Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless we find a way to make men as responsible for the baby as what the mother is going to be.
Like jail sentences for men who do not wish to have contact and do not help with the washing or feeding or babysitting


And we could make it illegal for someone to fire a pregnant nanny

That's interesting. So when the nanny has a newborn, which baby becomes the priority? Her own or her employers? I guess that's the employers problem because it doesn't matter if they signed up for that arrangement or not if your brilliant idea became law.

I can't stand when people repeatedly misuse the term fire. Firing someone is essentially when they've f?cked up, cost the company money or did something illegal. Letting someone go, or downsizing is when the economics or other circumstances require a shift in personell.

I don't have a dog in this fight, so th HR experts that'll attack me may as well save their fingers.

Well, I'm neither in HR nor law, but I'm pretty sure firing someone, or letting them go, if you prefer, for getting pregnant is discrimination. It's not entirely protected, but really, PP you think we should just be able to fire pregnant women.

I've been "downsized," and I can assure you no matter what the reason or how it's framed, you feel 100% rejected and shitty.

I have as well, and it does. But it isn't a firing. I have no opinion, what I support is the employer's right to manage his business reasonably. When its discovered that he may not be a lawbreaker, but a rotten employer, then the free market will treat him in kind with less talent and lost business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless we find a way to make men as responsible for the baby as what the mother is going to be.
Like jail sentences for men who do not wish to have contact and do not help with the washing or feeding or babysitting


And we could make it illegal for someone to fire a pregnant nanny

That's interesting. So when the nanny has a newborn, which baby becomes the priority? Her own or her employers? I guess that's the employers problem because it doesn't matter if they signed up for that arrangement or not if your brilliant idea became law.

I can't stand when people repeatedly misuse the term fire. Firing someone is essentially when they've f?cked up, cost the company money or did something illegal. Letting someone go, or downsizing is when the economics or other circumstances require a shift in personell.

I don't have a dog in this fight, so th HR experts that'll attack me may as well save their fingers.

Well, I'm neither in HR nor law, but I'm pretty sure firing someone, or letting them go, if you prefer, for getting pregnant is discrimination. It's not entirely protected, but really, PP you think we should just be able to fire pregnant women.

I've been "downsized," and I can assure you no matter what the reason or how it's framed, you feel 100% rejected and shitty.

Anonymous wrote:Unless we find a way to make men as responsible for the baby as what the mother is going to be.
Like jail sentences for men who do not wish to have contact and do not help with the washing or feeding or babysitting


And we could make it illegal for someone to fire a pregnant nanny

That's interesting. So when the nanny has a newborn, which baby becomes the priority? Her own or her employers? I guess that's the employers problem because it doesn't matter if they signed up for that arrangement or not if your brilliant idea became law.

I can't stand when people repeatedly misuse the term fire. Firing someone is essentially when they've f?cked up, cost the company money or did something illegal. Letting someone go, or downsizing is when the economics or other circumstances require a shift in personell.

I don't have a dog in this fight, so th HR experts that'll attack me may as well save their fingers.

Unless we find a way to make men as responsible for the baby as what the mother is going to be.
Like jail sentences for men who do not wish to have contact and do not help with the washing or feeding or babysitting


And we could make it illegal for someone to fire a pregnant nanny

Invest in science and technology to remove the child from the womb. It's like PETA has a prize for anyone who can grow real meat without using an animal - remove the suffering through science and everybody wins. A wacky notion I admit, but feeling creative.

I have always believed that the culture has to change, not the laws. The goal is to make people understand that all human life is equally sacred (or special, or whatever you want to call it if you aren't religious) and that people should not put themselves in the position of creating a human life they can't take responsbility for. Perhaps I am misinformed, but I think in America over fifty years ago this was a widely shared moral understanding. It is not anymore. I liked Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare" formulation, but abortion will never be rare until the culture changes and people start taking the awesome responsibility of participating in the creation new human life seriously. I wish the pro-lifers would focus more on the culturual message.

Anonymous wrote:increase the standard of living for those who do not have the means to have or rear a child


Umm, they tried this and it was called welfare and all it did was incentivize poor women to get pregnant and have babies out of wedlock.

No. It didn't work because it wasn't enough then and it certainly isn't enough now. It didn't incentivize people to have more children, but in a social context without birth control options when poor women get pregnant they are going to have children. It also didn't incentivize people to stay home, it removed benefits from people who got jobs. When the jobs available are poverty-level wages, you can't afford to have a job and have someone watch your kids.

All of these things work together as a system. If we had a baseline in this country of thinking that it costs X to live with Y children, and paid A benefits to get to X when a job only pays B, we would have a different situation. If everyone had health care and birth control available people would be able to avoid getting pregnant when they didn't want to. Of course, in the scenario where women are just sitting around having babies, having access to affordable abortions would also give women more choices, but since that's counter to the starting point of this discussion it's not worth emphasizing.

increase the standard of living for those who do not have the means to have or rear a child


Umm, they tried this and it was called welfare and all it did was incentivize poor women to get pregnant and have babies out of wedlock.

Anonymous wrote:They could fight for free medical care for pregnant women, paid maternity leave, subsidised day care for lower income and middle income families, after school activities for children who have working parents.
And double benefits for those who have a child with a disability

+1

Also sex education in schools, free condoms, contraceptives covered by medical insurance, free college educations, a living minimum wage, and better food and housing coverage for the destitute.

There are two ways to reduce abortions: prevent unwanted pregnancies and increase the standard of living for those who do not have the means to have or rear a child. Doing either of those things would require us to acknowledge the place that abortion has in the reproductive choices of women over a lifetime and the social or economic context within which women make those choices. People fixated on whether a fetus flinches when you poke it are not willing or able to consider those questions.

How can you end abortion?

Explicit, specific sex education in all public schools which explains the mechanics and how to prevent pregnancy. It should also include good information on STDs.

Support Planned Parenthood. 97% of what PP does is aimed at preventing pregnancy and ensuing reproductive health. If you can't support PP, then set up your own clinics to provide birth control for free or low cost.

Support a movement to have all girls start hormonal implants or shots at age 13-16. You can't forget your Depo shot the way you can a pill.

Provide incentives to women who chose have their children and place them for adoption, including counseling and financial support for 1 year after the adoption.

Provide welfare benefits to women who chose to have their child and keep it. No lifetime cap on benefits as long as the mom and child are enrolled in appropropriate programs. Those programs should include counseling, mentoring and education for mom, and home health visitors and Head Start and life/job/education counseling for the child. Having a single mom on welfare should be treated as an "at risk" for the child and should bring in school/community intervention.

16:09 -- Just wanted to echo what 14:20 said about single issue voting and being pro-life.

In their mind it is an issue so great it trumps all other issues.

I am Jewish. One of my pro-life friends asked me what I would do if one candidate believed in persecuting and killing Jews. Would it matter his/her position on education and healthcare? Of course not, his desire to exterminate the Jewish people would trump all else.

That is what abortion is to them -- the mass murder of innocent lives.

A heart issue? What is this the Hallmark Channel?

Abortion has been around since women have been getting pregnant - forever!

You will never get rid of it, only push it into the black market.

I am personally pro-life and politically pro-choice, if that makes sense. My pro-life friends, and I have quite a few, are fighting to erode abortion laws.

They do so on a state-by-state basis -- the ultrasound law, the waiting period. They want to chip away slowly at what has become an entitlement in their minds.

One pro-life friend told me she would be very happy to see abortion limited to rape, incest and mother's life issues, even though she is staunchly pro-life in all those situations. She would consider that a start.

Most pro-lifers view abortion as sort of a litmus test for how depraved our society is. They truly believe it is akin to the Holocaust.

There will never be a meeting of the minds or the "hearts" on this matter, just compromise.

Oh, as for birth control -- forget it. While that makes total sense to secular pro-choicers as a way to end abortion, most staunch pro-lifers just see that as shifting the problem.

You have to change peoples hearts. Laws are not the way to go. Its a heart issue not a legal one. Until people see killing a child as killing a child then nothing will change. The mere thought of committing such a horrible act should seem outrageous and absurd. But its not...its seen as normal...its a heart issue not a legal one.

Anonymous wrote:Tell your friends to worry about what goes on with their vagina's and wombs and let me worry about mine. These prolife zealot live in their little everything is black or white little biblical minds. The have no insight into anything that concerns the mother. You can't fight irrational committed type with rational thought.

Let one of these evangelical pro life advocates discover that at the age 47 they are pregnant. The fetus that you are carring with 100% assurity will not survive more that a month, most likely will not survive childbirth.
OK pro lifers chime in tell me I murdered my child, I'm evil and should be sentenced to watch partial birth abortions daily

I'm pro-life, fairly liberal, not religious. But - if someone actually thinks that abortion is murder, I understand that they can't vote for a pro-choice party. That makes sense to me. I do expect these people to support helping their less fortunate brothers and sisters as well, and not just those in their church. There are basically no politicians who have this set of positions, and I don't understand that or why most religious pro-life people just want to shut down social programs, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could fight for free medical care for pregnant women, paid maternity leave, subsidised day care for lower income and middle income families, after school activities for children who have working parents.
And double benefits for those who have a child with a disability

+1

I'd add to this fight for excellent schools in all jurisdictions, free health care for children in all jurisdictions, and affordable childcare.**

At that point it just wouldn't make any sense to have an abortion.

I meant affordable college.