Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Helpful abortion statistics

Shamelessly swiped from Julie at the Hand Mirror. Ken Orr and Bob McCroskie are perfectly entitled to an opinion on abortion, of course. They should just keep in mind what women are going to be thinking about them while they do it, is all.

46 comments:

Doug said...

So what are they saying 100% women are baby killers?

Psycho Milt said...

Since some of our readers plainly have difficulty with abstract concepts, I'll spell it out: it's wonderfully easy to pontificate and moralise about an issue that will never affect you. So easy in fact, that your views on it will be of little interest to the people it does affect, who have to take the whole thing a lot more seriously at a very personal level.

Anonymous said...

that your views on it will be of little interest to the people it does affect, who have to take the whole thing a lot more seriously at a very personal level.

The "people it does affect" are not people - they're fetuses.

Just as, frankly, the "people" who shot the shopkeeper aren't people, they're criminals, and should be treated as such.

Psycho Milt said...

The "people it does affect" are called women - you may have met some?

sagenz said...

since medical science started saving 22 week children and abortion is still legal to 24 weeks they are a little bit more than fetuses and it becomes a little bit more than a woman's right to choose.

either you support infanticide or you dont understand the real issues.

science has moved on.

Danyl said...

either you support infanticide or you dont understand the real issues.

Since abortions in this country are state-funded you also support infanticide - you pay for it with your taxes.

Since you feel abortion is murder do you think its moral to continue to be complicit in these crimes?

Andrew Davies said...

Men are affected, they are forced to pay for it.
The cost of consequences of actions should be left with those who cause them. Failure to do so means the morality and lifestyle choice of some is iimposed onto everyone else.

Blair said...

That sounds like a bullshit made-up statistic to me. Most of the pro-life activists I have met, in this country anyway, are women. And even if it was true, the whole "men don't have a right to an opinion" thing is equally bullshit. We're all human, and debate on what constitutes a "person" is entirely within the interests of both sexes.

In cold ethical terms, a foetus has a right to life. It is hard to argue otherwise. But a pregnant woman also has a right to deem her foetus a parasite and expel him or her. A foetus is normally able to be sustained outside the womb at about 24 weeks. So practically speaking, legal abortion before that stage does not destroy a viable human life.

That is not to say I find abortion in any form palatable, quite the opposite. But the solution is not to make it illegal. The solution is to legalise surrogacy and commercial adoption. People who want to save babies should be able to put their money where their mouth is and raise them in a loving home, while compensating any human incubator for their efforts. If we could do this, abortion rates would be decimated.

Psycho Milt said...

Men are affected, they are forced to pay for it.

Someone's forced you to pay for their abortion, Andrew? I'd report that to the Police if I were you. Ah, no, I see - you mean you pay taxes, and those taxes are sometimes used to pay for things you don't like. Oh yes - this terrible injustice makes abortion look trivial...

Psycho Milt said...

Like I said Blair - it's easy to pontificate about something that'll never affect you. Sure you're entitled to hold an opinion on it, I do too. Just don't expect women to count our opinions on this subject for much.

macdoctor said...

PM

Every single aborted foetus has/had a father. Are you really saying that their opinions don't count?

Andrew Davies said...

Pathetic response PM.
And men are also affected in another way. They are 50% responsible for creating the baby. The child has just as much the father's DNA as the mother's.
Just in case you had not noticed.

MrTips said...

Pm

Useless and wrong argument.

Men are affected; especially those who want to keep the child.
I have met at least half a dozen who wanted to keep the child but the woman wanted an abortion.

At the coal face chum; not tucked away in some cosy library pontificating about stuff that will never affect you...

The ex-expat said...

Umm unless I am mistaken women also pay taxes. And it is interesting that the same people who complain about their tax dollars being spent on abortion are the same people bitching about the bloated welfare state. What was that about the cake and eating it?

And yes while men are also affected by abortion they aren't the ones who get pregnant and which ever option is taken from there, don't get to go through an incredibly painful physical process (and I'm speaking here from personal experience).

Yes there should be some limitations on abortion but at the same time each individual case is different and the stereotype of the teenager getting drunk and knocked up is actually far from the truth.

I agree that men have a right to voice their opinions and those opinions and they should be taken into account. Sometimes they don't get their way and it is incredibly unfair. I'm sure the single mums whose partners had promised to be there for them and then skipped out on them are likely thinking the same thing as are the ones who were pressured into an abortion by their partners.

Psycho Milt said...

Mr Tips wrote: I have met at least half a dozen [men] who wanted to keep the child but the woman wanted an abortion.

If you're a man, an essential prerequisite for having a child is a woman who wants to have one with you. If that prerequisite isn't met, you're out of luck - it's sad, but life has a few sad bits. I certainly don't see any moral case for calling on the law to force an unwilling woman to have a baby because you want it.

At the coal face chum; not tucked away in some cosy library pontificating about stuff that will never affect you...

Will never affect me? I am a man, the relevant bits still work, so it could theoretically affect me next month. It's unlikely to, I'll give you that, but "never?"

MrTips said...

One day PM says:

"Like I said Blair - it's easy to pontificate about something that'll never affect you. Sure you're entitled to hold an opinion on it, I do too. Just don't expect women to count our opinions on this subject for much."

And then the next day he says:
"I am a man, the relevant bits still work, so it could theoretically affect me next month. It's unlikely to, I'll give you that, but "never?""

So which is it PM, it will affect you or "it might"?

This whole sexist bullshit that "I'm a woman and no man is going to tell me what to do with my body (even though the child is a separate being)" has really got into your skull hasn't it? No wonder you're confused.

ZenTiger said...

This logic is sexist and anti-human.

Try it the other way around though since it impresses you so much:

82% of abortions are carried out by Male Doctors, and Males overwhelmingly run the abortion provider services.

None of them will ever have a baby.



And Danyl, what do you think would happen if people stopped paying taxes as a protest against mis-spending? for starters, they cannot. The tax is removed even before one is paid. Although the cry "taxation is theft" has a greater moral significance now, doesn't it?

Danyl said...

And Danyl, what do you think would happen if people stopped paying taxes as a protest against mis-spending? for starters, they cannot.

You are not protesting mis-spending. You are protesting murder. You claim to believe that abortion is murder yet you pay for it with your taxes.

By your logic your own tax dollars are funding several hundred murders a week. Shouldn't you be hunger striking, protesting, invading clinics or doing something other than whining on the internet?

ZenTiger said...

But I am doing something more than blogging Danyl. So your assumption is unfounded. I don't need to justify to you what I do in my Community and in terms of financial support to promoting other options for women who think their only options are abortion.

And blogging helps to spread opinions.

If the best opinion you can muster is that I'm supposed to undertake illegal activity (such as refuse to pay tax or invade clinics) to prove my sincerity, then I can see why you might think blogging is whining.

Danyl said...

So Zen - let me get this straight. If the government announced that it was going to start murdering several hundred schoolchildren per-week your reaction would be:

1. Complain about it on the internet.

2. Engage in some sort of community activity (perhaps counselling the parents of the murdered children).

3. Err . . . that's it!

Psycho Milt said...

So which is it PM, it will affect you or "it might"?

Confusion of terminology, Mr Tips - didn't make myself clear.

1. The need for an abortion, ie the issue of my original post, will never affect me (or any other man) - it's a physical impossibility.

2. The issue you raised, the depressing possibility of causing a woman to become pregnant, only to find she's unwilling to continue the pregnancy despite my desire to keep the child, is a separate issue that could conceivably affect me at some point.

I realise you probably consider that they are in fact both the same issue - in the second scenario, the abortion would "affect" me. However, the fact remains - neither the pregnancy nor the abortion are mine. They are someone else's burden. I can offer that someone else advice and support them in what they decide, but it's them that has to wear the consequences of that decision in a direct, physical way that I will never have to. Attempting to make it all about me, just because the difficult decision that other person has to make about their own body might make me sad, or thwart my desires, or inconvenience me, would be dishonourable.

Anonymous said...

I take you didn't object to apartheid then, as it never affected you?

MrTips said...

PM, fair enough. Thanks for expounding it more clearly.

Now I must do the same.

I am not saying its all about the man or its all about the woman. It should be about both of them, and THAT reality needs to be enshrined in the law.

In the same way that people accuse some woman of getting pregnant just to get the DPB - and view that behaviour rather scornfully - is it not hypocritical then for those same people to champion the "rights" of a woman to choose an abortion on her own without any male input?

They are the same thing at the point whereby the woman chooses to have sex with the man: the woman who keeps the child is scorned, but the man is made to have a say and contribute financially. The woman who chooses an abortion is championed by sexist, man-hating nutjobs like Di Cleary and right from the start, the man is told to bugger off.

Finally, we don't pay taxes for smokers to kill themselves over time. The smoker does via the tax on cigarettes etc. Do we need to introduce an abortion tax as well, directed at the end user? The pro-"choice" community would be up in arms about that.

ZenTiger said...

Do you really think you are being clever Danyl?

You have no idea what I do. And that's beside the point. Your line of attack is inappropriate and puerile. Grow up.

Anonymous said...

Obviously it takes two to tango.
But the male partner should have some say in the matter if he is offering to provide, etc.
But if the pregnancy arrived as a mistake and the woman has no means to support the child then abortion should be available as quickly as possible.
If that means on demand, so be it.
I am sure that the process can be quickened up so abortions happen before the fetus has had much time to develop.
Now, late term abortion is an issue.
There I can see the concept of Adolfs 'little people.'


pdq

Anonymous said...

it is interesting that the same people who complain about their tax dollars being spent on abortion are the same people bitching about the bloated welfare state. What was that about the cake and eating it?

Precisely. Abortion is a lot cheaper than 13 years of "edumacation" plus 18 years of DBP plus however long on the dole, plus however longer in prison. Much cheaper.

But if the pregnancy arrived as a mistake and the woman has no means to support the child then abortion should be available as quickly as possible.

Precisely.

Do we need to introduce an abortion tax as well, directed at the end user?

We should, of course, by making people responsible for healthcare. But rather than an "abortion tax" we really need "child tax" to cover the costs the child will impose on the state - and parents should have to pay that (say in advance for 5, 10, or 20 years) before birth - otherwise an abortion is administered unless someone else is willing to support the child.

Anything else is socialism.

ZenTiger said...

There is a child tax that extends throughout life - its called PAYE. It's backed up with rates, GST and excise taxes.

It seems you are advocating abortion on some strange balance of probabilities the person will never get a job and end up a drain on welfare.

Psycho Milt said...

Much as I disagree with Mr Tips and Zen Tiger, the fact they appreciate what constitutes a moral argument is welcome relief. Vastly preferable to that other branch of the right wing, for which everything is all about Me And My Money. My taxes! My child support payments! WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY?!!

Child support is the bill you pay for being careless with your sperm. It doesn't automatically entitle you to anything, least of all to poke your nose into whether the one who's actually pregnant has an abortion or not. Don't like it? Be more careful with your sperm.

Taxes are the bill you pay for living in a society. Don't like it? Go find a desert island.

Mr Tips: I guess we're going to have to disagree on this. The concept that I have some kind of right to tell a pregnant woman (even one I made pregnant) what she's going to do about that pregnancy, is simply repugnant. Advise, ask, offer etc, sure. Demand? No.

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

I have a mate who is gay but he fathered a child at 19.
He currently pays just over $100 a week in child support and that doesn't leave him with much money.
So that must work out at nearly $100K over 18 years.
That makes for a high price for being 'careless with sperm.'
But as PDQ notes, it takes two to tango.
That includes responsibility for contraception.
It is not all the man's fault.
Women take responsibility too.
The mother chose to have the baby.
So my mate has much to pay and much more in coming years.
But at least he has the son that I don't have.
PM argues that it is not all about money and he is right.
But we should take all things into consideration.
And that includes the rights of fathers.

ISeeRed said...

Yes, fairfacts, it's the woman's "choice", but the male has NO choice if she chooses to keep it. He's just a sperm dispenser and ATM, not an actual feeling human being, right? Of course, some may say he could choose not to have unprotected sex in the first place, but then you could say the same about her.

Psycho Milt said...

That makes for a high price for being 'careless with sperm.

A fuckin' excellent reason for being careful with it - you'd think.

It is not all the man's fault.
Women take responsibility too.
The mother chose to have the baby.


You write that as though having a baby was like going down the pub. Have a think about it and you'll figure out who got the easier deal.

He's just a sperm dispenser and ATM, not an actual feeling human being, right?

You seem to be making a good case for that view. Let's revisit my earlier comment: "If you're a man, an essential prerequisite for having a child is a woman who wants to have one with you. If that prerequisite isn't met, you're out of luck - it's sad, but life has a few sad bits. I certainly don't see any moral case for calling on the law to force an unwilling woman to have a baby because you want it.

ISeeRed said...

"You write that as though having a baby was like going down the pub."

It often happens nine months after going to one.

Anonymous said...

There is a child tax that extends throughout life - its called PAYE. It's backed up with rates, GST and excise taxes.

Paye is only paid by adults. Not Children.
And nothing ensures that the child will in fact earn enough to pay PAYE or GST with its own money.

It seems you are advocating abortion on some strange balance of probabilities the person will never get a job and end up a drain on welfare.

If parents cannot provide for the child: of course.

But on reflection I can see another argument for mandatory abortion: if the parents are socialists or unionists. Those things tend to run in families: I'd swap the odd Roger Douglas for the abundance of Clarks and Cullens.

ZenTiger said...

Anon (if that's who you really are) your argument is strange, is this just a bit of tongue in cheek rant against welfare?

Paye is only paid by adults. Not Children. And nothing ensures that the child will in fact earn enough to pay PAYE or GST with its own money.

Most adults pay tax, and have enough left over to pay for their child's food, board and birthday presents. Kids could effectively cost nothing to the state, although having kids might mean one pays less tax - generally seen (crudely) as part of the value of raising the next generation of workers.

And some children will grow up to be productive members of society, and others (a small percentage) may not. What's your criteria for killing the right ones? Sounds like you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty" either.

If parents cannot provide for the child: of course

Very scary. So poor old Tom gets laid off by Fisher and Paykel a week before the baby is due and you and your crew show up with the forceps...does your crew also provide a resume writing service?

And studies have been done on the liberal parents, conservative kids and vice versa, and they concluded kids don't always listen to their parents. And on a more anecdotal note, I would have thought that living with unionists would be almost guaranteed to drive a kid in the opposite direction. We need a reach out program for these kids.

And there's the story of John Key - poor kid, state house now leader of the National Party. In your world, he would have never got to even trade shares...isn't this sacrilege for you? (I like Bill English more, but I'm going to stay neutral on this one)




, it doesn't mean that the child will not one day provide for the parents...

ZenTiger said...

Scratch the last line, I was going to make another point, then lost interest, err I mean I decided to abort. As is my right. As a male writer.

Anonymous said...

PM
Just a question. Are you not being just a little condescending arguing for women? You carry on about men never having to carry a child and you are right, but my wife just had a real chuckle at your presumption to being the champion of women's choice.

I asked her to write you a reply, she declined with the statement: "Why? This is a guy who wants to be seen to be sensitive and caring..he would have no interest in my point of view as a women, even if I agreed with 60% of what he said, he would focus on the other 40%"

So I decided to do a Psyco milt and speak up for the little women.
Bok

Psycho Milt said...

Bok: if you actually read this thread, you'll find I don't claim to speak for women. The thread is about men. Why would you encourage your wife to write in and tell me about what men should do, if that kind of condescension bothers you so much?

Anonymous said...

my partner aborted my child. I wanted to keep it. I was not consulted, i had no say in the matter. No medical service made any effort to talk to me, or ascertain my perspective.

I no longer trust this person. Regrettably I do not have a pre-nup and because I cannot chuck her out of my house without giving her half of it, I am royally fucked.

Abortion is a dreadful thing.

Lindsay said...

What many commentors are overlooking is that if the anti-abortionists got their way and the process was criminalised, it would not stop abortions happening. And it is the woman who ultimately makes that decision because they the ones physically affected. It is often men who discuss abortion in theoretical and logical terms (PM's original point I think). Women find it hard because the issue is rarely black and white and decisions about giving birth are intensely personal and abortions often produce deep and abiding guilt.

There may be fewer abortions (with criminalisation), a good outcome in my view, but there are better ways of achieving that.

Last anon. You want to be a father. Seriously weigh up whether it is worth giving your partner half the house and looking for someone who wants to have children with you. I appreciate that may leave you in no financial position to raise a family but think on it. There isn't much 'valuable' left for you in your current situation.

Psycho Milt said...

Last anon: clearly this message is not getting through, so I'll repeat it:

"If you're a man, an essential prerequisite for having a child is a woman who wants to have one with you. If that prerequisite isn't met, you're out of luck - it's sad, but life has a few sad bits. I certainly don't see any moral case for calling on the law to force an unwilling woman to have a baby because you want it."

NB: "your" house? And you don't have a pre-nup, so presumably you're married? In which case, it's also "her" house? Why exactly should you be able to chuck her out of her own house, let alone do so without buying her out? Have you stopped to think at all about why this woman might not be looking on you as someone she wants to have a baby with?

Anonymous said...

yes PM "my house"

As in I am not married, I pay the mortgage and all of the outgoings, and this person pays rent. But if you are in a defacto relationship for longer than 2 years in NZ the other party is entitled to take half your property.

Do your research before you seek to disparage others - tosser.

Just because you want to be some kind of holier than thou commentator, you should think before you write. Try walking in someone elses shoes before rushing to judgement.

Sus said...

"Taxes are the bill you pay for living in a society."

But I don't *pay*. In spite of the hours of work concerned, the money's taken from me before I've even been given the courtesy of holding it, nor do I have any control over its distribution. Next.

"Other branch of the right wing"

Which RW branch (sic) would that be?

The "branch" that would repeal the Misuse of Drugs Act?
That supports the legalisation of adult prostitution?
That has no issue with the legalisation of same-sex adult relationships aka civil unions?

I can see the late Jerry Falwell positively beaming with delight at being associated with such "right-wingers"!

Left wing/right wing, it's still the state. As the saying goes, "a plague to both", etc.

Psycho Milt said...

Which RW branch (sic) would that be?

I told you - the one for which everything's all about Me And My Money. If that don't fit the Libz, I don't know what does.

Anonymous: it's hard not to be holier-than-thou in the face of such truculent self-pity.

And being admittedly a holier-than-thou type, I simply can't help myself: it's called "de facto" because it's a de facto marriage. A woman that you're married to (de facto or otherwise) and hoping to have a child with, isn't simply a tenant that you happen to be shagging. If you seriously want a child, you have to find a woman who wants to have one with you, and make a fucking commitment. It ain't rocket science.

Anonymous said...

no its not PM, its called a defacto relationship, it is defined by law. Again do your research.

I see you rush to judgement about that which you know nothing, again -clearly some kind of preference of yours.

So woman moves in to your house, you invite her in, you live in a defacto relationship. You support this woman. She gets pregnant and decides that she doesnt want to "commit".

At this point the man has zero rights, and no say whatsoever in the matter. Except of course to pay for the woman's preferences of course.

The house issue is a redherring, and you know it, but if you really believe that men deserve no rights, and have no say in a family, then you really need to grow up and get out more.

As I said, tosser

Psycho Milt said...

If you're such a fan of research, look up the meaning of the term "de facto."

At this point the man has zero rights, and no say whatsoever in the matter. Except of course to pay for the woman's preferences of course.

Correct. Sticking your dick in other people doesn't bring you rights, it only brings you obligations. There was a time when men could pretend otherwise, but thankfully those times have gone now. Still, feel free to lobby politicians for your right to force your girlfriend to continue a pregnancy against her will, on the basis that you wish it thus - it's your right as a voter. Tough sell, though.

ZenTiger said...

Anon, my condolences on the loss of your child.

Life is rough, and it is issues like these that can crystallize the fact that your relationship is rocky.

You partner may have lost your trust, but it may have been the result of the pressure she was under, and a series of bad choices arising from that pressure, which has compounded things to the point she is not facing up to deeper feelings.

You have choice here - you can offer up your love and your trust and see what you can do to help heal her. Then maybe, she'll be able to give you the same consideration.

You seemed to have taken the pregnancy as something positive, so hold on to that. Get some space and see if you can imagine this event 40 years on with a few kids and a new life with the same person.

If you cannot find it in yourself to forgive, and you've given it deep thought, then losing half of your possessions is nothing to losing half of your life living uncommitted to anything, and unhappy with the current state - one that will not change if you do not.

Sorry if I come across the wrong way - you've made this a blog conversation - so maybe it's worth me speaking out. Best wishes, Zen.

PS: I don't know how long the relationship has lasted, but your deadline is three years, not two for property division, and even then if you owned the property before the relationship, that is taken into account.

Property Division