To your first responder, it is obvious you really don't realize how this corporate run administration has squeezed women. I speak from experience. I was told to make a choice, have my child or lose my job. I live in an at will state, FL and they did just that forced me to make the choice be fired or quit. I am pro-choice and I made the choice to have my son. It was a decision tha I paid for big time. I was out of a job, and had to go on unemployment because no one really wanted to hire someone permanently when they were pregnant.
I had to get COBRA to keep insurance during that time. I watched my insurance payments go from $180/mth in Feb of that year to $632 by May of that same year. This was 2003.
The thing with the pro-lifers which disgusts me is the attitude about keeping the child. They all get their knickers in a twist when the child is inside but don't give one damn once the child is born. They bit*h, complain and moan about assistance programs that exist, which aren't that much anyway and all I remember is that it cost $11,000 that first year of my child's life and he did not live on formula. At least I had had help. Those women who sometimes don't get the help is not mutually exclusive to single women, this also goes for quite a large number of married ones as well.
2007-05-31 12:52:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by thequeenreigns 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Pro Choice
2016-05-17 21:29:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Absolutely agreed. Unfortunately, the "Pro-Life" crowd will never pay for anything but to pass laws. I wish they'd prove me wrong but so far the answers say otherwise. And the women are the least likely to support other women. When did we get so mean?
This response "By law a woman must be granted maternity leave. A woman cannot be fired because she is pregnant. "
Completely wrong. The USA is the only industrialized country where maternity is NOT a right and you can certainly be fired when you're pregnant. Happens all the time. Another says "can't afford to miss work because they are pregnant? that has to be the most selfish thing i have ever heard". Obviously, in her world, she doesn't have to depend on a paycheck to support her other child. An unselfish woman would put her child on the streets, I suppose.
Backwards we go, I wonder how long before people notice?
2007-05-31 06:08:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
This question has evoked some very well developed and pertinent responses without the usual vitriolic responses to this subject. I will hopefully continue this debate because it is such an important subject on a macro amd micro level. I seldom get involved in these discussions so I may have a lot to say this time. LOL. I have 8 children and 6 grand children, so I have some knowledge of family life in general.
By law a woman must be granted maternity leave -- While this is a true statement, this leave is not a paid leave and many women need more than is authorized. Any maternity process does negatively impact any family's financial situation. However the higher middle class are able to absorb this probelm better because of some savings and lines of reasonable credit and better insurance than the lower classes. So, on a macro level it would be better to help these women and their families more than we do currently to insure their welfare and to be certain that the child gets a fair start in its life. Unfortunately the costs for this would be astronomical and even people like me may not vote for the taxes necessary to support such a program. Bottom line is that it is cheaper to simply allow and even pay for abortions than to improve the living situation of so many.
Like many reasonable politicians I am against abortion, but must support any woman's right to have a safe abortion during the first two trimesters. It is her body and her right to freedom and her pursuit of happiness. I will not interfere.
The best approach is to control the number of unwanted pregnancies. You would be surprised by how many of these occur among married couples. IMO, birth control prescriptions, morning after pills, birth control and abstinance counseling in this country should be free to all women. Since I am one who faces the facts, I would start this at age 15 and not even require parental consent or knowledge (age 10?? with parental knowledge???). But even if the age at which one would be eligible for this service was 18, the number of unwanted pregnancies would be dramatically reduced nationwide.
On a micro and macro level the last suggestion fulfills many requirements that other idea systems do not. It allows women freedom of choice, reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies and controls the costs. I would still allow legal abortions, but there would be many less.
My wife was a counselor of women with unwanted pregnancies (and tried to have them seek alternative paths), and I was a volunteer to aid women who had chosen to end their pregnancies get through the protestors at a clinic years ago. We talk about this situation all the time.
Abstinance is best! Did you? I didn't! That's not all I have to say, but my two fingers are tired of typing.
I agree with your last two sentences completely but doubt that enough will ever be done along those lines of thought.
2007-06-01 05:59:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by Nightstalker1967 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree to a point, because what they need MORE is legally assured access to birth control to PREVENT pregnancy. And if they do get pregnant and decide to keep it, financial and social assistance AFTER they give birth. Why does all the help disappear after the child is born?
Prevention and education is the best panacea for this problem.
I just have to say something, and I don't care who I offend;
Contrary to your demented view, a LOT of women use protection. You're basing your arguments on a small group that are indifferent or ignorant to the risks of unprotected sex.
I am EXTREMELY offended you pro-life men paint all women to be wanton sluts that spread their legs for anything with a cock.
You really think the entire female sex is unintelligent and irresponsible when it comes to their bodily functions, and can only be redeemed by your "guidance."
I can do without your religious, sexist, and bigoted proselytizing. You people make me sick.
2007-05-31 06:04:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by tiny Valkyrie 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
WOW, what a great question!
I love global warming's answer and applaud it. Women don't make the same wages as men and don't get treated the same way in the work force as men--women have made great strides but there is still a long way to go. Attitudes have to be changed, including the woman holds about herself, in that there is something shameful in being a woman. Pregnant women and mothers all need help and support no matter what their circumstances.
Thank YOU, for "getting it"
2007-05-31 07:24:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Women need more help for sure. Namely, they need to learn what can happen after you have unprotected sex. Yea, you CAN get pregnant. The only time abortion should even be considered is when the woman was raped. And that should have to be proven in a court beyond all reasonable doubt that it was surely an unwanted rape. Abortion is murder, and there is no other way around it. From the second of conception, there is life in the woman's womb. Taking life away is murder. Murder is illegal.
2007-05-31 05:46:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
I think your first assumption is incorrect. By law a woman must be granted maternity leave. A woman cannot be fired because she is pregnant. I do that we need to help pregnant women but not by just giving them money. I think counseling should be required before an abortion is given to make sure that the women understands exactly what she is doing.
2007-05-31 05:43:43
·
answer #8
·
answered by gerafalop 7
·
4⤊
3⤋
How about helping women before they get pregnant like insurance-covered birth control and equal wages?
2007-05-31 05:45:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by Global warming ain't cool 6
·
5⤊
0⤋
No, we need to educate people about avoiding pregnancy, i.e. birth control, until they are able to afford to raise children, if you can't provide for them don't have them. We already have too many people on welfare, that is not the answer..
2007-05-31 05:44:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by Lori B 6
·
2⤊
1⤋