Wednesday, October 06, 2004

I don’t like breakdown

In a forthcoming UK documentary, "Geldof on Marriage", Bob Geldof delivers some home truths about family breakdown. He blames selfishness and unrealistic expectations, particularly among women; laments the devaluation of the ‘emotional nerve centre’ of home and women’s place within it; and criticises the government for undermining marriage and making divorce consequence-free.

He says:
‘Marital breakdown costs the state about £15 billion a year, and most of that is spent on single-parent benefits. Children of divorced parents are much more likely to do worse at school, commit crime, go to prison, and more likely to commit suicide.

‘Divorced men live shorter lives than married men and are more likely to get cancer. This marriage stuff is a serious thing. It is not to be entered into and dissolved on a whim, and to make light of it is a profound mistake. Yet this is precisely what the law allows us and encourages us to do’.

Geldof on Marriage will be broadcast on Monday, October 11, on Channel 4 in the UK, and a second programme, Geldof on Fathers, will go out the following day. So why is Geldof coming out saying this sort of stuff now?

And a few comments on yesterday's Stuff poll.Of course this poll was not scientific. It is not a prediction of a future election result nor is it a random poll, as only those who chose to get polled. Since my post, the Maori Party raced from 2.5 to 6.5 percent of the vote. The poll is no more scientific than a Holmes poll, it is just interesting. That’s all, endastory. Provokes good discussion, though. And no, I don't think you can vote more than once unless you use a different e-mail address.

I wonder if Stuff will do a preferred (NZ) Prime Minister poll? Helen Clark is untouchable ( as in "untouchable, untouchable untouchable girl" - but don’t tell Ian Wishart, he may get funny ideas).

Interestingly, I didn’t get emails asking me to vote for any particular party, following similar emails from networkers on both sides of the civil unions debate when Stuff did a civil unions poll a while back.


Anonymous said...

I don't understand it has he got religion or sumit?

This info has been available for donks, doesn't he read?

You won't find the CUB crowd quoting it though as it will get in the way of "their truth".

Well done Sir Bob, finally put the bottle down..
wonders will never cease.

Now if we can just get NZ women to stop killing the next generation at 11 classrooms a week, we'll have someone to pay the bills when we're old.


Anonymous said...

Mickmac might like this from Fox news in USA (below).

Personally, If the mother is actually going to die, then I think it's hobsons choice and the father and mother must make a decision. I know mine, I'd rether have my wife/partner than not.

I don't think the vast majority of our 14000 abortions a year are because the woman is going to die but a lifestyle choice as they aren't ready/responsible or whatever.

The % that really are rapes/incest is very very small but always used as a canard by the pro-abortionists because it is the only "logical" way to defend their position, which is ideology/worldview based not best interests of the child/fetus

Bob Geldorf makes reference to this selfish mindset in his statement.
I think that as a by product of sex is a child, if you don't want a child then don't have sex, wait until you are in a relationship where you and your spouce/partner can provide all the love,care and resources to bring that child through into adulthood together.

Report: 30 States Ready to Outlaw Abortion

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

WASHINGTON — Thirty states are poised to make abortion illegal within a year if the Supreme Court (search) reversed its 1973 ruling establishing a woman's legal right to an abortion, an advocacy group said Tuesday.

The pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights said some states have old laws on the books that would be triggered by the overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade (search) decision. Others have language in their state constitutions or strongly anti-abortion legislatures that would act quickly if the federal protection for abortion was ended and the issue reverted to the states.

"The building blocks are already in place to recriminalize abortion," said Nancy Northup, the center's president.

The group's report comes less than a month before the presidential election, which those on both sides of the abortion issue say will be critical in determining the future of the Roe decision.

Currently, it is believed that five of the nine justices support abortion rights (search), but that balance could be tipped if President Bush, in a second term, nominates a new justice who reflects his anti-abortion views. Democratic contender John Kerry is a strong supporter of abortion rights.

The center found that 18 states had pre-Roe laws totally or partially banning abortion. In some cases those laws have been blocked by a court, but could easily be revived if Roe were overturned. Alabama is one state where the abortion ban was never enjoined by the courts, and could be immediately enforced.

Other states such as Ohio don't have abortion bans, but both the legislature and the governor oppose abortion and without Roe there would likely be a rush to pass legislation banning abortion, the center said.

It concluded that 21 states are at high risk, and nine states at middle risk, of banning abortion within a year of Roe being overturned. More than 70 million women of childbearing age would be affected, the center said.

Another 20 states, including Massachusetts, which has a pre-Roe ban, would likely retain abortion rights because of other statutory protections or the makeup of their legislatures.

"We are really, I think, in some peril now," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., one of 11 abortion rights lawmakers to attend the center's Capitol Hill news conference.

The only Republican was Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., who said that Roe v. Wade was "an extraordinarily important document" and "we need to elect more pro-choice Republicans to the Congress."

The 21 states considered at high risk of banning abortion were: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The nine at middle risk: Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

The 20 at lower risk: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, on its Web site, says it "is a non-profit legal advocacy organization dedicated to promoting and defending women's reproductive rights worldwide."

Anonymous said...

Geldoff is walking a well worn road, imo. He is coming to realise, after the long and tired journey of life, that being conservative is sensible. Conserving things that work for humanity, such as the institutions of marriage, makes sense. It promotes harmony between man and woman and ensures children are well cared for.

Unfortunately, at the start of his adult life, he was part of the movement that opposed such ideas. Like GK Chesterton said: "There are many angles at which a man can fall, but only one at which he can stay upright".

That said, good on Geldof, he might turn into the 21st century Malcolm Muggeridge (with hair).

Anonymous said...

Interesting comment about muggeride Mr tips.

The communists made sure the education system was riddled with those who want to change the old structure of society and that way the coming generations would be re-educated/affected too.

They started with those who would train young minds and academia, especially the social sciences (misnomer) to prepare society for their wishes and make their ideology respectable.
They prefered their own kind or those who would be biased towards themselves for jobs so infecting the whole establishment over time.

It is well advanced now for the feminist/homosexual agenda, the foolishness of man shows no decency.

In 1993 the American Pschoanalytical society (or APA for short) took Paedophilia out of the "big book" and last year published in peer reviewed articles "that it isn't necessaruily damaging if a child has sex with an adult if they consent".

All that the Fem/homo agenda seeks is to breakdown the judeo/christian basis for society, it is anti God or at least Jehovah.
sadly as society has gone it's own way by making man their god so have the standards of society to where we are now.

That is as much our fault as of those who drive the Fem/Homo agenda as we have been so comfortable and allowed the state to take over so much of what should be the preserve of family structure.

That that is directly linked to personal values and worldview is clear.

They have done such a good Job in demonising old valued values and ideals that many people who don't agree with them are scared of speaking out as they will be tarred with the homophobic or sexist label.

I just use logic how was society structured to run, if everyone played their part properly in balence how would things happen.
That is what we should aim for nothing less.
get over it if that isn't what you have, change the future back to that for the next generation.

You have to make the best of what you have.

1st prize for a child is
1 a dad in the home all their life.
2. a mum in the home all their life.
3 the dad and mum love each other unto death.

personally I don't think that is enough as man left to himself degenerates, that is the natural order of man.
so God has to be in the equation and that would be with and through all of them and as an outside reference.

but that would mean an absolute reference
and mankind in rebellion to God doesn't want absolutes as then their choices are limited to what another gives them supposidly.

but then that is the reason society is degenerating.
No God.

We are made to worship something, everyone does in some way or another.
Nature abhors a vacumn so we will worship what we choose or that validifies ourselves or our choices.

Biblically this is found as -
Everyone does what is right in his own eyes
you call good evil and evil good.

but then I'm old fashioned.