Reply to If not overturning RvW, how would you suggest pro-lifers fight to *end* abortion?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "If not overturning RvW, how would you suggest pro-lifers fight to *end* abortion?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]

Cry me a river. The question you posed delt with a nanny, and what's  ironic is my wife is preggers right now, so no, I'd not want her to be fired, but we both bear the burden that we don't expect our employers to bend over for our needs.  In the real world, the individual that simply cannot meet the demands of a FT job have to make some difficult decisions.

I know, in your world I'm evil, but it's reality.  [/quote]
And because of reality you cannot stand in judgement and demand that women in dire circumstances have babies. You are married and have a job, every woman does not have a man like you. Some women have a man even better than what you are, but not with a stable job and for them a womans job is not something they canafford to lose when pregrnant.
Your baby is not in any way better than someone elses. We are all human
As long as the employer is not able to see that, every healthy pregnancy is not feasible.

Unless te society does provide a safety net for women and families, which it does not do and will not do for a very long time.
[/quote]

I'm a little unsure what you're arguing here, but I am enjoying this discussion (genuine, not snark).  I think you're saying a couple of different things above, suggesting that I (or my party) would prefer to essentially force a woman to have her child, being born during uncertain times, or conversly prevent her from aborting since she may not be ready.  I am pro-life, although not single issue.   I don't know, OP's looking for solutions, and this may not be one, but I think a healthy dose of reminding prospective mothers that the social safety net can't (not won't) be there for them is a helpful reminder.

Bear with me here, point being that we could probably agree that current strategies may be failing, i.e. sex ed., controception, etc., to stem the tide of chrildren born out of wedlock or by accident.  Maybe the fear of losing the social safety net might cause them to be more responsible.  I don't want to get into a dependency rant, but when the expectation is that the net will be there, and it typically is, then the disincentive to be more careful may be going away.

I think an interesting case study is the new CEO of Yahoo!  as I understand it, she plans to work through her pregnancy, which is great, but I think even she would state that she's got a remendous amount of support beneath her, and she appears to be the exception, not the rule.  I'm not suggesting moms stay at home, I'm married to a working (preggo mom).  It just gets very dicey and challenging to put businesses into the position of making decisions based on rigid PC laws, no matter how heartening they are.

What happens if Yahoo! tanks and she's got a four month old.  I'm not saying we should be worried about her finances, but is teh Yahoo! board now in the position of firing a poorly performing CEO who just gave birth?  I don't think either would happen, largely b/c she probably has a good supporting team beneath her.[/quote]

How many women do you personally know who would seek out government as a first step if their money situation got dire? Like, really, who among your friends would be signing up? Maybe you have a lot of female friends who you think would rather be on the dole? Among my friends? None. For none of them would "government assistance" be the first thing they'd think of, and I think that's true for a majority of Americans. Plus, bennies are just not that good from what I've read. When my husband was fired the first year of our marriage (ten years ago) and after not finding a job of any kind for three months, he did inquire to see what unemployment would be. Since he'd been part time (we were students) a grand total of 132.00 a month. That's just one example, but I don't think anyone makes decisions thinking about what the "welfare state" can provide. Because in this country, it's jack. Now Norway or France....[/quote]

I don't think either of us is referring to college educated, middle class women here.  And to go one step further, many of these women I'm thinkining about are aready ON some form of assistance.  Point being, if YOU are on assistance, you probaby ought to not add to that, that's basically my point here.

As you suggest, you don't know anyone, nor do I, we're talking about those much less fortunate.  Giving them a leg up is important, an important component of that is they do their part and avoid adding to the system if they can prevent it.[/quote]

I don't think I get your point. Poster prior to me made it sound like the existence of safety net social programs could be bad as they might not provide a disincentive. I think that public assistance is generally a good thing, that parts of it should be overhauled and expanded. I've used the middle class safety net - mortgage deduction, federal student loans - but have never needed food stamps, section 8, welfare, etc.[/quote]

Oh gosh, I so want to avoid this, but I have to point out your recognition of how our progressive tax code benefits the middle class and not just the rich.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics