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.
I’m speaking of materialism–when we place created things before the Creator.
 
Working class women in the past DID get back to work after giving birth. And they had jobs they could do at home while taking care of their kids. Thats how they made it work.
 
And to me, to say someone is pro life and against mandated maternity leave is a contradiction. Mild, but a contradiction nonetheless. I’m for the death penalty and against abortion. Plenty think that makes no sense whatsoever, and that’s fine with me. Doesn’t make me unreasonable.

I know perfectly otherwise reasonable folks who are pro-choice. One decision doesn’t color my opinion of someone.
 
Monica83 said:
Working class women in the past DID get back to work after giving birth. And they had jobs they could do at home while taking care of their kids. Thats how they made it work.
Click to expand...
What do you consider working class? The working class is and has always been comprised of people working for wages. Taking in sewing and laundry wasn’t working class. Working in a factory was.

Working from home for wages is a modern phenomenon.
 
You also see many examples in history of women leaving their children with friends or family while they worked.
philipl said:
People got by with less.
Click to expand...
Some of that is also an issue of modern expectations. Nowadays I simply can’t find a rental in a safe area for what some of my ancestors paid for their houses. A car, a cell phone, and an email address are considered basic necessities for many jobs. (I do know people without cars but all of them have family members with cars that they rely on. No one relies completely on biking and public transit.)

I’ve been researching what working women wore many years ago. Can you imagine it being ok now for a woman to show up to work in the same dress every day? That used to be common - a member of the working poor might own 2 or 3 dresses. One working dress, one sunday dress, and one old dress would be considered a comfortable wardrobe.
 
I consider both those positions working class as neither of them earn much and were needed to supplement income. Just because I prefer not to use my home as a daycare doesn’t mean owning a daycare is less “working class” than what I do outside the home-care for the elderly.
 
I’m not talking about now, I’m talking about “the past”. There was no working class work at home by the actual definition of the word because it wasn’t wage earning. Working class doesn’t mean supplementing income.
DarkLight said:
Some of that is also an issue of modern expectations. Nowadays I simply can’t find a rental in a safe area for what some of my ancestors paid for their houses. A car, a cell phone, and an email address are considered basic necessities for many jobs. (I do know people without cars but all of them have family members with cars that they rely on. No one relies completely on biking and public transit.)
Click to expand...
Exactly. Even thirty years ago things were very different than they are now.
 
Last edited:
philipl said:
People got by with less.
Click to expand...
In some respects, people got by with different and faulty relied more on natural resources they believed were endless.

Take my home for example.

I’m on a well. Today in 2018 we really understand water conservation and that even drilling into the ground does not guarantee water forever.

So we have a high-efficiency washer. (~12-15 vs 40-80 pre 90’s) We have a high-efficiency dishwasher. (2.5 gallons vs 15-30 hand washing) We have low flush toilets with an up for #1 down for #2 toggle. (.75-1gal vs 2.7 gal) as well as low-flow shower heads(1.8 GPM vs 6 GPM).

All of these things–these “luxuries” cost money. They make life “easier” but at the end of the average day, our family uses staggeringly less water than we would of 30-50 years ago. Two loads of wash, one and a half loads of dishes, at least a couple dozen toilet flushes, and 4ish 5 or so minute showers depending on the day. Basically, we use 90 vs the 400 gallons of PER DAY yesteryear. That’s 34k vs 146k annually. Yes, there is greywater and water treatment, but those have time and economic costs themselves.

And that’s just water…
 
Why isn’t guaranteed maternity leave a pro-life imperative?

It is… it just is not treated as such by most of society. Capitalism trumps supporting the family.
 
philipl said:
People got by with less.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree. At least in the US, health care is the clincher. In the old times (30 plus years ago), one could go to the doctor, even without insurance, and the expense would be reasonable. Now, where I live, to be seen for something as simple as strep throat, the bill is close to $350 dollars.

Now lets discuss the cost of health insurance. Premiums are through the roof, and often times that is with $8K deductible before it even kicks in.

I won’t even go into what modest housing costs these days, or groceries and clothing.

I really don’t understand this assumption here at CAF about normal, good people wanting to have a high standard of living. They are presumed selfish for there to be two income earners to sustain the family. It certainly isn’t based in reality. The majority of families I know who have two income earners do so because it is required to make ends meet and live responsibly. So I have to ask, if people making these wrong assumptions aren’t living in reality, then where are they living? I don’t know the answer to that, but it seems it may involve a beach, a shovel, and hole in the sand with a head buried deep.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes people keep working just because they carry the better health insurance. I’ve seen that time and time again here.

Our health care system is a mess. I bet we all agree on that.
 
QwertyGirl said:
I have to disagree. At least in the US, health care is the clincher. In the old times (30 plus years ago), one could go to the doctor, even without insurance, and the expense would be reasonable. Now, where I live, to be seen for something as simple as strep throught, the bill is close to $350 dollars.
Click to expand...
Of course, the flip side is it was often a much more crushing burden if you were disabled, or had a disabled child to care for - any situation where a lot of continuing medical care was required could easily take all of someone’s income. And many more things simply had to be suffered through because we lacked the ability to do anything. There’s also a lot more rolled into routine care now that we simply didn’t used to be able to test for, so we can catch things that we used to not be able to see.

I’m also pretty sure there were a lot of kids who were just “stupid” or “slow” back then that would get real diagnoses and therapy and such now.
 
Last edited:
DarkLight said:
40.png
QwertyGirl:
I have to disagree. At least in the US, health care is the clincher. In the old times (30 plus years ago), one could go to the doctor, even without insurance, and the expense would be reasonable. Now, where I live, to be seen for something as simple as strep throught, the bill is close to $350 dollars.
Click to expand...
Of course, the flip side is it was often a much more crushing burden if you were disabled, or had a disabled child to care for - any situation where a lot of continuing medical care was required could easily take all of someone’s income. And many more things simply had to be suffered through because we lacked the ability to do anything. There’s also a lot more rolled into routine care now that we simply didn’t used to be able to test for, so we can catch things that we used to not be able to see.
Click to expand...
Like even asthma. Children with asthma who survived were very, very delicate and spent much of their times indoors incapable of interacting with regular children. Today, heavy doses of expensive meds means that a kid with asthsma can be on the track team.
 
This is the case with a lot of today’s common ailments. The greater advances medical technology makes, the more epensive solutions usually are. Parents are in a moral dilemma. Do we pay for the treatment, drugs, etc. to give the kid the best chance and best quality of life? Do we not and let them suffer needlessly. As a parent, I know which one I chose. And it meant I had to work to pay for insurance. This was for nothing more than childhood allergies. EXPENSIVE, even WITH insurance.
 
Last edited:
I agree health care in the US needs a lot of improvement.

I personally think access to quality health care is a pro-life issue.
 
DarkLight said:
I’m also pretty sure there were a lot of kids who were just “stupid” or “slow” back then that would get real diagnoses and therapy and such now.
Click to expand...
Or “eccentric”…they were likely autistic.

My youngest (I say youngest - he’s the youngest boy but is still 16 years my senior) brother assuredly has a mild learning disability and is likely dyslexic (to this day I think there are six books in his whole house and I’m not kidding), but of course we didn’t know that back then.

He did quite well in the military, though, and has also retired from another Federal job. I’m sure my parents were relieved. 🙂

I agree with Sarcelle - I think much of health care is a right, and is assuredly a pro-life issue - but I think it’s the one place even the pro-choice folks agree.
 
Again, like I mentioned, (pardon me on picking on you, your post just seemed to be a good place to illustrate my point), to be honest, it wasn’t your sentiment that bothered me, so much as the implication that not supporting maternity leave meant you’re a poor pro-lifer.

Although Sarcelle, you do mention a valid point, supporting goals especially general ones like family life or universal coverage doesn’t necessarily equate having to support specific policies.
 
Last edited:
Notice that I only mentioned access to quality healthcare. I did not mention anywhere how it can be achieved. I did not call into question about anyone’s bona fides as a pro-lifer.

I still stand by view. No one should have to choose between bankruptcy for having a life saving surgery and certain death.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top