A Christchurch GP (called an expert by TVNZ) has said that NZ women need more modern contraception, funded by the taxpayer. She believes that better contraception will lower our high abortion rate.
I would have thought that the best way to lower our high abortion rate would be to stop allowing so many abortions to be done for mental health reasons that are totally bogus. That would wipe out most of them pretty quickly.
As for wanting to encourage more promiscuity among women, funded by the taxpayer, I despair for NZ.
Related link : Contraception key factor in abortion rate ~ TVNZ
I would have thought that the best way to lower our high abortion rate would be to stop allowing so many abortions to be done for mental health reasons that are totally bogus. That would wipe out most of them pretty quickly.
As for wanting to encourage more promiscuity among women, funded by the taxpayer, I despair for NZ.
Related link : Contraception key factor in abortion rate ~ TVNZ
It's not as though contraception is hard to obtain or expensive either.
ReplyDeleteI think they just hate people and want us to go extinct.
The only way to lower the abortion rate is to encourage the use of contraception so that women don't get pregnant in the first place. You will never stop women from having access to safe and legal abortion so despair away you moron.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNever is long time, Faye.
ReplyDeleteJust wait until ultrasounds scans are so detailed that you can easily see the humanity of your 11 week fetus. How easy to pay a hired killer to do away with him or her, then?
The only way to lower the abortion rate is to encourage the use of contraception so that women don't get pregnant in the first place.
ReplyDeleteFunny how encouraging contraception is exactly what's going on while our rates are *increasing*.
Perhaps your suggestion of the "only way" needs a little more thought.
You will never stop women from having access to safe and legal abortion so despair away you moron.
ReplyDeleteI believe much the same was said to Wilberforce regarding the slave trade. Yet here we are.
How about abstaining as a contraception? This is never a factor for the academics, is it. Faye's comment is totally biased, typical from the blindly pro-choice lobby. They care more for the 'rights' of women, then for the rights of the innocent unborn, but very very human.
ReplyDeleteWould asking a female winz beneficiary from West Auckland about lowering the abortion rate be akin to asking your local mechanic to work out the dynamic torque stresses on a crank shaft?
ReplyDeleteTanya, that's crazy talk. In order for that to be true, pregnancy would have to be caused by two people having sex.
ReplyDeleteThe ironic thing is that pro-choice activists spend all their time defending the 'rights'of women, when they are advocating the demise of what would be future women, if allowed to live. Crazy tak? No. But its always slippery arguing with the Left, and it's never a balanced argument from the pro choicers.
ReplyDeleteWhy do women get pregnant after sex?
ReplyDelete1. Contraceptive failure
Making it free will not make it work better.
2. They think they are immune from the consequences of sex.
So providing free contraception isn't going to change that attitude.
3. They cannot afford to buy contraception
I'd like to see the statistics of those women getting abortions that are on good wages, or that can afford smokes and going to pubs, or cannot convince the boyfriend to fund contraception, and I suspect we'd actually have a very small list compared to the 18,000 abortions a year. Making something free is probably not the issue we need to solve.
4. They use abortion as a backstop to contraception
If they knew abortion was not readily available, then they would quickly change their behaviour, or they would prove to be stupid or undue risk takers, in which case, providing free contraception will not help.
5. They were raped and became pregnant because of this.
This is probably 3 cases per year (NZ reports around 600 rapes per year, and the pregnancy rate is around 3 per 1000.)
Making abortion harder to get is going to result in a change of behaviour and attitude to casual sex and how it is approached. Naturally, that is viewed as an attack on their freedom, rather than a statement of responsibility understanding actions have consequences.
Step one, make abortion NOT funded by the tax payer, and see what happens to the numbers. Making contraception free will make things worse in terms of setting expectations that women will adhere to this.
Making abortion harder to get or encouraging abstinence education will not make people stop having sex. You pro liars just want to drag everyone back to the dark ages when women died from infections caused by back street abortionists.
ReplyDeleteThere's a good article HERE by Jennifer Fulwiler and why she is no longer pro-choice.
ReplyDeleteUntil a couple of years ago, I was militantly pro-choice. When I heard people make anti-abortion statements, it filled me with a white-hot anger that I could barely contain. Behind my views was a buried but unspoken sense that there was something inherently unfair about being a woman, and abortion was a key to maintaining any semblance of a level playing field in the world.
My peers and I were taught not that sex creates babies, but that unprotected sex creates babies. We absorbed through cultural osmosis the idea that every normal person will have sex at some point in his or her life, and that the sexual act, by default, has no significance outside the relationship between the two people involved. In this worldview, when unexpected pregnancies came up, it was seen as a sort of betrayal by the woman's body. My friends and I lamented the awful position every woman was in: Unexpected pregnancies were like lightning strikes, and when one of these unpredictable events did occur, there were no good options for dealing with them. Abortion wasn't ideal -- even we acknowledged that it was a violating procedure that was hard on a woman's body -- but what choice did anyone have? To not have the option of terminating surprise pregnancies when they came up out of nowhere would mean being a slave to one's biology.
I thought of the several friends whom I'd helped procure abortions, how each was scared and caught off guard, overwhelmed with a feeling of "I never signed up for a pregnancy," angry at a faceless enemy. They had followed all of society's rules, yet still ended up in a gut-wrenching position. We hated the anti-abortion zealots because we thought they tried to take away women's freedom; what we didn't understand is that women's freedom had already been taken, when society bought the lie that sex is primarily about bonding and pleasure, and that its life-giving potential is tangential and optional.
Faye, it's not about stopping people having sex, its about understanding the consequences of doing so. How can you fail to grasp this basic concept?
ReplyDeleteFaye,
ReplyDeleteWomen were not dying from back street abortions in the dark ages. They were being raped/murdered or hauled off as slaves during the waves of barbarian invasions that occurred during that time.
You need to get your historical periods correct.