole host of international trade treaties (nuking NZ export trade).
If you give NZ goods a tax cut (e.g. no GST on NZ produce) then I think you run foul of the trade treaties again.
If they require local produce to be sold at a reasonable mark-up (thinking milk & cheese, NZ lamb, etc here) then I *think* they'd be OK with trade treaties (pretty sure France do this…)
If they require mandatory food labelling (and are very specific about what qualifies as NZ produce) – then there's no comeback.
If they run advertising campaigns (hopefully better ones than the disastrous 3 waters) and 3rd party organisations campaign for NZ produce to be promoted – and it becomes patriotic to buy Kiwi – then again no comeback. That's consumer choice.
Remember, that NZ is also vulnerable to the need to export in order to afford imports.
And that many essentials, sugar, rice, etc. are either not grown in NZ or will never be grown in the quantities that Kiwi consumers want them.
Just come across this list of countries which are self-sufficient in food (of course some continue to import – but they don't have to).
Article is from 2014 – so subject to being corrected by later-arriving information.
There's a link in the article to a nice source map – with the relative proportions of imports (NZ at the 30% level)
By and large it tends to be the largest countries which cross a wide latitude which are self-sufficient (wide variety of micro-climates and growing conditions). A fair split between authoritarian and democratic governments – so that's not an obvious factor.
You'd be cutting off revenue to a lot of developing countries that rely heavily on it.
They may be able to get back to growing their own food on their own land, instead of it being taken for growing monocultures, for export for corporate profits, while they have to migrate in desperation to outer city shanty towns.
That depends on the country. Assuming it isn't a totally corrupt one, you can't make infrastructure and healthcare with bananas. And in an increasingly uncertain climate future, some countries may not be able to rely exclusively on domestic agriculture, including our own.
Subsistence farming – which is what you're talking about – with airy assumptions that developing countries will be "able to get back to growing their own food on their own land" isn't really a very attractive modern lifestyle. Especially without the technical support and infrastructure that you need foreign sales to bring in.
No tractors built in Fiji (for example) or diesel to run them. No communications gear (so no phone or IT infrastructure). Little medical infrastructure (apart from the most basic of care), etc., etc.
All of those are 'bought' by the export of commodities (e.g. raw sugar – and, bizarrely, bottled water, in the case of Fiji – who knew? But it it's a money-spinner for them – why take it away?).
No. It is not what I'm talking about.
But keep your simplistic assumptions.
How about you give a real life example of a country which could "get back to growing their own food on their own land" without killing off their external trade and therefore their imports of all the things they are unable to produce.
There have been several examples given in-thread of countries for which this would be disastrous.
Where's your counter example?
Funny that you gave Fiji as an example.. Fiji is one where locals retain ownership of their land.
We will forget about the many places where large scale agriculture, and other resource extraction, benefits a very few, mostly offshore, profit takers, while the locals are forced into poverty and even, starvation!
South American countries were called, banana Republics, for a reason.
There are too many examples to count.
We will also forget about other examples. Such as African grain farmers who lost their livilihoods after being undercut by grain imported from the West.
Believers in the “Free trade” religion, like other believers in “Woo”, ignore the disasters it has caused. Including preventing third world countries from developing the protected internal economies that made Western countries prosperous.
But are you saying Fiji wouldn't be affected though? Also you have a very strange idea of the history of economic development in the West – that prosperity mostly came off the back of centuries of feudalism and imperial conquest.
To help you open your mind away from unthinkingly repeating memes.
Better than a summary “Kicking Away the Ladder” book by Ha-Joon Chang (blinkist.com)
You mean like you're doing?
Confirmed my point.
Can you please give some examples?
Well, in our immediate vicinity, Samoa's economy is largely agricultural exports, fish, and foreign manufacturing. Fiji, which is arguably the most developed economy in the region outside Australia and New Zealand is also a major exporter of sugar cane, coconuts, cassava, rice, sweet potato, bananas, ginger, taro etc. Further afield, Ghana is heavily dependent on exporting cacao.
How does poverty taste? Chocolatey. – Solidaridad Network
There is sufficient ethical production to supply some manufacturers. There really isn't much incentive to continue to improve ethics and sustainability without an export market.
I'd be good with trade with our Pacific neighbours provided it was actually ecologically sustainable (not greenwashed). I don't know if Fijians are being economically forced to cash crop and then can't afford to buy food themselves. Do you?
A sure winner for the government, taxing the company, not the individual. Put the money to helping families over the cost of living until Fair Pay agreements kick in.
Gotta keep the domestic supply going.
What's your point, Joe?
Here's an article from 2006 discussing the baby trade, or "reproductive market", in the US. Fewer abortions may help to make it easier, and cheaper, for couples to become parents. The gay community, in particular, could benefit from fewer abortions.
Presumably the author is setting up a public debate between the ethical and commercial costs of adoption versus the ethical and commercial costs of aborting unborn children.
The US movement against abortion will be seeking to push this kind of contest worldwide through the media, as distinct from the narrow band of international aid and development as they did under Bush.
Abortion laws worldwide: In what countries is abortion legal? (nbcnews.com)
The upcoming abortion argument contest is going to make the Trans debate look like a very, very small thing in comparison.
gee, I wonder what both those things have in common.
I don't think so, Ad. Firstly, discussing rights for women, while reframed as a trans debate, is more of a maintaining of boundaries. However, the infiltration of institutions, companies and schools, and the negative effect on children and young people has meant that more people are getting interested in exploring past the #NoDebate edicts. That's going to take a while.
The abortion debate has never been hampered by #NoDebate tactics, and those who want to be informed will have plenty of opportunities to do so, with articles and television broadcasts from both sides.
It will be interesting to see on TS which of the male commentators will be able to demonstrate their knowledge of the aspects of the abortion topic.
Women aren't brood mares producing a fucking commodity to be traded.
useful I guess to hear it said outloud.
shh, you need to get on with times
They are birthing bodies with unproductive uteruses that need to be put to work. And yes, quite a few people are not at all fussed by the idea that birthing bodies are nothing more then bipedal gestation units for lease and profit, to be hired and discarded at will.
There will be a future were fertile wombs will be told by WINZ that if they need a job they could gestate a human being for a paying third party. Its like slavery but kind and inclusive.
Women aren't brood mares producing a fucking commodity to be traded.
Thats an opinion rather than fact. Adoption has been around for quite a while, and to a lesser extent surrogacy and IVF. What benefits have these brought parents-to-be and wider society? Where would we be without these options?
Ross, are you expressing the opinion that women are brood mares?
I was commenting on Joe’s opinion. To repeat: adoption has been around a while and to a lesser extent surrogacy and IVF. Do the existence of each of these imply or suggest that women are broodmares? I wouldn’t have thought so but you may disagree.
Similarly, should men be allowed to sell sperm? What are the pros and cons of allowing such a transaction?
Commercial surrogacy treats women like brood mares, yes.
have you ever given birth Ross? Do you have *any sense of what that process involves for women, and why many of us don't want to go through it unnecessarily.
they really don't care.
did you see this?
Can't have motherday now that 'men' give birth.
There was a slogan a while back in regards to the violence against women. 'She is not your therapy'. I guess the woke left saw that and decided that 'She is your therapy' was the correct way to go forward.
So a man is telling us to stop calling mothers mothers. Not hidden agenda there.
Probably the most disturbing thing about that is the degree to which society (looking at you liberals) think that we should centre people with mental health distress (gender dysphoria) and base our cultural practices on what they want. And invent whole new sets of language to do that. Have we lost our goddamn minds?
The left have had all those years of screaming "TERF" at us when we said that biological sex existed and was important. Meanwhile the right wingers in the reality based world where biological sex not only exists but functions as a weapon to control women were organising and strategising for this victory. You cannot identify out of this one kiddies – enjoy your pronouns.
Have we lost our goddamn minds? I'm surprised you need to ask.
it was rhetorical 😈
As has been discussed previously, abortion is not an absolute right. Similarly, people who chose (perhaps sensibly) not to be vaccinated against COVID-19 apparently didn’t have the right to choose. I imagine that losing their job and possibly their home was quite inconvenient and upsetting.
As English author Julian Barnes once said: we can have our cake and eat it. The trouble is, we get fat.
rights are granted and taken away by society. In that sense no-one has an absolute right to anything.
I see you ignored my point about the impact on women of unnecessary pregnancy, childbirth and post-partum.
There are costs and benefits to any course of action. Your focus is on the costs while ignoring the benefits. The costs of IVF are discussed above. Some of those costs are born by taxpayers. Should that be the case? Maybe society thinks the benefits outweigh the costs.
do you consider birthing bodies to be even human?
Given how little you appear know about the difference between producing a child and producing sperm – "Similarly, should men be allowed to sell sperm?", I'm trying to gauge where your level of knowledge is on this topic.
1. a) What are the possible negative effects (physical, financial, social, psychological) of producing sperm on the male body?
b) What are the possible negative effects (physical, financial, social, psychological) of pregnancy on the female body?
c) Which one of these two will have an ongoing effect after production?
"Fewer abortions may help to make it easier, and cheaper, for couples to become parents. The gay community, in particular, could benefit from fewer abortions."
The quotes you provided specifically talk about women's bodies in production lines terms, and a child as a commodity.
There is a conversation to be had about the provision of IVF, and adoption. If you have spent time investigating adoption you may find that regardless of the care and love provided by adoptive parents, a significant percentage of adoptees have had disrupted lives due to their emotional reaction to their adoptive status.
But I'd be interested in hearing what you understand of the possible costs of pregnancy, just to get started.
Given how little you appear know
That's never a great start to a discussion lol.
a significant percentage of adoptees have had disrupted lives due to their emotional reaction to their adoptive status.
Yep life isn't fair. I'm sure a significant percentage of adoptees from Ukraine have had more than disrupted lives given that both of their biological parents may be dead. We should stop the war there.
What are the possible negative effects (physical, financial, social, psychological) of pregnancy on the female body?
What are the positive effects of pregnancy on the female body?
The quotes you provided specifically talk about women's bodies in production lines terms, and a child as a commodity.
A woman who makes a logical and well-thought out decision to have one or more babies may be nothing more than a production line? That's fairly insulting towards women who wish to be a surrogate or to place their child for adoption. It suggests that they are incapable of making good decisions about their own body. That sort of attitude may be behind the (interim) decision to overturn Roe v Wade.
Actually, it was a thinly veiled suggestion to go away and inform yourself before participating further. Sometimes it is clear that a comment is made from someone who hasn't explored the topic before submitting their reckons. This was one such time.
Now I've seen your reply, I still don't rate it highly, because it is a simplistic – and therefore basic understanding of what is being discussed.
"A woman who makes a logical and well-thought out decision to have one or more babies may be nothing more than a production line? That's fairly insulting towards women who wish to be a surrogate or to place their child for adoption. It suggests that they are incapable of making good decisions about their own body. That sort of attitude may be behind the (interim) decision to overturn Roe v Wade."
That position assumes that there are no forms of coercion, or exploitation of women' bodies happening. If you know of such a place, do tell.
If women are in a tenuous or vulnerable position, and have choices other than adoption or surrogacy, and still choose them, then I'd say that choice is fairly autonomous, but still not without harm. Given that the majority of women in commercial surrogacy are there for financial relief or in desperate circumstances – I'd say there is something else occurring other than autonomy. There are also knock on social effects – on the child, the purchasing parents, and the wider community, that need to be recognised and assessed for harm.
But I’m game to learn of a different perspective, so have at it, what are the "positive effects of pregnancy on the female body?"
(I know of a couple, but would be interested in seeing your list, since you seem to want to avoid any mention of the negative effects that IIRC were not limited to physical, but included social, financial, psychological.)