Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious Australian Election 2013: Liberals win
- Thread starter skylight
- Start date
The only ignorance here is coming from those who think we should subsidise ineptitude.
P.s. people who said Rudd was kicked out for being too far left, if that Asylum Seeker policy hasn't convinced you what will?
Crux
Banned deucer.
I guess never getting laid is just extreme competence at not needing an abortion, well done.
That's a change in policy you fucking moron hahaha
Oh look, the inaccurate personal attacks are out. For reference, I get laid plenty and manage not to knock anyone up -- largely because (apparently unlike you) I managed to grasp that the pull out and pray method isn't contraception.
Oh yes, a mysterious policy change to the far right that happens to coincide with the return of Rudd somehow proves that Rudd led Labor isn't further right than Gillard led Labor. The sooner people accept Rudd is a bland centrist poll follower the better.
Crux
Banned deucer.
I think it's pretty obvious that this is an appeal to conservative voters in order to win the election and not a reflection of Rudd's ideological standing based on, IDK, all his previous policy and comments ever...
And even if it were the case that Rudd was going to be more conservative, I think that's just responding to a broader shift towards the right on the part of the Australian public rather than what he might do for the Labor party should he win the election (and probably more if he doesn't).
The other comment was a joke highlighting how utterly callous, sexist and stupid your comments are (especially in the case of actual responses to your "arguments") and your overly defensive reaction makes it even better (and probably more accurate).
Rudd responding to a "broader shift towards the right" (which doesn't really exist -- Labor has just ruined its self with internal problems) pretty much lines up with what I said; he's a poll following chicken shit with no actual beliefs.
If by callous and sexist you mean I just don't give a fuck about people who wilfully fail to make use of modern medical science, then yes, correct.
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Abortion notwithstanding. Because that's icky science.
I have no issue with abortion, I just don't want to pay for others inability to use the other (cheaper) available methods, is this concept too difficult for you imbeciles to grasp?
The problem is that none of the cheaper alternatives you linked are 100% effective. If a woman had an abortion early in her life for whatever reason, then later she's in a relationship with a dude while being on the pill and gets pregnant because that shit isn't a guarantee, should she not be subsidised for an abortion if she wants one because holy shit she's SO DUMB AND STUPID? Or what if her husband had a vasectomy and she got pregnant that way? Or he was using a condom or she was using a diaphragm and something happened without either of them realising? Etc. Things can happen like that. I don't think we should make ridiculous rules just to protect a negligible amount of our money from a situation that is extremely rare, especially when the alternatives are not guarantees. Women rarely irresponsibly go back for 2+ abortions in their lifetime, and those that do are almost never thinking "hell yes I'd definitely rather have invasive surgery all the time than take a pill, that sounds awesome."
Putting aside for a moment that many contraceptive methods aren't mutually exclusive.
Realistically it could happen that correct contraceptive use fails twice (and fails in such a way nobody notices at the time), but the odds are incredibly low; low enough that it's unfortunate but not worth accounting for.
Medical abortions (like RU486) currently cost the taxpayer around 700 bucks a pop on the PBS -- surgical abortions almost certainly cost more, as of 2002 we had around 70,000 abortions per year (though numbers are fuzzy, basically extrapolating from SA data). That's quite significant -- if you assume they're all subsidised (which they are now) it's about 49 million a year, which isn't huge, but it's double what was needlessly hacked off the CSIRO (an actually useful organisation) a couple of years ago.
How the first abortion happened is irrelevant with your idea though, it doesn't matter if the woman was young and just straight up didn't use contraception or anything like that, all that matters is every abortion after the first. It's been a pain in the ass to find stats for repeat abortions in Australia (for reasons you already know), but I was able to find a study on contraception use in relation to repeated abortions for the US and apparently women who have repeated abortions are just as likely to use contraception in general (54% for first timers), and are more likely to use a highly effective method like the pill or injectable, and those using the pill are something like 25% likely to be using it consistently. Assuming similar rates here (and I have no reason to assume they wouldn't be), that doesn't strike me as an incredibly low statistic.
Regardless, I'm not really sure what you hope to achieve if this became a thing. You want to punish women for having repeated abortions and not have to pay for it... but you're willing to pay the price of unwanted pregnancies being carried to term (lifetime subsidised medical expenses for one person is almost guaranteed to be more expensive than an abortion) or the very real possibility that the women who can't afford it will poison or disfigure themselves in order to get rid of it? There's little to no evidence of abortion being seen as a substitute for other contraception, despite the stereotype, so... what are you going for?
Regardless, I'm not really sure what you hope to achieve if this became a thing. You want to punish women for having repeated abortions and not have to pay for it... but you're willing to pay the price of unwanted pregnancies being carried to term (lifetime subsidised medical expenses for one person is almost guaranteed to be more expensive than an abortion) or the very real possibility that the women who can't afford it will poison or disfigure themselves in order to get rid of it? There's little to no evidence of abortion being seen as a substitute for other contraception, despite the stereotype, so... what are you going for?
A large part of the issue with most of the common contraceptives is that people just plain don't know how to use them or don't think about how medications etc clash.
- I have no interest in "punishing" anyone, I just don't want to pay for others mistakes (which, for the most part, is the case).
- I doubt we'd suddenly see a spike in unwanted pregnancies carried to term (also the offspring does, eventually, theoretically, pay taxes). I've also said a couple of times it should be a "pay later" arrangement if someone doesn't have the money up front, so that kind of nullifies the second part of that sentance.
Watched a bit of the election channel. I am worried Abbott has got it... I don't mind a few of his ethics but I just don't trust him or liberal. I think the train thing alone will get him tons of votes.
Crux
Banned deucer.
Scratch the above post, my vote has been won.
http://www.2dayfm.com.au/shows/kyleandjackieo/video/clive-palmer-kyle-twerk/
http://www.2dayfm.com.au/shows/kyleandjackieo/video/clive-palmer-kyle-twerk/
Palmer could even balance the budget by putting his weekly antics on Pay Per View.
Clive tells people what they want to hear (birth allowances, use of australian resources, etc) but ultimately is his just searching for something beyond his wealth.
now preferencing the palmer united party rep above: citizen's electoral council, barnaby joyce, fred nile group, one nation (would've preferenced palmer dude above these four anyway, lets be real someone has to win), and probably the 21st century party dude
in retrospect idk why i liked trax's post, that video is the kind of culturally enriching goodness that should be freely available to even the proles. put it on the abc, you can even do a palmer kpop feature on sbs
Put it on ABC.. but sell it on PPV overseas, it'd make a fortune!
ahhh, i am down with this. clive palmer is a public asset, but i have no problem with extorting americans
eta: tony abbott, on the other hand? privatise him, if you can find anyone to pay up.
Tony Abbott is already pretty well privatised by Rupert Murdoch and Gina Rinehart, as I see it anyway.
