Rees-Mogg: increased usage of food banks 'uplifting'

[Tefal]

All of me says we urgently need to increase sex education and encourage girls to practice contraception in order to reduce the number of abortions. Abortion as contraceptive is wrong in so many ways. Hell, I'll set aside my capitalist dogma and advocate for free contraception for all women if it helps.

you can get free contraception.

and its interesting how both of you have put the onus of contraception on the women.

 

[Glaucus]

The explicit question in the survey is that it doesn't help society. The scenario is that introducing a higher tax on high earners doesn't raise any extra money. Presumably because it is balanced by people seeking work abroad. Whether or not it would is immaterial. The survey asks what you would do if it were true. And the results show that a majority of Labour supporters are in favour of greater taxing of high earners even if there's no gain. I'll re-emphasise this point because I don't want a reply about whether or not a 50p tax rate would raise more money or not. It's irrelevant. The question asks if it is true that penalizing high earners doesn't actually result in extra money, would you do it anyway. It's a question of morality. I find the answer - that so many people simply want to punish, regardless of whether that's useful or not, repugnant.

and yet you miss the point i made. 50p tax is supported by a lot of people it directly affects, how can that be classed as punishment.

 

[Tunney]

Elitism at its finest. Let's promote the poor to get rid of their young so we don't have to trouble ourselves at educating them and make peoples lives better.

The argument put forward in Freakanomics isn’t about rich or poor. It’s about a reduction in the number of unwanted and ultimately unloved children being born.

Unloved children are way more likely to end up as criminals.

 

[h4rm0ny]

and its interesting how both of you have put the onus of contraception on the women.

I wrote girls because young girls need to take responsibility for their own fertility because boys will not. Especially at school age. You're trying to not so subtly hint I'm being misogynistic. No, I'm saying that teenage boys cannot be relied upon to take precautions on somebody else's behalf. And that's the reality.

 

[h4rm0ny]

and yet you miss the point i made. 50p tax is supported by a lot of people it directly affects, how can that be classed as punishment.

By punishment and penalizing, I indicated a negative effect. Seriously, my point is not understandable to you?

And it is irrelevant if some people in income brackets that would be affected support a 50p tax rate because they do so because they believe it will raise extra money. Logically if they simply felt they earned too much money they could give it away to any person or cause they wanted to. It needs no government enforcement! This explicitly concerns a scenario where it does not raise any extra money. If you are too stupid or too stubborn to even engage with my argument, then really you aren't useful in this debate.

 

[Glaucus]

By punishment, I mean a negative effect. Seriously, my point is not understandable to you?

No, as you started of with a wrong assumption now changing it as it unravels.

 

[Trusty]

and its interesting how both of you have put the onus of contraception on the women.

There are no physical repercussions for the lad, that's why I wrote it that way.

 

[dowie]

I won't be getting upset by it.

tbh.. I'm not 'upset' by JRM's position on abortion or gay marriage, I just think he's stupid to hold those views and the excuse that it is a 'bona fide Roman Catholic position' is pretty meaningless

 

[Tefal]

I wrote girls because young girls need to take responsibility for their own fertility because boys will not. Especially at school age. You're trying to not so subtly hint I'm being misogynistic. No, I'm saying that teenage boys cannot be relied upon to take precautions on somebody else's behalf. And that's the reality.

so yourt saying you can teach girls about contraception but boys are some how incapable of learning or taking responsibility?

I think that misandrist rather than misogynistic.

 

[Participant]

Within reason I think it kind of does, the world has changed and most prior working class jobs have gone and are now the people who sit in front of PCs, accountants, lawyers etc

And yes would class myself in this category, even though I would be considered to be fairly affluent now.

Middle class etc is the directors and the like, captains of industry if you will.

Well you've successfully contradicted yourself in your own post, because last time I checked, directors and captains of industry have jobs. You say that working class does within reason (whatever that means in this context) mean 'has a job', then list middle class people that have jobs. So I repeat, working class doesn't mean 'has a job'.

Working class means takes a wage, works in a factory, etc.

And lol at 'if you will'. Is that your attempt to sound middle class?

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

tbh.. I'm not 'upset' by JRM's position on abortion or gay marriage, I just think he's stupid to hold those views and the excuse that it is a 'bona fide Roman Catholic position' is pretty meaningless

Don't worry, I wasn't seeking to excuse anybody with my comment, if that helps.

 

[d_brennen]

so yourt saying you can teach girls about contraception but boys are some how incapable of learning or taking responsibility?

As a former teenage boy, I can confirm this is mostly true.

 

[Sutters]

find myself agreeing with most things he says, he will make a fine leader in the future

 

[sports_brah]

Forcing women who don't want to have children or who aren't ready or able or even willing to provide for them is a great way to produce poorly looked after children and to tie their mothers up when they could be doing something they actually want to do and could be doing well. Looking after children is hard enough when you want to do it, never mind when you don't.

I'm not advocating abortion as contraception for the lazy, but to suggest that allowing it is the reason for the importation of cheap labour and wage deflation is absurd.

Well what does it lead to? Certainly doesn't improve birth rates....all the stats are there showing people are having fewer children and at a higher age, which ironically leads to a higher rate of defects.....not to worry, 90% of these will go as well..

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37500189

If we want to continue to grow as a nation, we need to have a future. If there are less children, then we either need to change our society or provide a solution another way.

A quick google shows the birth rates in the UK and in the "developed" west, and there is no if's and buts that there is going to be a population problem. So yes, either we will bring more people in or we will ebb as nations....

And it STILL doesn't cover the fact that you are killing what could be viable children.......I'm not sure how it can be defended to be honest? If you say 24 weeks is the limit, why not 25? If 25 why not 26? At what point are they magically children?

And no: as I'm sure I've stated before, I don't believe in just leaving people to it and letting them suffer. There is a reason why we live in a society and not just random people floating around. It's why we pay 40% tax because its part of being a society. We should want and expect the best for people...something I don't believe abortion is for society or for the child killed....

A population where women have access to birth control and abortions tends to be far more productive and have children who are better educated and better looked after than one where women are forced to have children they don't want and frequently end up being unable to get the education that is a cornerstone of the ability to function in a modern society

I used to find it odd how often the very same people who are most vocal about being anti birth control and abortion were also very fast to criticise women who a lot of children, or needed help with them, right up until I noticed the fact that many of those people also seemed to have a strong undercurrent of resentment towards women at which point it made much more sense when looked at as a way of controlling them (keep them stuck rearing children and reliant on their husband for all their financial needs).
This is most obvious in the likes of the US states where there are regular attempts to reduce a woman's rights, including one recent one where they tried to make it so the husband or father (if no husband was around) needed to give approval for an abortion.

Basically, I don't agree with you therefore I hate woman.....interesting viewpoint. Nuanced.

 

[sports_brah]

Well you've successfully contradicted yourself in your own post, because last time I checked, directors and captains of industry have jobs. You say that working class does within reason (whatever that means in this context) mean 'has a job', then list middle class people that have jobs. So I repeat, working class doesn't mean 'has a job'.

Working class means takes a wage, works in a factory, etc.

And lol at 'if you will'. Is that your attempt to sound middle class?

If you can't tell the difference between someone working a day to day job, and people who manage and influence change in society, then I guess you should ask for a dictionary for Christmas so you can look up the term nuance.

And lol right back at caring how someone phrases their words. That's the saddest thing I've ever seen. Do you also gawp like an idiot every time you see a word online that isn't in your lexicon?

 

[Vonhelmet]

All developed nations eventually hit a point where birth rates decline. Banning abortion won't stop that.

 

[Werewolf]

Basically, I don't agree with you therefore I hate woman.....interesting viewpoint. Nuanced.

Not you necessarily, but it is something I have noticed a lot from the most vocal opponents of things like birth control and abortion, where when you dig down into their argument it comes down to a view that women should be in traditional roles and combined with a level of racism ("the X are outbreeding us because our women are working and choosing that over lots of children").
It's especially apparent in the "mens rights" types and "traditionalists" in the US.

I may be getting rather cynical, as the most vocal anti abortion types seem to be either "religious" (usually only in the parts they like*), can't understand why women don't fall at their feet, or people that don't think women are able to make decisions on their own, or all three, and once you notice the pattern it's hard to ignore.


*Anti abortion and "an eye for an eye", but very much ignore the "good Samaritan" or "love they neighbour" parts of the Bible.

 

[enkoda]

Well what does it lead to? Certainly doesn't improve birth rates....all the stats are there showing people are having fewer children and at a higher age, which ironically leads to a higher rate of defects.....not to worry, 90% of these will go as well..

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37500189

If we want to continue to grow as a nation, we need to have a future. If there are less children, then we either need to change our society or provide a solution another way.

A quick google shows the birth rates in the UK and in the "developed" west, and there is no if's and buts that there is going to be a population problem. So yes, either we will bring more people in or we will ebb as nations....

And it STILL doesn't cover the fact that you are killing what could be viable children.......I'm not sure how it can be defended to be honest? If you say 24 weeks is the limit, why not 25? If 25 why not 26? At what point are they magically children?

And no: as I'm sure I've stated before, I don't believe in just leaving people to it and letting them suffer. There is a reason why we live in a society and not just random people floating around. It's why we pay 40% tax because its part of being a society. We should want and expect the best for people...something I don't believe abortion is for society or for the child killed....



Basically, I don't agree with you therefore I hate woman.....interesting viewpoint. Nuanced.

Why refer to an unborn foetus as a child?
Why are you promoting the removal of a woman's right to do whatever they want with their bodies? If you feel that women need legislation to restrict how they use their own bodies then you don't appear to think they are entitled to be treated equally. Society doesn't have babies, women do. I agree, we should want and expect the best for people, but on what basis do we have that your opinion is 'better' than someone else's, especially as you aren't a woman (BIG assumption here, nothing inferred by it!)?

 

[Werewolf]

All developed nations eventually hit a point where birth rates decline. Banning abortion won't stop that.

Aye, all that happens is that people have illegal abortions and from memory there are studies that show in areas where the availability of legal (and safe) abortions suddenly declines doesn't show a relative increase in births, which given people aren't generally choosing a hard to get, expensive and unpleasant option as their first choice of birth control suggests that they're not then going to condoms and pills, but are probably up going for illegal and unsafe abortions out of desperation.

One of the things that strikes me about a lot of anti abortion people is that they also don't want sex education for teens, don't approve of them getting access to normal forms of birth control and then don't want to subsidise the baby once born. They often seem to be very much "fetus is everything" then "it's your own fault you wanton **** you had sex now you're going to take care of that baby, it's not our job to help you".

Sorry ranting a bit, I've been spending too much time reading about the likes of the American legislators that because they're not allowed to simply ban abortions (yet), are trying to make it so that the women has to get "approval" and "consent" from the male who owns/is responsible for her is closest to her/the father of the fetus (regardless of if it was rape).

 

[Fusion]

Incredible that prominent, supposed learned people can be so out of touch. I normally have time for listening to Rees-Moggs views, as they're usually original and not tainted by groupthink. But he really is an anachronism sometimes. "Honourable member for the 18th Century" indeed...