Going to be very close
Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill has passed the second reading by 70 votes to 51. The breakdown by party was:
Labour 49-0
National 6-42
NZ First 3-4
Greens 6-0
Maori 4-0
United 1-2
ACT 0-2
Prog 1-0
Field 0-1
But it could be very very close when the Borrows amendment is considered. I understand the six National MPs who voted for the bill will vote for the amendment. That changes it to 64-57.
Now it all comes down to the NZ First and United Future MPs who voted in favour. Peter Dunne, Brian Donnelly, Doug Woolerton and Barbara Stewart. If all four of them vote for the Borrows amendment then it is 60-61 or rather the amendment passes 61-60.
Bradford is saying she will withdraw the bill if the amendment is passed, but that’s an expected threat.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:43 am
I was in Parliament for Brian Donnelly’s speech this evening – it was an excellent speech (as were most I heard – ‘though I didn’t hear everyone). I cannot see Donnelly supporting Borrows’ amendment.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:00 am
This Bill needs examining.
1. A recent poll, available here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10333802
states that more than 70% of NZ’ers support the use of using reasonable force when disciplining their children.
The report goes onto say that supporters of the Bill say that the poll result is due to a lack of understanding and a fear by parents that parents would be prosecuted for smacking their children.
It is all well and good to assert a lack of understanding, but you have to demonstrate exactly what the lack of undestand is before it is established. Further, while it is clearly beyond police resources to prosecute for every offence that occurs if this Bill is passed, it is safe to say that some prosecutions will happen that haven’t happened before. For that I would have the utmost sympathy for those parents. As usual the truth will lie somewhere in between.
2. Hitting children is unreasonable, and, is illegal today. This Bill does not change that legal situation in any sense. The Bill’s proponents have consistently said that hitting is wrong which really is side-stepping the issue at hand: is reasonable force wrong?
Finally a last comment on the Bill in its current form. It does not repeal section 59, but instead replaces it with another new section 59. This new section 59 allows reasonable force in the day-to-day management of children, but explicitly outlaws the use of any force in the correction of children. That is, instead of leaving a legal vacuum, it makes it an offence to correct your children. This actually is one step further and conceivably a worse Bill than the original form of the Bill (a Bill I disagreed with anyway). To outlaw a parents ability to correct their child represent State intrusion right into the relationship between the parents and their children. I can’t see how parents can correct their children with “reasonable force” legally (which is of course “force” as the Bill currently stands).
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:28 am
ACT is the only party 100% against this crazy bill. Vote ACT! I note Phillip Field is already voting the opposite of Labour. That was quick.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:20 am
David, Peter Dunne may well vote for the amendment, as definately two of the three NZ First MP’s will. The amendment may fail by one. Then we`ll see if the two NZ First MPs vote for the bill.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:23 am
The maori party votes will be critical in my view and no-one seems to have analysed that. I can see the Labour Party placing pressure there and no doubt they will be consulting their people. Mild correction of children by maori parents is quite common, I see it all the time so let us see where this goes.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:26 am
Ive analysed the Maori party vote.
Mathew – who cares what the public think about physical discipline now – its irrelevant whether they think 1 percent or 100 percent should smack their kids. Politicians in these issues have no regard for what the electorate thinks unless it is political suicide.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:30 am
Ive analysed the Maori party vote.
Mathew – who cares what the public think about physical discipline now – its irrelevant whether they think 1 percent or 100 percent should smack their kids. Politicians in these issues have no regard for what the electorate thinks this far into the political process unless it is political suicide.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:03 am
Bradford is confident it will pass, so presumably this is based on Donnelly as Graeme suggests.
If so the amendment goes down 60-61.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:02 am
Phillip Field was going to vote against even if he was still in Labour, he would not have been whipped so as he can represent his constituents views on this bill/
It was a great feeling in the gallery last night as it was passed, Simon Power for some reason was also sitting in the gallery?
I fully support Sue’s bill and hope that it will get passed and we can hopefully see some much needed critical changes in NZ about they way we discipline children, and even if this does not pass I am sure that it has certainly raised questions in parents minds about alternative ways to discipline their children rather than relying on smacking
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:03 am
Doug Woolerton responded yesterday (after several months) to my email appealing for him to oppose the bill. He says he will support it.
I say to him, “Is this the contribution to NZ that you want to be remembered for? Criminalising parents who pay their taxes, obey the road rules, respect policeman, and who vote in elections? (And who love their children, and choose to correct them with a smack.)”
I AM NOT A CRIMINAL.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:25 am
Who were the National MPs who supported the bill last night?
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:01 am
Chester Burrows
Jackie Blue
Katherine Rich
Paula Bennett
Simon Power
Paul Hutchison
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:20 am
I fully support a parent’s right to discipline/raise their child the way they see fit, even if I disagree with it. That’s why I’m on the Right not the Left. There are families out there with different beliefs to you, different sets of rules, different backgrounds; and what’s unacceptable (harmful, injurious) is already illegal.
So, where’s the Left’s sense of diversity and cultural tolerance? Aren’t “White” Western practices cultural also? The Left happily guts its own society whilst making excuses for radical Muslim revolutionaries…. They’re weak on defending Western civilisation because that’s an unfortunate interruption of their real agenda: social engineering society according to their totalitarian views, as in this bill penned by an imbecile.
Btw, Sue Bradford: Abortion is the ultimate form of child abuse. Unfortunately feminist pagans like you flushed the scientific facts down the toilet.
(As Sir William Liley – a NZer – said, “For a generation which reputedly prefers scientific fact to barren philosophy, we might have thought this new information would engender a new respect for the welfare and appreciation of the importance of intra-uterine life. Instead, around the world we find a systematic campaign clamoring for the destruction of the embryo and fetus as a cure-all for every social and personal problem. I, for one, find it a bitter irony that just when the embryo and fetus arrive on the medical scene there should be such sustained pressure to make him, or her, a social nonentity.”)
The pagans must have their child sacrifice even as they rob parents, ostensibly For The Children, of their rights – the true goal of this bill. The UN – that hotbed of feminist freaks and dictators – is the main source of these ideas. The goal of the international socialists is literally to grant children the same rights as their parents.
As I write in my blog about the UN:
“Common sense should tell us: that children are not adults and therefore won’t be in control of themselves even if they were granted such rights and privileges. (Any parent will tell you that!) Children are simply too immature to exercise such “rights”. That situation, with parents out of the way, will thus require State control. This is the true goal of the [UN Convention on the Rights of the Child]. Children’s rights are just the excuse.”
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:26 am
NZers voted for this. They want this bunch of jerks called politicians running their lives. They’re getting what they asked for by continuously voting for expansion of government, greater power to government and increasing numbers of politicians. What other result could they rationally expect???
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:17 am
Hello John,
You have a hell of a lot of balls to call abortion child abuse.
I am not even going to bother with your male brain over this issuse, as you will NEVER be in the position where you have to make such a decision. You can not imagine the position that that woman feels in when she has to make such a tough decision. I’m sorry but bringing an unwanted baby into the world, or a baby which is not going to have adequate living conditions is child abuse, termination is NOT.
I would not be suprised if you are from Family First where your children actually ask to be punished, and beating the shit out of them for 15 minutes or longer is what you class as discipline because they deserve it. Go and play with your crazy religious fundamentalist friends and leave your stupid arguments off here
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 am
Touched a nerve there, welly_girl. I agree with John. It’s inconsistent to, on the one hand advocate saving whales and banning smacking, and on the other hand encourage killing off old people and “unwanted” babies.
Actions have consequences. If someone decides that they cannot raise a child, there are many couples that are desperate to adopt.
(And it does the believability of your arguments no favours when you resort to presumptuous and vituperative accusations.)
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
welly_girl – if you don’t want the responsibility of raising a child, don’t open your legs.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
(And it does the believability of your arguments no favours when you resort to presumptuous and vituperative accusations.) Oh dear…..tell that to the people who continually abuse labour cabinet ministers……
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:50 pm
dmw, i know there are plenty of people who want to adopt but carrying a baby for nine months is a huge responsibility and an extremely emotional journey.
Then once you actually give birth you have the anguish again of then having to put the baby up for adoption.
They day any of you are in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy I will not feel the slightest bit sorry for you – just the child that you will be bringing into the world!
I don’t encourage killing off old people and nor do I go around spreading the word of termination, however a woman has that right and it is a right she deserves.
Battler – you don’t have to not open your legs to not get pregnant, its called contraception but chances are you probably don’t believe in that, or even sex before marriage.
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Hi Welly Girl,
unfortunately most of your argument around abortion involve yourself, which is partially indicative of the selfish generation that we live in, in the West.
Start thinking about others, including the unborn child and get a better perspective.
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Matthew,
Do you know the hurt that some adopted children feel when they find out they are adopted – this is why so many try to find their birth parents. Termination helps prevent this pain.
Termination stops a baby being seen as a “mistake” by its parents, and therefore it may not be loved to the extent that it deserves.
Termination stops innocent babies being born into situations of domestic violence, or a family life where it will not receive everything it needs to have a decent life.
Termination stops the babies that find themselves in unsatisfactory conditions becoming wards of the state and placed in CYFS homes.
Do not tell me that termination is a selfish thing, when you or a friend of yours has to go through such a life changing decision, I hope some tells you that you are a selfish human being because thats just one factor that would be going through your mind already.
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I must remember to tell my oldest sister that termination would have been the best option for her rather than the adoption that took place.
She did suffer some ‘issues’ as a result of her adoption, but I can assure you that she is glad as hell to be alive.
The rest of her family are too, btw, both adoptive and original.
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Perhaps we should allow CYFS to remove babies who are at risk of abuse and neglect from their mother’s wombs? Hey, after home invasion, womb invasion is the next logical step.
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
How many people leave this country in any given week these days? Wonder why.
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
This bill is another classic of politians NOT listening to the voters. They are a law to themselves, that we are paying dearly for. We need to wake them up by not voting for anyone at the next election.
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
This bill is another classic of politians NOT listening to the voters. They are a law to themselves, that we are paying dearly for. We need to wake them up by not voting for anyone at the next election.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Bill Ralston once advised that we keep away from the polls because voting “just encourages them”.
Not voting, however sane a suggestion, won’t discourage them either, Graham.
If anything, it will leave us open to being labled “apathetic” when the real term is DISAFFECTED.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Welly_girl:
>Termination stops a baby being seen as a “mistake” by its parents, and therefore it may not be loved to the extent that it deserves.
Many of our politicians are “unloved”. Perhaps they should be terminated to avoid that. Don’t be ridiculous. (Disclaimer for the benefit of SIS, Police, Google, etc — I am NOT advocating assassinatng anybody. This is called hyperbole.)
> Termination stops innocent babies being born into situations of domestic violence, or a family life where it will not receive everything it needs to have a decent life.
So you would advocate murdering child born with birth defects, because they will not have “a decent life”. Who are you to decide?
> Termination stops the babies that find themselves in unsatisfactory conditions becoming wards of the state and placed in CYFS homes.
Why not save money and have CYFS shoot them, rather than take them into “care”? That would also avoid them finding “themselves in unsatisfactory conditions”!
You are setting yourself up as judge and executioner. It is NOT YOUR LIFE that you are deciding about. It is another human being.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:07 pm
dmw:You are setting yourself up as judge and executioner. It is NOT YOUR LIFE that you are deciding about. It is another human being.
It isn’t a human being.
And by the way the argument that you can eliminate the need for abortion by means of increased adoption ignores the fact that birth can cause health problems for the mother. Sometimes permanant or even lethal ones.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Getting back to the original story I have a couple of questions about this bill.
1 Who is going to do the investigations, the police are so stretched now they will not come to a house burglary anymore or sonme new government department which is going to sink a shit load of money
2 What is going to happen to the children while the investigation goes on as they can not be allowed to stay with the abusers, are we going to be opening up orphanage like organisations to cope with all the kids
3 Even if a parent is found guilty what happens then.
Has this really been thought through and how is it goig to b implemented
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
dnw said: ‘Termination stops innocent babies being born into situations of domestic violence, or a family life where it will not receive everything it needs to have a decent life.
So, you would advocate murdering child born with birth defects, because they will not have “a decent life”. Who are you to decide?
dnw. I have a hunch that you might be a male..? So, how many millions of sperm have you ‘murdered’, masturbating god-knows-where?
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 pm
welly_girl,
why would I want to sleep with some woman who has had another dirty man’s hands and body all over her, takes a cocktail of pills that mess with her reproductive system and/or has had a baby sucked out of her, chopped up and taken away in a doggy bag, when I can be with a woman who actually values herself and her body and sees new life as miracle to be cherished, not an inconvenience to be terminated?
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Gee Welly girl – you managed to bring all the 17th century roaches out of the woodwork didn’t you?.
Its your life girl you have the right to do what you want with it.
To all those commenting here who would like to make the decisions for woman about their bodies and lives I suggest you read Freakanomics for yet another reason why abortion should be legal worldwide.
Also if any of you respond to this comment could you please state any religious affilations you have before or after your post, just so I know who I’m dealing with.
Thanks CL
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:19 pm
ChickenLittle
Of course people can make their own decisions.
The flip side of that is they get to lie in the beds they make for themselves….
‘Women’ who get drunk on a regular basis, sleep around with any guy that shows interest in them physically, pop birth control pills like vitamins, abort babies as though it’s no more serious than brushing their teeth, and act in a generally selfish way shouldn’t moan about the sorts of ‘Men’ they attract and the ‘Lives’ they end up with in their 30′s and 40′s.
Birds of a feather stick together. Good luck to them.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Ok Battler. Lets play spot-the-difference and slightly re-word your statement….
Of course people can make their own decisions.
The flip side of that is they get to lie in the beds they make for themselves….
‘Men’ who get drunk on a regular basis, sleep around with any woman that shows interest in them physically, carries condoms, like vitamins, pay to abort babies as though it’s no more serious than brushing their teeth, and act in a generally selfish way shouldn’t moan about the sorts of ‘woman’ they attract and the ‘Lives’ they end up with in their 30′s and 40′s.
Birds of a feather stick together. Good luck to them.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:08 am
You have to laugh.
Because if I didn’t laugh at the absolute ignorance of some of the people that comment on this blog, I would probably cry.
I find it highly entertaining that the same guy who is saying how *evil* abortions are – makes the comment about “popping birth control pills like vitamins”.
Let me guess – you don’t believe in sex before marriage and believe birth control is wrong?
Hey – I’ve got a great idea. Why don’t we all have about 10 children that we can’t afford – and see what kind of abuse comes out of that?
Seriously. I shouldn’t respond to this kind of shite, because thats exactly what it is.
I actually just feel so sorry for the people who actually believe this. And even more sorry for their children who have to grow up hearing this crap.
xx K
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
“Also if any of you respond to this comment could you please state any religious affilations you have before or after your post, just so I know who I’m dealing with.”
This is attacking the person, not the arguement. Its odd how pro-abortionists attack opponents as religous fundamentalists, but rarely try and bring their own religous views into the debate.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:36 pm
That’s ‘cos most pro-abortionists don’t have any religion….
But on a slightly different note:
1. Sue Bradford made the choice not to slap. Good for her. Thing is, it was her choice and was not foisted upon her at the point of a law by the state. She is now removing that choice from other parents in the face of overwhelming opposition to her bill from the electorate. That is a measure of the social engineering arrogance of the left wing.
2. Do the left seriously think this is going to deal to NZ’s child abuse problem? It smacks of their one size fits all mentality and their inability to go after trouble makers in these situations. NZ law as it stands now is opposed to child murder. Unfortunately the drug-taking, drinking, abusive parental misfits who currently beat their kids to death, don’t have any regard for the law. Do the promoters of this bill really feel that changing some words somewhere in a statute book is going to deter those who are currently engaged in beating kids to death? Labour used the same kind of thinking to pass their dog microchipping bill. Unfortunately, the type of people who don’t register thir dogs now, already a requirement under the old legislation, won’t front up to microchip them either.
3. To those who have a great deal of faith in the ability of our police force to correctly select and prosecute those who are beating their children without victimising and traumatising innocent families, well think again. In the last several years, the NZ police have systematically pursued destructive prosecutions in any number of cases where they wound up further stressing and traumatising the real victims of a crime. The case of the Auckland gun shop owner who was dragged off to court by the NZ police for defending himself and his staff from a machete wielding criminal springs to mind. The top brass of the NZ police have been infected to such an extent with left wing political dogma and social engineering baggage that they can no longer be relied upon to make correct decisions in these cases. Additionally, investigating and prosecuting such cases will further drag resources away from demoralised, overworked frontline police who cannot now respond to serious crime such as burglary with any alacrity.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:39 pm
That’s ‘cos most pro-abortionists don’t have any religion….
But on a slightly different note:
1. Sue Bradford made the choice not to slap. Good for her. Thing is, it was her choice and was not foisted upon her at the point of a law by the state. She is now removing that choice from other parents in the face of overwhelming opposition to her bill from the electorate. That is a measure of the social engineering arrogance of the left wing.
2. Do the left seriously think this is going to deal to NZ’s child abuse problem? It smacks of their one size fits all mentality and their inability to go after trouble makers in these situations. NZ law as it stands now is opposed to child murder. Unfortunately the drug-taking, drinking, abusive parental misfits who currently beat their kids to death, don’t have any regard for the law. Do the promoters of this bill really feel that changing some words somewhere in a statute book is going to deter those who are currently engaged in beating kids to death? Labour used the same kind of thinking to pass their dog microchipping bill. Unfortunately, the type of people who don’t register thir dogs now, already a requirement under the old legislation, won’t front up to microchip them either.
3. To those who have a great deal of faith in the ability of our police force to correctly select and prosecute those who are beating their children without victimising and traumatising innocent families, well think again. In the last several years, the NZ police have systematically pursued destructive prosecutions in any number of cases where they wound up further stressing and traumatising the real victims of a crime. The case of the Auckland gun shop owner who was dragged off to court by the NZ police for defending himself and his staff from a machete wielding criminal springs to mind. The top brass of the NZ police have been infected to such an extent with left wing political dogma and social engineering baggage that they can no longer be relied upon to make correct decisions in these cases. Additionally, investigating and prosecuting such cases will further drag resources away from demoralised, overworked frontline police who cannot now respond to serious crime such as burglary with any alacrity.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:39 pm
That’s ‘cos most pro-abortionists don’t have any religion….
But on a slightly different note:
1. Sue Bradford made the choice not to slap. Good for her. Thing is, it was her choice and was not foisted upon her at the point of a law by the state. She is now removing that choice from other parents in the face of overwhelming opposition to her bill from the electorate. That is a measure of the social engineering arrogance of the left wing.
2. Do the left seriously think this is going to deal to NZ’s child abuse problem? It smacks of their one size fits all mentality and their inability to go after trouble makers in these situations. NZ law as it stands now is opposed to child murder. Unfortunately the drug-taking, drinking, abusive parental misfits who currently beat their kids to death, don’t have any regard for the law. Do the promoters of this bill really feel that changing some words somewhere in a statute book is going to deter those who are currently engaged in beating kids to death? Labour used the same kind of thinking to pass their dog microchipping bill. Unfortunately, the type of people who don’t register thir dogs now, already a requirement under the old legislation, won’t front up to microchip them either.
3. To those who have a great deal of faith in the ability of our police force to correctly select and prosecute those who are beating their children without victimising and traumatising innocent families, well think again. In the last several years, the NZ police have systematically pursued destructive prosecutions in any number of cases where they wound up further stressing and traumatising the real victims of a crime. The case of the Auckland gun shop owner who was dragged off to court by the NZ police for defending himself and his staff from a machete wielding criminal springs to mind. The top brass of the NZ police have been infected to such an extent with left wing political dogma and social engineering baggage that they can no longer be relied upon to make correct decisions in these cases. Additionally, investigating and prosecuting such cases will further drag resources away from demoralised, overworked frontline police who cannot now respond to serious crime such as burglary with any alacrity.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
That’s ‘cos most pro-abortionists don’t have any religion….
But on a slightly different note:
1. Sue Bradford made the choice not to slap. Good for her. Thing is, it was her choice and was not foisted upon her at the point of a law by the state. She is now removing that choice from other parents in the face of overwhelming opposition to her bill from the electorate. That is a measure of the social engineering arrogance of the left wing.
2. Do the left seriously think this is going to deal to NZ’s child abuse problem? It smacks of their one size fits all mentality and their inability to go after trouble makers in these situations. NZ law as it stands now is opposed to child murder. Unfortunately the drug-taking, drinking, abusive parental misfits who currently beat their kids to death, don’t have any regard for the law. Do the promoters of this bill really feel that changing some words somewhere in a statute book is going to deter those who are currently engaged in beating kids to death? Labour used the same kind of thinking to pass their dog microchipping bill. Unfortunately, the type of people who don’t register thir dogs now, already a requirement under the old legislation, won’t front up to microchip them either.
3. To those who have a great deal of faith in the ability of our police force to correctly select and prosecute those who are beating their children without victimising and traumatising innocent families, well think again. In the last several years, the NZ police have systematically pursued destructive prosecutions in any number of cases where they wound up further stressing and traumatising the real victims of a crime. The case of the Auckland gun shop owner who was dragged off to court by the NZ police for defending himself and his staff from a machete wielding criminal springs to mind. The top brass of the NZ police have been infected to such an extent with left wing political dogma and social engineering baggage that they can no longer be relied upon to make correct decisions in these cases. Additionally, investigating and prosecuting such cases will further drag resources away from demoralised, overworked frontline police who cannot now respond to serious crime such as burglary with any alacrity.
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
You have to laugh.
Yes I would laugh at the millions of babies flushed into our sewer systems all over the world every year. Where do you get your laughs from?
Because if I didn’t laugh at the absolute ignorance of some of the people that comment on this blog, I would probably cry.
Let’s see what ignorance means. It means being ignorant of the effect of something. Support of abortion is exactly that – being unaware of the effect of killing the unborn babies life as you never see its face as it dies or heart stop beating as its body is cut up and dismembered inside the womb. I hope that makes you cry because if it doesn’t, you simply have a hard heart towards the baby.
I find it highly entertaining that the same guy who is saying how *evil* abortions are – makes the comment about “popping birth control pills like vitamins”.
Let me guess – you don’t believe in sex before marriage and believe birth control is wrong?
That’s right, change the topic. Let’s focus on the actual issue which is the killing of a human being.
Hey – I’ve got a great idea. Why don’t we all have about 10 children that we can’t afford – and see what kind of abuse comes out of that?
How about this for an idea – being responsible and bringing as many children into the world as is wise. Sure a mistake can happen, but as my old boss said, there are two things that you can give to your child and they will turn out fine: enough love and enough time spent with them.
Seriously. I shouldn’t respond to this kind of shite, because thats exactly what it is.
Name-calling again, don’t bother responding with arguments will you.
I actually just feel so sorry for the people who actually believe this. And even more sorry for their children who have to grow up hearing this crap.
I feel sorry for the amount of times you are having sex, as you mentioned on your own blog site.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:25 am
I actually think the “actual issue” was about the anti-smacking bill.
Oh Matthew —
How this became a debate about abortion I have absolutely no idea.
My personal view on abortion though is clear. I 100% support a womens right to choose. Her body, her choice.
I am extremely thankful that those birth control pills that I pop like vitamins – mean that I have never had to make this choice. As I personally think it must be just about the hardest thing a women can ever do.
Which I don’t think that you as a man could ever ever appreciate. And given I have never been in the situation myself, I don’t think I can even truly appreciate how hard it must be.
I’m not entirely sure what the amount of times I am having sex has to do with anything. In fact, I’m really not sure why you bothered reading any part of my blog or how much of my blog you must have read to discover how little or how much sex I am having. I must be absolutely everything that you dislike in a female surely? Hmmm lets see – I am a sexually active single female. I like sex. Actually, I love sex. I use birth control and condoms. I believe I have a purpose in life beyond having sex with my husband and making babies.
Hmmmmm
February 24th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
ok, moralising over someone elses life is not going to convince them one iota to change their ways in line with yours. Matthew, Battler et al. -You come across as a holier than thou ‘pricks’ to be blunt. You may well be ‘right’, but the fact is, its pointless being ‘right’ if noone else buys it -in fact the manner of your arguments force people to oppose your view. Try a different tactic nay?
And this is exactly what this law is about. Someone moralising on how others should live their lives. It wont convince people who ignore the law anyway to change their ways, just make those people who respect the law feel more alienated by it.
I was smacked as a kid when i stepped out of line, and I grew up in a loving family that set reasonable boundaries. I know many other people who can say the same. I also know families where the kids run riot, have no boundaries and are a real headache for their drop-kick parents. Frankly, we all know families like this dont we… sad but true.
Its all been said already here between the (stupid) arguments… Damn politicians meddling with laws that dont need changing just to make themselves feel important.
election year cant come soon enough i fear.
February 24th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Hi KiwiGirl,
h Matthew —
How this became a debate about abortion I have absolutely no idea.
I’ll let you know. People who support Bradford’s Bill say they are against ‘violence’ against children. They then overlook violence against babies who are unborn. See the contradiction?
My personal view on abortion though is clear. I 100% support a womens right to choose. Her body, her choice.
Really – so you are asserting that the baby is your body. So you have two hearts, four legs, four arms, two necks…sounds awfully weird to me.
I’m not entirely sure what the amount of times I am having sex has to do with anything. In fact, I’m really not sure why you bothered reading any part of my blog or how much of my blog you must have read to discover how little or how much sex I am having.
Oh dear – I’ll tel you why I bothered. This is one among many reasons why the West is falling apart: women who are willing to go around and have protected sex with anyone without being aware of the consequences. I suggest you go and talk to a seventy or eighty year old women who has gone down such a path and see what they think now. Personally, I hope your verison of the West falls apart pretty soon – Two billion Christians and one Billion Muslims disagree with your lifestyle, and the West is busy having ‘pleasure’ like sex anytime and failing to procreate – have you checked the birth rates of the West recently and compared them to the East and developing worlds? Even as evidenced by our disagreement that we are having here, the West is divided. How long do you think a society so divided can stand?
I would encourage you to change your lifestyle, not because I say so, but because it is the right thing to do. Self seeking pleasure always comes before the collapse of a civilisation. Try reading “The Clash of Civilisations And The Remaking of World Order” by Huntingdon.
February 25th, 2007 at 11:25 am
maxvp
quite frankly, it matters little whether people agree with me or not in regard to the matters being discussed in this thread.
every action has a natural consequence that will be dealt out regardless of whether or not I bother to take the time to point it out.
obviously it will sometimes irk people when others point out the negative consequences that will inevitably flow from their actions. that however is their problem. if they choose wise decisions they will enjoy the sweet fruit of those decisions. if they choose foolish decisions they will suffer the bitter fruit of those decisions.
if young girls like “kiwigirl” choose to allow guys to use their bodies as a sex toy with no further commitment, they will suffer the consequences of this course of action.
they will run the risk of contracting an STD.
they will run the risk of becoming pregnant to a guy who they really have no other bond to and do not wish to spend their lives with raising a family.
once they get past their partying 20′s and into their mid to late 30′s and find they desire more than just pleasure for pleasure’s sake they will see how empty the casual sex was. once they find how self serving and bitchy many people in offices/corporates/govt.agencies etc are they will see how empty and vain the pursuit of a ‘career’ for the sake of a ‘career’ is.
i’m not holier than thou, and I don’t pretend to be able to make other people’s life decisions for them.
i would wish for everyone that they would make wise decisions in their youth, so that as they grow with time they can enjoy the sweet fruit in later life.
i do not rejoice over the bitter fruit that people have to swallow as a result of foolish decisions they made in earlier life.
ultimately each person has to make their decisions. however people can’t expect to plant seeds of one type and expect a different type of fruit later on.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
by the way,
the same goes for guys.
guys who sleep around on a casual basis get what’s coming to them as well.
they get STD’s, get girls pregnant, get used and abused and end up feeling empty in later life.
natural law is kind of neat in that way – the casual guys and girls attract each other and get what they deserve, and the trustworthy, loyal guys and girls who value their dignity attract each other and get what they deserve too.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Well said Battler. I also am not perfect (in so many ways as well), but that doesn’t stop us pointing out the consequences of actions.
What matters is the importance to stand up and say what society could be like in the West. If people fail to live their lives morally right now, then they will pay the consequences later.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Kiwigirl, if a baby is 100% a woman’s body then why should any man have to pay child support?
June 12th, 2007 at 10:54 am
goevjnl agcefwxh pxwegzi mysnekaxi epzhtvrj hgue daxvtqgb