(no subject)
Feb. 13th, 2007 07:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabremeisterTwo things in Metro caught my eye today.
The second was the proposal to cut JSA to people who refuse to learn English. This got an unequivocal "good!" It's my view that if you want to benefit economically from a country, then you should be prepared to economically benefit that country in return. That means, in almost all cases, getting a job, and one of the best things you can do to get a job if you are a foreign immigrant, is to learn the language. This applies to any immigrants, anywhere - and is why if I were to ever emigrate, I would go somewhere English-speaking. I may have (theoretically) learnt two languages at school, but I suspect I couldn't make myself understood in them if my life depended on it.
The first was the front page story - 'Lifestyle' abortions banned on Harley Street. I am largely against non-cosmetic surgery for cosmetic reasons (ie. a Ceasarian being performed on someone who doesn't need one, and only wants one to avoid losing her figure, f'rinstance). Cosmetic surgery, also fine - you want a skin graft to cover up the horrific burn injury you have? No problem. You want a boob job? No problem. The difference is, the first should be available on the NHS and at private practice, and the second should never be available on the NHS. However, an abortion is not cosmetic, and it's usually serious enough to not be a 'lifestyle' wossname anyway. Health reasons yes, psychologic and/or psychiatric reasons yes, monetary reasons possibly. But lifestyle? I'm having a little trouble comprehending how anyone can consider terminating a pregnancy to be less than a necessity (rather like Babbage had trouble comprehending the confusion of ideas that provoked the oft-asked question "if you put the wrong numbers in, do the right answers come out?")
The second was the proposal to cut JSA to people who refuse to learn English. This got an unequivocal "good!" It's my view that if you want to benefit economically from a country, then you should be prepared to economically benefit that country in return. That means, in almost all cases, getting a job, and one of the best things you can do to get a job if you are a foreign immigrant, is to learn the language. This applies to any immigrants, anywhere - and is why if I were to ever emigrate, I would go somewhere English-speaking. I may have (theoretically) learnt two languages at school, but I suspect I couldn't make myself understood in them if my life depended on it.
The first was the front page story - 'Lifestyle' abortions banned on Harley Street. I am largely against non-cosmetic surgery for cosmetic reasons (ie. a Ceasarian being performed on someone who doesn't need one, and only wants one to avoid losing her figure, f'rinstance). Cosmetic surgery, also fine - you want a skin graft to cover up the horrific burn injury you have? No problem. You want a boob job? No problem. The difference is, the first should be available on the NHS and at private practice, and the second should never be available on the NHS. However, an abortion is not cosmetic, and it's usually serious enough to not be a 'lifestyle' wossname anyway. Health reasons yes, psychologic and/or psychiatric reasons yes, monetary reasons possibly. But lifestyle? I'm having a little trouble comprehending how anyone can consider terminating a pregnancy to be less than a necessity (rather like Babbage had trouble comprehending the confusion of ideas that provoked the oft-asked question "if you put the wrong numbers in, do the right answers come out?")
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-13 09:01 pm (UTC)1)students still living at home and frightened about what their parents will think
2)desire to continue pursuing school/work - there are quite a few careers in which having a child stops any opportunities for promotion.
3) People passing a means test but still refusing to continue with the pregnancy
4)People averse to having children who find themselves pregnant, or people who don't feel ready for children, etc.
There seem to be quite a few pro-life advocates who think that in pretty much any circumstance, the pregnancy should go forth and the child be adopted out, which really holds the mother ransom to their ideological position for several months of her life. To them, anything that's not a demon child eating its way out of the womb like a cheesy 80s horror film, is pretty much a 'lifestyle' reason for abortion.
I'm heartily in favour of the right to choose. I think a pregnancy is possibly the most invasive thing that can happen to the female body. There's prolonged periods of sickness, and becoming less independent, more easily tired. There's the birth itself, which even these days can be life-threatening. And there's the aftermath, not only having to look after a child, but also having pushed the equivalent of a watermelon through your hips. I think this 'lifestyle' ban is a little disturbing. Who is it that decides why a person is requesting an abortion? And who gets to delineate all the grey fuzzy areas as to what's a 'lifestyle' choice, and what's about long term security, happiness and mental stability? Hmm. The news is slightly ominous, methinks.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-14 12:38 am (UTC)