Well universal preschool/daycare helps in that working mothers can find a place where their children can be taken care of. I think that is pretty self-evident.
Similar charts can be found here: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-T1ZlVd1wVGw/Uegtlf4L2XI/AAAAAAAAALs/9d54J87NkSs/s1600/houseappopriationsvssenate.jpg
Well, the post you’re responding to was intended as an attempt at dark humor. However, I suppose I can double down with a semi-serious answer to what I’m perceiving as your chiding tone:
Yes, I am pro-choice, and I recognize that it necessarily includes the choice to have a baby. But if I examine my reasons for being pro-choice, I must factor in the principle that individuals should, by default, be granted a presumption that they have enough judgement to be trusted with a decision of this import. My point is that the young ladies I singled out in my post have forfeited that presumption.
Nonsense. A woman isn’t going to feel the same about a child she wanted than she does about one that was inflicted on her as a punishment.
Unwanted children are by nature not cared for as much as those that are wanted. And one of the hallmarks of societies that forbid abortion is large numbers of unwanted, abused children - often abused, molested or killed by the very same groups that oppose abortion, and always treated at best as disposable. The Catholic Church is notorious for that.
Of course it’s the fault of the government. The government forced her to bear that child, with all the negative consequences to her that entailed. If the government uses a child as a weapon it bears responsibility to what happens to that child.
This is a bizarre request for a cite. If you simply do a google search for “republicans education funding” (no quotes), the vast majority of hits are about Republicans seeking to cut or limit spending on education. Many are from partisan sources, sure, but many are not. And of course there are exceptions (here you go, from page 3, a Republican plan in Kansas to increase education spending), but the cite request is phrased in such a way that the exceptions don’t really matter.
I suppose you could argue that there are no orthodox Republicans who want to cut education spending per se: they’ve wanted cuts only in certain specific instances, or they want to cut spending across the board, or they’re just opposed to spending the money the way we’ve been spending it (Boo teachers! Yay vouchers!). Maybe, maybe not, but at the end of the day you’re still left with a reality in which Republicans are typically pushing either for less education spending, or smaller increases than Democrats want.
In the United States, all 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico have “Safe Haven” laws. These laws allow a mother, no questions asked, to leave her new-born child at a designated facility such as a hospital, police station, or fire station (the locations vary by state) without penalty.
Do they also get to drop off their morning sickness, varicose veins, stretch marks, vaginal tearing, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, labor pains, and post-partum depression?
Sweet.
Actually, there are plenty of abusive parents who single out one child for mistreatment.
Can I keep my kid, but drop off the backache that persisted for a year after I had him, and I eventually had to go to physical therapy for?
I have heard of that before but had forgotten it. But the whole extended family & possibly many more now know she carried a raspiest’s baby to term.
In some religions that may get you thrown out. Many older people who will make her life a living hell are still alive and major players in the family. And other things that make carrying that baby any time at all a bad thing for her. Mentally, emotionally, economically, physically to her in many ways, marriage wise at the time or in the future. I know of no law which can make another person marry or date someone in this situation.
This ↑↑↑
Have them sign an IOU for one cent to be paid 90 years in the future. Plus free contraception for life (which everyone should get anyway).
No of course not.
The post that I was responding to claimed that if the mother decides not to have an abortion then she is obligated by the state to raise the child. That is simply not true. The mother can have an abortion if she wants. If for whatever reason she chooses not to, there is an option other than being stuck with the child.
And, yes, family and her church may look down on her for exercising the option.
It’s wrong to force her into a pregnancy she does not want. Just how many women are you going to punish each year in the name of your morality? I know at least five people including my late mother who have had abortions. Are you really going to see to punish a million or so women each year? Are you going to make any punishments retroactive? Investigate medical records? Examine miscarriages to make sure they were really miscarriages and abortions by the ebil womens?
The real question is not whether you will allow me to get an abortion. I could get one without you knowing about pretty easily just as my late mom did in 1963 when she was twenty and raped. The real question is how you imagine you’ll get away with punishing me for it. Or why you imagine this politically possible.
What about my sciatica? It’s acting up something fierce the last few days. I’ve been limping and in pain.
Did I say they were representative? No. So this is a bullshit strawman attack, isn’t it? I said there were people on the board who would read the book and think of it as a utopia, because they were expressing opinions that matched what happened in the book. I have no idea if they agree with the other stuff that happens in the book that you talk about, but they definitely have no problems with killing doctors and sending women to forced labor camps. Disgusting.
You used to be better than this Qin Shi Huangdi. I’m disappointed.
Perhaps it helps working mothers, but you said it helped children. Can you cite that being in daycare is better for children than being at home, all other things being equal?
Regards,
Shodan
Yep. (To be clear, I’m pro-choice, even pro-abortion in some circumstances, such as repeat child abusers, but I agree that this is the logically consistent consequence of banning abortion on moral/murder grounds.)
Our lawmakers seem to have little compunction about decreeing, by definition, that this law or that law that they make is a “civil” wrong-doing. This, in effect, makes the prohibited act just as illegal as a criminal law would, but sidesteps all the constitutional protections surrounding criminal justice.
Just another way that lawmakers can evade and ignore the Constitution as they wish.
