Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And why should they care about anyone but themselves?
We're talking about pregnancy and for some reason, a pretty vocal crowd of people think pregnancy is just some walk in the park and "poof" there's a baby.
That's not how pregnancy works.
Between FMLA and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, sure, a pregnant woman is guaranteed to time off for appointments and maternity leave. Sure, it means she can't be fired purely because of her pregnancy. But there's literally zero guarantee that she'll be able to financially support herself or any family that she is already in charge of. Without vacation/sick pay, disability, and/or company-paid maternity leave, even a wanted pregnancy means a loss of income.
In addition to lost wages, her expenses will also increase.
Clothing that will fit and not be restrictive or harmful to the growing child? Money.
Food enough to sustain her and the child? Money.
Shoes for when her feet swell? Money.
Less money + more expenses = ??????
And that's even assuming that her pregnancy goes well. Pregnancy can result in permanent physical conditions that can hinder future income-earning. Pregnancy can result in permanent mental health issues. Pregnancy can, quite literally, kill.
So why should a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy care about some random's on the internet? Why should she care about anyone but herself when she is the one who will have to find a way to financially support herself? Sorry not sorry, but the only selfish people are the ones who desire to use pregnancy as some sort of "righteous punishment" to destroy the livelihood of someone they feel is "deplorable".
Keep in mind that FMLA is unpaid and only a total of 12 weeks. My former boss had a healthy first pregnancy, was healthy through the first trimester and a half of her second, and then developed a pregnancy-related complication and had to spend her entire last trimester on bedrest. By the time the baby was born, she had already used up all of her FMLA between appointments and bedrest. Luckily, our employer worked it out with her so she could work from home since no daycare would take a newborn, especially a newborn with some health challenges.
My sister in law was in labor for 4 days straight. She was a healthy 24 year old and now is incontinent from the strain, not to mention saddled with a huge medical bill even after insurance.
Quite a few of my friends discovered they had cancer while pregnant (amazingly common in the young adult cancer community). Some have died because they waited for treatment, either by choice or because they lived in areas where the only hospital within driving distance was a Catholic hospital who would not perform an abortion or offer chemo until the baby was born.
To those who support a husband being able to force his wife to carry a pregnancy to term - why do you think you can force women to face any of the above life changing scenarios?
If you read the article it was cases between married couples, some of which are spousal rape cases (my guess is most arent.)
the headline for this thread is exaggerated
"A pregnant woman's husband will have the power to stop her from having an abortion, even in cases of spousal rape, under a new law introduced in the US state of Arkansas."
That says enough. "Your guess" doesn't mean much. Think logically about this for a moment - how many married couples do you think would disagree about whether they want their baby? Don't you think most of these cases involve those with a volatile relationship, where there is probably physical and mental abuse going on (and sexual abuse)? Spousal rape can be as simple as a man pressuring his wife into something she doesn't want to do, and her feeling or being threatened into doing it. It can be as simple (and sad) as a controlling, dangerous man whose wife feels she needs to give into his every demand so she doesn't get hurt, and who doesn't have the education or financial means to run and divorce him. Spousal rape isn't usually the stereotypical idea people have of rape, some guy dragging a woman into an alley or something and beating her and violently raping her. Rape comes in many forms, unfortunately.
No one should have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, especially when it involves a medical phenomenon or procedure that involves HER body and no one else's. HER body is the only one being affected by pregnancy and birth. SHE is the one bearing the risks, both to her body and life generally, including way of life. No one should be able to stop her from ending her pregnancy, not even her husband. If it's that much of an issue, they can get a divorce and he can find a woman who wants his baby for (or despite) whatever reason she doesn't. No one should be forced to carry and deliver a child they don't want. Because then what... husband and wife raise the baby she didn't want and wanted to abort, but was legally stopped from aborting, happily ever after? What planet are you on where you think this is okay and this will work?
This proposed law is absolutely disgusting and astonishing. I wish we can kick these a$$ backwards, leeching Southern states out of the country sometimes.
Keep in mind that FMLA is unpaid and only a total of 12 weeks. My former boss had a healthy first pregnancy, was healthy through the first trimester and a half of her second, and then developed a pregnancy-related complication and had to spend her entire last trimester on bedrest. By the time the baby was born, she had already used up all of her FMLA between appointments and bedrest. Luckily, our employer worked it out with her so she could work from home since no daycare would take a newborn, especially a newborn with some health challenges.
My sister in law was in labor for 4 days straight. She was a healthy 24 year old and now is incontinent from the strain, not to mention saddled with a huge medical bill even after insurance.
Quite a few of my friends discovered they had cancer while pregnant (amazingly common in the young adult cancer community). Some have died because they waited for treatment, either by choice or because they lived in areas where the only hospital within driving distance was a Catholic hospital who would not perform an abortion or offer chemo until the baby was born.
To those who support a husband being able to force his wife to carry a pregnancy to term - why do you think you can force women to face any of the above life changing scenarios?
Exactly. Our country does not offer any sort of universal paid pregnancy/maternity leave.
I'm sorry to hear about your sister-in-law. When I had my daughter, I was put on bed-rest for the last three weeks of pregnancy because of a pinched nerve that was causing my right leg to repeatedly drop out on me. I still have issues from that... Not to mention that I spent the last couple of hours of delivery in a near-comatose state because I had a bad reaction to the epidural causing my blood pressure to tank. :P
Including the recovery period afterwards, I was out of work for a total of just over 3 months. But this was a wanted pregnancy, so I had the reserves to keep the bills paid. I can't even imagine how it would have been if I had not that financial stability. Now? I am -extremely- fortunate to have paid maternity leave should my husband and I decide to have another child.
But I digress. Pregnancy is a medical condition and under certain laws is treated under disability status. I would never, ever, ever support the idea of a woman being forced to endure the physical, mental, and financial side effects of pregnancy unless she fully desired it.
Well, if telling a woman to keep her legs closed is OK, then telling guys to keep their pants zipped is ok, too. Betcha nobody forced those professional athletes to have sex. So, yeah, it cuts both ways.
the men are complaining they can't get the rights to the unborn- --- women aren't lobbying for this stupid bill--
if the man raped, means she did NOT consent- why should she bear the consequences-- ??? what Madonna shouted at the march please apply
If the man doesn't consent to be a father, why should he bear the consequences of the mother carrying the pregnancy to term? If the mother can choose to abort at will, so can the father.
Laws forcing women to be incubators against their will. Not exactly something to celebrate.
Not exactly practical, either. What's next, mandatory pre-natal care? Arresting these pregnant women who "accidentally" fall down a flight of stairs?
I wonder if the supporters of this insanity are the same ones who cry about how the Muslims are bringing in their Sharia law to ruin the West. The irony.
It is 2017, I feel sometimes like I'm trapped in a real-life version of The Handmaid's Tale. **shudder**
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
