this morning after the unveiling of the iPhone 3G, which will be launched here along with other participating territories by Vodafone.

July 11 according to Engadget. But will it really only be Vodafone? Because that, if I may be so bold, sux.

Or do you think it is fine to break the law

Where was the illegallity? Not exercising all the powers the law grants you, because you don't think you actually have those powers, isn't illegal. It may or may not be entirely moral, depending on whether one takes the view?

But will it really only be Vodafone? Because that, if I may be so bold, sux.

My understanding is that Vodafone don't have an exclusive deal, as opposed to AT&T's lock on the official iPhone market in the US.

Not that it'll be much use other than with Vodafone here, until?

Does anyone think that this is likely to become a?

Maybe Labour should whip out a Bill to put the law in line with the current de-facto situation. This would be unacceptable to a?

As one of the guys here at work pointed out, the handset cost is of far less import than whatever kind of rapeage goes on with data pricing.

So that's why it'd be better if there was?

I've often wondered about the legislation regarding abortion...it's always seemed a litlle 'grey' to me at best. Regardless of whether or not the law is being (technically) broken/ignored, it seems to me that the system works pretty well as is?

Well, yes and no; yes, in that most women can?

do you think it is fine to break the law as long as the majority of the public agree ( or dont care).

How do you feel about the speed limit?

So that's why it'd be better if there was more than one carrier, right?

Of course. But right now, there's precisely one GSM carrier with an available network.

The Apple website is saying you can get it from Vodafone and...that's it.

Surprise surprise. As above, we have a single GSM?

How do you feel about the speed limit?

It's a valid point..... but it would be a far closer comparison if the police actually actively looked away while you sped past, or directed you to which streets dont have policing in them...

Getting an abortion under current legislation is all?

http://www.alranz.org

Craig Y

The abortion thing could be pretty big, it has after all been a while since the smacking/prostitution issues, so if someone wants another whack at starting a culture war?

Making this an election issue might be no bad thing – it could sway the vote of a lot of people who are tending to the Nats.

Oh... and it might just piss off a few women who don't really appreciate their wombs being used as political footballs by anyone,?

Maybe Labour should whip out a Bill to put the law in line with the current de-facto situation.

I'd be really excited to see Labour run with some legislation on principle.

I would hope that this ruling might jolt one of the pro-choice members of parliament into drafting sensible legislation around abortion. However what was that about turkeys and christmas?

I imagine Family Fist would be right in behind the religious conservatives in opposing such changes. After all, where else will?

I don't know if I could handle abortion being thrown into the election right now. Can't we just have the normal stupid debates?

Can we have a debate at all?! It's hard to debate the merits of different sides when one side is being very light on details.

I don't know if I could handle abortion being thrown into the election right now. Can't we just have the normal stupid debates?

Yeah, it'll be messy as all hell, but I'd rather have the messy public debate and settle this thing than keep on with the current legislation. I?

To me this is the more logical conclusion of that arguement.

Abortion, is a complex issue. I've helped two very close friends go through it & bit my tongue on the issue.

The first step?

Anyways the problem with the law is that it is religiously broken

Yeah, scrap the law books, just table the 10 commandments in the house.

Yeah, it'll be messy as all hell, but I'd rather have the messy public debate and settle this thing than keep on with the current?

The first step in the debate should not start with abortion, but in valuing parents & children. Providing full care for children, sole parents, and drawing in the fathers who are absent from almost all debate on this issue.

I'd say the first step is limiting unplanned pregnancies through more widespread?

Geriatric misogynistic religious maniacs, form up to my right.
Baby-killing lesbian Feminazis, form up to my left.
Everyone else — follow me to the exits, and don't drag your feet.

I'm really glad the anti-smacking and civil unions bills were mentioned in passing, because those were two occasions where?

I suspect it would pass, but I can't imagine it would be 'grown-up'. If it was I'd feel more comfortable saying 'yeah, have that debate'.

No, it wouldn't be a grown-up debate. But I think it's one that needs to be had. What are we going to do otherwise -?

If National's new intake is anything like as conservative as its 2002 rump, then a National victory this election will dramatically shift the Parliamentary balance towards further restrictions and control over women?s' bodies.

It's interesting that National's conservative stripes extend only a very little way when it comes to personal?

It's always amazed me that the campaign for rights over ones body wasn't extended to euthanasia.

They're logically consistent positions, and you'll find the same pro-life people opposing both abortion and euthanasia. From the pro-choice perspective, though, abortion is largely an issue that affects young women over and above anyone?

(Damn, posted too soon).

Neil: it's like the 70's all over again.

I knew i remembered it from somewhere!!

Or is it be my amalgam fillings bringing on early Alzheimers

I am not sure?

There is no universal Right to Life or we'd be morally obliged to fund every drug and mdical intervention and damn the cost.

There is no universal Right to Choose in the sense?

Short version: judgement is reserved on declarations, but the court does say that the ASC has effectively been put on notice about the "wholesale non-compliance by certifying consultants" and will have to do something about it (or at least say openly that it is not?

Repairing the Damage, Before Roe

Bastardy and Baby Farming in Victorian England:

The primary objective of professional baby farmers was?

There is no universal Right to Choose in the sense of universal right over one's own body or there'd be no strip search, imprisonment or compulsory vaccination.

...age of consent, illegality of the best recreational drugs etc etc etc

– should also add,?

The minute men have to decide whether or not to support another life inside their own bodies, with the accompanying discomfort and medical risks, then I'd be the first to stand up for their rights to choose.

It's not about your genetic relationship to the fetus,?

Lucy: unfortunately, our local fundies don't like that either, on the grounds that it is either abortion (yes, really), or encourages people to have sex (something which, like abortion, only they seem to have a problem with).

Oh, I know. But given that the only way to keep the fundies?

That should help safeguard his rights against the unwanted termination of his progeny.

There's a lot of focus made by pro-lifers on the harmful effects of abortion, but they pale in comparison to the risks involved in pregnancy and illegal abortion.

I suggest anyone who thinks criminalising abortion makes things better go read this article by a gynaecologist who did his training in?

but furthermore i think?

To me that all sounds like one rationalisation after another for compelling women to bear?

I don't find that morally compelling, or good policy. It does seem like a very punitive attitude towards drunken sex, which empirically many many many?

"except in cases of rape, proven prophylactic failure or molestation,"

If a woman doesn't want the child, she need only stop the penis before it enters the vagina

I think both Labour and National won't make a big issue of this on the hustings, they'll be focused on the main issues. Also, while the Nats?

you'll find there's a certain logic there.

I'm arguing if a man vetos an abortion he should be forced to take complete financial and fiscal responsibility for that decision

Financial = fiscal, just to clear that up, but that still doesn't change the fact that he would be using another human being as his own personal baby?

Do we have a christian right in this country? if so, where has it gone

Well, Density Church exist, so we do in a minute way. Otherwise, where has it gone, you ask? Vanished into thin air since Graeme Capill got sent up the river, I suspect.

I'm arguing if a man vetos an abortion he should be forced to take complete financial and fiscal responsibility for that decision

Wow, that's well creepy.

grant i'm not against abortion, I'm a long time supporter of abortion,

Well then in that case, you should have no qualms with a woman's right to choose then.

using a woman as his baby incubator is no different from using a man as a lifelike dildo

And that's tipped over from creepy to psychopathic.

We have been trolled, very effectively. I sucked into taking you seriously up until there, mark, but if you want to provoke successfully you're going to have to refrain from the obviously?

well lucy, using a woman as his baby incubator is no different from using a man as a lifelike dildo imho.

...because consensual sexual activity is the same as being forced to endure nearly a year of physical discomfort, a pronounced risk to one's health and life, not to mention?

I MERELY THINK THAT BOTH PARTIES SHOULD TECHNICALLY HAVE SOME RECOURSE INTO WHAT HAPPENS WITH THEIR DNA

We do. If I don't have sex with women, I can't get them pregnant.

We have been trolled, very effectively. I sucked into taking you seriously up until there, mark, but if you want to provoke successfully you're going to have to refrain from the obviously ludicrous.

I was thinking of calling troll a few posts ago, but it's study break and I don't?

Well, Density Church exist, so we do in a minute way.

You should keep an eye on them. You might be surprised how prolific they are around Maori and other Polynesian communities. Various members of the Maori party certainly seem to feel there's value in keeping on their good side.

Now, if a man came to an agreement with a woman that she would have the kid and he would then take full legal and financial responsibility for?

You should keep an eye on them. You might be surprised how prolific they are around Maori and other Polynesian communities. Various members of the Maori party certainly seem to feel there's value in keeping on their good side.

Density Church/Family Party are all over Mangere at the minute. Local?

If I'm not mistaken you're talking about a situation where the woman wants to have an abortion and the father (potential father?) is permitted to forbid that, which, see violation of bodily autonomy above.

Without wishing to argue on Mark's side, who's digging himself into a large hole...

The other?

What on earth makes you think any man has the right to force any woman to risk her life and health because he wants a kid, when she doesn't?

Because he's a man, and they're women, and that's just the natural order of things?

I think someone was correct in?

Currently men's control over the future ends at sex, women have other options after that. Which, when birth control has failed, no doubt feels a little disempowering.

I actually do think there's some slim argument for men being able to veto a pregnancy going ahead. Clearly the problems are insurmountable?

and the upshot is, that alot of prochoicers are not in fact prochoice, but pro woman's choice

Well, only if I accept the specious claim of equivalence central to your argument.

Density Church/Family Party are all over Mangere at the minute

Does anyone want to explain how, if South Auckland is such a hotbed of social conservatism, they elected the not-very-socially-conservative David Lange seven times?

Also, although the wierdo wingnut churches are very prominent, none of the Pasifica people I know?

The very essence of trolling.

"but I'd rather not legislate with only the best of circumstances in mind."

it's simply that you feel your voice must be heard.
it's been conditioned into you since childhood
and it's directly related to the fact the system maintains a logic espousing personality?

btw, can anyone define 'wingnuts' for me, seems to be a new buzzword for the media cliques but i looked in the dictionary?

Does anyone want to explain how, if South Auckland is such a hotbed of social conservatism, they elected the not-very-socially-conservative David Lange seven times?

Because conservative churches in New Zealand have often been associated with white conservatives who don't exactly inspire Joe Samoan with confidence on issues other that 'moral'?

I'm sure there are places where people are happy to debate on ideas they don't actually hold. I've never thought of Public Address is one of them. It's not my cup of tea, in any case.

it's simply that you feel your voice must be heard.

Woe is me, for I feel the wish to express my opinion in a forum expressly designed for that purpose, occasionally with the use of logic and example to back up my points! Excuse me while I go reign in?

Any thoughts on the prospect of adoption as part of an alternative to abortion?

i'll say it again

in cases where there was no instance of rape, sexual abuse or protection, used then the man should have the right to a mediated and counselled stay of execution of that child.

and i'm thinking especially in a marriage or civil union?

just feel we've been matronized too long

Teh wimmins! They are crushing the poor men beneath their mighty Amazonian jackboot with their insistence on rights to personhood and bodily autonomy and whatnot! Whatever shall we dooooo?

In other words, Mark: meh.

which part of the logic is problematic for you lucy?

...the part where a woman is forced to go through with a pregnancy she does not wish to carry to term, thereby rendering her no more than an incubator for the foetus/embryo she carries. Not to mention endangering her health?

Teh wimmins! They are crushing the poor men beneath their mighty Amazonian jackboot with their insistence on rights to personhood and bodily autonomy and whatnot! Whatever shall we dooooo?

But my might Amazonian jackboots are just so pretty! Don't make me give them up!

because after abortion, the wife will simply answer her husbands incredulous complaints with "meh"

It occurs that if two people are that diametrically separated on issues relevant to marriage like, say, reproductive rights, they perhaps should not be married. Just a thought there.

Honestly, on what basis can someone who writes this sort of nonsense:

two weeks later his wife watches a moving episode of oprah, rushes out for another abortion

expect the compliment of rational opposition?

If Russell wants to stir up a bit of abortion fanaticism I'm more than happy to oblige in giving opinion holders a target to vent at.

Mark, the problem with trolling is that it implies a lack of respect for the others involved in the discussion. It can be funny?

Not sure the adopted children would agree with that, but it would be fascinating to read.

Cheers

Kudos to you, mark.

Not psychologically damaging for the kids; for the mothers. Not in every case, naturally, but it's not the easy answer to abortion.

I actually do think there's some slim argument for men being able to veto a pregnancy going ahead.

I think there's an argument, I just don't see how to make it practically apply. I do understand how there are some males out there who feel a little bitter about the?

Teh wimmins! They are crushing the poor men beneath their mighty Amazonian jackboot with their insistence on rights to personhood and bodily autonomy and whatnot!

Michael basset said it. It must be true.

you got alot of fight in you

Like I said: study break, bored, plus these jackboots need to be taken out and given an airing every so often. I think you get feminist bingo points for the patronising tone there, though.

but your arguing against violation of bodily anatomy by?

Michael basset said it

For those who haven't seen it, Gordon Campbell has a review of Bassett's book up at Scoop.

mainly i just want to know how it feels to be robbery

I'd noticed.

It doesn't happen very often here on P.A, but it makes me glad that I don't read Whaleoil et al on a regular basis, that's for sure! What do you call it when __?

Teh wimmins! They are crushing the poor men beneath their mighty Amazonian jackboot with their insistence on rights to personhood and bodily autonomy and whatnot!

Michael basset said it. It must be true.

I gather that's the actual title of his next work.

My right to choose whether or not I do something to my body is violating my bodily autonomy? Bzzt. Failure of logic. And, oops, weren't you a strong supporter of abortion a few pages back?

yes, your right to chose to do something to your body might?

I believe it's your human right not to have that child, but you will have to violate your bodies anatomy to exercise that human right.

Newsflash: plays on words do not make you clever. And any surgery violates bodily anatomy, hah hah. It doesn't make it wrong. I violate my?

well i'll have to rephrase

yes, your right to chose to do something to your body might or might not violate your bodies autonomy, if i chose to donate a kidney, i am violating my bodies autonomy. that's what i mean by logic, perhaps you?

Please let's not give mark any more jollies.

Sadly, right now "troll" is just winning out over "Loss of microsatellite diversity in overexploited New Zealand snapper".

I think the autonomy bullshit might have put the snapper ahead, though.

why does that leave me open to accusations of trolling, sexism and embarrassment?

because it's election year,
and you imagine things are gonna?

I could totally see myself on top of a barricade in 2015.
(Hyperbole? Moi?)

if your body had any autonomy, you'd just let it do it's thing

Which is precisely the point. If women have bodily autonomy, you let them do their thing. If you're interfering in choices over their body, you are quite clearly interfering with their bodily autonomy.

p.s. dozens of posts?

we could argue about bodily autonomy, but again it belies the point.

I find it interesting on this level
there is the autonomy?

With the whole keeping the baby / not keeping the baby child rearing discussion choice comes up a lot, but at certain points the men involved get a distinct lack?

i'll try another example, again tenuous...[continues]

Exactly.

how many times on this thread did anyone mention the rights of the unborn child?

I think that is because most people here think that the rights of a conscious sentient being trump those of a small bundle of cells. This is what?

You know, where you go into the woods and beat each other with birch twigs in a spirit circle, and complain about how The Feminists are destroying your Phallic Aura?

I might be wrong, but aren't you thinking of the freemasons?

and no, nothing like every sperm is sacred, I'm for pretty much exactly as socrates above:

"I think that when abortion is a viable option and the parents are not in?

mainly i just want to know how it feels to be robbery

I'd noticed.

When you tolerate one, others follow...

The scientists/medics do?

With the whole keeping the baby / not keeping the baby child rearing discussion choice comes up a lot, but at certain points the men involved get a distinct lack of choice.

Welcome to the world of people with ovaries until the twentieth century.

The reason why I get so?

The minute men have to decide whether or not to support another life inside their own bodies, with the accompanying discomfort and medical risks, then I'd be the first to stand up for their rights to choose.

If the hepatic vein of the father is diverted to the caecum, and?

Danielle – I couldn't agree more that women should be more highly valued and indeed autonomous, and so too all human life.
The debate should be played out once these values are in place by?

I'm not sure how many wombs the men here possess, but I'm guessing not many, if any.

It is a great misfortune that men are unable to become pregnant, and the spilt second they can, and not a moment sooner, I will be fascinated to know their?

I find 36% are not first abortions interesting.
The constant rate at which the numbers track ever higher suggests another health or life style issue needs to be addressed.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/hot-off-the-press/abortion-statistics/abortions-yedec06-hotp.htm?page=para001Master

Scientific fact:
At conception a baby is alive.
At conception a baby is human.

Seems to me the only reason one needs philosophy is to justify the killing of human beings.

This seems to be Marks real problem.Casual Sex. Jeez how boring do you want to make life?

"The reason why I get so impatient with this kind of false equivalence is that there is a very?

Scientific fact:
At conception a baby is alive.
At conception a baby is human.

I'm sorry, but that's patently absurd. If you're going to call the single cell produced by conception a "baby", you might as well call it an adult. Or an All Black, for that matter ...

but I do want to say to Anorak – I'm with you. Not somewhere I have been myself – but something I fully support you in doing.

Scientific fact:
At conception a baby is alive.
At conception a baby is human.

At conception you have a conceptus not a baby. A baby is a well developed foetus. Not even embryos are babies, they are embryos. We have these terms for a reason. Think about it?

Still the facts remain that at conception a baby is alive and human.

Making abortion available on demand, with perhaps at least one mandatory chat with a counsellor, seems like a sensible way forward.

This is pretty much my view. Surgical abortion is not trivial, and it is an appropriate occasion for counselling, whether or not a woman changes her decision. But?

Note that even then you do not have a definite future human. It has been calculated that probably 40% or so of human conceptions fail to implant (a whole new process). Etc, etc, etc.

Quite. And even when a foetus is miscarried, far, far beyond the stage of implantation, no?

Parents are destroyed by the loss of their baby

No. *Would-be* parents are upset by the loss of their *potential* baby.

So close the neo-natal unit then eh?

Russell – I know a few who have held a small service to morn the loss in miscarriage, no death notice mind you.?

Do tell, though, whether you believe that the right to life begins at the moment of conception.

Craig was right – I wonder?

Wow. Peter. Lots more words. I'm impressed. I would say that a person forms at some stage between the first meeting of sperm and egg and first cell duplication. I don't know exactly where in that process.

Yet you claim it as a defining point. You?

I understand conception as a sequence of events that generates a human being. I haven't studied in a lab for endless hours as you have, but I do speak?

I can. I guess if I worked as long as hard as Peter has I could determine a human?

Your sarcastic complements to Peter Ashby for knowing what he is talking about:

Amazing, Peter. I've never seen that many words in one place before! Truly you are on a plane of your own!

followed by a claim such as:

I haven't studied in a lab for?

" in the hopes of encouraging more actively responsible attitude towards sexual intercourse." MT

This seems to be Marks real problem.Casual Sex. Jeez how boring do you want to make life?

so boring that people wear condoms. call me unrealistic or whatever but i don't think 80% of?

I claim a baby is alive?

As for the relative claims?

His evidence is the fact that those cells cannot survive outside of the womb
That's a bizarre thing to say! How is the fact that a baby can die evidence against the fact that a baby?

Foetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways. The most fundamental difference is that a foetus is totally dependent?

I understand conception as a sequence of events that generates a human being. I haven't studied in a lab for endless hours as you have, but I do speak in nothing but facts when I say that at conception a baby is alive and human.

Your?

You say: 'How is the fact that a baby can die evidence against the fact that a baby is alive and human!?!?' But the argument was that there is no way to actually keep these embryos alive outside of the womb.?

Might stifle the hackers some, but will be interesting to see. I just wish we had more widespread wifi around, because even 3g is going?

Well I?m not talking about the sex industry, rather human?

That explains Paul Henry then.

Grant, somethings will be denied to you in this life , like the ability to grow any life?

Oh; and a question for anyone with a Mac – have you been able to get 3 News' live stream to go? Im stuck watching One News and its driving me mental.

Im sure i've got Flip4Mac installed correctly, but whenever I go to their live page nothing happens even?

I presume everyone has.

as we move away from sex rules set down by a jewish hill tribe thousands of years [ago]

Abortion really only became criminalised in the nineteenth century, with the professionalisation of medicine. I imagine the process was a little like what this thread has become – a bunch of middle-class?

That's a statement of fact. You might like to call it an opinion

That's exactly the point. You keep mislabelling your personal definitions as "facts". (e.g. "human life" starts at conception — by your definition). Making such a statement is not sufficient to make it true; which is why you?

Sometimes it is a necessary, very conscious, and ultimately heartbreaking decision made by two people, already loving parents, for the greater good. I don?t know how to articulate my?

According to that, the twin window is shorter – if it happens after day 9, it's more likely to result in conjoined twins.

I half caught a news story that there were some changes in this matter either happening or in the pipeline. I believe it was along the lines that where the court had reason to believe that a person might not be the father, they could order a parentage test to?

One useful starting definition might be:
Posting for the sole purpose of manipulating readers into a response.

So there isn't anything wrong with playing devil's advocate in an argument (i.e., arguing for a position that you do not actually agree?