|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
klen dool posted:Yes, I am. Well, I am pondering how illegal it should be. Or under what extenuating circumstances do we as a society forgive infanticide, and are those circumstances the same as if you kill an adult or are they different. I don't believe these questions should be off the table, nor are the currant "common sense" or "obvious". Well you were the one who brought it up unprovoked into an abortion debate. I agreed with what you were posting up to that point when you suddenly turned into an anti-abortion argument's wet dream. Again, where exactly do mother's rights come into it? What is the right you are protecting? If we're talking abortion sure you've got the woman's health, body and personal autonomy to consider but post birth? What is the mother's side on this issue we have to think about?
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
If abortion were to be banned there's always the number 8 wire solution to deal with those little kiwi battlers
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
klen dool posted:Yes, I am. Well, I am pondering how illegal it should be. Or under what extenuating circumstances do we as a society forgive infanticide, and are those circumstances the same as if you kill an adult or are they different. I don't believe these questions should be off the table, nor are the currant "common sense" or "obvious". Post-natal depression and psychosis can drive an otherwise loving mother to kill her children. That should be dealt with in terms of mental health. Whether the current system is able to adequately deal with these situations is another derail worthy discussion.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
I dont know if its relevant/havent seen it mentioned but there is a crime of infanticide still on the books: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329332.html I remember a LAWS101 case study involving the wording "child of hers" and whether that meant strictly biological children (or was it just the particular child in question who had been given birth RE issues following a birth. 101 was a long time ago...)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
newtestleper posted:If abortion were to be banned there's always the number 8 wire solution to deal with those little kiwi battlers
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Varkk posted:Post-natal depression and psychosis can drive an otherwise loving mother to kill her children. That should be dealt with in terms of mental health. Whether the current system is able to adequately deal with these situations is another derail worthy discussion. This is absolutely true but it's also absolutely not what he's arguing
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
I think klen dool should be legally permitted to kill one (1) infant per year, provided said infant is less than one month of age. Those are the only restrictions.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I think klen dool should be legally permitted to kill one (1) infant per year, provided said infant is less than one month of age. Those are the only restrictions. FINALLY someone gets it
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
swampland posted:Well you were the one who brought it up unprovoked into an abortion debate. I agreed with what you were posting up to that point when you suddenly turned into an anti-abortion argument's wet dream. Again, where exactly do mother's rights come into it? What is the right you are protecting? If we're talking abortion sure you've got the woman's health, body and personal autonomy to consider but post birth? What is the mother's side on this issue we have to think about? I think everyone deserves the right to not be a parent if they so choose, at any time they choose to do it - pre or post birth. EDIT: In what way am I an anti-abortionists wet dream? klen dool fucked around with this message at 04:28 on May 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
swampland posted:This is absolutely true but it's also absolutely not what he's arguing Well no I am not arguing specifically for the mental health system to be involved in infanticide cases, but I am not arguing against it, and I would argue for that if that was the argument.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Abortion is banned for any reason other than serious danger to the mother's health. Except that it includes a very broad view of mental health, which in practical terms makes it legal. I agree that it should be made properly legal without need for that reason, but there is access to abortion.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
klen dool posted:I think everyone deserves the right to not be a parent if they so choose, at any time they choose to do it - pre or post birth. Klen dool also has legal right to murder one (1) individual above the age of one but below the age of eighteen per year, provided that prior consent from the legal parent(s)/guardian(s) has been obtained.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
klen dool posted:I think everyone deserves the right to not be a parent if they so choose, at any time they choose to do it - pre or post birth. Certainly I agree with this if it meant your parents were going to exercise their right to post-birth abort you.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
newtestleper posted:Except that it includes a very broad view of mental health, which in practical terms makes it legal. The only difference between our current regime and one that "bans" abortion except for special circumstances like rape etc. is that there is no difference because that's literally what our current regime is. We just have doctors pragmatic enough to not question the legal fiction women have to tell in order to get access to abortions because they know that #8 wire is the alternative.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I just found out this is a thing and I don't know what to think. Apologies if I'm the last person to find out about it. quote:This is uh... slightly racist. Good job NZ
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
FASTEST GIRLS IN THE WORLD
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Also: BEST GOVERNMENT
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:This is uh... slightly racist. Good job NZ it was made in 2018, who knows what will happen between now and then?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
I'm headed up to North America for some WASTE HAMBURGERS Also someone made a towel in 2016 that included BEST GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD as a New Zealand feature so no poo poo it's quite racist.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
I kinda agree that late-term/newborns probably don't have meaningful sentience/personhood and if I put on my philosophy hat that there isn't much difference between them and foetus' that we don't mind aborting but it's a really dumb and pointless thing to actually argue for in public.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Earthquakes: Not in New Zealand!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
MUDDIEST BOILING MUD
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
kris_b posted:Certainly I agree with this if it meant your parents were going to exercise their right to post-birth abort you. Aaaaaaww you hurt my feefees 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Klen dool also has legal right to murder one (1) individual above the age of one but below the age of eighteen per year, provided that prior consent from the legal parent(s)/guardian(s) has been obtained. Klen dool for President, turns out he DOES eat babies
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
MOST ACTIVE VOLCANOES. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:I kinda agree that late-term/newborns probably don't have meaningful sentience/personhood and if I put on my philosophy hat that there isn't much difference between them and foetus' that we don't mind aborting but it's a really dumb and pointless thing to actually argue for in public. Yeah you're probably right, especially since its not safe to do which means it's a moot point. But at some point the follow on argument is be relevant, medicine will create an environment where almost any pregnancy is viable. What happens when we have artificial wombs, and the ability to transfer foetuses from a lady to one of these contraptions? Some poor woman is going to be a month pregnant and she might want an abortion and people will be saying that it's murder because the fetal tissue is viable on the sense that it will grow into a human some day. I'd like our laws to be able to handle that.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
 This was on the cover of this week/month/whatever's North and South. Based on a quick flick though, the story is a profile of moderate/progressive Muslim families, but this is still such a lovely thing to put on the cover (and, as someone pointed out to me, a betrayal of the story's subjects!) - it's perpetuating the idea of Muslims as an external threat to this country, and the use of a headscarf-wearing woman as a shorthand for "scary" radical Islamists is a significant part of the reason they're so frequently targeted by Islamophobes. It's frustrating how they can be portrayed as both passive victims and a threat to our modern way of life.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
emminou posted:
Just got back from the shops wherein I saw that cover, came here to post it, don't need to anymore. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
emminou posted:
There's a trick for Newspaper articles - if the title is a question ("Could New Zealand ever regain its socialist roots?") the answer is inevitably no. With book titles like these, it's usually a variant of 'insignificant'.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:In practical terms abortion is 'legal' in New Zealand, which is to say that actually the large percentage of abortions are illegal but society in general hasn't cared about putting pressure on the doctors to stop interpreting the law broadly when it was obviously written with a narrow intention. The access to abortion that exists in New Zealand is entirely at a doctor's discretion and requires women to affirm that they are literally too mentally unwell to carry a child to term. Thanks for saying this. The idea that women who might be making a sane and rational choice have to declare themselves unfit/unable to carry a pregnancy to term is baffling and incredibly regressive. We have enough social institutions like churches and old fucks to make people feel bad about wanting to terminate an unwanted pregnancy without legislation needing to pick up the slack.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:
Why is there a puppy in this poster?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:In practical terms abortion is 'legal' in New Zealand, which is to say that actually the large percentage of abortions are illegal but society in general hasn't cared about putting pressure on the doctors to stop interpreting the law broadly when it was obviously written with a narrow intention. The access to abortion that exists in New Zealand is entirely at a doctor's discretion and requires women to affirm that they are literally too mentally unwell to carry a child to term. Well, that and they can't charge for the #8 wire treatment.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
Butt Wizard posted:Thanks for saying this. The idea that women who might be making a sane and rational choice have to declare themselves unfit/unable to carry a pregnancy to term is baffling and incredibly regressive. We have enough social institutions like churches and old fucks to make people feel bad about wanting to terminate an unwanted pregnancy without legislation needing to pick up the slack. Can we have 'NZPol: baffling and incredibly regressive' as the next thread title?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
I got a grumpy note in my mailbox today asking if I could please minimise the banging noise in the evening/night time. I have no idea who of my neighbours it is, but I knocked on the ones up against the wall where I have my speakers and they said it wasn't them and they had no problems with any noise from my apartment. Which is good, because I was worried they were going to ask me to stop playing Doom so loudly.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:In practical terms abortion is 'legal' in New Zealand, which is to say that actually the large percentage of abortions are illegal but society in general hasn't cared about putting pressure on the doctors to stop interpreting the law broadly when it was obviously written with a narrow intention. The access to abortion that exists in New Zealand is entirely at a doctor's discretion and requires women to affirm that they are literally too mentally unwell to carry a child to term. I don't have experience with early term abortion but I have had two second trimester terminations (due to serious fetal abnormality) and although doctors have made me aware that the legal reason I had the termination was on the basis of "maternal mental health" I was in NO way required to affirm that I am too mentally unwell to carry the child to term. Statistically these cases are listed both as a termination and a stillbirth (after 20 weeks). All my medical discussions were entirely based on the outcomes for the fetus I was carrying and I was given extensive information, ability to seek independent advice and in no way pressured one way or the other to terminate or to continue pregnancy until the fetus dies naturally (or the baby is born is dies shortly thereafter in our case). I did have to get a second consultant to sign-off after reaching a decision with my own specialist but the main concern of the 2nd doc was whether I fully understood the implication to myself re terminating (i.e. that I would be induced and have to deliver naturally, what labour would entail at that stage of pregnancy, and dealing with after effects such as lactating etc). There were zero questions about whether it was ok for me to have made the decision, whether it was legal or not, or whether the abnormalities were "serious enough". It was 100% my call (and that of my partner). I know things are different for early, first trimester abortions but they don't seem to be difficult to come by either and for later term abortions like mine the current law actually provides a lot of flexibility. There is no rule which says "no after x weeks" where x is determined without context (and in other places results in women not being to "terminate" even if the fetus has died). It's pretty much entirely up to me and my medical team to decide and that flexibility is most welcome. It's worth noting that our legal situation also makes it possible for people to have terminations after 20 weeks due to non-fatal diagnoses, such as Downs Syndrome and similar genetic conditions which I think is great as these diagnoses significantly impact on quality of life for the child and everyone they come in contact with and diagnoses cannot be made conclusively in the first trimester. It is a families' right to choose and theirs alone. It may not be perfect and it may not be officially legal but it certainly works for parents who have had to make hard choices about babies they wanted later in pregnancy - and I've met quite a lot of them after going through this twice.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
The legal reason being "maternal mental health" actually is the affirmation you are too mentally unwell to carry the child to term. As I said, doctors are pragmatic about the legal fiction of this to provide general access to abortion, so you aren't literally signing a document saying you're too hosed up, but that is what the law was written to allow for - it was not written to allow for general access to abortion, which is why the doctor has to declare the reason as "maternal mental health" and not "serious foetal abnormality; abort mission". The only reason we have general access to abortion is because the the law doesn't require anything more than the administering doctor's diagnosis, even though they may not specialise in mental health. Our legal situation is that after 20 weeks you cannot legally terminate for reasons due to non-fatal diagnoses. The only legal terminations after 20 weeks are ones that take place to save the life of the mother or prevent permanent physical or mental harm to her. Again, the intention there is to cover instances of hysterical mental instability, not to cover the "permanent' mental harm of 'having to care for a child with Downs Syndrome'. Our laws absolutely should legally allow this, but they do not. Our society permits the legal fiction required to allow it, but the law does not. There is no reason not to advocate changing our abortion laws to legally permit the actual reality of abortion provision in New Zealand rather than simply relying on the continued non-prosecution of the thousands of actually illegal abortions that happen every year.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
The trouble with the current situation is that the interpretation can be changed based on a policy decision at the DHB level with little to no public consultation. It may be ok in the main centres but in smaller places like Invercargill or Greymouth it can lead to drastically limited access to the procedure. I think in Greymouth at one point there was no one qualified available to perform it and people had to travel to Christchurch. In Invercargill they may have had a department head who opposed it and people had to travel to Dunedin.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 10:15
|
|
|
There's no way this is real.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
If it is, Max Key of all loving people just became my hero
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 10:33
|
|