General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAbortion is economics and anyone dismissing it as a social issue
Is lying about the economic impact of an antichoice candidate in the lives of women.
It may not be economics for men, but it is economics for the rest of us.
So when you say economic issues must be highlighted but then you dismiss abortion what you are saying is 'only the economic issues of men matter'.
niyad
(113,278 posts)Justitia
(9,316 posts)Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)How are women supposed to survived...they are luckier than most as they can accrue their sick days.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... and I'm prepared to fight them until my dying breath. This is not negotiable.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)LisaM
(27,805 posts)I'd have to look it up, but I was reading somewhere recently that some business felt it was appropriate not to hire people who'd had an abortion. So shaming is part of the picture, and obviously economic too.
lovemydogs
(575 posts)It is a social issue but, also an economic issue.
And while it effects far more women then men, men can get hurt by lack of choice as well.
Like a husband and wife living on the edge and unable to afford a child.
It is a health issue as well. A woman who's life is threatened by pregnancy or the toxic that happens.
And while abortion should be between the woman and doctor, men also play a role at times as well.
Any kind of economic issue is not just a man's or just a womans.
It effects everyone.
Income Inequality hurts both. It hurts anyone, male or female who are not in the upper 1%. Especially if you are in the everyday workplace and not a corporate CEO.
romana
(765 posts)This attack on women from within the party is disturbing, and a horrible slippery slope.
bigtree
(85,992 posts)CrispyQ
(36,461 posts)I don't understand why the pro-choice groups don't use this argument. Especially if it irked Senator Specter so much.
Forced Labor, Revisited: The Thirteenth Amendment and Abortion
Andrew Koppelman
Northwestern University School of Law, akoppelman@law.northwestern.edu
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=facultyworkingpapers
snip...
I. The basic argument
The Thirteenth Amendment reads as follows:
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
My claim is that the amendment is violated by laws that prohibit abortion. When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to "involuntary servitude" in violation of the amendment. Abortion prohibitions violate the Amendment's guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates "that control by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude."6
Such laws violate the amendment's guarantee of equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into a servant caste, a group which, by virtue of a status of birth, is held subject to a special duty to serve others and not themselves.
It's an interesting paper.
Ligyron
(7,629 posts)Mandatory gestation is like slavery, isn't it?
Silver Gaia
(4,544 posts)which has just become a series debuting on Hulu this week.
LexVegas
(6,060 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)Raising children in the United States is expensive. Like, more than $230,000 per child (from birth to age 17) expensive. That includes food, transportation, housing, education (but not college), health care and child care. Oh, and daycare for babies is now more expensive than college tuition in most states.
Women in this country already face a well-documented motherhood financial penalty. Research shows, for example, that mothers are less likely to be hired for jobs and they are offered lower starting salaries when they are hired. (Men dont appear to be similarly disadvantaged by becoming dads, and might actually benefit from it, career-wise.)
Having a baby is the most expensive health event that families face during their childbearing years. At the same time, a lack of workplace supports for many women during this critical time means a woman may not have paid sick days for prenatal appointments or well-baby care, or paid family and medical leave to use after giving birth. Addressing all of these issues is central to achieving economic justice for women and families, said Sarah Lipton-Lubet, vice president of the National Partnership for Women & Families.
Roughly 60 percent of women who have abortions are already mothers, which means they understand these factors not in some abstract way, but both deeply and personally. In fact, economic concerns are a major reason why women chose to end pregnancies. Estimates suggest that between 40 and 75 percent of women seeking abortions do so for financial reasons.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reminder-abortion-is-an-economic-issue_us_58f8d11be4b018a9ce58dd4f?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I'm starting to think they do know that, they just don't care. The pattern of what they feel is necessary to compromise on, as compared to their absolute lines in the sand, could not be more obvious.
Sadly for them, women are the backbone of the progressive coalition. The female section of the working class, already sizable, will be majority women of color by 2044. If I were a clueless WWC warrior, I'd be looking for ways to create bridges, not burn them, but hey, that's me.
JudyM
(29,233 posts)the party to support this guy. Please don't dismiss the facts around this situation.
If you have a rally in which you have the labor movement, and the environmentalists, and Native Americans, and the African American community, and the Latino community coming together, saying, We want this guy to become our next mayor, should I reject going there to Omaha? I dont think so.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)The defense of him has belittled the impact of abortion
JudyM
(29,233 posts)but the alternative is far worse. So what would you suggest?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Did pelosi refuse to endorse osoff?
JudyM
(29,233 posts)You're jumping topics. Since you are apparently attacking Sanders again, why don't you take a look at his pro-choice record. These are the facts. The guy has worked to make choice happen, you might want to attack someone else instead who does actually belittle its importance.
Lifetime pro-choice record, plus funding for family planning
In 1993, Sanders co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act, which aimed to bar states from restricting the right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability or at any time when a termination is necessary to protect the health of a woman.
Bernie voted numerous times to allow women to travel interstate for abortions, supported permitting federal funding of organizations that conduct abortions, and voted to increase access and funding for family planning for women.
Bernie has actively worked to combat restrictions by co-sponsoring a bill that would lift restriction on abortion, known as the Women's Health Protection Act.
Bernie has repeatedly received ratings of 100% from NARAL Pro-Choice America
ontheissues.org
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)He seems to love anti choice mello, pro Assad tulsi, but can't call osoff a progressive or endorse him.
we can't shape the party depending On my what he likes or dislikes.
And whether sanders likes it or not abortion an economic issue
JudyM
(29,233 posts)the things about him we don't like. Seems like a cult of hate against him, and he's just a guy who IMO is trying to make things better for people who've been ignored by the power.
JHan
(10,173 posts)He may not wish to join the democratic party but he must understand that it is not just about him.
He should not be applying purity tests selectively, except when it comes to a woman's autonomy and gun control. He has never sold himself as a pragmatist yet wants to decide which issues we should be pragmatic on. How is pointing this out divisiveness? I don't need Bernie to tell me that healthcare is important. There are democrats who have been toiling in the fields for DECADES on these issues, getting real work done, and despite Obama facing over 300 filibusters from the GOP on everything from healthcare to infrastructure, to the minimum wage, we still think the problem is with us? How did this become a legitimate view? How did the democratic party become equated with Republicans when we are nothing like the Republicans in terms of philosophy or approach to governance? This only helps our detractors.
I am not asking for blind allegiance, I want us to get a clue and not spite ourselves while seeking to gain ground electorally. Ideology and strategy have been conflated - that doesn't help the party, it helps the ideologues. And it is tiresome for me as someone who is not a purist.
As if the shenanigans from last year wasn't enough, he's been sniping at the Democratic party - the only party strong enough to counter the GOP, affecting enthusiasm. The other effect is no connection being made between causes and solutions. It has become about individuals. I want all our Democrats to be hugely popular, I want our allies to be popular as well, what I don't want is the sniping fire and smearing of Democrats from the left. If it continues we are looking at a two term Trump presidency and a supreme court lost to us for over a generation.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Every. Single. One.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)LexVegas
(6,060 posts)brewens
(13,582 posts)only dare be so pro choice.
Some young woman has nothing going for her, wants nothing to do with the guy that got her pregnant, and really doesn't want to have a baby, fix it! Get rid of it! That's right, "it"! As in a bundle of cells that is not a person and does not even know it exists.
And make abortion easily available and free. Yes, paid for by us taxpayers. Many times a girl having an abortion saves us a whole shit ton of money. Any public assistance, social programs, medical care over the lifetime of the kid. It's economics for men alright, in fact many right-wingers should probably believe it would save us much more than it really would. The one's that don't lay awake at night thinking about abortion anyway.
Rural_Progressive
(1,105 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If we can't stand our ground there, I'll just pack my fucking toys and go home, because we then don't stand for a damn thing.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)is ignoring the medical community.
And that makes them no different than those that call climate change a "liberal issue."
Silver Gaia
(4,544 posts)Thank you. I said basically the same thing to my husband yesterday (he agreed).
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)issue.