Sensible reaction from Little on Tolley/contraception

While there has been a lot of silly over-reaction to Anne Tolley’s comments on contraception on Q & A (for example see Why did Tolley talk about contraception?) there has been a sensible reaction from Andrew Little, saying more access to contraception is a good thing and he doesn’t think Tolley would take it further.

A report by Newstalk ZB detailed Concerns over CYFS’ contraceptive tough line and first quoted critics:

Green Party social development spokesperson Jan Logie said it feeds into an undercurrent of thought that has dangerous consequences.

“In the last few years I’ve been disturbed at the number of people who are just going on quite an aggressive position of saying these people shouldn’t be allowed to have children and they are seeing people in these situations as less than human.”

And:

Massey University’s Deborah Russell said if the state was to tell mothers how many children they can have – its control over our personal bodies – which is the definition of slavery.

She thinks we can’t control when people can or cannot have children, because no one has the right to make that judgement.

Russell was Labour candidate for Rangitikei, she was the party’s first selection for the 2014 election. She was 33 on their list.

But a sensible reaction from Little:

Labour leader Andrew Little said more access to contraception is a good thing, and he doesn’t see the rest of the minister’s remarks as meaning the Government plans to take the scheme any further.

“My own personal assessment of Anne Tolley is that she would be uncomfortable with that level of intervention.”

Tolley was asked about preventing at risk parents of having more babies and gave a careful and moderate response – see the transcript: Why did Tolley talk about contraception?

Leave a comment

14 Comments

  1. Mike C

     /  29th September 2015

    @George

    Not only was it a very sensible reaction from Little … but he also didn’t attack Anne Tolley personally. In fact, I would almost say that he was bordering on being complimentary.

    Perhaps Andrew Little spent some time over the weekend reading the posts in your blog, and decided to stop taking Matt McCartens advice. LOL.

    Reply
    • traveller

       /  29th September 2015

      “….decided to stop taking Matt McCartens advice”.

      If Little concentrates on being his own man, he might just have a show – in 2020.

      Reply
  2. kiwi guy

     /  29th September 2015

    Everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room: IQ.

    There needs to be IQ screening, and those that are sub par don’t get to pass on their useless genetic material.

    That would solve a heap of problems right there.

    Of course the cultural marxists over at The Stranded are throwing a collective hissy fit about Tolley,,because that is their major demographic base that is being targeted.

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  29th September 2015

      @KiwiGuy

      That’s the problem right there.

      The people with reasonable IQ’s have the sense to use contraception, and the ones without much in the way of an IQ, don’t even think about using contraception.

      You can’t fix “stupid”. LOL.

      Reply
      • jamie

         /  29th September 2015

        It’s more complex than IQ. Education, experience, culture, family, the way you were raised and the environment you were raised in are all more relevant than raw “IQ”.

        Reply
        • kiwi guy

           /  29th September 2015

          At the further ends of the distribution curve, IQ trumps all other variables, and that is what we are looking at here.

          Reply
          • jamie

             /  29th September 2015

            …and the environment you are raised in and the way you live plays a significant role in determining your IQ. It gets a bit chicken and egg really.

            Reply
            • kittycatkin

               /  29th September 2015

              Contraception could hardly be MORE available-it can be had for nothing and condoms are sold in supermarkets-so I can’t see that anyone can say that it’s not an option for poor people. More than one person has said that contraception’s always going to be cheaper than more children,anyway.

              I would never want to live in a Hitler-type environment with forced sterilisation (and the ‘euthanasia’ that this tends to lead to, where disabled people are killed because they are disabled) but what the solution is, I don’t know.

            • kittycatkin

               /  29th September 2015

              I forgot to add ‘and of low IQ.’

              Remember when Labour, in a PC fit, put all those IHC workers out of work because Ruth Dyson (I am sure it was her) insisted that they be paid the same as other workers ? Employers couldn’t afford to pay such slow workers the same hourly rate as other employees. so the IHCs were deprived of the work that made them feel good about themselves-the money had no real meaning for them, they were just pleased to be earning it-their parents were left with their adult children on their hands all day, bored and not understanding what had happened…but at least PCness was seen to be done.

            • jamie

               /  29th September 2015

              Of course contraception is available. Who said it wasn’t available?

  3. kiwi guy

     /  29th September 2015

    I have worked on construction sites where the usual minimum wage day labourer sorts brag about the number of females they got pregnant. One had 4 kids to 3 females and was very proud of that.

    Thats a lot of low quality sperm getting sprayed everywhere and fertilising equally low quality eggs and its the tax payer that will be paying over and over for it as the low IQ progeny work their way through the welfare, education and justice system.

    It has to stop.

    Reply
  4. kittycatkin

     /  29th September 2015

    I agree that the state shouldn’t control fertility, BUT the irresponsible people who have unlimited numbers of children expect the state to keep them and pay the parents-or, more usually, the mother-to look after them (yes, well) . People want to have it both ways. If the state shouldn’t control people’s fertility, why should it spend a fortune keeping the result ?

    The PC who squawk that one’s fertility is one’s own business (which it it is, ideally) don’t seem to offer any solutions to the immense social problems caused by people who can’t/won’t/don’t make any attempt to control theirs. Maybe if the Greens who cry that the state is dictating people’s choices took the little choices and reared them, one might take them seriously.

    Reply
  5. John Schmidt

     /  29th September 2015

    All very well for socialists to be outraged that the state has a role in curbing the breeding activities of the useless, absolutely no thought to those of us who have to bear the burdon of the outrage through taxation on our hard work to pay for it.

    Reply
  1. Fuck and run fathers and male irresponsibility | Your NZ

Leave a Reply to traveller Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s