Beneficiary contraception plan 'intrusive'

[SMOKEU]

The Government's plan to offer free long-term contraception for beneficiaries and their daughters is being labelled as an insult and intrusive to women's right to have children.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett yesterday said contraception would eventually be fully funded for female beneficiaries and their 16 to 19-year-old daughters.

The move was part of the first round of controversial welfare reforms that would cost the Government $287.5 million over four years, including $81.5m of new money.

Auckland Action Against Poverty spokeswoman Sue Bradford this morning said while the contraception was voluntary, it was "totally unacceptable" for the Government to get involved in women's reproduction.

"Most New Zealand women will not accept that. It's because beneficiaries are seen as people who are worth less than others," she said.

Bradford said the Government was persuading women to take contraception through sanctions, such as having beneficiaries who have an additional child on the benefit to look for work when that child was one.

"We believe that women in this country have the right to control their own reproduction," she said.

Bennett denied young women would be coerced to get a contraception implant.

"It's not compulsory, it's just something to add to them trying to plan their family so they've got choices. It's completely reasonable."

Bennett said she often heard young women could not afford contraception.

"There is often an additional cost. Some are subsidised, some are not and it depends on what is best for you and your body as to what you take," she told Radio New Zealand.

Bennett said she met young women who saw getting pregnant and going on the domestic purposes benefit as a "viable option".

"Twenty-nine per cent of those on benefits have had a child while on benefits, so that's pretty high numbers.

"What we are saying is if the cost is a barrier, let's help you overcome that cost so you've got choices."

Prime Minister John Key told TV3's Firstline programme that young people often engaged in sexual activity and the Government was trying to make sure the outcome was in their hands.

It wasn't new for the Government to subsidise contraception and the Health Ministry had provided free condoms for many years.

The long-term contraception was a more effective method of family planning, he said.

"The advantage as I understand it is that it is highly effective and really doesn't require too much thought. You're just on that programme and it lasts for three years."
Ad Feedback

Other welfare reforms included all solo-parent beneficiaries being required to look for part-time work when their youngest child is five, then full-time when that child is 14.

Assistance payments would provide young parents with up to $6 an hour for 50 hours a week for their children to attend approved early childhood education services.

That's on top of funding for the 1155 extra early-childhood education places needed to meet the needs of parents returning to work or study.

The biggest chunk of funding announced yesterday was for services aimed at 16 and 17-year-olds who were not in work, training or education.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6876758/Beneficiary-contraception-plan-intrusive

The government really should introduce compulsory sterilization to stop some of these sluts from breeding like rabbits at the expense of taxpayers.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Nazional Party Eugenics programme, step 1. First its "voluntary" then its "complusory" then its "strength thru joy" then its "just line up over there for the showers".

the upcoming war is not between races, or stupid religions, its between the haves, and have nots.

[lakedaemonian]

Nazional Party Eugenics programme, step 1. First its "voluntary" then its "complusory" then its "strength thru joy" then its "just line up over there for the showers".

the upcoming war is not between races, or stupid religions, its between the haves, and have nots.

Interesting.....

I'd actually support paying people to have irreversible vasectomies and irreversible tubal ligations.

Pay guys $500 to have vasectomies.......and an extra $500 for every felony conviction.

Pay girls $1000 to have tubal ligations....and an extra $1000 for every felony conviction.

Why not encourage people who cannot afford to raise the children they already have without taxpayer funding to NOT have more children they cannot afford to raise without taxpayer funding?

If folks having 2 kids before they go on the dole and 2 kids after they go on the dole(for whatever legitimate reason) is such a good thing....then them having 10 or 20 kids must be better no?

How about that muppet down south who "was killed by Coca Cola and Big Tobacco"? She had 8 kids.....I bet they all turn out to be super awesome productive adults.

Have a read of Freakonomics and how legalized abortion is regarded as having a positive impact on reducing crime:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

So if voluntary abortion is good in reducing crime, then free birth control amongst the cohort at higher risk of producing criminals must be better.

But then the lefties call responsible efforts to reduce crime and social costs "racist eugenics" because it attrits their voting base 18 years later.

[Katman]

then its "just line up over there for the showers".


As long as Sue Bradford's in that line, I'm all good with that.

[bogan]

I think it is a good idea, I don't think having children should be a right, as the resource drain incurred impinges on other people's rights. Why not encourage those who are not contributing members of society, not to have children?

[Paul in NZ]

I dunno - I think its reasonable. Responsible people would try to avoid having families until they can support one and a responsible society recognizes that accidents happen and will support people should that occur. Most people on benefits struggle and I think many people will take advantage of this offer.

[SimJen]

Its not intrusive, its helping people out!
Its not compulsory!
I wish I could get free contraception, I have 3 kids and don't want anymore but I have to pay for it myself.
I waited until I could afford kids though, and they were planned.
I wouldn't dream of having kids with no thought for how I could support them, and definitely not if I was on the benefit!!!!!

[Zedder]

Its not intrusive, its helping people out!
Its not compulsory!
I wish I could get free contraception, I have 3 kids and don't want anymore but I have to pay for it myself.
I waited until I could afford kids though, and they were planned.
I wouldn't dream of having kids with no thought for how I could support them, and definitely not if I was on the benefit!!!!!

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. I wish more people thought like that though.

[Tigadee]

Its not intrusive, its helping people out!
Its not compulsory!
I wish I could get free contraception, I have 3 kids and don't want anymore but I have to pay for it myself.
I waited until I could afford kids though, and they were planned.
I wouldn't dream of having kids with no thought for how I could support them, and definitely not if I was on the benefit!!!!!

+1 And for the proposed plan. If these young people (and not just the girls/women but their partners du jour) won't take responsibility for their actions at society's expense, then it is well within society's right and responsibility to administrate them.

Sue Bradford should give up her politician's 'benefits' and live like the people she's 'defending' before she opens her mouth.

[MisterD]

Sue Bradford should give up her politician's 'benefits' and live like the people she's 'defending' before she opens her mouth.

Cut her some slack, she just doesn't seem to understand that not all women have her natural advantage of being able to use her looks as a method of contraception.



(yeah, stolen from Kiwiblog, but I can't find the link to do proper attribution just now...)

[buffstar]

IMO its not going to change a thing. Its not that expensive to use contraception anyway so WTF? meh wot a load of crap. Family Planning Clinic is cheap as chips - if your going to be a baby factory to supplement your income then this 'initiative' is not going to stop you. I thought there was already some deal where if you were on the benefit and you had more kids they would not be included anyway. Seriously? we pay the politians to come up with this shit? what a fukn waste of time.:weird:

[Swoop]

Its not that expensive to use contraception anyway so WTF?
Explain that to the catholics.
It would cut down the churches' income and create a smaller pool of little boys for the priests to fondle if their customers had to use contraception.:rolleyes:

[Tigadee]

IMO its not going to change a thing. Its not that expensive to use contraception anyway so WTF? meh wot a load of crap. Family Planning Clinic is cheap as chips - if your going to be a baby factory to supplement your income then this 'initiative' is not going to stop you.

I reckon They're gonna put something into the water for these people, forget "voluntary"... :shifty:

And cheap is still not free...


Seriously? we pay the politians to come up with this shit? what a fukn waste of time.

Indeed... I mean, who decided the capital of the country should be right smack on top of a faultline?! :facepalm:

[Genestho]

I have girlfriends whose men have walked out them, leaving them to raise their babie/s predominantly on their own, they do a great job, full credit, I salute and love em to bits, it's a 24 hour demanding job.

Sure, women have the right to control their own reproductive systems But, I think once you're at the point where you're on a benefit, you also need to start taking some responsibility for your own life and not place more demands on the support that exists within your own network, on your finances and wider society.

So, I reckon it's great and should've been introduced a long time ago, it is responsible, it's not intrusive as it's not compulsary, maybe a few less accidental and unwanted pregnancies will occur because of this policy.

[Paul in NZ]

I have girlfriends whose men have walked out them, leaving them to raise their babie/s predominantly on their own, they do a great job, full credit, I salute and love em to bits, it's a 24 hour demanding job.

Sure women have the right to control their own reproductive systems But, I think once you're at the point where you're on a benefit, you also need to start taking some responsibility for your own life and not place more demands on the support that exists within your own network, on your finances and wider society.

So, I reckon it's great and should've been introduced a long time ago, it is responsible, it's not intrusive as it's not compulsary, maybe a few less accidental and unwanted pregnancies will occur because of this policy.


Yeah I don't get Sue B at all on this. If the contraception is given discretely and free it just give women MORE choices without sacrificing the family budget. Like you I know heaps of ladies left to bring up kids by ratbags and not one of them wants another child at that time. The rabid minority who deliberately have kids for extra bene money are unreachable anyway and wont change. Good on the govt I say.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Nationals plan is to take the unwanted babies and use them for genetic experiments to create a new breed of super soldiers to defend teh Reich from the likes of Sue Bradford, and to be hired out to anyone who can pay.

[Genestho]

Yeah I don't get Sue B at all on this. If the contraception is given discretely and free it just give women MORE choices without sacrificing the family budget. Like you I know heaps of ladies left to bring up kids by ratbags and not one of them wants another child at that time. The rabid minority who deliberately have kids for extra bene money are unreachable anyway and wont change. Good on the govt I say."

EXACTLY!! You got it, Paul. Most women don't want more children in the situation they've been left with, they DON'T choose the beneficiary lifestyle but land there by circumstance, they will take this opportunity for the contraceptive assistance, free doctors visit and the subsidised childcare (brilliant!), and this is the group (read: the majority) that will take every opportunity to better themselves as opposed to the stereotypical long term child breeding factories who are the minority.

Ole Sue, I think she's just gettin' busy stirring the up masses getting some media attention, hot on the heels of some rather busy Mana protesting..

[Paul in NZ]

What annoys me most about all of this is that there is obviously a hugely expensive problem in our society. One party tries something and all the howler monkeys on the other parties start braying. SOMETHING has to be done or all of us will be paying for these kids forever. I'd rather see them monitor the situation and report back on results so the systems can stand/fail on their merits.

[onearmedbandit]

It's a good idea as far as I'm concerned.

[lakedaemonian]

Yeah I don't get Sue B at all on this. If the contraception is given discretely and free it just give women MORE choices without sacrificing the family budget. Like you I know heaps of ladies left to bring up kids by ratbags and not one of them wants another child at that time. The rabid minority who deliberately have kids for extra bene money are unreachable anyway and wont change. Good on the govt I say.

I totally get Sue B on this.

She's afraid smart policies implemented to reduce the cycle of poverty will reduce her support network and gravytrain.

[Genestho]

What annoys me most about all of this is that there is obviously a hugely expensive problem in our society. One party tries something and all the howler monkeys on the other parties start braying. SOMETHING has to be done or all of us will be paying for these kids forever. I'd rather see them monitor the situation and report back on results so the systems can stand/fail on their merits.
Absolutely, it's been a long time coming and I'm glad someone actually has the 'nads to start somewhere.
We forget easily that we are very lucky to have a beneficiary scheme, I'd much rather it was there for those in genuine need with pretty fair stipulations, than not be available for anyone.

[nodrog]

Whatever happened to a good old fashioned punch in the guts?

[SimJen]

Whatever happened to a good old fashioned punch in the guts?

thats class right there ^

[mashman]

IMO its not going to change a thing. Its not that expensive to use contraception anyway so WTF? meh wot a load of crap. Family Planning Clinic is cheap as chips - if your going to be a baby factory to supplement your income then this 'initiative' is not going to stop you. I thought there was already some deal where if you were on the benefit and you had more kids they would not be included anyway. Seriously? we pay the politians to come up with this shit? what a fukn waste of time.:weird:

+1... Fuck all will change as long as people are left with a choice. Contraception has always been there and we still have women getting pregnant for their own reasons :shit: how dare they. I see the bene bashers are jumping up and down with glee (much to my entertainment).

[Swoop]

Whatever happened to a good old fashioned punch in the guts?
Pretty much outlawed as far as I can see.

OSH have so many requirements now:
Has to be wearing a hi-viz vest,
Have to have orange cones set up around the punch-ee,
etc,
etc.

[Genestho]

Whatever happened to a good old fashioned punch in the guts?
Mrs Bobbit came up with an even creativerer idea.. sausage anyone? :):devil2:
http://images.spoof-media.com/thespoof/pdi/41007-2127sausage.jpg
Ok ok, moving along..



+1... Fuck all will change as long as people are left with a choice. Contraception has always been there and we still have women getting pregnant for their own reasons :shit: how dare they. I see the bene bashers are jumping up and down with glee (much to my entertainment).
Dude, I think you under-estimate the majority of solo kiwi women ;) there has always been contraception, but not free, not free doctors visits, and certainly not the level of subsidisation for childcare as is proposed, I see the misinformed are (again) jumping up and down in outrage or in pretence of it, much to my entertainment ;)

[Tigadee]

Explain that to the catholics.
It would cut down the churches' income and create a smaller pool of little boys for the priests to fondle if their customers had to use contraception.:rolleyes:

Already happening: Dwindling number of church-goers reflect a society that is focusing on materialism rather than spirituality, so their stance on contraceptives won't affect what is already happening.


Yeah I don't get Sue B at all on this. If the contraception is given discretely and free it just give women MORE choices without sacrificing the family budget.

Exactly! Brilliant point! :yes:


She's afraid smart policies implemented to reduce the cycle of poverty will reduce her support network and gravytrain.

Indeed, Heaven forbid she'd actually have to think of real solutions... :rolleyes:


Contraception has always been there and we still have women getting pregnant for their own reasons.

It's not the genuine benes who are the issue here though, it is those career ones or those who think with their bits below the belt (both male and female) rather than their brains... Note the phrase "...long-term contraception for beneficiaries and their daughters...". Read between the lines - Who would those long-term beneficiaries be?

And again, what about those partners who walk out on the women because they don't want the burden of parenthood? How would you get them to be courageous enough to take responsibility for their actions? That should be what SB should be working on, not bleating about choices or the curbing of.

It's not like these poor women have that many choices right now in this current system. Something's gotta change to get better, at least an effort is better than maintaining the rotten status quo.

[mashman]

Dude, I think you under-estimate the majority of solo kiwi women ;) there has always been contraception, but not free, not free doctors visits, and certainly not the level of subsidisation for childcare as is proposed, I see the misinformed are (again) jumping up and down in outrage or in pretence of it, much to my entertainment ;)

Touche... under-estimate in what sense? If condoms have been free, the contraception has been free. If they chose not to use them, then they chose not to use them :bleh:. I look forwards to seeing how many women go back into the workplace, "bludger" women that is.

[SimJen]

Touche... under-estimate in what sense? If condoms have been free, the contraception has been free. If they chose not to use them, then they chose not to use them :bleh:. I look forwards to seeing how many women go back into the workplace, "bludger" women that is.

don't care if they go back to work or not, if they are happy to not have so many kids then future generations won't be bludgers either!

[mashman]

don't care if they go back to work or not, if they are happy to not have so many kids then future generations won't be bludgers either!

I wish they wouldn't have so many kids too, but there will always be bludgers as it is an integral part of keeping a handle on inflation. In other words, the government require a certain percentage of their population to be unemployed. Look it up for yourself. Ideally they shouldn't be having kids, granted, but as their unemployment is a requirement of the govt, if they do decide to have children, then the children should be supported in every single way and not penalised because of the choice of career their parents made :). Someone has to be unemployed, there is no way around that and as we know it isn't a glamorous lifestyle... themselves are just people who "choose" the career of not working, which also happens to be a requirement for a stable economy. Win Win, but please feel free to tell them they aren't entitled to anything because they don't work :).

[HenryDorsetCase]

Already happening: Dwindling number of church-goers reflect a society that is focusing on materialism rather than spirituality, so their stance on contraceptives won't affect what is already happening.



your proposition does not support your conclusion.

As a secular humanist, I find that to be offensive.

Remember, all the best despots are religious. All the best hate is church hate. All the good wars are religious.

[Tigadee]

As a secular humanist, I find that to be offensive.

Noted. Apology is in the mail... :whistle:


Remember, all the best despots are religious. All the best hate is church hate. All the good wars are religious.

Were religious, were... Nowadays, they're just dictators from Amin to Pol Pot to Kim (not Dotcom) to Kony.

Nationalism and even environmentalism are a religion in their own right, with fervor matching that of the religious. And wars are often started under the guise of religion or nationalism ("for God and country/fatherland/motherland/mother earth!") by men who were less than religious, but in this day and age, it's easier to see through that, which is why we don't have propoganda like we used to see in WW II and states like Iran and N Korea try hard to keep the world away from its citizens.

The fact that religion is used as an excuse for war or strife or terror does not necessarily mean that religion is bad, it only shows that Man can be bad to twist something good for his own purposes. I like the title of an X-Men comic novel which is very apt: "God Saves, Man Kills".

Now I'll stop this line of thought before we go off-topic...

Responsibility good, apathy baaaaaad...

[SimJen]

I wish they wouldn't have so many kids too, but there will always be bludgers as it is an integral part of keeping a handle on inflation. In other words, the government require a certain percentage of their population to be unemployed. Look it up for yourself. Ideally they shouldn't be having kids, granted, but as their unemployment is a requirement of the govt, if they do decide to have children, then the children should be supported in every single way and not penalised because of the choice of career their parents made :). Someone has to be unemployed, there is no way around that and as we know it isn't a glamorous lifestyle... themselves are just people who "choose" the career of not working, which also happens to be a requirement for a stable economy. Win Win, but please feel free to tell them they aren't entitled to anything because they don't work :).

No government requires a certain part of the population to be unemployed, utter rubbish! Believe what you will.....but in our current climate the economic model needs to be rethought!
Children should be supported in every way, but this starts at home first, with a loving, caring and nurturing upbringing with good role models. This is unfortunately not always happening.
So instead of these kids growing up as career criminals, drug dealers, sex offenders, gang members etc, if you can stop a few of them being born and costing us further down the line the better.
Ideally in a perfect world you could teach these people restraint and common sense but we know thats not going to happen anytime soon!
Its like teaching cage drivers how to drive properly!!
If you don't contribute to society by way of paying taxes, then unfortunately you shouldn't expect everything that willing members of society are offered!
Otherwise there is no incentive to better yourself.

[Katman]

It's not like these poor women have that many choices right now in this current system.

It could be worse.

http://rt.com/news/egypt-sex-dead-wife-054/

[nodrog]

It could be worse.

http://rt.com/news/egypt-sex-dead-wife-054/

Atleast the camels will get a break now.

[Tigadee]

http://rt.com/news/egypt-sex-dead-wife-054/

:shit: :facepalm: FFS! Nutters are everywhere!


Atleast the camels will get a break now.

For six hours anyway...

[98tls]

I think it is a good idea, I don't think having children should be a right, as the resource drain incurred impinges on other people's rights. Why not encourage those who are not contributing members of society, not to have children?

Why not simply get rid of the ridiculous working for families rubbish,might stem the flow somewhat not to mention put a halt on taxpayers money being used to pay off cars etc.

[rustyrobot]

No government requires a certain part of the population to be unemployed, utter rubbish! Believe what you will.....but in our current climate the economic model needs to be rethought!

No you are right, it is businessess which benefit most from having a higher level of unemployment, and if those business leaders just happen to be cosy with the politicians... :msn-wink:

Just out of interest, what is it that you believe "our current climate" to be?

[mashman]

No government requires a certain part of the population to be unemployed, utter rubbish! Believe what you will.....but in our current climate the economic model needs to be rethought!
Children should be supported in every way, but this starts at home first, with a loving, caring and nurturing upbringing with good role models. This is unfortunately not always happening.
So instead of these kids growing up as career criminals, drug dealers, sex offenders, gang members etc, if you can stop a few of them being born and costing us further down the line the better.
Ideally in a perfect world you could teach these people restraint and common sense but we know thats not going to happen anytime soon!
Its like teaching cage drivers how to drive properly!!
If you don't contribute to society by way of paying taxes, then unfortunately you shouldn't expect everything that willing members of society are offered!
Otherwise there is no incentive to better yourself.

I'll try to hunt out the RBNZ doco later... it's linked into the site somewhere. So believe what you will :bleh:. I pretty much agree with the rest of your post though :yes:... apart from the incentive bit.

[SMOKEU]

It could be worse.

http://rt.com/news/egypt-sex-dead-wife-054/

Dead chicks don't say no.

[Road kill]

Oh goody the start of a state controlled breeding system.
I'm not totaly against it so long as it only aplies to somebody else.

[Pussy]

If you can't feed em, don't breed em.....

[speights_bud]

Haven't read through the thread fully. but i read somewhere in the article saying the contraception is giving people choice to have kids or not.

Isn't it great? people don't 'choose' to have sex anymore, its 'gonna happen' so how do we fix the result? It's a bit Ambulance at the bottom of the cliff if you ask me. Promoting another generation of people to not take responsibility for their actions.

After all they could you know, think about what the result could be and not have sex?...

Also there are contraceptive methods that work very well that are free and many couples have been using it for years with success

Why should i pay for people who don't take responsibility for the potential results of their actions?

[mashman]

No government requires a certain part of the population to be unemployed, utter rubbish! Believe what you will.....

"In an economy, policy changes are about tradeoffs. With inflation the tradeoff is with unemployment. The Phillips curve, pioneered by New Zealand economist Bill Phillips, showed that when inflation rises unemployment falls and vice versa.
High levels of inflation are undesirable. However, if inflation is reduced by choking economic growth, this will lead to a rise in unemployment. Mass unemployment is also undesirable. Hence the RBNZ is charged with the delicate task of balancing inflation and unemployment." (http://nzier.org.nz/economics/monetary-policy)

Unemployment is a requirement, otherwise everyone's money becomes worth less. The unemployed are doing you a favour by filling those positions... but by all means don't change your mind :shifty:

[98tls]

Haven't read through the thread fully. but i read somewhere in the article saying the contraception is giving people choice to have kids or not.

Isn't it great? people don't 'choose' to have sex anymore, its 'gonna happen' so how do we fix the result? It's a bit Ambulance at the bottom of the cliff if you ask me. Promoting another generation of people to not take responsibility for their actions.

After all they could you know, think about what the result could be and not have sex?...

Also there are contraceptive methods that work very well that are free and many couples have been using it for years with success

Why should i pay for people who don't take responsibility for the potential results of their actions?
Its New Zealand,nobody has to take responsibility for there actions as theres an army of otherwise unemployable do gooders to pick up the pieces combined with an Emu like stance on the money tree...

[FJRider]

Its New Zealand,nobody has to take responsibility for there actions as theres an army of otherwise unemployable do gooders to pick up the pieces combined with an Emu like stance on the money tree...

But the army of those wanting to pay for it ... is getting smaller ... :shifty:

[98tls]

But the army of those wanting to pay for it ... is getting smaller ... :shifty:

Thats typical though mate,by the time enough have had enough and say get fucked its to late.

[SMOKEU]

Haven't read through the thread fully. but i read somewhere in the article saying the contraception is giving people choice to have kids or not.

Isn't it great? people don't 'choose' to have sex anymore, its 'gonna happen' so how do we fix the result? It's a bit Ambulance at the bottom of the cliff if you ask me. Promoting another generation of people to not take responsibility for their actions.

After all they could you know, think about what the result could be and not have sex?...

Also there are contraceptive methods that work very well that are free and many couples have been using it for years with success

Why should i pay for people who don't take responsibility for the potential results of their actions?

Stop speaking sense, this is KB after all.

[Genestho]

Haven't read through the thread fully. but i read somewhere in the article saying the contraception is giving people choice to have kids or not.

Isn't it great? people don't 'choose' to have sex anymore, its 'gonna happen' so how do we fix the result? It's a bit Ambulance at the bottom of the cliff if you ask me. Promoting another generation of people to not take responsibility for their actions.

After all they could you know, think about what the result could be and not have sex?...

Also there are contraceptive methods that work very well that are free and many couples have been using it for years with success

Why should i pay for people who don't take responsibility for the potential results of their actions?

Um, I'd have thought contraception is the ambulance at the top of the cliff? You know, it prevents babies? You want to rock into peoples homes and tell them not to have sex now? Oh the outrage:blink:

It all seems a bit one sided anyway, I don't hear of men raising their kids on the dpb and having contraception proposed, why should women bare the brunt for the males part in lacking responsibility? I know waaaay too many ladies who've been dumped by Mr "he who doesn't wish be around for his children anymore." Like it's becoming an epidemic.

SO!! :devil2:I propose free vasectomies too, and let the women dumped on the benefit, do the procedure. :Punk: I reckon that would sort out any of the lacking male responsibility issues. :)


Stop speaking sense, this is KB after all.
Oh, oh god:shutup:

[scumdog]

I dunno - I think its reasonable. Responsible people would try to avoid having families until they can support one and a responsible society recognizes that accidents happen and will support people should that occur. Most people on benefits struggle and I think many people will take advantage of this offer.

I'm with Paul.

Why should I pay for leeching drongo slappers to keep having kids, often by different non-paying fathers???:angry:

[jrandom]

Why should i pay for people who don't take responsibility for the potential results of their actions?

Because you'll be paying one way or another, and this option is orders of magnitude cheaper than letting them breed.

Unless you prefer a society entirely without social welfare. But be careful what you wish for.

[FJRider]

I'm with Paul.

Why should I pay for leeching drongo slappers to keep having kids, often by different non-paying fathers???:angry:

It's not so much the non paying fathers ... most wont know or admit or CARE who the father is ...

[98tls]

I'm with Paul.

Why should I pay for leeching drongo slappers to keep having kids, often by different non-paying fathers???:angry:

Because Helen Clarke decided you should,no wonder we have constant flotsam washing up on our shores,why not eh its all laid on.

[Howie]

Why not simply get rid of the ridiculous working for families rubbish,might stem the flow somewhat not to mention put a halt on taxpayers money being used to pay off cars etc.

Interesting idea, but was has it got to do with beneficiaries getting free contraception? What would you propose instead, do we raise the mimimin wage to a level that would actually enable a Single parent to live a basic lifestyle?


If you can't feed em, don't breed em.....

Things change as you move through life. I ended up as a single parent with 2 kids. Interestingly enough I managed to keep working due to having skills that were in high demand in my chosen career, so got a bit of flexability in the way I managed my hours.

In the days before working for families, I worked out that by the time I took into account the before, and after school care I was paying for I was working for about $20 a week if I did not work overtime. Oh and yes I was earning above the NZ average wage at the time. My choice was to keep working, but it could just as easily been to go on the DPB and do a few cash under the table job's and spend more time with the kids.




Why should I pay for leeching drongo slappers to keep having kids, often by different non-paying fathers???:angry:

Interestingly you might be surprised at the number of single parent families where the Father is the the main care giver, from memory it was running at about 1 in five to 1 in 6 when I last looked a few years ago.

Child support is a whole different subject, and really needs an overhaul. do you know that the minimum payment is just over seventy dollars per month, if the paying parent is on a benefit, or a low wage.



The best answer would be to make contraception of the types proposed either free or heavily subsidised for everyone.

[Tigadee]

Isn't it great? people don't 'choose' to have sex anymore, its 'gonna happen' so how do we fix the result? It's a bit Ambulance at the bottom of the cliff if you ask me. Promoting another generation of people to not take responsibility for their actions.

After all they could you know, think about what the result could be and not have sex?...

Firstly, a group of people fitting the profile for the assisted contraception already don't take responsibility for their actions, and more than likely are lost to any action you may want to take to help them 'see the light'. I doubt the whole generation of people - this one or later - will degenerate into one of total carnal chaos. (I think we went through that with the Woodstock era and there are still people out there with a moral compass who do still take responsibility for their actions, etc. just as there are those who don't.)

This proposed action by Gov't at least wants to tip the scales so that society isn't shackled by those who do not benefit society [but instead collect benefits without contributing or are unable to contribute]. No one is saying throw them to the lions, put them into concentration camps, just helping them to be a little more active in being restrained and even responsible.

So unless the moral pendulum of society swings the other way where everyone suddenly becomes very puritan and abstains, and considers others before themselves, measures such as what's proposed is more realistic, and sadly more effective than Civics classes or such.


Also there are contraceptive methods that work very well that are free and many couples have been using it for years with success

The key word is using them, isn't it? This plan could at least encourage them - even nudge them - to be pro-active in 'protecting' themselves, because if it involves some sort of long-term contraceptive that is low-maintenance - doesn't require a lot of attention, then the response may be very enthusiastic and positive.

Too many males would excuse themselves from using rubbers because 'it doesn't feel the same', blah, blah, blah, and may walk away as soon as they find out the woman is preggers. So getting the women to be pro-active is the key.

True, education is the key to turning those attitudes around, but that's been said but hardly done in the past and if has been then obviously not been working, so something new is better than the same old, same old...


Why should i pay for people who don't take responsibility for the potential results of their actions?

You already do anyway, and nothing's changed. We're still left with a growing demographic group who continue to live and struggle in poverty, wouldn't it be nice to try a different approach, something that may work to lift them out of the situations either they created intentionally or unintentionally for themselves? Or perhaps never enough can be done to helps those now, but at least slow down the vicious cycle... Never know till we try, aye?

Otherwise, this cycle will just continue growing and spiraling down, and people like you and me continue paying for people who don't take responsibility for their actions. Do we want to wait till this minority becomes a majority?


If you can't feed em, don't breed em.....

Crudely put but very, very true.

[FJRider]

Perhaps a requirement before further financial assistance from WINZ ... the fathers name must be (on the birth certificate) in the system as the father ... and paying child support ... MIGHT make a difference to the numbers making use of the free "help" ...

[98tls]

Interesting idea, but was has it got to do with beneficiaries getting free contraception? What would you propose instead, do we raise the mimimin wage to a level that would actually enable a Single parent to live a basic lifestyle?







The best answer would be to make contraception of the types proposed either free or heavily subsidised for everyone.

:laugh:Jesus H,"the best answer" for many would be keep your fucking legs closed until your ready and able to accept the consequences of not doing so surely its not that hard,and if it is indeed to hard and beyond there capability then surely something as complicated :facepalm:as using contraception free or not will be way beyond them.

[porky]

I'm with Paul.

Why should I pay for leeching drongo slappers to keep having kids, often by different non-paying fathers???:angry:

Well thats Paula Bennett out of a job.

[Tigadee]

BTW, how is offering free contraceptives instead of subsidised contraceptives 'intrusive'? It's just one small step in what is already being done. Sue Bradford is just being silly!

And while not a mircale cure for all economic ills for sure, it can still in the long run help take burdens off the welfare system, the health system, the housing system, the education system, CYFS, NGOs, police, courts, etc., and most importantly, taxpayers!

[speights_bud]

:laugh:Jesus H,"the best answer" for many would be keep your fucking legs closed until your ready and able to accept the consequences of not doing so surely its not that hard,and if it is indeed to hard and beyond there capability then surely something as complicated :facepalm:as using contraception free or not will be way beyond them.

What he said,

Oh how the world Changed when the contraceptive Pill was made readily available, no more responsibility.

[FJRider]

What he said,

Oh how the world Changed when the contraceptive Pill was made readily available, no more responsibility.

At that time ... women of the world were overjoyed by it's introduction ... NOW ... goverment departments can't give them away ... :shutup:

[flyingcrocodile46]

I dare say this will result in lower overheads for brothels, and it makes good sense to ensure proper preparedness of the next generation of the service industry providers.

[FJRider]

I dare say this will result in lower overheads for brothels, and it makes good sense to ensure proper preparedness of the next generation of the service industry providers.

The "New generation" will probably give it away ... as well ...

[flyingcrocodile46]

The "New generation" will probably give it away ... as well ...

I hope not. If we can move them all into taking on careers in the service industry they will become productive taxpayers :laugh:

Only the really ugly need be unemployed

[scracha]

:laugh:Jesus H,"the best answer" for many would be keep your fucking legs closed until your ready and able to accept the consequences of not doing so surely its not that hard,and if it is indeed to hard and beyond there capability then surely something as complicated :facepalm:as using contraception free or not will be way beyond them.

What are you...a monk? Here's a newslfash for you:- People like to drink, people like to fuck. Advising them not to will not stop them doing it.

I have no problem with free contraception for beneficiaries (I mistakenly assumed it was already. I do however think it should be free for everybody.


My other theory for deadbeat dads. Don't pay for child one....you lose a testicle. Don't pay for child two...you lose a testicle. Don't pa......oh....

[Paul in NZ]

Its an interesting debate all right. I watched a little of Sue B debating it with the Ex Solo Mum who helped draft the legislation. Personally I think Sue B was just falling back on her 'caring socialist' persona (yeah right) and didn't really have much constructive to add.

The issue this will face is that while it will be embraced by those who have fallen on hard times, been betrayed or accidentally ended up in this place yet are still of sound mind. It won't be embraced by the alternate society we are nurturing. In the same piece their was an interview with a nice tidy looking young solo mum who thought the govt must think we are all thick. She apparently planned her pregnancy and not having a job isn't going to be a factor in her having another baby.... um....... Shit.... As a payer of considerable tax dollars I object...

And that's the real issue. There are two groups of people undermining this. Ones that see a benefit as a legitimate entitlement and a valid career path and ones that are so off in a different place for our 'capitalistic society' that they couldn't find their way back with a gps and a compass. (yet they still take the hand outs capitalism brings)

So yes - this will be good for some but will not stem the tide overwhelming us all.

[oneofsix]

Yes Paul, I think it will be good for those that don't want to breed whilst on the benefit to have their choice subsidised and therefore the rest of us not having to support any more mistakes.

Differing views in this article on Stuff http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6884359/Cracking-it-on-welfare-in-Huntly show that, like the rest of society, those at the bottom have different aims and some of them make others of us :sick:

I suspect Sue B is on her anti govt control band wagon and trying to equate the offer with the forced sterilization of some previous totalitarian governments. (Godwits law avoided?)

[SimJen]

"In an economy, policy changes are about tradeoffs. With inflation the tradeoff is with unemployment. The Phillips curve, pioneered by New Zealand economist Bill Phillips, showed that when inflation rises unemployment falls and vice versa.
High levels of inflation are undesirable. However, if inflation is reduced by choking economic growth, this will lead to a rise in unemployment. Mass unemployment is also undesirable. Hence the RBNZ is charged with the delicate task of balancing inflation and unemployment." (http://nzier.org.nz/economics/monetary-policy)

Unemployment is a requirement, otherwise everyone's money becomes worth less. The unemployed are doing you a favour by filling those positions... but by all means don't change your mind :shifty:

Like I said though in an earlier post, the rules of economics need to change to avoid future world meltdowns! Just because Bill Phillips pioneered some curve does not make it the best or most popular view on the matter.


Most economists no longer use the Phillips curve in its original form because it was shown to be too simplistic. This can be seen in a cursory analysis of US inflation and unemployment data 1953-92. There is no single curve that will fit the data, but there are three rough aggregations—1955–71, 1974–84, and 1985-92—each of which shows a general, downwards slope, but at three very different levels with the shifts occurring abruptly. The data for 1953-54 and 1972-73 do not group easily, and a more formal analysis posits up to five groups/curves over the period.


In the 1970s, many countries experienced high levels of both inflation and unemployment also known as stagflation. Theories based on the Phillips curve suggested that this could not happen, and the curve came under a concerted attack from a group of economists headed by Milton Friedman.

Friedman argued that the Phillips curve relationship was only a short-run phenomenon. He argued that in the long-run, workers and employers will take inflation into account, resulting in employment contracts that increase pay at rates near anticipated inflation. Unemployment would then begin to rise back to its previous level, but now with higher inflation rates. This result implies that over the longer-run there is no trade-off between inflation and unemployment. This implication is significant for practical reasons because it implies that central banks should not set employment targets above the natural rate.

More recent research has shown that there is a moderate trade-off between low-levels of inflation and unemployment. Work by George Akerlof, William Dickens, and George Perry implies that if inflation is reduced from two to zero percent, unemployment will be permanently increased by 1.5 percent. This is because workers generally have a higher tolerance for real wage cuts than nominal ones. For example, a worker will more likely accept a wage increase of two percent when inflation is three percent, than a wage cut of one percent when the inflation rate is zero.

[Genestho]

Its an interesting debate all right. I watched a little of Sue B debating it with the Ex Solo Mum who helped draft the legislation. Personally I think Sue B was just falling back on her 'caring socialist' persona (yeah right) and didn't really have much constructive to add.

The issue this will face is that while it will be embraced by those who have fallen on hard times, been betrayed or accidentally ended up in this place yet are still of sound mind. It won't be embraced by the alternate society we are nurturing. In the same piece their was an interview with a nice tidy looking young solo mum who thought the govt must think we are all thick. She apparently planned her pregnancy and not having a job isn't going to be a factor in her having another baby.... um....... Shit.... As a payer of considerable tax dollars I object...

And that's the real issue. There are two groups of people undermining this. Ones that see a benefit as a legitimate entitlement and a valid career path and ones that are so off in a different place for our 'capitalistic society' that they couldn't find their way back with a gps and a compass. (yet they still take the hand outs capitalism brings)

So yes - this will be good for some but will not stem the tide overwhelming us all.

I couldn't watch as I knew it would fire up my angry meter on so many levels.
She won't add anything to the debate as her reasons for being there are not genuine.
Isn't it ironic that someone that speaks out on poverty wouldn't support a self motivated reduction of 'generational benefit breeders'? That right there tells me her aims are not true to her cause and that she's happy to speak on behalf of the minority of blatant bludgers, and encourage their obstinance while taking the cash.

I really feel like putting her over my knee and slapping her on the behind.

[Paul in NZ]

I suspect Sue B is on her anti govt control band wagon and trying to equate the offer with the forced sterilization of some previous totalitarian governments. (Godwits law avoided?)

Ironically if Sue B was in charge I think that it would feel a lot more like a totalitarian state.... :innocent:

[mashman]

Like I said though in an earlier post, the rules of economics need to change to avoid future world meltdowns! Just because Bill Phillips pioneered some curve does not make it the best or most popular view on the matter.

Agreed, but irrespective of the methodology used there will always be a requirement for people to be unemployed :yes:, which was the initial point that you called bullshit... hence my stance on "bludgers" not being the cunts ... they're just people caught in the economic crossfire and yet they're treated like shit. Yes some of them deserve it, but if financial policy keeps a percentage of the population unemployed, which it obviously does and contrary to your belief, then it would seem a tad unfair to kick them whilst they're down? As mentioned, they help to keep our money worth what it is worth and being unemployed is absolutely unavoidable in some respects.

[Zedder]

Ironically if Sue B was in charge I think that it would feel a lot more like a totalitarian state.... :innocent:

It would not be good if she got that sort of power, but she is currently working on a PhD in Public Policy so she's probably gearing up for something along those lines.

Incidently, it was Len Brown who suggested strongly that she run for Auckland Council last time 'round.

[Usarka]

I'm told it's going to be an injection, because the excuse they always hear when bene's get pregnant is that the pill fell out.

[schrodingers cat]

I propose we dismantle the do-goodery industry.
Net result - more unemployment but lower inflation (lower wages for workers with more competition for jobs you see)
Less government funding so less tax (Tui)

Win win win I say

Mind you the pressure to be able to afford food might drive crime up but we'll liberalise our gun laws and the right to defend personal property and she'll be right.

Its working in Detroit!

[XxKiTtiExX]

I'm told it's going to be an injection, because the excuse they always hear when bene's get pregnant is that the pill fell out.

The pill fell out?

[Usarka]

The pill fell out?

Still is.....

[jrandom]

My other theory for deadbeat dads. Don't pay for child one....you lose a testicle. Don't pay for child two...you lose a testicle. Don't pa......oh....

After paying for childs one and two, I had my testicles disconnected voluntarily!

[HenryDorsetCase]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6884359/Cracking-it-on-welfare-in-Huntly

this is interesting.


All these people are on sabbatical from their jobs at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. My favourite quote is "money is all around me"

Where did I put that tactical nuke I was saving for a rainy day? Its around here somewhere. Maybe behind the weaponised smallpox?

[Paul in NZ]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6884359/Cracking-it-on-welfare-in-Huntly

this is interesting.


All these people are on sabbatical from their jobs at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. My favourite quote is "money is all around me"

Where did I put that tactical nuke I was saving for a rainy day? Its around here somewhere. Maybe behind the weaponised smallpox?

Hey Yo Bro - deeze peeps got rights mofo.... (sigh)

[mashman]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6884359/Cracking-it-on-welfare-in-Huntly

this is interesting.


All these people are on sabbatical from their jobs at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. My favourite quote is "money is all around me"

Where did I put that tactical nuke I was saving for a rainy day? Its around here somewhere. Maybe behind the weaponised smallpox?

:killingme awesome solution... that should solve the problem.

[jrandom]

"money is all around me"

I loved that too.

<img src="http://i49.tinypic.com/2a9xqic.jpg"/>

[rustyrobot]

Where did I put that tactical nuke I was saving for a rainy day? Its around here somewhere. Maybe behind the weaponised smallpox?

What - your gas chambers aren't working?

[HenryDorsetCase]

You will recall the well-known documentary series STAR TREK chronicled the Eugenics Wars. Khan Noonian Singh put that bug thing in Chekov's ear and everything.

[HenryDorsetCase]

What - your gas chambers aren't working?


its just the cost of getting them to bloody Huntly. Once I fully assume power the damn trains will run on time and the wagons will not be made in China!

[Tigadee]

...and the wagons will not be made in China!

Grapevine says you made some deals with North Korea for some wagons...:innocent:

[Paul in NZ]

Grapevine says you made some deals with North Korea for some wagons...:innocent:

Hopefully he promised them a million dollars to keep them there.

[Paul in NZ]

its just the cost of getting them to bloody Huntly. Once I fully assume power the damn trains will run on time and the wagons will not be made in China!

Sue? Is that you????

[Tigadee]

Hopefully he promised them a million dollars to keep them there.

But Uncle Kim says they're special glow-in-the-dark versions...

[haydes55]

I'm going to tell y'all a story. My little sister is adopted, she has foetal drug and alcohol syndrome, signs of aspergers syndrome, bi polar (too young to diagnose) amongst many other health issues allergies and intolerances.

He birth mother is a beneficiary, we haven't been told how many siblings she has, when we asked if it was more than 10 we were told "considerably". Every child has been taken off her at birth by CYFs, and we know she sniffs glue and smokes drugs whilst pregnant. It is negligent of the government to not rip her ovaries out of her body and leave her in a ditch. (Ok that might be a bit extreme).

What I'm saying is yes it is invasive and yes it is personal choice. But personal choice should only have personal repercussions. She has ruined well over 10 lives, costed the tax payer hundreds of thousands of dollars and is a known drug smoker (through pregnancies even) and the government can't stop her.

If Chopper Reid was in NZ out of prison, she would be on his death list. And I would buy the bullets.

Fuck up Sue Bradford this new contraceptive subsidy doesn't go far enough.

[Ender EnZed]

Here's a newslfash for you:- People like to drink, people like to fuck. Advising them not to will not stop them doing it.

+ A billion

Also relevant, male long term contraception has been mention briefly but not significantly. Maybe I'm a wierdo but I know far more men with bastard children than women, probably because I'm a guy. I don't think any of them want kids and I'm pretty damn sure they're financially worse off for having them. It seems to me that Paula Bennet has missed a solid half of the market share by offering this to women only.

[Tigadee]

It seems to me that Paula Bennet has missed a solid half of the market share by offering this to women only.

Because we men are wild, elusive beasts who can't be nailed down... :bleh: Actually, the head honchos in Gov't are male, so any idea pertaining to restricting a male's reproductive function (*snip*snip*) probably draws a lot of incredulous looks at Ms Bennet, followed by hysterical laughter.

On a slightly serious note, men produce millions of sperm, while women release one or even sometimes two eggs a month, so it's easier to stop those one or two eggs with certainlty than it is try to stop millions of tadpoles.

Wouldn't a side-benefit of some of the contraceptives for women be that they do not experience their monthly cycle any more? No more cramps, no more moods, and think of the savings on pads!

[scott411]

I think that any male beneficary should be offered the snip if they want it as well,

[mashman]

Wouldn't a side-benefit of some of the contraceptives for women be that they do not experience their monthly cycle any more? No more cramps, no more moods, and think of the savings on pads!

I wish... no, the mood swings are still there except they are amplified and not restricted to 1 week per month. My ex was on the 3 monthly jag and it made our lives a living nightmare. Others we knew shared the same view. Pumping hormones into the body without there being a reaction just ain't gonna happen. If the govt are serious about it and ladies are not wanting to get preggers, then it should be a french tickler for the fella. It's the less invasive of ALL contraceptions and only hard core Education (meaning of life :innocent:) and personal choice is gonna change what the govt are expecting to change with yet another piece of wishful thinking...

[imac]

Point of order, a vasectomy is generally considered irreversible and although the Vas can be reconnected it has a high failure rate particularly among older men.
More effort should be focused on the men that get these girls pregnant and then fuck off leaving her to raise the baby without a father in it’s life. Perhaps a certain amount of their benefit should be docked and sent their child’s mum for additional child support

[Little Miss Trouble]

I wish... no, the mood swings are still there except they are amplified and not restricted to 1 week per month. My ex was on the 3 monthly jag and it made our lives a living nightmare. Others we knew shared the same view. Pumping hormones into the body without there being a reaction just ain't gonna happen. If the govt are serious about it and ladies are not wanting to get preggers, then it should be a french tickler for the fella. It's the less invasive of ALL contraceptions and only hard core Education (meaning of life :innocent:) and personal choice is gonna change what the govt are expecting to change with yet another piece of wishful thinking...

Sorry your ex had problems on the jab, but others such as myself have been using this very successfully for rather a long time now.

P.s. some women are just moodier than others too ;)

[Tigadee]

Point of order, a vasectomy is generally considered irreversible and although the Vas can be reconnected it has a high failure rate particularly among older men.

More effort should be focused on the men that get these girls pregnant and then fuck off leaving her to raise the baby without a father in it’s life. Perhaps a certain amount of their benefit should be docked and sent their child’s mum for additional child support

Wouldn't the vasectomy be a more effective solution then?

[oneofsix]

Wouldn't the vasectomy be a more effective solution then?

Castration sounds more like what you are thinking of :shutup:

Most don't remain on the benefit so they must be afforded the opportunity to be fertile once they have learnt to provide for them and their offspring once they are financially productive members of society. Financially productive members of society must have productive members :innocent:.

[mashman]

Sorry your ex had problems on the jab, but others such as myself have been using this very successfully for rather a long time now.

P.s. some women are just moodier than others too ;)

Settle pettle :shifty:... I guess ya never hear about the positive stories.

(there may be something to that :msn-wink:)

[Little Miss Trouble]

Settle pettle :shifty:... I guess ya never hear about the positive stories.

(there may be something to that :msn-wink:)

Some men too it seems...

[mashman]

Some men too it seems...

waaa ha ha ha haaaaa :bleh:

[Tigadee]

Financially productive members of society must have productive members.

And really, the world's population is big enough already, coupled with dwindling global resources. Isn't it good that contraceptives will be made even more accessible/available?

We can't expect people to be celibate or abstain, so we should then make it that certain aspects of the fornication process be put on hold or interrupted, to place less pressure on society. Heck, if they can't keep it in their pants, then the least they can do is allow for preggers interruptus to be implemented.

[blue rider]

Because we men are wild, elusive beasts who can't be nailed down... :bleh: Actually, the head honchos in Gov't are male, so any idea pertaining to restricting a male's reproductive function (*snip*snip*) probably draws a lot of incredulous looks at Ms Bennet, followed by hysterical laughter.

On a slightly serious note, men produce millions of sperm, while women release one or even sometimes two eggs a month, so it's easier to stop those one or two eggs with certainlty than it is try to stop millions of tadpoles.

Wouldn't a side-benefit of some of the contraceptives for women be that they do not experience their monthly cycle any more? No more cramps, no more moods, and think of the savings on pads!



it takes a women nine month to produce one child....
the father or this child, could, during these nine month produce several dozens more.

so it is way more cost effective to snip snip the male.....

personally i believe that contraceptive should be free regardless of the financial health of the female, and then i believe that sex ed could go a long way etc. etc.

but its much more fun to go after the career beneficiaries who are all single mums...and who all suffered form immaculate conception on purpose, as no male was ever included in the making of any of their children

[puddytat]

I feel that in this day & age contraception should be free.
Like wise, anyone who has had a child or not, should be able to have themselves sterilised for free.
And for fellas that have enough kids & would like the missus not to take the "Pill" becuse of one reason or another,should seriously consider getting cut. Who wants to wear a joe ffs:no:

[sidecar bob]

Im not sure why the beneficiaries are pissed off about this, theyre being given an option on getting another something for nothing.
The good old taxpayer is the one that should be havin a bleat, but na, as usual, theyre too busy making a living & happy wilth their lot to be losing too much sleep over the fact that they are funding it.
I discovered that if you give a loser free shit, they always seem to find a reason to feel aggrieved about it.

[XxKiTtiExX]

Wouldn't a side-benefit of some of the contraceptives for women be that they do not experience their monthly cycle any more? No more cramps, no more moods, and think of the savings on pads!

Some/most women still get their monthly cycle while on contraceptives, a select few are lucky enough that they don't. Some unfortunately bleed heavier than normal. And as for "no more moods?" Obviously you haven't experienced a woman who reacts badly to some things used in the contraceptive. And just think, once its injected (depo for example) its there until it wears off ;) You could have 6+ months worth of crazy!!!

[Tigadee]

it takes a women nine month to produce one child....
the father or this child, could, during these nine month produce several dozens more.

so it is way more cost effective to snip snip the male.....

I think I will have agree with that logic...


, and then i believe that sex ed could go a long way etc. etc.

Noble sentiment but it has been done and I don't think it's worked out very well... Unless sex ed is to tell boys "that you can feel as much with a condom on as when you don't", or "if you get a girl pregnant, you should take it upon your responsibility to get a job, help bring up the child, stand by the woman and even marry her", etc.


but its much more fun to go after the career beneficiaries who are all single mums...and who all suffered form immaculate conception on purpose, as no male was ever included in the making of any of their children

True, and snip snip takes care of half the problem already, aye? :laugh:


You could have 6+ months worth of crazy!!!

:dodge: for six months at a time?! OK men, line up for *snip*snip!

[oldrider]

Nazional Party Eugenics programme, step 1. First its "voluntary" then its "complusory" then its "strength thru joy" then its "just line up over there for the showers".

the upcoming war is not between races, or stupid religions, its between the haves, and have nots.

Can't say I disagree to much with with that but the way I see it is that the haves are not able to breed because they can't afford to because of having to pay so much for the have nots breeding behaviours!

Bradford has really got her head up her arse on this subject, she wants everything both ways FFS!

As long as it remains freedom of choice I would rather support voluntary contraception than unwanted kids being bashed to death or maimed for life!

I suppose some will say I have got my own head up my arse , to each his own I spose! :mellow: (maybe I have)

[RDJ]

There Ain't No Such Thing As Free Contraception

If it is free to Paulette, it's because someone is taking money away from Petra's earnings to pay for it. People who earn are expected to pay twice, once for their own, and once more for another's.

It's a fascinating study in internal illogic, that there is such a huge overlap between the part of the population that demands "taxpayers (in this context usually Conservatives) we insist you stay out of our bedrooms" and the part of the population that demands "taxpayers, we insist you pay for what we want to do in our bedrooms".

[RDJ]

Im not sure why the beneficiaries are pissed off about this, theyre being given an option on getting another something for nothing.
The good old taxpayer is the one that should be havin a bleat, but na, as usual, theyre too busy making a living & happy wilth their lot to be losing too much sleep over the fact that they are funding it.
I discovered that if you give a loser free shit, they always seem to find a reason to feel aggrieved about it.

and if you suddenly stop giving them free stuff, it's a breach of their Human Right to said free stuff and they call out the Waaaaahmbulance (and usually publicly funded lawyers as well)

[unstuck]

I got snipped after the 3rd was born, why the fuck would you want any more than 3.:confused: My sister in law has 6 kids and has nothing to do with any of them, and the first one, her and her partner nearly beat to death before she was 1yr old. She shouldn't of been allowed any more(in my opinion she should of been put to death,along with her then partner). We finally got all of her kids removed after a huge battle with various government departments. I payed(quite alot) to get her steralized, because no one else would. It was either that or kill the fucked up piece of shit.:devil2: Her kids are now healthy, loved, beautiful people, and they are still within the family. But she is not allowed near them, thank god. The biggest thing that upset her, was no more money from the government.:Punk: