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

[Vonsalza]

Mothers who choose life aren’t legally protected from losing their jobs. Aside from taking steps to make deliveries more affordable, shouldn’t maternity leave be an essential part of what it means to be “pro-life”? It’s like we’re all for the babies but nobody seems to care about the mother who’s carrying that baby in her belly or nine months – the family’s expected to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and if they lose their incoming for choosing life…well, too bad, so sad.

Because the pro-life cause is largely championed by the Republican Party which is far, FAR more pro-business than they are pro-life.

In reality, they’re just verbally pro-life in order to get some of working-class to vote for them.

If a republican politician fails to overturn gay marriage, it’s “Darn those liberals! Well, we’ll get 'em next time…”
If they fail to get the pipeline pushed through or the tax-break passed, they’re out. Especially in the House of Reps. Satisfy the Koch’s or someone else will.

 

[QwertyGirl]

If not an outright complementarian, lol!
But seriously, would anyone say the Virgin Mary was a failure because she didn’t drop Jesus off at day care and go to work? And she and her blessed guardian Joseph were pretty impoverished.

It is 2018, not 0003. Remarks like this make you seem clueless on the issue. Do you have any concept of
how many American women would want nothing more than to stay home with their kids and raise them each day? Your remark is unkind and insensitive because it implies that those who aren’t able to do so don’t rise to the sacrifice of doing that. Putting food on the table, clothese on their kids backs, an education between their ears and medical care (just to name a few life and death necessities of raising children) require they work and make a living. You really need to pay more attention to how the real world is in today’s times, as opposed to when Jesus was a baby. Sacrificing is what these mom’s do on a regular basis, and you might like to try to understand that.

 

[KathleenT]

But paid medical leave will likely increase costs to employers and reduce jobs. Which makes it even harder for the young college grads to find good employment and get ahead.

If the goal is to subsidized births, then separate it from the employer. Just have Uncle Sam cut a check to the happy couple or give them a tax credit.

 

[KJW5551]

How about the 25% of Democrats who are pro-life? What do you say about them?

 

[QwertyGirl]

Well, they use all the subsidies available. Why do they need paid maternity leave too? It just further incentivizes poor life choices.

Again. What does that have to do work the care of an innocent unborn child?

 

[phil19034]

Even the best of employers have use-it-or-lose it policies.

Yeah, the use it or lose policies are terrible!!! That’s something I’ve always hated since they came into effect.

 

[KJW5551]

You said that all people who were pro-life were really only pro-big business (implying Republicans.)

 

[anon10271182]

Do you have any idea how dirt poor the majority if Galileeans were in Jesus’ time?
One thing they weren’t, was hypermaterialistic, like modern people are.

 

[anon10271182]

I’d say they’re in the wrong party

 

[phil19034]

JanSobieskiIII:

Do you want to see women quit getting hired for jobs? Because that’s how you see women quit getting hired for jobs.

Paid maternity leave should be covered by the federal government. Then the only issue for the employer would be filling the gap while the person was out on leave. And of course, in the US we can afford it. It is
all about priorities. Cuts in waste alone could cover the cost of it. But I doubt I will see it in my lifetime. Maybe in the lifetime of my yet to be born grandchild. Assuming my daughter can afford to take unpaid
leave to have one.

I can agree with this post if you change it to “Paid maternity leave should be covered by the state governments”

 

[Pup7]

ATraveller:

Among both Protestants and Catholics, abortion rates dropped considerably with increased church attendance.

Bingo. Careful though, you’re awfully close to being called a judgy Catholic by @pup7.

You’re hilarious.

Saying someone hasn’t been in church isn’t judgy.

Wanting to make a point by capitalizing on how many women who seek abortion are unmarried, though, is.

And that’s what you tried to do.

How old are you, exactly?

 

[anon10271182]

As do I. Just more big government.

 

[KJW5551]

aying someone hasn’t been in church isn’t judgy.

Wanting to make a point by capitalizing on how many women who seek abortion are unmarried, though, is.

And that’s what you tried to do.

How old are you, exactly?

I am an adult. And yourself?

Do you deny that fact that marriage lowers the rate of abortion? Or the fact that church attendance leads to lower abortion rates? Open your eyes and stop smearing people for no reason. I say again: sad.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Oh, and official Catholic teaching too. The Church does, after all, teach that sex is only proper for married couples

A lot of married people have abortions, too, for the same reasons unmarried people have them. Also, I still
don’t see the point. By the time someone is considerating having an abortion, the horse has already left the stable. Reduction of unwanted pregnancies can be achieved by a multitude of initiatives, but this thread is about providing maternity leave to people who have already had the sex and are now pregnant.

 

[Pup7]

Because most women who have abortions are not married. Marriage=stability=fewer abortions=pro-life. Simple.

Oh, and official Catholic teaching too. The Church does, after all, teach that sex is only proper for married couples.

So what? So bloody what if they’re unmarried? The deed is done. Meet people where they are.

So you’re entitled to judge people for their choices and their sins?

 

[Monica83]

Yes the child tax credit has doubled under President Trump so that should help.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Do you have any idea how dirt poor the majority if Galileeans were in Jesus’ time?
One thing they weren’t, was hypermaterialistic, like modern people are.

If you believe it is moral to bring children into the worlkd and not provide basic things like nutrition, health care, and a roof over their head, then I guess there isn’t much for us to discuss further.

 

[Pup7]

Exactly. And not everyone today is as hung up on “stuff” as many seem to think.

 

[phil19034]

Because the pro-life cause is largely championed by the Republican Party which is far, FAR more pro-business than they are pro-life.

The pro-life cause is not largely championed by the Republican Party. It’s championed by practicing Christians and originally mainly practicing Catholics. Not all Republicans are pro-life (the libertarian wing is historically pro-choice), but the Republican Party has a pro-life platform due to the influence of the Religious Right, esp the Catholic Right.

 

[KJW5551]

Show me a post where I judged. Please use a direct quote of mine. I was merely pointing out that the vast majority of women who get abortions are unmarried, and that more emphasis on marriage would help lower the rate of abortion. It’s like 85% are unmarried; this is just a fact. No judgment, just a fact.

I remind you that this is a civil forum. Name calling and accusations of judgment, especially when I have done nothing but present my point of view, is wholly inappropriate.