"Anyone who has reflected on their own behaviour, let alone worked in family planning or youth health, will acknowledge that fertility and sexual relationships are very complex. We have to acknowledge all the possible reasons people have sex, and there are hundreds, and the things that can go wrong and result in an unplanned pregnancy are also many fold. The ideal of safely negotiated sexual relations that use barrier protection and a back- up contraception must be recognised as the ideal rather than the norm.
This may sound like an argument for the provision of contraception, but bodily integrity and sexual agency are two things we must value above budget lines."
I confess to having trouble getting past the "hundreds" of reasons that people have sex.
To get pregnant, keep warm, have an orgasm, for exercise, to avoid an argument, for money....Yep. Six and I'm starting to get stuck here. I should be ashamed to show my lack of imagination probably. Oh, I just thought of another one. To stimulate labour. Did you know that one?
And what does this mean? "...bodily integrity and sexual agency are two things we must value above budget lines." Sounds very high-faluting. I need help with that one too.
People should be free to do whatever they like in the bedroom but they can't be free to force the consequences on someone else. How hard is it to grasp? A better choice of words might be advisable...but you get my drift.
One thing, at least I understood Sue Bradford.
8 comments:
She suffers from a mental illness, greenism.
One of the symptoms is talking high faluting gibberish
Sounds to me like she is describing the alcohol rationale.
Liberalism truly is a mental disease.
Verification words: papho ctompos - very apt.
What does she mean by 'many fold'? Surely she means 'manifold'?
Lindsay, hijacking your thread sorry, though this is probably applicable to Sue Bradford. Re that thread you posted to on The Hand Mirror, despite I was debating non-confrontationally, and in good taste, I have been shut down. So, I put my final post to moderator Julie, here, because treachery on her scale should be 'outed' - delete this if you wish.
Post follows:
If blog, The Hand Mirror, represents feminism, then there is surely no hope for it. Read this thread to understand devious, underhanded treachery. Read the comments, though note that posts after the last of mine you see showing have all been shut down. So my final post to Unjust Julie, as it will never be allowed up on her site, is:
Julie, your dishonesty is breath-taking. I can see why you hide your identity: no one of worth, honesty and integrity would deal with you face to face after understanding how you operate here. You set up a post and thread specifically aimed at me, to discuss libertarianism versus collectivism as regards feminism, then you absolutely sabotage me and the libertarian argument. Were you ever married to The Standard by any chance: you use exactly the same unprofessional tactics. Your comment for shutting me down, where I had been debating in good faith, and on topic, simply shows you have not the wherewithal to debate your cause at all. You say:
In a similar vein, Mark (and James) you aren't entitled to a platform here and you aren't entitled to responses either. None of us owes you anything and indeed I'm possibly the only blogger here interested in engaging in this discussion (and I may well change my mind). We all have commitments in the real world, and even if we didn't we get to determine how we spend our free time, not you. Or is our freedom only allowed when it doesn't inconvenience you.
In this I agree with you, your property you do what you want, if it wasn't for the fact you had set this very post up for me to debate with you as I had in good faith. You certainly don't have any courtesy. You don't even seem to have basic communication skills, or they've been destroyed in some type of hatred that consumes you.
Well done, you've created a sandpit for juveniles. I am stunned. What on earth do you think you were doing!
This comment seems to exemplify the Greens' belief that they know best for us all, that they know how we think and act, etc... The high-brow dictates from this previously unheard of MP ring the same bells as their party leader. (I think the term is "holier than thou!) Then of course there is the collectivist "we" tossed in to ensure that this is a problem for society and not a matter requiring individual discretion and responsibility. The Greens are vomit-inducing.
Cadwallader
What a load of RUBBISH that Logie is spouting!
For goodness sake - a FIVE-YEAR-OLD can tell you that if you keep having children while on a benefit (or ANY low income), then the money has to stretch much further than before.
This stupid woman should be shouting from the rooftops to the beneficiaries - "STOP HAVING CHILDREN!"
Useless bint.
I've just popped over to Logies blog. I feel sick now.
She calls her ethnicity "Tangata Tiriti".
Oh, how WHOLESOME!
You can taste the MUESLI from here!
Can't you just envision those pre-European Maori dancing in the sun-dappled glades, peals of laughter ringing through the forests?
In the afternoon, they'd pop along to the local moa nests and give the moa a happy little non-sexist, non-racist, non-judgemental throttling.
ARRRRGH!
thor42, In fact a beneficiary gets more money when he or she adds a child to their benefit. That's part of the problem. I believe it's $61 per week currently or over $3,000 a year.
Post a Comment