|
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 | ||
|
Just checked his fb page it's real Unsurprisingly some people are not particularly happy about it
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Ghostlight posted: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. But what can we do to get it changed? We don't have binding referendums here and even if we did there's no guarantee you'd get enough people behind the idea of restriction-free abortions. It would be nice if there was anything we could do though. The people who have the power to change this stuff either don't care or are too afraid to even go there. Nude Bog Lurker posted:
The worst thing about this is the idea that women should be forced to give birth to a baby so that other people can have one. I doubt many people would be able to give a baby away even if they didn't want it. So those 500,000 babies wouldn't have all gone to loving homes, most of them would have been unwanted and probably not had the easiest lives. It's much nicer to think that for each of those 500,000 abortions a woman didn't have to drop out of high school or uni to care for a baby she didn't want, and instead was able to work on her life and have children when she was ready for them, if at all.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
max key totally a normal middle class person with concerns like house prices. yes totally
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
Max Key looks like he's reeeeeeally lookin forward to the annual Purge
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
RIL: Pretty much the highest level/official painter for the US Military & Department of Defense is a Kiwi guy from humble Hamilton http://www.garyschofield.com/16.html Dude was commissioned for the 9/11 remembrance painting in lobby at Pentagon. buzzy
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Laverna posted:But what can we do to get it changed? We don't have binding referendums here and even if we did there's no guarantee you'd get enough people behind the idea of restriction-free abortions. I think we have to start by being vocal about the idea, and get it into public discourse, because at the moment everyone is kind of happy - women do get the health care they are entitled to as humans (but not entitled to under the law) and society gets to live the comfortable lie that abortions are only done when absolutely necessary according to societies ideals. Because everyone is kinda fairly happy, no one talks about it. It could backfire though and end up with the currant laws being enforced.... Politicians will take into account things like what political capital they can spend, and abortion arguments cost a lot. But the notion of political capital is a fiction they made up, and I don't think it's moral for one to weigh up would else one could do with the political capital they have when one option is treating humans as well humans - the current abortion laws removes a woman's humanity. As far as I am concerned, there is no need for a public debate on what healthcare someone gets, its no one business but my own. Back in the day (at least in america), abortions were performed in GP's offices by GP's who were trained in medical school on how to do them as part of a normal GP practice. EDIT: How do we get it changed? I just don't know. I really don't.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
I wouldn't trust other New Zealanders not to gently caress it up and formalise something worse.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
if the nz abortion laws were changed, which crowd-sourced law would you prefer?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
While it would be nice to clean up our laws just look at what some US states have come up with if you let anyone other than health care professionals decide what is best.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
klen dool posted:I think we have to start by being vocal about the idea, and get it into public discourse, because at the moment everyone is kind of happy - women do get the health care they are entitled to as humans (but not entitled to under the law) and society gets to live the comfortable lie that abortions are only done when absolutely necessary according to societies ideals. Because everyone is kinda fairly happy, no one talks about it. It could backfire though and end up with the currant laws being enforced.... Ratios and Tendency posted:I wouldn't trust other New Zealanders not to gently caress it up and formalise something worse. Yeah, I guess changing something that works just because it doesn't treat women like people whose opinions can be trusted isn't worth the risk, especially if the risk is getting nothing at all. That's kind of our lot though, huh? We have to put up with stuff that dehumanises us because the alternative is worse. But it is kind of embarrassing on an international level to still be a country where abortion isn't legal. And we've only had marriage equality for a few years. What happened to being a proudly progressive country? Was that ever a thing?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Ivor Biggun posted:Bill English is going to solve the housing problem in the upcoming budget. Labour are stepping up to the plate http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11640374 quote:Abolish Auckland city limits - Labour
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
I really wish I didn't feel a little resigned or complacent about the issue but I also can't shake the feeling that under current social conditions any attempt at 'decriminalizing' abortion or legalising away current stigmatized conditions to receive the services could indeed lead to a worse legal regime that what exists. This is actually an issue which can lead to reaction just as much as progress it seems. This is of course deeply unjust. This isn't to say do nothing but in an election year or something else I could see a Labour/Greens sponsored members bill or something being absolutely seized upon and chewed out and leaving a 'worse situation than before' i.e. reform is put off again for a few more years. Imagine homosexual law reform style. I imagine something that ends up happening stemming from a solid bulkhead of reports from medical associations, ACC, other health bodies that still leaves traditional advocates frustrated as arguments like "safe, legal and rare" are trotted out (why does it have to be rare? are we still saying its a bad thing etc.) The best thing I see happening is changing the implicit requirement that a woman be considered to have a mental health issue to receive what most would consider an on-demand abortion but leaving pretty much the entire infrastructure around it intact. Even just changing it to 'a patient receiving full information deeming the abortion and consenting to the procedure, to the satisfaction of two doctors, will be deemed to be carrying out a medically necessary treatment' or something to that effect. Jacobin fucked around with this message at 01:17 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Laverna posted:Was that ever a thing? Lol nope.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
I wouldn't trust a populace that voted in Key thrice to pour water out of a gumboot, much less band together and pressure the government into passing progressive/non-malicious legislation.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Steve Chadwick had a bill on the subject back in 2010:quote:A Labour MP has taken the controversial step of proposing a new law to legalise abortion on request for women up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. And the Greens did raise it as an issue in 2014.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
Laverna posted:What happened to being a proudly progressive country? Was that ever a thing? In school (overseas) we studied New Zealand's role in establishing the eight-hour working day and other now-standard labour norms. That was a while back I guess.  E: also women's suffrage.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
Hahaha, we slipped to nine-hour workdays a few months back, after the smoko bill was put through. We may as well wear white after Labour day.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
Ivor Biggun posted:That's it, really. Labour are stepping up to the plate http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11640374 So really the same solution. [/quote] this is really loving disappointing from Labour but, to be fair, they tried to address the issue and were pretty solidly rejected so I guess you can't blame them
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
Ivor Biggun posted:That's it, really. One day our dreams of consuming Hamilton will come true.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
Found an interesting thing about Benefit Fraud today. In the 2015/16 budget last year there was $49.51m set aside for: quote:Investigation of Overpayments and Fraudulent Payments and Collection of Overpayments (M63) Looking at the MSD website we find that the value of over payments is between $33.7M and $41.9M over the '04-'10 financial years http://statistical-report-2010.msd....einvestigations So my question is why is National spending more money on identifying fraud and reclaiming over payments (in addition to court cases wasting even more money) than they'd ever get back?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Binkenstein posted:
Hmm I wonder.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Is the answer: "Because, gently caress the poor"?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
The value of overpayments in 14/15 was actually $51.7 million - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2799535-MSD-FraudStatistics2015.html - so theoretically they could be reclaiming as much as $2.2 million worth of overpayments, so it's actually out of scope for National's goal of a <1 BCR for all non-business-subsidy expenses.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Gotta make jobs for the mates of your mate's kids, right Key?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/katieabradford/status/735293345497391105
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
Do they still cut your benefit if you move to an area with no job prospects? e: Yes, if you don't have transport to go to nearby areas to work: "A client in this situation must continue to meet the work obligations (if applicable), which include being available for, and taking reasonable steps to obtain, suitable employment. To meet this obligation, a client who moves to a limited employment location must have access to reliable transport and be willing and realistically able to commute to a nearby town or centre where there is employment available." Big Bad Beetleborg fucked around with this message at 09:09 on May 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Maybe we should just round up all the homeless and ship them off to an offshore island that way we'll never have to look at them
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
National's response to criticism over homeless crisis in Auckland is suggest they might actually deliver 2/3rds of their response to criticism over state housing crisis in Auckland. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11577072
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:Maybe we should just round up all the homeless and ship them off to an offshore island that way we'll never have to look at them Quick, tell them they'll get $500 if they pretend to be refugees!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
I have a hard time giving a poo poo about people in general but something about homeless people really badly strikes a chord with me; I find it monstrous that our state apparatus are taking steps to make them go away because they're not a good look. There was a homeless guy near my house who spent months living by the side of a certain road, getting acquainted with people from local businesses & improving his situation by a tiny bit whilst often getting harrased by the cops. A few weeks ago I watched him get shuffled off by the cops, presumably so that gormless fucks gridlocked by the roundabout up the street don't have to put up with him existing next to their german SUV's worth hundreds of times his entire net worth. We live in a loving dark society really 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
I've lived out of a car before (in urban areas) and it's loving dire, I can't imagine how awful it would be being homeless especially with the weather like it is. there is no housing crisis in New Zealand 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
I was under the impression it wasn't so much "Go away and we'll give you money", it was more "Auckland is a shithole and all the state housing here is full, but there are other cities where this is not the case". It's still not much of a solution, mind.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:53
|
|
|
National have always told me that Labour was the commie party of social engineering, yet here we are, one step away from forced resettlement programmes!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
mirthdefect posted:Do they still cut your benefit if you move to an area with no job prospects? There's something oddly Kafkaesque about it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
So if you're too poor to afford a car and petrol and the warranty etc etc, you lose the benefit, but if you have enough income support to manage that you gain government assistance?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
 Sounds about right
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
Isn't that par for the course with UN advancement, though?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Isn't that par for the course with advancement, though?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure I didn't ruin careers to get where I am.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
It's just people airing dirty laundry
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 11:24
|
|