Friday, February 10, 2006

Women oppose abortion!!

See:
The final vote was 45 to 28 — with 21 women voting for the bill and only three female senators opposing.

3 women and 25 men supported Abbott having the right to impose his private beliefs on the nation, the health system and women's wombs.

So no more lefty guff about this issue being driven by misogynistic old males, eh?

22 comments:

Mike Jericho said...

Western civilisation, aborting itself into oblivion.

Yippee.

Major Anya said...

Western civilisation giving women (and men) choice.

Mike Jericho said...

I've no problem with the issue of choice. But there are larger issues at stake.

Say that western civilisation is a fat little German kid, left alone in a chocolate factory. Sure, he has the choice about what he does next. If moderation is exercised, a little chocolate won't kill him.

But if he goes nuts, it's only a matter of time before he buys the bullet.

Western countries are aborting pregnancies at a ridiculous rate while those who do not subscribe to your progressive viewpoint only churn out more little hate-o-bots.

History dictates what happens next. It always has.

Valleyman said...

I'm curious as to your thoughts on this issue. Myself personally, I believe that the bill should be passed and it should be up to the woman to decide whether or not she want's to use the drug in question? Regardless of your personal opinion on abortion shouldn't it be left to carrier of the fetus to decide whether or not she wants to carry said child to term?
I agree that the situation shouldn't be left in the hands of one such as Abbott. He himself has admitted that he is a full fledged Christian. No matter how much we talk about sepration of State Religion it's never really going to happen.

theHippy said...

Jerrico - you're missing the point. A countryside full of unwanted youth is THE reason wars are started - civil or expansionary. They're buggered either way, god-boy. Are you prepared to pay more taxs to support 'em? Offer to take one in? Maybe we should pay families to look after 'em, call it mutual obligation. But really, to suggest women would have abortions like confection just because they can makes me think you're only concerned about the wealfare of our fighting troops, present AND future! You just want women to suffer, don't you? I mean abortion is legal - you just want them to suffer, you sad little boy.

Armagnac Esq. said...

Valleyman, the sarcasm in my post correctly points to me agreeing with you on this.

Jericho, don't join the religious right on this.

The flipside of theHippy's argument is completely doable: if you want more kids, don't try to achieve it by bullying women around, rather, give people genuine choices by supporting them.

I throw this back at you: a modicum of support, including stronger laws supporting the right to part time work wherever feasible plus childcare for whoever needs it, and I'd bet you'd see hundreds, even thousands, of children born each year.

Mike Jericho said...

Thehippy, I know you meant it another way, but I take "God-boy" as a compliment.

So thank you!

Arman, we don't conflict over this, I don't think. As I pointed out, I have no issue over the matter of personal choice. I do not wish to deny women anything.

However, the cavalier attitude to abortion that is so prevalent in the west (esp Europe) must end. Population decline is going to see a Muslim majority population rise in the Low Countries within the next 20-30 years. They know it, and they're starting to worry.

Wait to see what the Muslims then insist upon as the predominant national voter block, Thehippy. Think that we Christians are bad? Oh baby, are you in for a rude shock.

When will you lefties realise that ultimately, what I've been arguing for all these years has been your own survival! I want the secular, liberal west to live on, alongside the Christian west. We have done so for hundreds of years. Sure, we've had our spats. But in the end, we've learned to get along and live side-by-side.

If the lefties of Europe ignore my warnings and continue their insane approaches to immigration, abortion and nanny-state socialism in general, they are going to go the way of the Dodo in a couple of decades.

Demographics don't believe in politics and they never lie.

Mike Jericho said...

"I throw this back at you: a modicum of support, including stronger laws supporting the right to part time work wherever feasible plus childcare for whoever needs it, and I'd bet you'd see hundreds, even thousands, of children born each year."

You're in the right tree, just on the wrong branch. Forget the Nanny-State stuff. It's unsustainable.

How about a strong attempt by teachers (supported by the unions) to refocus upon family values at all levels of education.

More pragmatically, combine that with tax relief for working parents.

Someone (I can't recall who) had a wonderful idea along this vein.

First, convert the tax system over to a flat tax. Then provide a 20% tax cut for anyone who has a child. The tax cut remains in place until the child has turned 18.

For every new child born to the family, an additional 20% cut could be added atop the first. After 5 children, the family would be (effectively) paying no tax (while the kids are all under 18).

Think about it. I think it could work wonders for our society.

Living in Canberra said...

I found the size of the majority in the Senate vote pleasantly surprising - thought that given the conservatism of many of our elected representatives, that it woould be closer. I think the almost unanimous support it got from the women senators says it all. I think the men in the House should listen to that.

Anonymous said...

and none of you even know a woman who has been hit
by a husband who has just been told
of a new pregnancy.
Many husbands are furious when 'the little woman' announces a contraception failure.

R H said...

Is that so?

I think you've made it up.

theHippy said...

"Wait to see what the Muslims then insist upon as the predominant national voter block, Thehippy. Think that we Christians are bad? Oh baby, are you in for a rude shock."

Jerico, I'm an agnostic atheist, the only hell I face is the hell-on-earth the christians in the US will create when the bomb Iran. Is that how you plan to reinforce the status quo, with our sheilas barefoot, pregnant and if they must abort, make it as grusome as you possibly can. Happy little believer, sorry about the god-boy prawn but half of us hippies are female.

True, Fiji is an interesting case, but this ain't Fiji. Your demographics don't lie, they point squarely at global overpopulation - 1.2 billion chinese know this and we're selling our souls to them just to afford the kids we've got. The govt we voted for just slashed support for single parents and you want abortion stopped. All this to try to outbreed the Arabs? One day the girls are gonna invent a plastic womb that fits in a bloke's clacker, Oh baby, are we in for a rude shock.

Nam LaMore said...

all this choice won't mean anything if the environment goes down the tube. there's so much junk in the food we eat, water we drink, air we breath, etc. that it will only be a matter when there won't even be a choice. all that apocalypic sci-fi may come true, non? i just re-read phillip dick's "do androids dream of of electronic sheep" (the movie had a different name: "bladerunner"), and it's creepy if we go down that path.

tOh said...

What Nam said, with a question for the goody-two-shoes:
Why didn't the omnipotent FS Monster make this sacred planet large enough for all humans - where does it say in the bible that there are limits to the grand plan? Was Eve essentially better than god at determining when enough is enough? You bloody bet!

Armagnac Esq. said...

="and none of you even know a woman who has been hit by a husband who has just been told of a new pregnancy"=

Sadly I saw several such cases in my previous line of work.

R H said...

And how many drunken sluts did you see whose de factos murdered their kids?

There'd have to be a few because it's common.

Armagnac Esq. said...

Murdered is rare, compared to general domestic violence.

But you might be surprised to learn that I primarily blame the male when the male is punching everybody and sundry in the face.

Funny that.

But yes in that you identify domestic violence by males to be a chronic problem, I can agree with that.

R H said...

Wake up. These women take blokes in knowing they're violent. And keep them on.
When their kids get bashed and murdered it's their bloody fault as well.

That's one thing, but what about all the fights, the blues, where the kids have a front row seat? You don't know.

Be a woman apologist all you like, but there's two problems in the world; men - AND women.

R.H.

PS: Have you ever met a violent woman?

Watch out.

Armagnac Esq. said...

I was in child protection for 2 years, i've seen it ALL.

I had to remove children from such women. Yes it takes two to tango but you'd be surprised how many women given decent support do actually make the break and stay that way.

Seeing them up close there is very little to commend any of the men in those cases. 1 in 5 might have a sob story that would stop you in your tracks, but the rest, the majority, are dogs; nasty pieces of shit who are a waste of breath.

Believe me this lefty took a turn to the right on punishment of violent offenders after that stint.

R H said...

Thank you, Your Honour.
My submission is simple; child protection is no better than when I was a little client - and it was pretty bad then. The only difference now is the language being used; welfare workers could be understood in the old days. Less style, Your Honour. Less jargon.

You've dealt with these people; I've lived with them. Some women had multiple offspring by multiple daddies; a new de facto every few months. It got to where no one knew who anyone was at all.
-Especially on Father's Day, when several dads turned up, all looking for a fuck. There were some mighty old blues then! Your Honour!
The problem is, there's no love in any of it; the boyfriends shack up for a fuck, that's all, and the kids are a bloody nuisance. And you may not know this, but most of these blokes resent other blokes kids. The tendency is to kick them.

I'm talking about the lower class, Your Honour: My class. Some of these types - men AND women, are not awfully intelligent. Their first duty is to themselves.

They're 'nasty pieces of shit' alright, the men AND the women. That's my submission (Your Honour).
When I was living at the South Melbourne flats a woman dangled her two-year old over the fourteenth floor balcony, then casually dropped him. Her reason? Her de facto was ignoring her. That's what she told the police. And no, she was not insane, just stupid.

Armagnac Esq. said...

There's nothing in your examples I disagree with. Except maybe an attempt to create equivalence between the huge number of male driven DV cases and the occasional, but shocking, cases of female violence.

This argument's a bit rhetorical and I have to say having seen the bullshit promulgated by women haters like the blackshirts completely disproved in front of my eyes I'm not receptive to endlessly pushing it back and forth.

R H said...

When things get out of balance you'll often see a loony response.
That's why people chain themselves to trees, or risk their lives trying to stop whaling.
It's frustration. The imbalance of power.