Why isn't guaranteed maternity leave a "pro-life" imperative?

  • Thread starter Thread starter happypeacemaker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, let me rephrase: do you like being alive right now? Abortion denies that right to millions of babies each year. If you do like being alive, yet you support abortion, you violate the Golden Rule.
 
KJW5551 said:
Ok, let me rephrase: do you like being alive right now? Abortion denies that right to millions of babies each year. If you do like being alive, yet you support abortion, you violate the Golden Rule.
Click to expand...
Some days. Some days not so much. Honestly I could go either way. But I have a lot of New Age beliefs that you probably wouldn’t understand, and those get factored in to my belief system regarding issues around life.

Nice try with the golden rule…but not so much.
 
And not everyone shops at Whole Foods for “designer food” (the visual images of that are quite amusing).

That is the only source, including online, where I can purchase unsalted tortilla chips for a husband who is on a sodium restricted diet. With all of his medications, his appetite is a skittish thing. When something appeals to him, we get it. Right now it is chips and refried beans. I make the beans from scratch and go to Whole Foods for the chips.

Sometimes it is easy to jump to conclusions about motivations.
 
Even if you only sometimes are happy to be alive, you by definition are violating the Golden Rule.

You’re right by the way; I would most certainly not understand your new age beliefs. I don’t think there is even a good definition of what that term means…
 
The fact is that women as a whole are not let go when they are Pregnant. Even if there is a lay off and it can be shown that being pregnant was the factor that lead to a female being laid off, that person can win a lawsuit.
 
If pregnancy support charities were given more of a spotlight and new mothers were given more info on the support they can get, there wouldn’t be a push for paid leave. Paid maternity leave will only make companies lees likely to hire women because they won’t want to be paying 11 dollars an hour for no productivity. that’s also why “menstrual leave” is a similarly boneheaded idea.
 
I would disagree. The term ‘pro-life’ has been effectively co-opted into signifying support for the welfare state, feminism, illegal immigration, and keeping vicious criminals alive. We should just point out the obvious, we are against murder.
 
I agree and disagree. The central theme of pro-life values seems to focused on issues that directly relevant to life such as abortion, assisted suicide and to a lesser extent, the death penalty. Issues like prenatal care, child care and parental leave are not necessarily front and center issues but I could see how they can be connected and relevant to “pro-life” themes.

That being said I disagree with a premise that implies one has to support paid maternity leave to be a pro-life. I agree it’s a nice policy and supporting the public provision of prenatal and postnatal care, family support services, as well as child care can promote pro-life, pro-family themes and goals but I wouldn’t necessarily dismiss pro-lifers who think differently (like a conservative or libertarian who prefers charities or local governments to fulfill those services).

Employers do have a responsibility to treat their workers well and respect their dignity, in that aspect, it would be ideal if they offered reasonable accommodations for any workers experiencing health issues (not just pregnancy, but also mental illness, chronic conditions and etc).
 
Last edited:
You’ve never heard of the working poor? It’s a large group and growing, particularly in urban centers.
 
I’ll admit, I’m not an expert on urban issues but it appears that cities and metropolitan areas have issues regarding a high cost of living. Perhaps local policies such as zoning reform as well as increasing funding and support for city bus systems can help their situation.

Additionally, could municipal bonds for public and affordable housing be another option?

Local and regional approaches (as well as philanthropic ones like the Jeremiah Program, Harlem Children’s Zone, Economic Mobility Pathways) can be implemented to help address poverty from lower levels of society.

Perhaps one argue that a smaller federal government with lower and more minimal levels of taxation would provide more space or breathing room for local and state governments to fund anti-poverty initiatives.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
You’ve never heard of the working poor? It’s a large group and growing, particularly in urban centers.
Click to expand...
Don’t you know the definition of “working poor”?
It’s people working half time, or looking for work half time (27 wks a year).
Of course their income will be at poverty levels.

Low unemployment is the best thing we can do for them, get them employed for 50 wks a year.
 
Not where I live. Where I live the Working Poor are people who work full-time jobs but still don’t earn enough money for the basic needs in life. Often times they even have a part time job on the side, in addition to their fault time job.

ETA: And by “needs” I am talking about roof, food, clothing, medical, transportation and the like. Not vacations and cell phones.
 
Last edited:
QwertyGirl said:
Not where I live. Where I live the Working Poor are people who work full-time jobs but still don’t earn enough money for the basic needs in life.
Click to expand...
So you’ve created your own definition, very convenient.

Unless one consciously chooses to simplify, it is hard to meet lifestyle expectations, this challenge extends well up the income curve. Basic needs, very subjective.

My family was working poor (by your definition) - single income and five kids.
 
Last edited:
“Working poor” isn’t a compound word. It isn’t in the dictionary. You don’t have a monopoly on the meaning of that term. The people are working, and the people are poor. Hence ,working poor. Please see the ETA I added to my original post, in case you missed it.
 
Last edited:
Then you know what it is like, to rob Peter to pay Paul. To live without water for a couple of weeks until you can scrounge the money for a plumber. To beg rides when the car breaks down because repairs cost too much.
 
I don’t think God is looking in his big book of definitions to decide if you chose appropriately how to view poor people. At the end of the day, that is what should matter. You sort of sound uncharitable, and I’m putting that kindly, in the way you describe your attitudes towards this issue. Just saying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top